- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Police are under no obligation to protect you from harm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:38 am to noonan
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:38 am to noonan
quote:
I love how not only were you getting roasted in the other thread, but you even included a link to this thread of you get roasted.
I was getting roasted by people who don't understand the reality of the situation, so I don't mind.
Put another way, do some of you think the popo is legally obligated to protect you from harm? If so, how do you reconcile the USSC ruling?
0
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:40 am to weagle99
quote:
The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
What the supreme court was saying is that the police did not have an obligation so act as a 24 hour surveillance and security force for the woman.
If they saw or it was reported that the man violated his restraining order, then yes, the police would respond to protect to woman. The restraining order was on the husband, not an order for police to form a barrier around the woman.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:41 am to weagle99
To be fair, you are citing Constitutional precedent. That doesn't mean an obligation under California criminal or other statutory law can't exist. There may even be some type of dereliction of duty law that governs this matter.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:41 am to CoachChappy
Preach.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:43 am to weagle99
You're the only one blabbering, guy. It is against the law to assault someone. They are there to enforce the law. They let people break the law right in front of their face which resulted in harming citizens.
You're citing an irrelevant incident to try to spin your way out of looking retarded. Your response thread confirmed that you are, in fact, retarded.
You're citing an irrelevant incident to try to spin your way out of looking retarded. Your response thread confirmed that you are, in fact, retarded.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:45 am to CoachChappy
Correct, they are obligated to enforce the law regarding the restraining order. However that doesn't mean their primary aim is protecting the woman. The protection is a happy side benefit.
Language matters and there is a difference between enforcing the law and protecting.
Language matters and there is a difference between enforcing the law and protecting.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:48 am to RBWilliams8
quote:
Police are under no obligation to protect you from harm
You're the only one blabbering, guy. It is against the law to assault someone. They are there to enforce the law. They let people break the law right in front of their face which resulted in harming citizens.
You're citing an irrelevant incident to try to spin your way out of looking retarded. Your response thread confirmed that you are, in fact, retarded.
Again, they are obligated to enforce the law. Any protection that occurs as a result is a happy benefit.
And you are naive if you think previous USSC rulings on the matter are irrelevant to the San Jose situation. If the Trump supporters' lawyer is worth his salt he has studied this very topic.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 8:51 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:48 am to weagle99
you've said nothing that isn't true, but it's just that you presented it in a context that is unrelated...which would lead anyone to believe you misunderstand the ruling (which it appears you do not)
it's weird people do not understand this. if something happens they don't think it's unreasonable for the cops to camp out by their home...this is why people should buy guns IMO. everyone is responsible for their own safety and a lot of people do not understand that.
it's weird people do not understand this. if something happens they don't think it's unreasonable for the cops to camp out by their home...this is why people should buy guns IMO. everyone is responsible for their own safety and a lot of people do not understand that.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:51 am to DelU249
Thanks.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:52 am to weagle99
quote:
Correct, they are obligated to enforce the law regarding the restraining order. However that doesn't mean their primary aim is protecting the woman. The protection is a happy side benefit.
Language matters and there is a difference between enforcing the law and protecting.
While I think we agree, I, and based on your down vote count many of the board, don't like your usage of the word protection.
The restraining order was put in place to protect the woman. If the husband violated the retraining order, the police would then protect the woman and her kids. So, by proxy, YES the police are there to protect the woman. the court stated that they had no obligation to be a 24 hour surveillance which was, I think, the basis of her law suit against the police department.
I think we are arguing different sides of the same coin though.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:53 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
To be fair, you are citing Constitutional precedent. That doesn't mean an obligation under California criminal or other statutory law can't exist. There may even be some type of dereliction of duty law that governs this matter.
Fair enough.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:53 am to weagle99
This is exactly who firearms restrictions should all be unconstitutional.
We all have the right to protect ourselves.
We all have the right to protect ourselves.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:55 am to CoachChappy
Could be. Some of these discussions related to word definitions would probably be easier in person to explore the nuances of the argument.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:00 am to weagle99
Which should reinforce the 2nd Amendment in all those jurisdictions where it has been heavily chipped away.
The police can't/won't guarantee my safety, yet they disarm me with the same breath?
Yeah, right.
The police can't/won't guarantee my safety, yet they disarm me with the same breath?
Yeah, right.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:04 am to weagle99
quote:Then your response had no place in the other thread because, for the most part, people know that cops aren't going to sit outside our house to watch out for the bad man. I mean, I suppose a few idiots think that, but, not most.
Correct, they are obligated to enforce the law regarding the restraining order. However that doesn't mean their primary aim is protecting the woman. The protection is a happy side benefit.
In any case, NO ONE in the thread acted like they believed that.
What they believed is, when those people were being assaulted, it should have been stopped which, by definition, would have been protecting them............happy benefit or not.
And, since the discussion was in terms of the lawsuit, the case law you mentioned didn't have cops witnessing ONGOING CRIMES while ignoring them.
In other words, you jumped in to argue friggin semantics unrelated the actual incidents being discussed.
Class hijacking. Nothing more
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 9:06 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:11 am to weagle99
It's not their constitutional duty. It's their job duty, if they like keeping their jobs.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:15 am to ShortyRob
quote:
In other words, you jumped in to argue friggin semantics unrelated the actual incidents being discussed.
Almost all of law is 'friggin semantics' dude.
Most people have a mistaken idea about the role of the police in society, including many people in that other thread.
To go back to San Jose, some people believe that if a Trump supporter was about get hit by a criminal swinging a bat, it is a legal requirement of the police to physically step in front of the bat and keep the citizen from being injured (simple example). That isn't how it works from my understanding.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:44 am to weagle99
If the assaults occurred on municipal premises teh city may be sued for failure to provide adequate security and to respond to clear incidents of danger.
The police may not be sued for failure to protect, but there may be some issue of malfeasance by certain individuals if they stood down with criminal activity clear and obvious, and especially if they knew of it beforehand.
The police may not be sued for failure to protect, but there may be some issue of malfeasance by certain individuals if they stood down with criminal activity clear and obvious, and especially if they knew of it beforehand.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:47 am to weagle99
quote:Show me one person in that thread who thinks that police have a responsibility to camp out at your house if you say you are threatened.
Most people have a mistaken idea about the role of the police in society, including many people in that other thread.
quote:No one said that but
To go back to San Jose, some people believe that if a Trump supporter was about get hit by a criminal swinging a bat, it is a legal requirement of the police to physically step in front of the bat and keep the citizen from being injured (simple example).
quote:NOTHING............repeat NOTHING about the case law you presented actually addressed the idea of a cop seeing an attacker engaged in attack and doing nothing. Not even close.
That isn't how it works from my understanding.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 9:57 am to weagle99
It's not relevant. One the officers were not on site of the infraction the other, they were watching it happen.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News