re: Cop begs for help, those filming he beating laughs “He said, ‘help me, y’all!’

quote:

---

How about Quora dot com?

---

not an authoritative resource. it's basically on the level of wikipedia

quote:

---

A Police Force is a privately owned security contractor

---

absolutely false

quote:

---

The only time and reason a Police Force allows their Police Force Officers to respond to an emergency is for financial gain. If your emergency is not likely to result in their financial gain, they are not likely to respond.

---

laughable

quote:

---

the officer takes full responsibility if the call turns out to be something other than the non-event he has decided it is

---

exactly. this comment comes from a retired leo and criminal justice professor. if an officer has to take responsibility, that means they are obligated. if they weren't obligated, there would be no "responsibility" for the officer to decide upon.

moreover, the question that was responded to was in regards to discretion for 911 calls, not legal obligation simpliciter.

police officers/departments can be sued. if leo was not obligated, they would have qualified immunity. every situation would be strictly a matter of their discretion.

quote:

---

SCOTUS Rules Police Do Not Have to Protect Someone

---

there was dissent on this case meaning, there is a difference of opinion on the final ruling. scotus is not always right and that's why some rulings are overturned. they are tasked with examining a plaintiff's case as it is presented to them, not always the broad sweeping consequences of a particular ruling. in this case, the plaintiff argued for property interest re: 14th and the scotus ruled accordingly. it's possible that had they argued differently, or more effectively, the scotus would have ruled differently.

quote:

---

Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

---

and i think he's right in this case. he wasn't ruling on the obligation of leo to respond. he was ruling on whether the plaintiff had a property interest re: 14th that obligated leo to respond to that particular circumstance, not all circumstances.

this is important:

quote:

---

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

---

first, there was an obligation regarding the protective order. second, leo does reserve the professional enterprise of discretion. they can be held legally responsible for their actions. a decision to defer action is still a decision to act.

quote:

---

Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders

---

so here we see that the state can require leo to respond in a certain way to certain situations, thus proving there are obligations and that they are not "private security." this also shows that the property interest reasoning does not rise to the level of overcoming leo discretion and some other form of juridical approach might.

it's also important to remember that even in light of this particular ruling, leo can still be sued in civil court for the exact same circumstance.

the principle remains - laws are merely rhetorical platitudes without law enforcement. mandatory enforcement is implied in the law itself. otherwise, it is self defeating. the existence of the judicial branch to render a ruling in the first place is proof. the question in this particular ruling is the manner in which leo is obligated, not that they aren't obligated.

one of the problems is that the nyt headline is poorly worded. this wasn't a case about leo in general but about restraining orders in particular. the court's majority opinion has since been criticized by various legal entities who rightly reject the majority notion of "distinction between enforcement of the restraining order (the violator's arrest) and the benefit of enforcement (safety from the violator)"

quote:

---

there was dissent on this case meaning, there is a difference of opinion on the final ruling.

---

So what? There was dissent in Roe v Wade. It's still the law of the land.

And that's not the only case; this has been ruled on repeatedly. Police have no legal obligation to protect you unless you're in their custody. Now most of them will, I hope, but you have no legal recourse if they don't.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

I'm not surprised. Democrats, education system and the msm have spent the last few years pumping out this message.

The message is....


All cops are evil racists who skulk around and look for innocent black people to murder.

Cops have been dehumanized. When libs see a cop being beaten or killed.. they don't see a human being being beaten or killed. What they see is akin to a subhuman demon that must be put down, otherwise, who knows how many innocent black people will die by his hands?

It's sick. We live in system similar to what the USSR had. A bunch of sheep who will allow their thoughts and emotions be manipulated by establishment propaganda. To the point where they will rage and target whoever the propaganda tells them to target. Whether it's their neighbors or even their own family members.

quote:

---

So what?

---

well it matters because it shows that the majority ruling isn't necessarily correct, just ad populum which is how the court works in a utilitarian sense. moreover, i explained how the majority opinion wasn't commenting on any general obligation for leo. just restraining orders and the property argument

quote:

---

Police have no legal obligation to protect you unless you're in their custody

---

again, this is not exactly true, as i explained at length

quote:

---

POLICE HAVE NO DUTY TO PROTECT YOU, FEDERAL COURT AFFIRMS YET AGAIN

---

this is yet another poorly worded headline because it is making a generalization from a specific action. it is true that leo does not have to "protect" you in a case such as a shooting. but that does not obviate the obligation of leo to enforce laws. a law was being broken in that instance. police were obligated to respond, which they did (how effective they were is a different matter). but in responding to a law being broken, police do not have to prioritize your personal protection specifically.

again, if leo were not obligated to enforce laws, they would have ubiquitous qualified immunity, which they do not. they can be sued.

think about what you're saying. if leo wasn't obligated, no cop would ever go into any dangerous situation. in fact, they wouldn't have to respond to anything. how long do you think the public would accept that?

a law implies enforcement. otherwise, it's not a law. it's a suggestion

Instead of sending shrinks with the police on their calls we should send a couple of volunteer militia patriots armed with AR-15s.

quote:

---

if leo were not obligated to enforce laws

---

I never made that claim, I said they're not legally obligated to protect you. If you disagree with that your disagreement is with the courts, not me.

Disgusting