- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Score Board
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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
0
Posted on 3/20/17 at 6:57 am to weagle99
quote:Which is what was being discussed when you chimed in with your protection comment.
That is a distinction with a difference because they are witnessing law being broken
Sheesh you're an arse
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:09 am to ShortyRob
The USSC ruling that is the subject of this thread will be discussed in the in the courtroom in the San Jose case. Do you think it won't?
Should we call the Trump supporters' lawyers and tell them not to worry about this argument because Shorty Rob says it doesn't apply?
Should we call the Trump supporters' lawyers and tell them not to worry about this argument because Shorty Rob says it doesn't apply?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:14 am to weptiger
quote:
They have no obligation to step in when witnessing people getting assaulted?
No. Which is why they rarely stop active shooters or active rioters. They are literally worthless revenue generators and security theater. virtually every role that cops are supposed to fulfill is already done better by normal people with guns.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 7:14 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:15 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I thought this has been the case for quite some time.
Correct. Riss v New York (1958)
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 7:23 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:28 am to weagle99
Your application of it in the other thread was dead wrong
If they see you being battered they're obligated to enforce the law.
If they see you being battered they're obligated to enforce the law.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:34 am to DelU249
My comment was:
quote:
Police are under no obligation to 'protect' people. They are there to enforce law, not be a security force.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:36 am to ShortyRob
I love a good double down
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:37 am to weagle99
so is this why they just stand idle at the protests while people get beat up?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:39 am to weagle99
quote:
The USSC ruling that is the subject of this thread will be discussed in the in the courtroom in the San Jose case. Do you think it won't? Should we call the Trump supporters' lawyers and tell them not to worry about this argument because Shorty Rob says it doesn't apply?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 7:41 am to DelU249
quote:
Your application of it in the other thread was dead wrong If they see you being battered they're obligated to enforce the law.
He knows that.
He thinks he's demonstrating how bright he is by pretending that he posted it in the San Jose thread but didn't intend to relate it to the actions taking place in San Jose
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:08 am to weagle99
That's true. But again, if they see someone breaking the law (in this case by beating the shite out of people) they are obligated to do something
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:12 am to weagle99
It's almost impossible for the police to protect us from harm. It's not practical to expect them to be on site when crime occurs.
All cops can to is project a presence and investigate after crimes have been committed and hopefully bring the perpetrator to justice.
All cops can to is project a presence and investigate after crimes have been committed and hopefully bring the perpetrator to justice.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:14 am to ShortyRob
Wat. I posted my exact post from that thread above.
I will ask you again: Do you think this USSC decision will not be discussed in the San Jose case? That this topic won't be discussed?
I will ask you again: Do you think this USSC decision will not be discussed in the San Jose case? That this topic won't be discussed?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:16 am to weagle99
quote:Quite obviously, the people who would prefer to not have to pay up will use whatever arguments they might find useful.
I will ask you again: Do you think this USSC decision will not be discussed in the San Jose case? That this topic won't be discussed?
Irrelevant.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:31 am to weagle99
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.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:33 am to weagle99
quote:
I never said they aren't supposed to enforce the law, which can be a distinction with a difference.
People in the other thread started blathering about how protecting people 'was their job.' It isn't.
This doesn't even make sense. the case you cited literally has nothing to do with San Joes. No court would find that police who are standing right there provident security do not have an obligation to protect the people at that event.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:35 am to weagle99
quote:
Police are under no obligation to 'protect' people
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:36 am to ChexMix
Decals don't override the USSC lad. They have no legal obligation to protect you, or anyone.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 8:40 am
Posted on 3/20/17 at 8:37 am to weagle99
Welcome to 2005....
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News