User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:19:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you saying cops have never shot an innocent person in a wrong entry address? care to document your statement with facts? I can. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cops were doing their job, trying to save a life. They were working with bad info. Stuff happens. hope it never happens in your house....would you be that forgiving then? How about if they shot a member of your family? let me guess...blue line sticker on your car right? In this instance, I would be upset, but I would forgive them. And the strawman about the family member is a bit silly, given that if a family member had been home to answer the door and assure the cops no one inside was dying, the whole thing wouldn't have happened. Are you saying cops have never shot an innocent person in a wrong entry address? care to document your statement with facts? I can. No, I did not say that. I said that in this instance, someone answering the door and saying "nobody dying here, officers" would have headed the whole thing off at the pass. Which makes your scenario of cops breaking down the door, guns ablaze and shooting anything that moves a strawman argument. This wasn't a no knock warrant, nor are cops required to enter and investigate further if someone answers the door and says "nope, nothing like that happening here." |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:28:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cops today....lol. Is any profession losing respect faster? Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:29:35 PM EDT
[#3]
A strawman comment would be one with no history to document the statement.
You and I however know that history of cops making wrongful entries / shootings is increasing and much more common than should be. More than a few people intending to commit suicide have been killed by the very people sent to save them. They should be held liable for the wrong address and death of the pet. Personally liable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:32:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could you post a link to the statute or case that REQUIRES you to respond to such calls? Generally speaking, police MAY - that is, they have the power to - respond. I'm not so sure there is a REQUIREMENT, unless you're just referring to department policy. But that's a policy, not a law. It can be changed by the Chief with the stroke of a keyboard. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'd love to not respond to them, but the law in my state hasn't found a better person to deal with a crazy person than the cops. I'm all for not showing up--I think people should have the right to off themselves, but as of right now, the cops HAVE TO show up. And if they believe there is a person inside a house that may be hurt, or trying to kill themselves they HAVE TO go in. It's not their choice. Could you post a link to the statute or case that REQUIRES you to respond to such calls? Generally speaking, police MAY - that is, they have the power to - respond. I'm not so sure there is a REQUIREMENT, unless you're just referring to department policy. But that's a policy, not a law. It can be changed by the Chief with the stroke of a keyboard. 394.463 Involuntary examination.— (1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness: (a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and (b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior. (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.— (a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means: 1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. It states 'Law Enforcement Officer, or other designated agent of the court.' That's the part where I wish there was actually a 'designated agent of the court' who responded to these calls, instead of law enforcement. But, alas, that is not currently the case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:32:16 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cops today....lol. Is any profession losing respect faster? Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. Wow |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:33:19 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, I did not say that. I said that in this instance, someone answering the door and saying "nobody dying here, officers" would have headed the whole thing off at the pass. Which makes your scenario of cops breaking down the door, guns ablaze and shooting anything that moves a strawman argument. This wasn't a no knock warrant, nor are cops required to enter and investigate further if someone answers the door and says "nope, nothing like that happening here." Nobody was at the house. Did you read the article? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:34:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
394.463 Involuntary examination.— (1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness: (a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and (b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior. (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.— (a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means: 1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. It states 'Law Enforcement Officer, or other designated agent of the court.' That's the part where I wish there was actually a 'designated agent of the court' who responded to these calls, instead of law enforcement. But, alas, that is not currently the case. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd love to not respond to them, but the law in my state hasn't found a better person to deal with a crazy person than the cops. I'm all for not showing up--I think people should have the right to off themselves, but as of right now, the cops HAVE TO show up. And if they believe there is a person inside a house that may be hurt, or trying to kill themselves they HAVE TO go in. It's not their choice. Could you post a link to the statute or case that REQUIRES you to respond to such calls? Generally speaking, police MAY - that is, they have the power to - respond. I'm not so sure there is a REQUIREMENT, unless you're just referring to department policy. But that's a policy, not a law. It can be changed by the Chief with the stroke of a keyboard. 394.463 Involuntary examination.— (1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness: (a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and (b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior. (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.— (a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means: 1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. It states 'Law Enforcement Officer, or other designated agent of the court.' That's the part where I wish there was actually a 'designated agent of the court' who responded to these calls, instead of law enforcement. But, alas, that is not currently the case. I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. It also requires a court order. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:37:31 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd love to not respond to them, but the law in my state hasn't found a better person to deal with a crazy person than the cops. I'm all for not showing up--I think people should have the right to off themselves, but as of right now, the cops HAVE TO show up. And if they believe there is a person inside a house that may be hurt, or trying to kill themselves they HAVE TO go in. It's not their choice. Could you post a link to the statute or case that REQUIRES you to respond to such calls? Generally speaking, police MAY - that is, they have the power to - respond. I'm not so sure there is a REQUIREMENT, unless you're just referring to department policy. But that's a policy, not a law. It can be changed by the Chief with the stroke of a keyboard. 394.463 Involuntary examination.— (1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness: (a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and (b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior. (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.— (a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means: 1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. It states 'Law Enforcement Officer, or other designated agent of the court.' That's the part where I wish there was actually a 'designated agent of the court' who responded to these calls, instead of law enforcement. But, alas, that is not currently the case. I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. Thank the Lord, I never have to do a Baker act again! In all honesty, I will ask my legal adviser at the office why we must Baker Act people when they meet criteria, and I'll post up the response here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:38:01 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd love to not respond to them, but the law in my state hasn't found a better person to deal with a crazy person than the cops. I'm all for not showing up--I think people should have the right to off themselves, but as of right now, the cops HAVE TO show up. And if they believe there is a person inside a house that may be hurt, or trying to kill themselves they HAVE TO go in. It's not their choice. Could you post a link to the statute or case that REQUIRES you to respond to such calls? Generally speaking, police MAY - that is, they have the power to - respond. I'm not so sure there is a REQUIREMENT, unless you're just referring to department policy. But that's a policy, not a law. It can be changed by the Chief with the stroke of a keyboard. 394.463 Involuntary examination.— (1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness: (a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and (b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior. (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.— (a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means: 1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. It states 'Law Enforcement Officer, or other designated agent of the court.' That's the part where I wish there was actually a 'designated agent of the court' who responded to these calls, instead of law enforcement. But, alas, that is not currently the case. I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL.  you're really clueless. What's your occupation?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:39:33 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you're really clueless. What's your occupation?Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd love to not respond to them, but the law in my state hasn't found a better person to deal with a crazy person than the cops. I'm all for not showing up--I think people should have the right to off themselves, but as of right now, the cops HAVE TO show up. And if they believe there is a person inside a house that may be hurt, or trying to kill themselves they HAVE TO go in. It's not their choice. Could you post a link to the statute or case that REQUIRES you to respond to such calls? Generally speaking, police MAY - that is, they have the power to - respond. I'm not so sure there is a REQUIREMENT, unless you're just referring to department policy. But that's a policy, not a law. It can be changed by the Chief with the stroke of a keyboard. 394.463 Involuntary examination.— (1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness: (a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and (b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior. (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.— (a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means: 1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. It states 'Law Enforcement Officer, or other designated agent of the court.' That's the part where I wish there was actually a 'designated agent of the court' who responded to these calls, instead of law enforcement. But, alas, that is not currently the case. I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. you're really clueless. What's your occupation?I'm clueless? Is English your first language? Do you understand the difference between MAY and SHALL? There's also nothing in that statute that actually answers my question, which was "what legal authority requires police to respond to such a call." That statute simply permits somebody to be involuntarily committed if the requisite factors are alleged under oath. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:40:23 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you're really clueless. What's your occupation?Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It says MAY. Not SHALL. you're really clueless. What's your occupation?He's a lawyer, and like some GD denizens they love to parrot the various court rulings that LE isn't required to respond to all calls Of course the real world intrudes Due diligence required that officers enter and check the identified address the call originated from Just put him on ignore like I did and your GD experience will be much more enjoyable |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:40:56 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cops today....lol. Is any profession losing respect faster? Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. I noticed you've stopped being a troll lately....did you get spanked? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:42:05 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nobody was at the house. Did you read the article? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
No, I did not say that. I said that in this instance, someone answering the door and saying "nobody dying here, officers" would have headed the whole thing off at the pass. Which makes your scenario of cops breaking down the door, guns ablaze and shooting anything that moves a strawman argument. This wasn't a no knock warrant, nor are cops required to enter and investigate further if someone answers the door and says "nope, nothing like that happening here." Nobody was at the house. Did you read the article? Yes, and that was totally not what that comment was addressing. It was directed at the guy's comment about "what if they had shot your family member!!?!??" To which I responded that if someone had been home to answer the door, the whole incident wouldn't have happened, ergo nobody would have been shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:42:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Hmm... "...and had recontacted the woman, who she said she did not need help and disconnected, according to the report. The landlord was contacted and said the woman deputies were seeking no longer lives there." I know in our city that if you dial 911 and hang up they will call back and send a car if no response is received. That did not happen in this case. How much later was the landlord contacted? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:42:26 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm clueless? Is English your first language? Do you understand the difference between MAY and SHALL? Ok, you're right. Next time I am at work and someones tells me they want to kill themselves and give a specific means, I am going to let it slide, because it only says "may." Yeah, you're clueless. What's your job? Instead of trying to act like you know how to do someone else's |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:42:30 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He's a lawyer, and like some GD denizens they love to parrot the various court rulings that LE isn't required to respond to all calls Of course the real world intrudes Due diligence required that officers enter and check the identified address the call originated from Just put him on ignore like I did and your GD experience will be much more enjoyable Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It says MAY. Not SHALL. you're really clueless. What's your occupation?He's a lawyer, and like some GD denizens they love to parrot the various court rulings that LE isn't required to respond to all calls Of course the real world intrudes Due diligence required that officers enter and check the identified address the call originated from Just put him on ignore like I did and your GD experience will be much more enjoyable I'm still waiting for you to explain the lawsuit that you claim would ensue if the police failed to respond, or responded "inadequately," to an actual suicide call. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:43:58 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I noticed you've stopped being a troll lately....did you get spanked?
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cops today....lol. Is any profession losing respect faster? Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. I noticed you've stopped being a troll lately....did you get spanked?
Spanked? Nope. I just found it a bit tiring making fun of people who don't know what they are talking about. It gets exhausting after a while. When did you pick up trolling or have you always been this way? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:44:05 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, you're right. Next time I am at work and someones tells me they want to kill themselves and give a specific means, I am going to let it slide, because it only says "may." Yeah, you're clueless. What's your job? Instead of trying to act like you know how to do someone else's Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm clueless? Is English your first language? Do you understand the difference between MAY and SHALL? Ok, you're right. Next time I am at work and someones tells me they want to kill themselves and give a specific means, I am going to let it slide, because it only says "may." Yeah, you're clueless. What's your job? Instead of trying to act like you know how to do someone else's I'm sorry that you are unable to understand the simplest and most common statutory language on the planet. Life for you, let alone being a cop, must be a daily struggle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:44:48 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. It also requires a court order. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'd love to not respond to them, but the law in my state hasn't found a better person to deal with a crazy person than the cops. I'm all for not showing up--I think people should have the right to off themselves, but as of right now, the cops HAVE TO show up. And if they believe there is a person inside a house that may be hurt, or trying to kill themselves they HAVE TO go in. It's not their choice. Could you post a link to the statute or case that REQUIRES you to respond to such calls? Generally speaking, police MAY - that is, they have the power to - respond. I'm not so sure there is a REQUIREMENT, unless you're just referring to department policy. But that's a policy, not a law. It can be changed by the Chief with the stroke of a keyboard. 394.463 Involuntary examination.— (1) CRITERIA.—A person may be taken to a receiving facility for involuntary examination if there is reason to believe that the person has a mental illness and because of his or her mental illness: (a)1. The person has refused voluntary examination after conscientious explanation and disclosure of the purpose of the examination; or 2. The person is unable to determine for himself or herself whether examination is necessary; and (b)1. Without care or treatment, the person is likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for himself or herself; such neglect or refusal poses a real and present threat of substantial harm to his or her well-being; and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services; or 2. There is a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or others in the near future, as evidenced by recent behavior. (2) INVOLUNTARY EXAMINATION.— (a) An involuntary examination may be initiated by any one of the following means: 1. A court may enter an ex parte order stating that a person appears to meet the criteria for involuntary examination, giving the findings on which that conclusion is based. The ex parte order for involuntary examination must be based on sworn testimony, written or oral. If other less restrictive means are not available, such as voluntary appearance for outpatient evaluation, a law enforcement officer, or other designated agent of the court, shall take the person into custody and deliver him or her to the nearest receiving facility for involuntary examination. It states 'Law Enforcement Officer, or other designated agent of the court.' That's the part where I wish there was actually a 'designated agent of the court' who responded to these calls, instead of law enforcement. But, alas, that is not currently the case. I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. It also requires a court order. They're still required to respond and make contact. They may or may not then choose to take the person into custody for psychiatric examination by a licensed professional. The statute addressed the second sentence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:46:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're still required to respond and make contact. They may or may not then choose to take the person into custody for psychiatric examination by a licensed professional. The statute addressed the second sentence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. It also requires a court order. They're still required to respond and make contact. They may or may not then choose to take the person into custody for psychiatric examination by a licensed professional. The statute addressed the second sentence. Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:46:06 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Spanked? Nope. I just found it a bit tiring making fun of people who don't know what they are talking about. It gets exhausting after a while. When did you pick up trolling or have you always been this way? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cops today....lol. Is any profession losing respect faster? Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. I noticed you've stopped being a troll lately....did you get spanked?
Spanked? Nope. I just found it a bit tiring making fun of people who don't know what they are talking about. It gets exhausting after a while. When did you pick up trolling or have you always been this way? lol...you got spanked. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:48:12 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol...you got spanked.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Cops today....lol. Is any profession losing respect faster? Yes. GD posters by the name of Mackinaw. I noticed you've stopped being a troll lately....did you get spanked?
Spanked? Nope. I just found it a bit tiring making fun of people who don't know what they are talking about. It gets exhausting after a while. When did you pick up trolling or have you always been this way? lol...you got spanked.
Think whatever you want. It just proves that you still don't know what you are talking about.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:48:54 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. It also requires a court order. They're still required to respond and make contact. They may or may not then choose to take the person into custody for psychiatric examination by a licensed professional. The statute addressed the second sentence. Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Policy, fired. Next? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:50:16 PM EDT
[#24]
Won't a dog respond (withdrawal) from OC? It seems to me to me a fairly common occurrence for police to be confronted with injured animals and whatnot, so I don't understand why a -- what do call them snares? loop rods? -- wouldn't be a standard piece of squad car issue. OC and one of those snare things and they wouldn't have to shoot someone's pet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:51:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Cops were doing their job, trying to save a life. They were working with bad info. Stuff happens. Cops are under no obligation to protect anyone except themselves. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:52:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Policy, fired. Next? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. It also requires a court order. They're still required to respond and make contact. They may or may not then choose to take the person into custody for psychiatric examination by a licensed professional. The statute addressed the second sentence. Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Policy, fired. Next? That would require an individual cop to respond, and/or the dispatcher to send somebody. The worst possible penalty being "you're fired." The agency CHOOSES to do that. They are voluntarily giving up their legal discretion to respond, or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:54:04 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..... I don't understand why a -- what do call them snares? loop rods? -- wouldn't be a standard piece of squad car issue. LOL, we rarely had a usable spare tire or jack in the car. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:54:10 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe the cop who told me that was a little derpy too. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. From what I've heard, police are trained to regard suicide as "murder turned inward". I guess anything to justify pulling out the big toys and going in hard, right? Wow. you are just all KINDS of derp....  Maybe the cop who told me that was a little derpy too. Yes. I've been a cop for years and never heard that "turned inward" crap |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:54:54 PM EDT
[#29]
I never understood how a person threatening to kill themselves in a locked hose is a “Public threat”. There is zero threat to the public. All the LOEs need to do is secure the perimeter and let Darwin take care of the situation.
But, then I've never understood the LEOs shooting someone repeatedly to stop them from committing Suicide. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:54:59 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL, we rarely had a usable spare tire or jack in the car. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
..... I don't understand why a -- what do call them snares? loop rods? -- wouldn't be a standard piece of squad car issue. LOL, we rarely had a usable spare tire or jack in the car. From what you've said before, you were lucky to have 4 serviceable tires, period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:55:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't a dog respond (withdrawal) from OC? It seems to me to me a fairly common occurrence for police to be confronted with injured animals and whatnot, so I don't understand why a -- what do call them snares? loop rods? -- wouldn't be a standard piece of squad car issue. OC and one of those snare things and they wouldn't have to shoot someone's pet. OC is not guaranteed to work on dogs. Also OC contaminates the surrounding area including the area the police are in. I prefer not to have OC in my eyes when trying to deal with a dog. Snares are not standard equipment in police departments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:56:23 PM EDT
[#32]
RIP Zeus.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:56:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would require an individual cop to respond, and/or the dispatcher to send somebody. The worst possible penalty being "you're fired." The agency CHOOSES to do that. They are voluntarily giving up their legal discretion to respond, or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Policy, fired. Next? That would require an individual cop to respond, and/or the dispatcher to send somebody. The worst possible penalty being "you're fired." The agency CHOOSES to do that. They are voluntarily giving up their legal discretion to respond, or not. So? You asked, I answered. Next? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:56:51 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so I don't understand why a -- what do call them snares? loop rods? -- wouldn't be a standard piece of squad car issue. OC and one of those snare things and they wouldn't have to shoot someone's pet. Wonderful, another piece of gear you want us all to be issued |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:57:58 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So? You asked, I answered. Next? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Policy, fired. Next? That would require an individual cop to respond, and/or the dispatcher to send somebody. The worst possible penalty being "you're fired." The agency CHOOSES to do that. They are voluntarily giving up their legal discretion to respond, or not. So? You asked, I answered. Next? So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:58:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I underlined the relevant word for you, there. It says MAY. Not SHALL. It also requires a court order. They're still required to respond and make contact. They may or may not then choose to take the person into custody for psychiatric examination by a licensed professional. The statute addressed the second sentence. Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. It is within the scope of a law enforcement officer's duty to protect the safety of the community as a whole as well as that of individuals when a known threat is identified. At a minimum, they could be sanctioned or fired for dereliction of duty if they don't respond, nevermind what individual departmental policies are violated. Furthermore, the officer could be subject to civil suits for wrongful death if he or she chose to do nothing. No, there may not be legal penalties, but it is within the scope of their duties, and if they refuse to do their job, they will likely end up fired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 12:59:54 PM EDT
[#37]
I'm sorry for the dog, I really am, it sucks, but poor these cops are fucked all the way around, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:01:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. 
Poor guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:01:39 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Policy, fired. Next? That would require an individual cop to respond, and/or the dispatcher to send somebody. The worst possible penalty being "you're fired." The agency CHOOSES to do that. They are voluntarily giving up their legal discretion to respond, or not. So? You asked, I answered. Next? So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. I doubt there's a legal statute that requires police to respond to anything. However, that is what they are hired to do and why those departments exist. That's sort of the point, Avi. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:01:47 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Why. Tell me what requires them to respond and what happens if they don't. Be specific. Policy, fired. Next? That would require an individual cop to respond, and/or the dispatcher to send somebody. The worst possible penalty being "you're fired." The agency CHOOSES to do that. They are voluntarily giving up their legal discretion to respond, or not. So? You asked, I answered. Next? So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. You're seriously an attorney? And people pay you? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:03:42 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're seriously an attorney? And people pay you? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. You're seriously an attorney? And people pay you? You're seriously a cop? And they actually tested you in basic literacy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:06:54 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're seriously a cop? And they actually tested you in basic literacy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. You're seriously an attorney? And people pay you? You're seriously a cop? And they actually tested you in basic literacy? You're a PD aren't you? 
I know the difference of may and shall. If a mom calls me and tells me her adult some is threatening suicide and I go talk to him and he denies it all, I "may" pink slip him but in that case I am not required too. It's worded like that for a reason. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:09:19 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're a PD aren't you?
I know the difference of may and shall. If a mom calls me and tells me her adult some is threatening suicide and I go talk to him and he denies it all, I "may" pink slip him but in that case I am not required too. It's worded like that for a reason. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. You're seriously an attorney? And people pay you? You're seriously a cop? And they actually tested you in basic literacy? You're a PD aren't you?
I know the difference of may and shall. If a mom calls me and tells me her adult some is threatening suicide and I go talk to him and he denies it all, I "may" pink slip him but in that case I am not required too. It's worded like that for a reason. Why are you required to go there in the first place? That was the question. Not "what can I do once I get there." It's because your agency has a policy, not because there is an actual law that requires you to respond - right? Again, basic literacy. Reading comprehension. Don't eat the yellow snow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:10:16 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah? And just how exactly would you suggest the responding officers search the house for the suicidal woman with an aggressive dog running loose.? What about any paramedics that may be called in? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What If they had the right house? Killing the dog wouldn't have solved a thing. Yeah? And just how exactly would you suggest the responding officers search the house for the suicidal woman with an aggressive dog running loose.? What about any paramedics that may be called in? Perhaps step #1 would be to make sure there actually IS an suicidal woman? Or, even a woman, at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:11:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're a PD aren't you?
I know the difference of may and shall. If a mom calls me and tells me her adult some is threatening suicide and I go talk to him and he denies it all, I "may" pink slip him but in that case I am not required too. It's worded like that for a reason. I'd think you wouldn't have him involuntarily examined because he didn't meet the requirements under the law to do so in that case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:13:19 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are you required to go there in the first place? That was the question. Not "what can I do once I get there." It's because your agency has a policy, not because there is an actual law that requires you to respond - right? Again, basic literacy. Reading comprehension. Don't eat the yellow snow. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So police are "required" to respond only because they tell themselves they're required to respond. It's a circular argument. A self-licking ice cream cone. You're seriously an attorney? And people pay you? You're seriously a cop? And they actually tested you in basic literacy? You're a PD aren't you?
I know the difference of may and shall. If a mom calls me and tells me her adult some is threatening suicide and I go talk to him and he denies it all, I "may" pink slip him but in that case I am not required too. It's worded like that for a reason. Why are you required to go there in the first place? That was the question. Not "what can I do once I get there." It's because your agency has a policy, not because there is an actual law that requires you to respond - right? Again, basic literacy. Reading comprehension. Don't eat the yellow snow. Oh Jesus Christ using that logic you believe there's a ton of calls cops should go to then right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:13:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm not sure how a suicidal person is a public threat. Exactly!!!! Let me guess, if they did find this woman with a gun or knife attempting to kill herself what were they going to do, beat her to the punch? "Ma'am, put the knife down", "I'm going to kill myself!!!" POWPOWPOWPOW No need we'll do that for ya'. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:13:30 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wonderful, another piece of gear you want us all to be issued Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
so I don't understand why a -- what do call them snares? loop rods? -- wouldn't be a standard piece of squad car issue. OC and one of those snare things and they wouldn't have to shoot someone's pet. Wonderful, another piece of gear you want us all to be issued I readily admit I know little about the life of an LEO. Was just asking what seemed obvious. I see the State Police pull over in NoVa and yank a shovel out of the trunk to clear a dead animal from the road is my only exposure to a similar animal handling action. Maybe they are going above and beyond the call. As to OC contaminating an area, foam or gel takes care of that doesn't it? Maybe not. I do realize that this can't be a fun situation for the officers either. Although there was one or two cases in DC where an officer went out of his way to shoot a dog and the public howled (heh) about it. The one I remember was in the Adams Morgan area in DC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:16:39 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what you've said before, you were lucky to have 4 serviceable tires, period. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
..... I don't understand why a -- what do call them snares? loop rods? -- wouldn't be a standard piece of squad car issue. LOL, we rarely had a usable spare tire or jack in the car. From what you've said before, you were lucky to have 4 serviceable tires, period. A tire with 6 plugs is perfectly serviceable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2015 1:17:11 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh Jesus Christ using that logic you believe there's a ton of calls cops should go to then right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Why are you required to go there in the first place? That was the question. Not "what can I do once I get there." It's because your agency has a policy, not because there is an actual law that requires you to respond - right? Again, basic literacy. Reading comprehension. Don't eat the yellow snow. Oh Jesus Christ using that logic you believe there's a ton of calls cops should go to then right? I'm simply pointing out that police don't HAVE to respond to any particular call, or any particular kind of call. Several people in this thread have stated that "they have to respond." If they do, it's not because the law or some other external authority makes them do so, it's because they just decided to do it that way. In fact, some departments do have policies that provide for no response for things like car break-ins. No response, just take a report over the phone. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
