Wonder how long untill they throw in the [b]"The Govt is not obligated to protect you"[/b] line.


BTW does anyone have the link that actualy says that..  believe it was in response to a Columbine suit..  thanks.

I wish they would throw that in and it gets publicized.  Maybe that would sway some people over to our side when they realize that they are responsible for their own protection.

Damn, that's a long time. [:D]

The case that first started getting lots of quotes as the 'The cops have no duty to defend you' case was a travesty that occurred in D.C. some years ago.  Some mopes broke into a house and started raping the women who lived there.  One of them got away long enough to call the police.  Cops showed up, knocked on the door, got no answer and left.  Mopes continued to rape the women for several more hours.  Women sued and lost because the court said the police department had no duty to protect them as individuals, their duty was to the community as a whole.

Yeah, we do, if the caller gives good information, the dispatcher dispatches in a celeritous and accurate manner, and the phucking cop is listening to his/her phucking radio!!!



Gee, if that's true, I wonder what Karen Hunter did to piss God off so much that He let her be slaughtered... (Sorry - this isn't a religious thread, but I couldn't resist.)

Without my nomex underwear on, I'll be so bold as to say it: YOU are responsible for your own safety, not the cops, politicians, soldiers, medics, firefighters, drycleaners, cable repair dudes, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, ad absurdium...

P3[pyro][rolleyes][heavy]

now all we have to do is get the .gov to realize this..

The principal function of LE under the law is to enforce the decisions (sp?) made by the state - to wit, the courts and the legislators (but more the courts.)  This was the original function of the "Sheriff" under English Common Law.  Much of early United States Law is based upon English Common Law.  

The police (Sheriff) do not and never have had a duty to the protection of the individual citizen, UNLESS protection of such citizen is in the best interest of the state (Witness Protection Programme.)  So, if you or I do not have information vital to the state or the interests of the state, there is no-one to protect us but ourselves.

Of course, this has been systematically omitted from HS Civics textbooks for as long as I can remember.

More information can be found by researching English Common Law.  This is a principle going back some 400 years or so, IIRC.  

In short - "Protect and Serve" is a lie - the police are concieved as little more than historians and state-sponsored thugs.  My apologies to LEOs who feel and act otherwise, you are exceeding your directives and we are grateful.  However, that is the way things are, in a nutshell.

FFZ

Hey - I'm not a historian!!!! [(:)]

FFZ: right on, bro!

P3[pyro][whacko][heavy]

Sucks for you man, you should know better than to be a good samaritan!  Being one opens you up to liability, especially if you can't save them once you've started trying to save them.  Just be a good witness next time.

Let Darwin cure the world's stupidity problem!

Generally speaking, the role of Law Enforcement seems to be to find the person who killed you.

"I guess you don't have nobody to help you but God."

That is why we were given trigger fingers...I think even God expects you to help yourself.
==
I thought the police were supposed to be there to help you when you were in trouble," Purdy said.

'The police will protect you' is a liberal urban legend used to justify more gun control.  It is not logical to expect that a patrol car running a beat will be at or near the place they are needed or that they will not busy at a different location.  This will logically relegate the police to after the fact report writing and chalking the floor.

Being held responsible for your own protection and for your own actions would eliminate many of these 'senseless victim slaughter' headlines that also see the scum that commit crimes walk because 'it wasn't their fault'.

So true.

I was thinkin' the same thing. AB

REFUSE to be a statistic.

From the article:

"At the time of the call, many officers were at a West Akron bank, responding to a robbery involving possible hostages. At 8:56 a.m., all officers not involved in the bank robbery were asked to switch to a different channel on their police radios.

At 8:57 a.m., a dispatcher tried to contact an officer at the city garage on East Market Street on his cruiser's computer. But the officer was outside his cruiser, putting gas in his car, and missed both the bulletin to switch channels and the call to go to Philip Avenue."



Sound like the Police were pretty busy that day and the take over bank robbery with hostages got assigned a higher priority than the family fight.

Yeah, sounds like bad luck all around.
What was it? "My fate isn't in God's hands as long as there's a firearm in mine?"
Something like that.

I've never played with mobile data terminals, but it sounds like depending on them for dispatch is not a good idea.

Someone should have got on the radio, asked if anyone in the area was free enough to respond to the domestic call, and then told to check their terminal for the call.

If it happened like the paper says, it's sounds like a case of too many assumptions by dispatch.

Jay
[img]http://www.commspeed.net/jmurray/images/iroc-cop.gif[/img]