Another cop shooting, fucked up story

unsung

A couple of court links, this is what google found. Don't like the link? I'm sure you can find the court case on a suitable site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=0



http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1976377/posts


So if they have no obligation to provide protection what use are they?

unsung

Hugh Freaking Dillon wrote:

I get it. I have had this same conversation about the military; I just had it two days ago. I don't personally put them on a pedestal because of their career choice.

We can agree there.

I always found it odd that when Vietnam had the draft how lousy troops were treated when they came home. Now they volunteer for it and get placed on those pedestals, get college paid for, get housing paid for, and get jobs programs for when they return. Plus now if I want to switch careers they get extra points in the hiring process that I don't because I never served.

I was told this year on Memorial Day more than once that I didn't "support the troops" because I didn't have a flag out (I never do anyway) and I asked these people who they voted for. I got back mostly Romneys but also a couple of Obamas and I told these people that I actually was the one supporting the troops because I voted for men that wanted to bring them home (Ron Paul and Gary Johnson) and that their putting up the flag was nothing more than a feel good way for them to cover up the fact that they did not support the troops.

Those are fun arguments to have.

unsung

Anyway this part is a bit off topic but that's precisely why the gun grabbers fail in their argument. The police have no duty to protect, that falls upon the individual and his/her own responsibility to do so. The police only are there to take the bad guys to the courts and get those bad guys off the streets. I guess that's the protection the police serve.

If you want a totalitarian state and absolute safety you'd have the prison system on the streets, which would effectively be martial law and end individual freedom.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

Anyway this part is a bit off topic but that's precisely why the gun grabbers fail in their argument. The police have no duty to protect, that falls upon the individual and his/her own responsibility to do so. The police only are there to take the bad guys to the courts and get those bad guys off the streets. I guess that's the protection the police serve.

If you want a totalitarian state and absolute safety you'd have the prison system on the streets, which would effectively be martial law and end individual freedom.

Or you could look to the motivation of criminals and try to deal with the problem before it rears its head. Poverty has a strong influence on people's behaviours.

You've made the argument for police and their role in protecting society: if they were not around to apprehend violent criminals... the violent criminals remain on the streets; therefore, they make the streets safer for you and protect you.

When shit hits the fan... who do people call? It's ridiculous that you are suggesting the police do not serve and protect. Nobody is saying one cannot protect themselves, but the real world isn't like the movie 'Minority Report'. Because police generally respect the rights you vociferously flaunt... they cannot simply go and remove a bad guy from the streets when they know he is bad until they have ample proof to show he's bad.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

unsung wrote:

A couple of court links, this is what google found. Don't like the link? I'm sure you can find the court case on a suitable site.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... .html?_r=0


So if they have no obligation to provide protection what use are they?

I read this one. Kind of messed up. It sounds as if lawyers cleverly used the letter of the law to absolve poor police work, but in reality... we know of a multitude of times when officers have responded to these types of situations.

For example... in Hugh's fair city of Winnipeg... police respond to an average of 43 domestic violence calls per day. Do you think these women shoulder the responsibility to protect themselves? Do you think these women should call their neighbour with the gun to deal with their problem? How about children?

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2013/08/15/w ... ay-in-2012

Hugh Freaking Dillon

unsung wrote:

Well it is not idiotic, especially since a court judge declared that the police have absolutely no obligation to protect you. It's 330am and I just woke up so the court level escapes me but I'm sure if you want you can find it. So if the police have no obligation to protect me and it's a dangerous world I'll take care of that myself, thanks.

Police aren't around to prevent crime, they are around to respond to it. And also considering that their response time has had less than stellar reviews I'll handle that whole protecting thing myself. I mean it's quite possible that they show up and shoot me or my dog. I personally find no use for most of them, they have become one of those necessary evils in society though.


Edited for 330am typos on iphone

Actually, that is incorrect. They are there to prevent crime. That's where the discussion of uniformed cops vs unmarked police cars stems from. Is it better to have a police presence that is visible to the public so they feel safe AND keeps the criminal element at bay, or is it better to have unmarked officers around to catch criminals in the act? The school of thought is generally to be 50/50. Our society would be exponentially more dangerous and nearly impossible to ensure your own safety in that world. Are they superheroes? No, no one is saying that. But I'll say again, having zero police presence is to introduce anarchy and lawlessness. If there are no police,there is no justice system, and without that, there is no consequence to crime. MAYBE you can protect yourself in this scenario (I still have extreme doubts about this), but do you wish for all those who can't to be at the mercy of criminals??

unsung

In response to both of the last two; yes it is first and foremost the right of the individual to protect themselves. I'll never understand why anyone would want bureaucrats in charge of that. I'm agreeing that police and the courts should be involved, but the individual should be capable of taking care of themselves, and empowered to do so.

unsung

Thirty Bills Unpaid wrote:

Or you could look to the motivation of criminals and try to deal with the problem before it rears its head. Poverty has a strong influence on people's behaviours.

When shit hits the fan... who do people call? It's ridiculous that you are suggesting the police do not serve and protect. Nobody is saying one cannot protect themselves, but the real world isn't like the movie 'Minority Report'. Because police generally respect the rights you vociferously flaunt... they cannot simply go and remove a bad guy from the streets when they know he is bad until they have ample proof to show he's bad.

Poverty has almost everything to do with crime, I'd also add greed to that.

When the shit hits the fan for real where do you think the police will be? Out on the streets? Or will they be protecting their own families like they were during Hurricane Katrina?

brianlux

Imagine if we had no police and people just ran around trying to establish their own form of order, crime prevention, protection, etc. Yeah, that would be a hoot. :roll:

Could we trust the average person to know how to deal with these things? In America at least, that would not be something I would want to live with.

Hugh Freaking Dillon

Poor response times are 100% issues of funding. And I don't ever recall, ever, a cop shooting the person who called them where I live. I have no doubt it's happened but probably in instances where the victim is armed heavier than they are and it's a case of mistaken identity on the fault of the civilian.

unsung

brianlux wrote:

Imagine if we had no police and people just ran around trying to establish their own form of order, crime prevention, protection, etc. Yeah, that would be a hoot. :roll:

Could we trust the average person to know how to deal with these things? In America at least, that would not be something I would want to live with.

Nobody has suggested that.

Cosmo

I'm just going to add one important missing variable from this discussion...
Officer Carter was a University cop. That is basically a Mall Cop with a gun. It is very different to patrol the walkways of a University campus, than street patrol through Watts, California.
Add to that... this specific University is a Catholicc University in Texas. So, not only is officer Carter a Mall Cop with a gun... he is a Catholic School Nun with a gun instead of a ruler to inflict punishment upon disruptive students.
So, to those who compare this 'cop' with regular cops... you really need to factor in this variable.