So guys...

Anyone read that case law yet?

 

So its been 7 or so hours since I posted some fact in this thread and all of a sudden every person who posted with pictures and insults does not seem to have words...

interesting...

 

Yes, and your once again showing your stupid (I mean your, not you're). That case says that police are not responsible if their negligence allows someone to be harmed by someone else. It nowhere states they are not here to protect people, or serve the public. In that case, three women were raped and beaten because the police dispatched to the house didn't get a response at the front door, so they left. The rape happened after the police left, and it was found that the rapist was at fault, not the police for not acting more quickly on a case that wasn't opened yet. It only came about because the three raped girls tried to sue the local Police Department, instead of the perp. Good try bud, but you'll have to find another bogus study to make any since in this topic.

 

sorry, I didn't hit submit. Some of us have jobs, we don't Troll the internet for a living.

 

Hurray for reading comprehension.

so sad...so so sad...

 

Haha, your funny when your mad that you got proved wrong.

 

Edit- not worth it. Keep the name calling out of it. Not going to say it again.

 

If you want to argue what should or should not be illegal, you need to talk to the legislators, not the police. The police enforce the laws, not make them. If it is illegal, or if they have been given the authority to do certain things, pull people over for certain types of behaviors/activities, all of that is defined by the legislature - and your argument should be directed at the appropriate folks.

Like Legacy said, let's keep this debate to arguing the points and not mud slinging and name calling. It also does not need to turn into a "let's bash the police" / "kill the messenger" thread. Please argue your points with more evidence and supporting information vs yelling louder or trying to be the most obnoxious.

 

Really don't want to get tangled up in all of this, but...

1) I did not read this case. Just didn't feel like it. But I did skim the syllabus at the beginning of the actual opinion cited in 444 A.2d 1. Not sure if you guys are just reading the wikipedia summary or the actual case law, but...

2) This case was cited the Atlantic reporter...not a federal reporter, thus it's result is NOT binding (only persuasive) to any district outside of DC. OP is from Florida. So whatever the DC superior court has to say about DC stuff, doesn't apply to Florida law.

3) This is a rape case. The police would be held to a MUCH, MUCH different standard than they would in a simple traffic moving violation, therefore, this case, even if it was "jurisdictionally" applicable, would still not apply, because the cause of actions would be so completely different.

4) Facts of Warren are nothing like OP's deal. In Warren, (again, only reading the syllabus) the cops were called to a scene, to which they had to report, and things may or may not have happened before they got there, thus they were not held liable. In OP's case, a cop just witnessed him do something that could amount to a safety concern. That's all. There was no uncertainty in OP's case.

Warren just doesn't apply here.

 

@jblz, I do not want to be negative here, but read the thread and you will understand why this case was brought up and for what purpose - it was never related to the OP.

There are enough "you were in wrong" comments to the OP.

 

Quick addition, as for warren v dc, while it may not be binding, it was cited and held in many other cases throughout the country. So you can say there is precedent on this matter since many cases were attempted to test it but none were found otherwise. There was one case from boston, which touched on the individuals right for protection from crime by police, but it had a specific threat attachment. Do some research on it.

My original comment stands, the police have no obligation or responsibility to protect the individual.

 

Ok. Yeah man, I didn't read the whole thread or the case. So that was just a half-@ss, blind look at Warren. So my bad if I missed the big picture.

Also, I'm sure you're right that there are binding cases on point. From the little I know of this matter, I can speculate that police do not have a duty to guarantee service, protection, or safety, but probably only to offer what is reasonably possible at the time, in the circumstances.

My bad if I butted in on a corner issue

Please resume head-butting you guys.

 

LOL This thread is funny cause both of these guys are right.
Some cops are Dicks( not all) and some ARE Dicks.

I personally know may cops( not like that will sway the oppinions or flaming from either contenders) and yes the Law is ****ed up and full of loop holes, but trust me if you ever get caught up in ****, you will thank god for those loop holes, for they can save ur ***.

So in the end, the lesson is DONT DO STUPID ****, regardless if the cops are dicks or not. And If you are going to do something that has the potential to have a cop give you "the peoples eyebrow" then just be prepared for either type of cop and concequences.

NOW stop trolling and enjoy the damn holidays!

LLOLL



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

If legislature could save us from people like this:

http://youtu.be/HOaRrUA8-zQ

We wouldn't be having this discussion. Around Tampa, FL, cops will pull you over and just make **** up. I passed a unmarked car fairly fast around a corner one night, and he pulled me over. When I told him that there was no way for him to prove my speed, he gave me a ticket for following too closely, even though he was two hundred yards or more away from me when I was supposedly tailgating. You can't prove your innocent because it's always your word against theirs. That's why I drive with a contour camera on my dash now, always recording (and I have a blueline decal, but that's another story). I won't be another police statistic, like the woman who was beaten severely, but we didn't see the assault because the police turned off the camera, and all you see is a picture of her in a chair, and the next second she's on the ground in a pool of blood. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KM1ukwBGv4 These are extreme cases, but you have to know how cops think. Cops don't think it's us vs bad guys. No, its us (citizens) vs them. They believe they're completely above every citizen, and it shows. There's cops out there like "Z_HighSpeed" which would love to show you how good their knowledge of the law is, and they'll arrest you for nothing, but think they're just in doing so. These good ol boys are the skum of the earth, and should be arrested themselves (even though we all know that won't ever happen). The police enforce what they want to, when they want to. Not all, but a good chunk of cops are power hungry, and corrupt. This is my point.

Oh, and Z_HighSpeed, cut it out, we all know your trolling by now, we don't care.

Also:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gH9k8...PVRZv5zgAr5hEY


And, I'll leave you with a letter from a Cop:


"When I was a "police officer" back in the early '70s the transformation was just starting to take place from a mentality of a public servant working for the citizens to "law enforcement". The first I noticed of it was when the police departments started preferential hiring of ex-military people returning from Viet Nam. They started introducing military tactics into the department, including the first S.W.A.T. team. They quit referring to people on the street as citizens and started calling them "civilians", or more commonly "*******s".

"They looked for opportunities to use their new toys provided from "federal assistance" monies in the war on drugs. They changed the uniforms from the blue-suited cop with an 8-sided hat with a shield on front to a set of black or navy fatigues and a ball cap. They started shaving their heads and pumping iron. They gave up on the idea that they put themselves in the line of fire to protect and serve the public and took on a combat marine attitude of protect their own above all else. I've known them to murder cop-killers in the street, but have a could-care-less attitude when a civilian is killed."

"I was lied to, lied about and set up when I tried to expose some crooked cops. Things since 1975 have not gotten better. The thugs in uniform now consider themselves to be government agents of a totalitarian regime with limitless authority to enforce the will of the government on all civilian *******s. There are obviously exceptions to that rule, but those would never try to stand in the way of the thugs."

"Sorry, but talk show hosts I have heard that say we don't have to worry about tyranny in this "nation" because our troops would never turn their guns on "Americans". They are wrong. They have never read history. They don't realize the training and brainwashing that takes place in the military now and in the para-military police forces - especially the federales. Just wait until big-O gets his Civilian National Security Force in place and all the local wanna-be LEOs join in with them."

 

Thanks for giving me a good laugh, really, I enjoyed it.

Keep at the insults and condescending pointless posts though, I am sure somewhere in them you attempt to make some resemblance of a point but its overridden by the sheer amount of immature banter that has literally nothing to do with this thread.

By all means, go on.

*popcorn*

 

No issue since at least you took the time to think about what was posted and attempt to interpret it in some way which others in this thread seem to lack.

I am not here to educate anyone, all I will do is post specific points and the rest will have to be researched. It is the law, not some fiction novel. The way it works is the way it works and nothing will change unless it is voted or ruled otherwise. It is fairly interesting once the concepts are understood - it makes for less immature discussion.

 

It's obvious you have issues with someone telling you what to do... Cop or not. Grow up.

 

This thread has run it course IMO