2a "Protests" and Starbucks

[Festus_Hagen]

He's just trolling. I'm not biting. Ya'll have a great conversation.

 

[PistolPackingMomma]

This

Courts have already ruled they have no duty to protect the individual. Only society at large.

is trolling?

 

[LMTD]

This



is trolling?

Depends upon view.

The play on literal words to alter meaning beyond the original intent to illicit an argument tends to qualify as trolling.

Its about on par with Clinton’s request for the defined meaning of the word “is” and has its own perils.

A duty to respond does exist, third party liability under tort law is what your links reference, that does not exist.

It is trolling because more often than not, those engaging in the debate rarely understand the concept or sovereignty and how that can only be negated through gross negligence.

 

[peterarthur]

*sigh*

Officers have no obligation to protect anyone on a potential crime scene. Their first priority is to stay safe themselves. Many times a citizen will be protected or rescued by an LEO. However, no LEGAL requirement exists for them to do so.

HOWEVER, many police WILL risk their own lives to protect others. It is human nature to protect others. But fear will prevent some. Or a tactical decision. There are many factors.

But there is no legal onus compelling them.

Citation: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

So the supposed "troll" is correct.

 

[Oramac]

*sigh*

Officers have no obligation to protect anyone on a potential crime scene. Their first priority is to stay safe themselves. Many times a citizen will be protected or rescued by an LEO. However, no LEGAL requirement exists for them to do so.

HOWEVER, many police WILL risk their own lives to protect others. It is human nature to protect others. But fear will prevent some. Or a tactical decision. There are many factors.

But there is no legal onus compelling them.

Citation: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

So the supposed "troll" is correct.

A great answer to a question that was not asked.

When we boil it down, the question being asked is simply: "Do police have a legal obligation to RESPOND?" We know they have no legal obligation to protect us, once they have responded (note the past tense). However, we do not have any citation, as yet, for whether police have legal obligation to respond (present tense).

 

[LMTD]

*sigh*

Officers have no obligation to protect anyone on a potential crime scene. Their first priority is to stay safe themselves.

But there is no legal onus compelling them.

Citation: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

So the supposed "troll" is correct.

Edited for clarity only.

Again it is semantics.

They DO have an OBLIGATION.

They have NO CIVIL LIABILITY for third party actions. Nor do you want them to at ALL.

The police are the government, your dollars pay for all aspects of their job.

If you were to hold police liable for criminals actions, how about the restaurant that serves up bad food? Should the government be responsible CIVILY because the health inspector was there thirty days ago and gave them a passing grade?

There is little to no difference in holding the police liable for a criminal shooting you than there is to say it is Springfield armory’s fault for manufacturing the firearm or Speer for making the bullet and Hogdon for making the brass or Starlight for making the brass and CCI for making the primer.

Festus response was taken out of context to elicit an argument. He knows “the obligation” all too well as he more than once as a boy saw his father jump from the table without finishing his dinner to respond to a call as his father was a dedicated officer. Whether a sick case, traffic accident in the snow and rain, or armed criminal action, he was indeed OBLIGATED to respond and had he consistently FAILED to do so, he would LIKELY be FIRED for poor job performance.

At no time his department supported by our tax dollars was or should be civilly liable for the actions of the criminal regardless of performance, the FULL liability rest with the CRIMINAL. Cases trying to deflect the responsibility from the actual responsible party SHOULD ALWAYS fail. If they did not and your house was robbed and four years later a person was shot with your STOLEN firearm, do you want to be accountable for that criminals action because you did not bolt your safe to concrete? Because you did not store it properly in your car?

Third party liability is a LOT of BS and the police not being civilly liable is a GOOD thing, but it remains semantics as there is an “obligation” just no third party liability even relating to performance or lack thereof, and that is what every single one of those cases are about, civil actions on third party responsibility!


Not calling you out Pete, just trying to add some information for newbies.

Rich

 

[OC for ME]

Academic discussion. We all know that the cops will not be there when you need them. Unless of course, they just happen to be there before the 'when you need them' time.

Now, if the cop screws up while he is there trying to help you, and his screw up(s) contribute to your 'pain & suffering', supposing that you are alive after the screw up(s) , then we will have a discussion.

Though, his 'good faith' efforts will be considered, excusing his screw up(s), QI will rear its ugly head, and once again, you or your survivors will be on their own.

Bottom line, we are on our own.

 

[Festus_Hagen]

Edited for clarity only.

Festus response was taken out of context to elicit an argument.

Rich

Exactly, and I'm not here to argue with people that just want to. Don't even try Rich.....lol.

 

[Mo]

Exactly, and I'm not here to argue with people that just want to. Don't even try Rich.....lol.

If you felt I was doing that (which I was not), you could have asked me to clarify and I would've been happy to do so and we could have cleared it up right then and there. Perhaps I should have provided the links PistolPackingMomma provided to show what I was going by to show where I was coming from, but the knee-jerk reaction that I was "just trolling" was clearly intent on your part to be inflammatory. A disagreement and/or a misunderstanding is not a personal attack and is certainly not trolling or an attempt to start some sort of fight.

I, like many others on this site refer to court cases and such for instances such as this. That was the standpoint I was coming from. In addition to that, the thought of police response when nothing being reported is even illegal (i.e. OC) tends to rattle my nerves (not saying you support a response when nothing illegal is happening) and that's why I chimed in. But there were no ill intentions directed towards you in a personal sense.

 

[Mo]

It is trolling because more often than not, those engaging in the debate rarely understand the concept or sovereignty and how that can only be negated through gross negligence.

Nonsense. I've been on this site for almost 2 years educating myself and getting information. I also belong to other sites related to the liberty movement and I understand plenty and people that actually know me would feel differently about me than you. Thank you. And on another note, I find it interesting that I commended you last week for keeping your cool and composure at Red Lobster last week and this week you refer to me as a troll. Food for thought.

 

[VW_Factor]

I am sure that at least some people here might realize that..

A LEO can respond to a dispatch call by doing the following..

Going to the scene to take a report.

Calling the scene to take a report.

Calling the complainer to take a report.

Driving by the scene and observing, without making contact.

Duty to respond to the call, sure.. Doesn't mean he MUST come into and make personal contact with anyone.

Has no one here ever called the police for anything? (Hit and run perhaps?)

 

[LMTD]

Nonsense. I've been on this site for almost 2 years educating myself and getting information. I also belong to other sites related to the liberty movement and I understand plenty and people that actually know me would feel differently about me than you. Thank you. And on another note, I find it interesting that I commended you last week for keeping your cool and composure at Red Lobster last week and this week you refer to me as a troll. Food for thought.

I believe if you re-read my post the very first statement says "depends on view" and I am king of a stickler, I never refereed to you as anything.

You are a free person, I have no control over how you may *feel* but since you have been around a while, there should be no question in your mind that I do not bother with warm and fuzzy.

The entire argument is semantics, there is an obligation, it just carry's no civil liabilities with it.

 

[moneymaker]

police dont wanna respond as they think you OC boys are fools anyways