Cops have no constitutional duty to protect you

[Dutch Uncle]

again, you are making spurious and baseless accusations based on nothing more than your own idiotic hatred and fear

So, if under oath, you'll deny you ever posted shit like this?:

as I've stated in the past, mcveigh had great intentions, just really piss poor choice of target

What target would you have chosen for a truck bomb?

something more aligned with JUST FBI or ATF agents..........not a building that also housed a bunch of kids

Name one. You, of most people here, should recognize that bombs are indiscriminate. You set one off and there's no guarantee that only the targeted will die.

Why do you want to kill government employees at all? You used to be one.

1. collateral damage is the cost of war...........it's inevitable.
2. I never roasted 86 men, women, and children trapped in a compound, nor did I kill a 14 year old boy and his dog over stupid and unconstitutional gun laws..........

Or are you now immune from prosecution as a Federal informant?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

So, if under oath, you'll deny you ever posted shit like this?:

Or are you now immune from prosecution as a Federal informant?

again, I need to point out your serious lack of comprehension skills............not one of those statements indicates a plot to overthrow any government. unless you're purporting that it's treason to speculate on things?

 

[goat]

so you choose to use your retirement years being a troll on message boards.........damn. I'd rather be fishing

Butch is a perfect example of what's wrong with our criminal justice system. The low IQ and low EQ spend their career as parasites sucking on the taxpayer teat.

 

[martin]

The thread premise is dumb. Cops have no duties under the Constitution. Their duties arise under the terms of their employment as cops.

 

[Walt]

The train came and hit the cop car parked on the tracks with a detainee handcuffed inside. The fact that she survived makes it attempted murder. All of us need to follow this lawsuit. It proves that cops have a different agenda than to protect and serve.

Parking a car on train tracks is extremely stupid, but I am getting the feeling that this cop is just extremely stupid. That is his defense to criminal charges, but not civil liability. I am guessing it is not attempted murder, because that would require the understanding that a train would come along and hit the car.

Either way, the legal question is not whether the police officer was required to try to help the woman. He put the woman in the position, which is an action. It was not inaction.

Another case where the right not to protect was misapplied was the Tamir Rice shooting. Rice was a 12 year old boy playing with a toy gun. Police Officer Timothy Loehmann drove up to Rice, got out of his car, and shot Rice in the back without any warning. The police then found out they had shot an unarmed child, but rather than rendering life saving assistance, they made false reports of a gunman in the area. The child bleed out while their lies prevented assistance from coming.

When someone accidentally shoots another, to prove it is an accident, they must attempt to mitigate the injury. The police instead made false reports. The right wing prosecutor decided to ignore and misinterpret the law. He claimed that because the reports were informal, they were not false reports, there is no legal distinction. He also claimed that police are allowed to ignore their victims, when the law is they are allowed to ignore other people's victims. Even if you accept the shooting was an accident, preventing first aid was then the murder.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

again, I need to point out your serious lack of comprehension skills............not one of those statements indicates a plot to overthrow any government. unless you're purporting that it's treason to speculate on things?

Then why worry about it? Don't you support Free Speech? I'm speaking freely. If you don't like it, put me on ignore...and stop posting bullshit like this:

when that government exempts itself from the same laws and restrictions that we have to abide by, or they get special treatment because of their positions, they are no longer 'we are the government'

That is an idea you need to divorce yourself from or you will not survive

View attachment 18387

that process is broken and has been for decades

if you can't, or won't, differentiate between combatants and collateral.................then stand back and enjoy the freedom the rest of us will give you when we're done.

Smells like violence to me. LOL

"Proud Boys, stand back and stand by!"

 

[Walt]

the courts have specifically said that persons in custody are entitled to protection.......yet we have an extremely serious lapse in judgement by placing a handcuffed person in a locked vehicle on train tracks. depraved indifference could be argued here.

It is not even about protection. Have you ever seen the Dudley Do-Right Cartoons? Dudley is a Canadian Mounty, whose beloved, Nell Fenwick, is tied to train tracks by the evil Snidely Whiplash in every episode. It is Whiplash's preferred method of murder. Whiplash has no duty to protect Fenwick, but does have a legal requirement that he not actively tie her to a train track with an oncoming train.

The police officer in this real case effectively tied the woman to a train track with an oncoming train. That would be attempted murder, if he had realized what he was doing. Instead, it is just unbelievable stupidity, and civilly liable.

Imagine there had been no one in the car. There would have still been a lot of damage, and a high risk of people being hurt. The police officer could not have claimed he had no legal obligation not to park on the train tracks... BECAUSE HE DEFINITELY HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION NOT TO PARK ON THE TRAIN TRACKS.

 

[goat]

Parking a car on train tracks is extremely stupid, but I am getting the feeling that this cop is just extremely stupid. That is his defense to criminal charges, but not civil liability. I am guessing it is not attempted murder, because that would require the understanding that a train would come along and hit the car.

Either way, the legal question is not whether the police officer was required to try to help the woman. He put the woman in the position, which is an action. It was not inaction.

Another case where the right not to protect was misapplied was the Tamir Rice shooting. Rice was a 12 year old boy playing with a toy gun. Police Officer Timothy Loehmann drove up to Rice, got out of his car, and shot Rice in the back without any warning. The police then found out they had shot an unarmed child, but rather than rendering life saving assistance, they made false reports of a gunman in the area. The child bleed out while their lies prevented assistance from coming.

When someone accidentally shoots another, to prove it is an accident, they must attempt to mitigate the injury. The police instead made false reports. The right wing prosecutor decided to ignore and misinterpret the law. He claimed that because the reports were informal, they were not false reports, there is no legal distinction. He also claimed that police are allowed to ignore their victims, when the law is they are allowed to ignore other people's victims. Even if you accept the shooting was an accident, preventing first aid was then the murder.

You're still missing the point. Cops are trained to be an occupying force with a criminal disregard for the safety of the people. This was a high-desert nix on the Wyoming border.

You dems will never get what's happening to our country. Keep pretending that Biden is any different than Trump.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It is not even about protection. Have you ever seen the Dudley Do-Right Cartoons? Dudley is a Canadian Mounty, whose beloved, Nell Fenwick, is tied to train tracks by the evil Snidely Whiplash in every episode. It is Whiplash's preferred method of murder. Whiplash has no duty to protect Fenwick, but does have a legal requirement that he not actively tie her to a train track with an oncoming train.

The police officer in this real case effectively tied the woman to a train track with an oncoming train. That would be attempted murder, if he had realized what he was doing. Instead, it is just unbelievable stupidity, and civilly liable.

Imagine there had been no one in the car. There would have still been a lot of damage, and a high risk of people being hurt. The police officer could not have claimed he had no legal obligation not to park on the train tracks... BECAUSE HE DEFINITELY HAS A LEGAL OBLIGATION NOT TO PARK ON THE TRAIN TRACKS.

Agreed on the stupidity. I'd add negligence too.

FYI: don't expect the WSE terrorist supporters nor the mentally deranged to agree with rational thought.

 

[Walt]

You're still missing the point. Cops are trained to be an occupying force with a criminal disregard for the safety of the people. This was a high-desert nix on the Wyoming border.

Even a occupying force is not supposed to park on train tracks. That is just common sense. Trains are not able to swerve out of the way.

You dems will never get what's happening to our country. Keep pretending that Biden is any different than Trump.

If you believe trump is like Biden, you are truly lost.

 

[goat]

Even a occupying force is not supposed to park on train tracks. That is just common sense. Trains are not able to swerve out of the way.



If you believe trump is like Biden, you are truly lost.

We've come a long way together, Walt. Once you understand what I'm saying, you run away. Cops have the lowest IQ and EQ of the populous. I can post all the stats, then you will show me some government propaganda. amirite

 

[Walt]

We've come a long way together, Walt. Once you understand what I'm saying, you run away. Cops have the lowest IQ and EQ of the populous. I can post all the stats, then you will show me some government propaganda. amirite

We should be raising the educational requirements, and if needed the pay of the police. Instead, often, the police are recruiting the most brutal people they can find. It is a disgrace.

I do have to say parking on train tracks is more stupidity than brutality. Very easily, the police officer could have been in the car, or hit by the car when it was hit by the train.

 

[goat]

We should be raising the educational requirements, and if needed the pay of the police. Instead, often, the police are recruiting the most brutal people they can find. It is a disgrace.

I do have to say parking on train tracks is more stupidity than brutality. Very easily, the police officer could have been in the car, or hit by the car when it was hit by the train.

Can we agree that parking on the tracks is a criminal form of stupidity?

 

[Walt]

Can we agree that parking on the tracks is a criminal form of stupidity?

At the very least, it is a parking violation. Sorry, yes, it is a criminal violation, and a very stupid act. I just do not think it translates into attempted murder. It might, but probably not.

 

[goat]

At the very least, it is a parking violation. Sorry, yes, it is a criminal violation, and a very stupid act. I just do not think it translates into attempted murder. It might, but probably not.

Once people are told it's us or them, only the psychotic apply. You don't understand flyover country. These cops will be run out of town once it becomes clear how much their criminal act will cost the state.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

At the very least, it is a parking violation. Sorry, yes, it is a criminal violation, and a very stupid act. I just do not think it translates into attempted murder. It might, but probably not.

Agreed. There was no intent. IMO, it's criminally negligent.

It's also negligent destruction of city property. The driver is responsible for the car.

 

[Into the Night]

All they care about are protecting themselves.

That's why none of them confronted the Uvalde shooter.

It sure seemed like they were doing more to help the shooter than stop him.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

It's not about the Constitution, dumbass. City police are commissioned by the city government to protect the citizens of that city. It is their job.

 

[Into the Night]

A lot of people imagine they could be a courageous hero.

Imagination and bluster are easy.

Just like a lot of "Second Amendment solutions" blowhards stayed home with their bang-bangs on Jan 6 rather than answer Trump's alarmist call that the republic was in grave danger.

In real time, in the fog of uncertainty, and not knowing any Intel about how many shooters were in the school building, I have serious doubts that any of the "good guys with guns" who post on this board would have
actually courageously rushed into the Uvalde school.

Your call for civil war is already noted.

 

[Into the Night]

The right wing packed SCOTUS just decided no one will protect citizens in this nation


I guess they want the people to defund the police


Why would people vote money for a police force who will refuse to protect the tax payers?


What does the SCOTUS say is the job of the police?


Just arresting people after they kill a whole school full of kids


I guess the SCOTUS doesn’t believe in the good guy with a gun bit even if you PAY that person to protect you

The SCOTUS SAYS that person can just stand there and watch you get murdered

SCOTUS has no say.

 

[Into the Night]

Once we put trump and his fellow Republican cohorts in prison



We need to invalidate a couple of justices and replace them

TDS. War mongering.