Cops have no constitutional duty to protect you

[LV426]

Seriously, if I refuse to fix some phone lines and used this as my reason "I am not constitutionally required to do that" (I'm not) I would still get fired, and so should these morons.

Right, but your job has nothing to do with enforcing laws in this country...laws that are derived from the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

So it's not the same thing as working on phone lines or managing a blog or whatever...it's enforcing local laws derived from the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

[Doc Dutch]

Seriously, if I refuse to fix some phone lines and used this as my reason "I am not constitutionally required to do that" (I'm not) I would still get fired, and so should these morons.

Notice that it's the gun-grabbing, cop-hating far left who are making a big deal about this.

The fact remains the police officers were duty-bound to stop a criminal act. They didn't. The investigation will reveal why, but the reasons have already been mentioned: crappy leadership and poor training.

[Matt Dillon]

Yeah, I don't think they have the best intentions either...I think they are looking out for themselves first and foremost.

Therefore it is your right and your duty to protect yourself and yours. True story. Do you have a problem with that?

Know what that requires? The best guns you can afford.

[SmarterthanYou]

Because they are the same thing...they are you undermining confidence in the election by implying that they're fraudulent.

Words mean things.

wrong. ask any english teacher, you lying sack of shit.

I haven't lied about anything.

see above

Saying "the potential for fraud" is the same thing as saying "potential fraud."

Words mean what they mean.

and you have no clue what words mean, obviously.

[Damocles]

OK, but the job of law enforcement is to enforce the law, so if there is no Constitutional duty to enforce the law, then what is the point of law enforcement?

I didn't say that enforcing the law wasn't their duty. Nobody has any constitutional requirement to actually do their job is my frickin' point. This is a silliness.

They were hired to do something, they chose not to, now they can be fired and lose their pensions along with other things if their employer (the folks in that city) want to do that. They should want to and they should take that action, IMHO.

This idea that you can be suddenly constitutionally required to do something is total nonsense, this is not the measure of whether or not we should hold the cops that didn't do their job accountable.

[LV426]

Notice that it's the gun-grabbing, cop-hating far left who are making a big deal about this.

The fact remains the police officers were duty-bound to stop a criminal act. They didn't. The investigation will reveal why, but the reasons have already been mentioned: crappy leadership and poor training.

You still think this was a collection of individual failures and not just one big, fat, fuckin' systemic failure...that lets the system off the hook, and the system is why those cops stood there and did nothing.

[Matt Dillon]

What neither of you are actually paying attention to is the fact that we have no constitutional requirement to do our jobs at all, but our employers have a right to fire us if we do not do them. If folks in that town hired these cops with the understanding that they would protect their children from this kind of nonsense and they simply did not do the job they were hired to do these people have the right to fire the idiots who didn't do the job they were hired to do.

Regardless of this "constitutional duty" to do something or not, if you are hired to do a job and simply reject doing it because you don't feel like it that day for any reason (including you were really scared) you can and should be fired even if you didn't have a "constitutional duty" to do your job.

I get that they are not constitutionally required to protect folks, but that doesn't change that it is part of their job description and that they failed at it entirely. These cops that ordered other cops not to go in and then detained one that was off duty so he would not deserve to lose their jobs and their pensions because they refused to do what they were hired to do.

Telecommunications workers are not paid primarily by taxpayer money to perform the service they do.

And you're right about all that.

[LV426]

Therefore it is your right and your duty to protect yourself and yours. True story. Do you have a problem with that?

Know what that requires? The best guns you can afford.

What's more likely to happen is you'll get drunk one day and forget to lock your guns up, and then someone will come along and steal some or all of them.

It happens at least 200,000 times every year, so it's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when".

[LV426]

wrong. ask any english teacher, you lying sack of shit..

And any English teacher will tell you that it's a distinction without difference.

Potential for fraud is the future tense of potential fraud.

[Damocles]

Right, but your job has nothing to do with enforcing laws in this country...laws that are derived from the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

So it's not the same thing as working on phone lines or managing a blog or whatever...it's enforcing local laws derived from the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

Nor do their rights. Just having a job doesn't make you "constitutionally required" to actually do the job. You can quit, you can sit down and cry, you can stop in the middle of the street, etc. and there is no constitutional punishment for what you did not do.

You can, however, be fired for not doing your job and so can these people.

You don't get to pretend that the constitution has some aspect of it that makes it so you can force some folks to do what you want. You do have a right to fire folks for not doing their job though.

[LV426]

and you have no clue what words mean, obviously.

No you don't because you're trying to make a distinction but it's without difference.

"Potential for fraud" means the same thing as "potential fraud" because "fraud" is the direct object YOU STUPID ILLITERATE FUCKING MORON.

[Damocles]

Telecommunications workers are not paid primarily by taxpayer money to perform the service they do.

And you're right about all that.

That would depend entirely on what group I work in. It doesn't matter if we are paid primarily by taxpayer money or anything, you have a right to quit. When Nixon resigned there was no special punishment for the resignation because nobody is "constitutionally required" to remain at their job and do what you want them to do.

This idea that the constitution has some provision in it that "requires" some folks to do what you want when you want them to is absurd, they can quit and they can be fired, this is constitutional.

The constitution has no positive rights that say the government can make you do any job, even if it is a public job. However the people in that town absolutely have a right to fire cops that did not do their job. You don't get special protection from doing your job just because the public pays you, you can be fired like anybody else.

[Doc Dutch]

You still think this was a collection of individual failures and not just one big, fat, fuckin' systemic failure...that lets the system off the hook, and the system is why those cops stood there and did nothing.

I'd love to respond, but don't want to upset you.

Why are you so obsessed with me?

Get a fucking life.

[LV426]

I didn't say that enforcing the law wasn't their duty.

Right, I did because it's not.

Nobody has any constitutional requirement to actually do their job is my frickin' point.

No, that's not true because there are constitutional requirements on elected officials and justices.

Remember when y'all were suing Obama like crazy in order to get him to "enforce" immigration law? Cuz I remember.

They were hired to do something, they chose not to, now they can be fired and lose their pensions along with other things if their employer (the folks in that city) want to do that.

I will make a prediction right now that exactly no one will be fired from their jobs over what happened in Uvalde.

Not the chief, not the cops, not the state officials...no one.

They're already circling their wagons and they only placed Arredondo on paid leave...so he gets a paid vacation for standing by as kids were slaughtered.

So again, what is the point of law enforcement?

[dukkha]

Right, but your job has nothing to do with enforcing laws in this country...laws that are derived from the 10th amendment to the Constitution.

So it's not the same thing as working on phone lines or managing a blog or whatever...it's enforcing local laws derived from the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

local laws are not "derived" from the 10th. Local laws come from state or city/county ordinances. It is the federal governent that is restricted to enumerated powers - the 10th is merely an affirmation that only these numerated powers apply to the feds. Any other powers are ascribed to the states or people respectively by default

the states and "the people" we are around before the federal government -and the 10th merely protects
( not "derives") those plenary powers from being glommed up/absorbed by the feds.

IOW's it's a limitation on federal powers -the Constitution doesn't grant/derive powers to the states
-they are already there