Cops have no constitutional duty to protect you

[LV426]

Sane, intelligent and educated people know that "an absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence".

So then why are you blaming mental illness, of which there is an absence of evidence in Vegas OR Uvalde?

I think it's because you can't conceive of someone committing a mass murder who isn't mentally ill, but committing the mass murder isn't an act of mental illness, nor was mental illness what prompted the mass murder and we know that because there are millions of mentally ill people who don't load up on weapons and ammo and go on a shooting spree.

So since it's not mental illness, it's gotta be something else...and I think that something else scares you because if it isn't mental illness, then it's the fuckin' guns.

 

[LV426]

The evidence of suicide is the gun in his mouth.

According to the cops.

So again, why are you trusting everything the cops tell you?

You know that cops lie, right?

You know that cops lie more than regular people do, right?

Cops also commit more crimes than regular people do, so why are you licking their boots?

You know nothing about this...you only know what the police have told you, and cops lie.

Why would the cops hide that?

They didn't hide that, quite the opposite; they told us that but we don't know if that's what really happened...we don't even know the motive of the shooter, so we can't even say that he committed suicide...all you have is the report from the cops.

And cops lie all the time to make themselves look better.

I bet he had tons of cop friends and they encouraged his gun addiction, probably even enabled it and that's why they're like "gee, if only we could figure out the motive..."

I'm sure they were more than willing to fill Paddock full of holes had Paddock not shot himself first.

You sure about that? The cops in Uvalde weren't willing to fill the shooter there full of holes...so why would the ones in Vegas?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So if someone with mental illness takes a car and plows people down killing 20...its not because of mental illness, Its the fucking car

Correct. That's good, old-fashioned gun-grabber logic. LOL

 

[LV426]

Most "mass shooters" are gang-bangers.

Nope.

Most mass shooters are white guys.

We're discussing the school/theater/concert mass shooters.

No we're talking about mass shooters, not where or what they shoot up.

You throw out cities, but no names or dates.

Well I thought someone as knowledgeable about this topic as you're pretending to be would instantly recognize all those cities as having horrific mass shootings where the shooter didn't kill himself.

Why are you so bent on concluding that Stephen Paddock was sane?

Why are you so bent on concluding that he's insane? Simple; that's the easiest and laziest explanation for why he did what he did.

It's the excuse that requires the least amount of critical thinking, and the least amount of effort on your part.

If the mass shooting can be explained away by mental illness, that lets the cops off the hook for not stopping it; that lets the gun manufacturers off the hook for supplying it; that lets gun retailers off the hook for enabling it.

So you stigmatize mentally ill people when 99.999999999999999% of them have never and will never pick up a gun for any reason.

 

[LV426]

And there it is. Took you long enough, dear. LOL

You want to label all mass shooters as mentally ill so you don't have to confront the institutional systems that enable and promote these attacks.

Basically, you're a fucking coward who is afraid of the truth.

 

[LV426]

Having more of the right people armed is. You are dead wrong.

"the right people"?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You want to label all mass shooters as mentally ill so you don't have to confront the institutional systems that enable and promote these attacks.

Basically, you're a fucking coward who is afraid of the truth.

you wouldn't know truth if it shot you in the ass

 

[LV426]

that was just 4 out of the two dozen I alone started. there are dozens more out there where I participated

OK, but I didn't join JPP until June 2018.

All the links you gave me predate my first post here.

did you ever ONCE state on here that you prefer cops over armed civilians?

Abso-fucking-lutely NOT.

I think all guns should be banned and that includes guns for cops.

I think the only people who should be allowed to operate a gun are those active duty in the military, in training or on a mission only.

 

[LV426]

So if someone with mental illness takes a car and plows people down killing 20

Which hasn't happened here.

And past attempts have been linked to terrorism, not mental illness.

It's sad that the only way you can participate in this debate is only if you do so hypothetically.

 

[Matt Dillon]

"the right people"?

Yes. Citizens prepared to protect themselves from criminals. Do you have a problem with that?

Let's be real: The police can never get there fast enough, even if they had the best intentions in the world. Which IMO, they probably don't.

 

[LV426]

Correct. That's good, old-fashioned gun-grabber logic. LOL

There has not been a single case in this country of someone taking a car and plowing into a crowd, killing 20 people that isn't linked to terrorism.

But there have been a dozen mass shootings just in the last week that have killed 20 people.

 

[LV426]

you wouldn't know truth if it shot you in the ass

I don't lie; it's not something I am capable of doing well.

All I do here is speak the truth.

I don't make shit up about myself.

I don't exaggerate my personal given circumstances to lend my waning argument credibility it doesn't have.

I source virtually ALL of my arguments with links and quotes.

I also don't believe things that cops or Conservatives tell me because both lie all the time.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Nope.

Most mass shooters are white guys....

Correct. Poor phrasing on my part as the graphic proves:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

https://www.livingfacts.org/-/media...o&w=500&hash=162C0206778EF0F26BBB54DEEDACDA65

 

[LV426]

Citizens prepared to protect themselves from criminals.

What does that mean? It's very vague and ambiguous.

Every gun that end up in the hands of a criminal first started out as a gun that was legally purchased.

The criminal got the gun either through a straw purchase, finding it laying about, or stealing it from someone's business, house, or car.

So you buy a gun to protect your business, home, and car from criminals armed with guns they stole from someone's business, house, or car.

You are trapped in a bloody, cynical, capitalist cycle that isn't making you safe, it's adding more risk to society because we can't trust you to be responsible with your weapons since so many aren't.

Over 200,000 guns are stolen every year from people just like you...and 15% of the time, y'all don't even tell anyone. So that means 30,000 guns every year just...disappear. To where? No one knows.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I don't lie; it's not something I am capable of doing well.

All I do here is speak the truth.

I don't make shit up about myself.

I don't exaggerate my personal given circumstances to lend my waning argument credibility it doesn't have.

I source virtually ALL of my arguments with links and quotes.

I also don't believe things that cops or Conservatives tell me because both lie all the time.

you sat here just today and tried to tell us that 'potential fraud' and 'potential FOR fraud' are the exact same thing while at the same time telling us 'words have meanings'...............that you can't see the idiocy in your moronic claims? or do you want to pull a clinton and ask 'it depends on what the meaning of FOR is?'

LV, you've been exposed as a bullshit artist. you ARE a liar, you don't speak truth. you do exaggerate. you have no credibility. you won't source things that contradict you....................you say that cops and conservatives lie all the time, so which are you? cop or conservative?

 

[Damocles]

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.

 

[Damocles]

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.

 

[LV426]

Let's be real: The police can never get there fast enough, even if they had the best intentions in the world. Which IMO, they probably don't.

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

 

[LV426]

you sat here just today and tried to tell us that 'potential fraud' and 'potential FOR fraud' are the exact same thing

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

Words mean things.

LV, you've been exposed as a bullshit artist. you ARE a liar, you don't speak truth. you do exaggerate. you have no credibility. you won't source things that contradict you....................you say that cops and conservatives lie all the time, so which are you? cop or conservative?

I haven't lied about anything.

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

Words mean what they mean, particularly the word "potential".

 

[LV426]

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.

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?