stop exaggerating the war on cops

[Into the Night]

This is because the "militarization" exaggeration is not an apt comparison. If they were militarized they would have put holes through them, the military is not police (well they have police but I am certain even you can understand what I mean).

That might be a rash assumption, Damocles.

 

[Into the Night]

half a dozen court cases in the last 75 years have said that cops are not obligated to protect any individual, nor are they liable for failure to do so.

Courts don't say anything. Cops are there to protect the public. That means YOU, the individual, unless you break the law.

now that i've proven that rule, what do you say?

Attempted proof by false authority.

 

[Walt]

This is because the "militarization" exaggeration is not an apt comparison. If they were militarized they would have put holes through them, the military is not police (well they have police but I am certain even you can understand what I mean).

A machine gun kills everyone in an area, without caring if they are an immediate threat or not. That is great for the military, but not so much for the police. It is militarizing the police to react to mythical "armies of criminals." They just do not exist.

The military is required to take on police rolls. They do not want to, but our enemies are putting them into that situation. We cannot expect our enemies to work towards our advantage.

The military will run into civilians who are not yet our enemy, but are considering it. If the military treats them like an enemy, and just kills them, then they (and others like them) will become our enemy. The military is stuck policing them rather than just militarily attacking them.

 

[Walt]

half a dozen court cases in the last 75 years have said that cops are not obligated to protect any individual, nor are they liable for failure to do so.

It is not as clear as you claim. For instance, if someone is in police custody, they have a near absolute obligation to protect them. They usually have an administrative obligation to protect someone, so they can be fired for not doing their job.

That being said, you are right an amazing amount of the time.

 

[Walt]

Cops are there to protect the public.

That is their job. Not doing one's job is usually not a criminal matter, so they may have the legal right not to protect the public. Even then, they usually can be fired for not doing their job.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Courts don't say anything. Cops are there to protect the public. That means YOU, the individual, unless you break the law.

Attempted proof by false authority.

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It is not as clear as you claim. For instance, if someone is in police custody, they have a near absolute obligation to protect them. They usually have an administrative obligation to protect someone, so they can be fired for not doing their job.

That being said, you are right an amazing amount of the time.

correct, I did not quote any of the decisions, but barring a special relationship, i.e. in custody, police are not required to protect any individual.

thank you.

 

[Into the Night]

A machine gun kills everyone in an area,

No, it doesn't. Machine guns are notorious for spitting a lot of bullets, but they don't spit 'em straight. They use a lot of ammo too.
Fully automatic mode is used mostly to keep people's heads down while another advances.

without caring if they are an immediate threat or not.

They aren't. It makes no difference. It is legal to own a machine gun. YOU don't get to change that.

That is great for the military, but not so much for the police.

Nothing prevents the police from using machine guns.

It is militarizing the police to react to mythical "armies of criminals." They just do not exist.

The police are not the military, Wally. A type of gun does not make them the military either.

The military is required to take on police rolls.

They already do. It's called the Military Police, or 'MP'.

They do not want to, but our enemies are putting them into that situation. We cannot expect our enemies to work towards our advantage.

What 'enemies' are you talking about, Wally????

The military will run into civilians who are not yet our enemy, but are considering it.

US citizens are not the enemy of the United States, Wally.

If the military treats them like an enemy, and just kills them, then they (and others like them) will become our enemy.

US citizens are not the enemy of the United States, Wally. The military is massively outgunned by citizens.

The military is stuck policing them rather than just militarily attacking them.

The military is not the police, Wally. The police are the police.

 

[Into the Night]

That is their job. Not doing one's job is usually not a criminal matter, so they may have the legal right not to protect the public. Even then, they usually can be fired for not doing their job.

AND they can be prosecuted if they break the law.

Cops have a nasty job to do, and it's all about protecting the public. They even depend on the public to support them. They cannot do their job without that support.

 

[Into the Night]

wrong, wrong, and wrong.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

correct, I did not quote any of the decisions, but barring a special relationship, i.e. in custody, police are not required to protect any individual.

thank you.

The whole point of police is to protect the public. That includes YOU, the individual, unless you break the law.

 

[Damocles]

AND they can be prosecuted if they break the law.

Cops have a nasty job to do, and it's all about protecting the public. They even depend on the public to support them. They cannot do their job without that support.

Check out Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), you may then contemplate things, think real hard on why Castle Rock, CO actually sued to ensure that they would not have to protect people and reconsider what you are saying their supposed job is.

Next one you should read is specific to whether "protect" is a duty.. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), you will hear about this one mostly as a 2nd Amendment ruling, however: While primarily a Second Amendment case affirming an individual right to bear arms, the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, briefly references the lack of a police duty to protect as part of its reasoning.

No matter who you are, if cops ever read you rights your response should always be: "I do not recall, I want an attorney." They are not your friends, they will lie to you, they do not have to "serve and protect" and you should not treat them as if they are your friends or expect them to protect you if you want to remain free.

 

[Into the Night]

Check out Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), you may then contemplate things, think real hard on why Castle Rock, CO actually sued to ensure that they would not have to protect people and reconsider what you are saying their supposed job is.

Doesn't change a thing.

Next one you should read is specific to whether "protect" is a duty.

It is the reason a cop is hired.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), you will hear about this one mostly as a 2nd Amendment ruling, however: While primarily a Second Amendment case affirming an individual right to bear arms, the majority opinion, written by Justice Scalia, briefly references the lack of a police duty to protect as part of its reasoning.

Has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or the reasoning for it. The Supreme Court has no authority over the Constitution.

No matter who you are, if cops ever read you rights your response should always be: "I do not recall, I want an attorney." They are not your friends, they will lie to you, they do not have to "serve and protect" and you should not treat them as if they are your friends or expect them to protect you if you want to remain free.

Some will. Most don't. To consider all cops bad because a few are bad is just bigotry. They do not have be a friend to protect the public.

 

[Damocles]

Doesn't change a thing.

It is the reason a cop is hired.

Has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment or the reasoning for it. The Supreme Court has no authority over the Constitution.

Some will. Most don't. To consider all cops bad because a few are bad is just bigotry. They do not have be a friend to protect the public.

They do not have to protect the public at all. The SCOTUS has ruled on that repeatedly. Each time revealing that cops do not have to protect you.

Anyway, if any will your response should always be: "I do not recall." and " I need an attorney."

 

[Walt]

AND they can be prosecuted if they break the law.

That is where you and I disagree with the courts. The courts have decided, based on absolutely no law, that police have qualified immunity. It is not in the Constitution, nor have the legislators passed such a law. The Supreme Court just decided that the police might like it.

It says that even if the police commit a crime, as long as it is a new crime, they cannot be prosecuted for it. There is a catch-22 in there, that if it is a new crime, and the police never get prosecuted, then it will always be a new untested crime.

I can even understand the purpose of qualified immunity. Prosecuting police for a new understanding of a crime does seem harsh. But it is the legislators right to legislate, and they should be making this law, if they want to.

 

[Into the Night]

They do not have to protect the public at all. The SCOTUS has ruled on that repeatedly. Each time revealing that cops do not have to protect you.

Then why is a cop hired, Damo? What is the purpose of hiring them?

Anyway, if any will your response should always be: "I do not recall." and " I need an attorney."

That doesn't work for some slimeball that pulls a weapon on a cop, Damo.

 

[Neoclitorus]

The government did not create it.
It is not a government document.

I am not a libertarian.

its a government document.

 

[Into the Night]

That is where you and I disagree with the courts.

You don't get to speak for everyone, Wally. Omniscience fallacy.

Just recently, a Washington State Trooper was found to have broken the law. He was prosecuted, fired from the WSP, and is now in jail.

The courts have decided, based on absolutely no law, that police have qualified immunity.

They do have a certain immunity, but they are still subject to the same laws as any citizen.

It is not in the Constitution,

It is in many State constitutions.

nor have the legislators passed such a law.

Some legislators have done just that, Wally.

The Supreme Court just decided that the police might like it.

The Supreme Court has no authority or any Constitution, Wally.

It says that even if the police commit a crime, as long as it is a new crime, they cannot be prosecuted for it.

They certainly can, and they HAVE BEEN, Wally.

There is a catch-22 in there, that if it is a new crime, and the police never get prosecuted, then it will always be a new untested crime.

No requirement of 'new' or 'old' or 'untested', Wally. Stop making shit up.

I can even understand the purpose of qualified immunity.

So can I, but it doesn't protect them from the law.

Prosecuting police for a new understanding of a crime does seem harsh. But it is the legislators right to legislate, and they should be making this law, if they want to.

There is no 'old', 'new', or 'untested', Wally. Stop making shit up.

If a police officer breaks the law, they can be prosecuted for it...and it does happen.

 

[Into the Night]

its a government document.

A Constitution is not written by any government it creates, NoName. It is not a government document.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The whole point of police is to protect the public. That includes YOU, the individual, unless you break the law.

and the courts have said that isn't true. unfortunately, for you, the government is going to listen to the courts, not you.