Originally Posted by George

Usually, but there are areas in some major US cities that news reports say the Police tend to not show up in after calls, & you still can't sue them.

Wow, that's pretty sad.
Sounds like my experience living in 3rd world countries.

Originally Posted by MontyB

I am hoping what you said is an over simplification, I know in this part of the world if you call 111 (our 911 although 911 works here as well) with a "life in danger" type call and they do not arrive within a reasonable time (no one expects they will be teleported to your door but they can't stop for coffee and doughnuts on the way) they will find themselves in deep excrement.

I can see the headline; "Police stop for Tea While Family is Slain"

The police are in deep excrement. And the family is six feet deep.
Should allow them to rest in peace.

Originally Posted by MontyB

Now I realize that that this thread is more anti-gun control than about police protection (aka the police are not going to protect you therefore you need guns) but the reality is that the police are there to provide assistance in a timely manner or in other words some level of protection.

That is not the reality! They come after the fact, investigate and then very carefully, as not to infringe a criminals right to a fair trail, find and arrest a "possible suspect". Then after a lengthy trial, where we find the suspect may have been abused in an earlier incarnation, release him.

Can't even put them to death if they are found guilty, as a injection may cause them "cruel and unusual" pain. Like this case in California.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,6026964.story

Exhausted his appeals but not executed yet.

All he did was rape and beat a little girl to death. Then call the girls mother and taunt her about never seeing her daughter again. Of course the police were out searching and providing "assistance in a timely manner".

You realise that no matter how much orange paint you use you can't turn an apple into an orange?

All he did was rape and beat a little girl to death. Then call the girls mother and taunt her about never seeing her daughter again. Of course the police were out searching and providing "assistance in a timely manner".

Did he ring the police and tell them where he was during this event?

If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening, I am sorry your justice system is failing you but whether or not the guy is executed is irrelevant to the discussion.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I can see the headline; "Police stop for Tea While Family is Slain"

The police are in deep excrement. And the family is six feet deep.
Should allow them to rest in peace.

You do realise that the role of the individual to provide their own protection does not negate the role of the police to provide some protection right?

Originally Posted by MontyB

You do realise that the role of the individual to provide their own protection does not negate the role of the police to provide some protection right?

Game, set, and match. MontyB.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You realize that no matter how much orange paint you use you can't turn an apple into an orange?



Did he ring the police and tell them where he was during this event?

If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening, I am sorry your justice system is failing you but whether or not the guy is executed is irrelevant to the discussion.

Just as irrelevant as your comment: "Now I realize that this thread is more anti-gun control than about police protection". quote MontyB
Since the topic is: Police have no duty to Protect Individuals .

I am surprised Rob is not ranting about you staying on topic.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You do realize that the role of the individual to provide their own protection does not negate the role of the police to provide some protection right?

Of course it does not negate something the police are not required to provide!

Police forces are reactionary. They respond to calls for aid. So they do not protect.
Apparently in New Zealand officers may get their hand slapped if it is ever determined they "did not respond within a reasonable time". They do not get there hand slapped for not providing PROTECTION.

Like you said, "If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening,

For the record the taunting calls came after the girl was reported missing and while the police and others were searching. So per your statement my argument applies.

Sorry Robbie, but no game set or match.

Once again you are trying to sell this as two separate entities when it isn't both civilian and police roles are intertwined.

While no one should expect that the police are going to be everywhere I am prepared to bet that no one is going to buy the line that the police have no role to play in protecting the public.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Just as irrelevant as your comment: "Now I realize that this thread is more anti-gun control than about police protection". quote MontyB
Since the topic is: Police have no duty to Protect Individuals .

I am surprised Rob is not ranting about you staying on topic.

The phrase police protection is in his statement, therefore it is not off the topic.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Of course it does not negate something the police are not required to provide!

Police forces are reactionary. They respond to calls for aid. So they do not protect.
Apparently in New Zealand officers may get their hand slapped if it is ever determined they "did not respond within a reasonable time". They do not get there hand slapped for not providing PROTECTION.

Do you mean their? I'm sorry, but I find it difficult to believe someone who cannot even use the correct form of a word. Especially since you are a native English speaker.

Police forces respond to calls for aid (aka someone in need of PROTECTION).
Just because it is a reactionary protection does not mean it is NOT protection.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Like you said, "If he didn't your argument really does not apply as we all accept that the police are not everywhere at once and they can not for the most part predict a crime happening,

For the record the taunting calls came after the girl was reported missing and while the police and others were searching. So per your statement my argument applies.

Sorry Robbie, but no game set or match.

When the calls came does not matter. The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens. All they can do is attempt to stop the crime from getting worse.


Chukpike, policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city. Some of those laws include things like "It's illegal to shoot someone." If a policeman sees someone about to violate this law, or knows of a plot to violate this law, he or she is bound to stop that law from being broken. Now, when an individual stops a sort of harmful event from occurring upon another individual, the first individual just PROTECTED the second. Yes?

Originally Posted by MontyB

Once again you are trying to sell this as two separate entities when it isn't both civilian and police roles are intertwined.

While no one should expect that the police are going to be everywhere I am prepared to bet that no one is going to buy the line that the police have no role to play in protecting the public.

Yes thier interwtined. & your last sentence is exactly the point. The Police exist to protect the public, just not individuals.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Police forces respond to calls for aid (aka someone in need of PROTECTION).
Just because it is a reactionary protection does not mean it is NOT protection.

When the calls came does not matter. The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens. All they can do is attempt to stop the crime from getting worse.

If you believe that responding to calls for aid equals protection I am sorry for you.
For the sake of argument I will agree, as the original post states, that police supply some ancillary protection. But it is also clear that primary responsibility for personal safety lies with the individual.
Original post:
"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent." 1st post, this topic

"The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens." quote Rob Henderson

So you admit the police not being able to predict crimes, cannot protect individuals. Thanks Rob, we are in agreement.
While you may have been brainwashed since early childhood that the police would protect you, it should now be clear that is not likely.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Chukpike, policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city. Some of those laws include things like "It's illegal to shoot someone." If a policeman sees someone about to violate this law, or knows of a plot to violate this law, he or she is bound to stop that law from being broken. Now, when an individual stops a sort of harmful event from occurring upon another individual, the first individual just PROTECTED the second. Yes?

"policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city" quote Rob Henderson
Are they? Then in the original posting on this topic why are there so many examples of police failure to enforce restraining orders?

Knowing what a masterful student you are, it is easy to see how a Music major carries over to being a PHD in Law. Did you study under the Rehnquist or the present Roberts Supreme Court?
Please supply the penal code and source for the legal example you give:
"It's illegal to shoot someone." quote Rob Henderson

I really need to see a source for the above statement as it appears to be made up.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

If you believe that responding to calls for aid equals protection I am sorry for you.
For the sake of argument I will agree, as the original post states, that police supply some ancillary protection. But it is also clear that primary responsibility for personal safety lies with the individual.
Original post:
"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent." 1st post, this topic

"The fact of the matter is that the police cannot predict a crime before it happens." quote Rob Henderson

So you admit the police not being able to predict crimes, cannot protect individuals. Thanks Rob, we are in agreement.
While you may have been brainwashed since early childhood that the police would protect you, it should now be clear that is not likely.





"policemen are required to uphold the laws of a city" quote Rob Henderson
Are they? Then in the original posting on this topic why are there so many examples of police failure to enforce restraining orders?

Knowing what a masterful student you are, it is easy to see how a Music major carries over to being a PHD in Law. Did you study under the Rehnquist or the present Roberts Supreme Court?
Please supply the penal code and source for the legal example you give:
"It's illegal to shoot someone." quote Rob Henderson

I really need to see a source for the above statement as it appears to be made up.

Rob is mistaken. In most cases it is discharging a weapon that is the crime. The fact that someone you didn't like was in your line of fire is less a factor. Unless you actually hit them and then it becomes more a case of murder, manslaughter, malicious wounding, assault or attempts.

From Virginia State Code:
18.2-279 - Discharging firearms or missiles within or at building or dwelling house; penalty
18.2-280 - Willfully discharging firearms in public places
18.2-282 - Pointing, holding, or brandishing firearm, air or gas operated weapon or object similar in appearan...
18.2-286 - Shooting in or across road or in street
18.2-286.1 - Shooting from vehicles so as to endanger persons; penalty

This does not even begin to address mitigation for the act of shooting.