Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals - Page 5




 
--
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
 
October 13th, 2010  
Rob Henderson
 
 
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
Quote:
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.
The Webster definition for "protect" is "to keep safe from harm or injury." Do the police do that? Yes. They do. They may fail at it sometimes, but part of the reason for their existence is to protect (using the Webster definition) the citizens they work for.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike

"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?
They are supposed to. That doesn't mean they do. News organizations are supposed to be unbiased outside of their opinion segments, does that mean they are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
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.
It was a gross overgeneralization as I have a life outside of this forum and do not have time to go digging through Alabama's God-forsaken penal code to find the exact terminology for shooting and hitting another human being.

Can you prove me wrong? Can you show me a source where it says that it is NOT illegal to shoot someone?


... I didn't think so.
October 14th, 2010  
Chukpike
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Quote:
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.

The Webster definition for "protect" is "to keep safe from harm or injury." Do the police do that? Yes. They do. They may fail at it sometimes, but part of the reason for their existence is to protect (using the Webster definition) the citizens they work for.

So now you are arguing both sides?
You think that part time protection is good enough? What percentage of their time do the police spend protecting you? What percentage of the time do they spend protecting me?

So sometimes they protect and sometimes they don't? So when they don't who protects the individual?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
"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?
They are supposed to. That doesn't mean they do. News organizations are supposed to be unbiased outside of their opinion segments, does that mean they are?
"They are supposed to?" "That doesn't mean they do?"

Rob you once again argue both sides? So, once again when they don't who is responsible for an individuals protection?

I suggest we all just kick back and let Rob argue with himself until he solves all the problems in the universe! Probably been hitting the frat party circuit a little heavy.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Henderson
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
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.
It was a gross overgeneralization as I have a life outside of this forum and do not have time to go digging through Alabama's God-forsaken penal code to find the exact terminology for shooting and hitting another human being.

Can you prove me wrong? Can you show me a source where it says that it is NOT illegal to shoot someone?


... I didn't think so.

California Firearms Handbook page 27.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

"Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another
from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes."

Quote Rob Henderson: "... I didn't think so."

Rob at least you got the "didn't think" part right!

The real point of this topic is to make people aware they need to be prepared to protect themselves as has been shown, the police cannot do it 24/7/365. Even Rob seems to agree with that.
October 14th, 2010  
Rob Henderson
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
So now you are arguing both sides?
You think that part time protection is good enough? What percentage of their time do the police spend protecting you? What percentage of the time do they spend protecting me?
They protect to the best of their abilities. Their primary mission is not to protect every individual 100% of the time, so yes, part time protection is good enough. I am no arguing both sides. I am simply allowing room for error. Nobody is perfect. Even if you think they should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
So sometimes they protect and sometimes they don't? So when they don't who protects the individual?
They protect when they can. When they don't, the individual is responsible for protecting him/herself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
"They are supposed to?" "That doesn't mean they do?"

Rob you once again argue both sides? So, once again when they don't who is responsible for an individuals protection?
Once again, I'm not arguing both sides, I'm simply allowing room for human incompetency. Something you should be very familiar with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike
I suggest we all just kick back and let Rob argue with himself until he solves all the problems in the universe! Probably been hitting the frat party circuit a little heavy.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO FUNNY! WHERE DO YOU COME UP WITH YOUR MATERIAL!? HAHAHA! THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I'VE EVER HEARD THAT JOKE BEFORE!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Chukpike

California Firearms Handbook page 27.
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/Cfl2007.pdf

"Use of a Firearm or Other Deadly Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another
from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape, and robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes."

Quote Rob Henderson: "... I didn't think so."

Rob at least you got the "didn't think" part right!

The real point of this topic is to make people aware they need to be prepared to protect themselves as has been shown, the police cannot do it 24/7/365. Even Rob seems to agree with that.
Okay, fair enough. I overgeneralized. I admit that there ARE some circumstances in which the killing of another human being IS NOT illegal. I apologizing for overestimating your intelligence and assuming you could comprehend what I was inferring. I sometimes forget who I'm dealing with.

But yes, people DO need to be held somewhat responsible for their own protection. The police DO help, and they ARE a significant deterrent, but an even more significant deterrent is your own firearms.
--
Police Have No Duty To Protect Individuals
 


Similar Topics
Patch Collecting?
US Officer Spells Out Iraq Police Training Woes
Impact Of Police Being Sent To Iraq Felt On Street
Report Faults Training Of Afghan Police
Rioters pelt Sydney police with Molotov cocktails