No Duty To Protect....upheld once again. - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-26-2019, 03:43 PM   #1
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 968
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
No Duty To Protect....upheld once again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/u...ng-police.html

Wonder if the liberals will ever change their tune about guns and ones right to self protection knowing that the police dont have to help them if they don't want to for whatever reason, especially when it comes to schools. Doubt it.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2019, 04:20 PM   #2
Black///M
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 58
My Ride: 2004 M3 Coupe
On the contrary, that's what they are counting on... stranded civilians at the mercy of the state.
Black///M is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 12:00 AM   #3
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
The Dec. 12 ruling, by Judge Beth Bloom, came on the same day that a county judge, Patti Englander Henning, came to the opposite conclusion. Judge Henning found that Scot Peterson, the armed sheriff’s deputy who heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the attack, did have an obligation to confront Mr. Cruz.


Maybe that's the end game, to change the legal climate to say that govt agents DO have a duty to protect. Then they'd have cause to establish absolute dominion over us all.

If "duty" = "liable for not", then good luck getting that past the police unions, though.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 02:33 PM   #4
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 968
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post


Maybe that's the end game, to change the legal climate to say that govt agents DO have a duty to protect. Then they'd have cause to establish absolute dominion over us all.

If "duty" = "liable for not", then good luck getting that past the police unions, though.
I don't know how you can mandate a person to get into a firefight to possibly lose their life. Police, fire, etc are essentially a service. Now, if the servicemember fails to perform their duty, they can be fired, but should they be MANDATED to go into the line of fire? I think that's not something I want the government to do. There's a reason why we have the right to own guns (someplaces)....self protection is the responsibility of one person, yourself.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 02:34 PM   #5
Act of God
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In your gf's front hole
Posts: 356
My Ride: Longboard
Send a message via ICQ to Act of God Send a message via AIM to Act of God Send a message via Yahoo to Act of God
Where I grew up the police were a good 25 minutes away, if you were only relying on them for survival you chose unwisely.
__________________
“The left does not win its battles in debate. It doesn’t have to. In the twenty-first century, media is everything. The left wins because it controls the narrative. The narrative is controlled by the media. The left is the media. Narrative is everything,” - Andrew Breitbart
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 02:36 PM   #6
swordsman11868
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
My Ride: 2003 325i
Transmission: Autotragic
Maybe it’s just a case of the pendulum swinging the other way? Not that I agree with it.




Sent from my iPhone using E46Fanatics
__________________
I'm just here to change the world.
BMW Wiki: http://www.bimmerfest.com/wiki/index.php

2016 Beheadings in Saudi Arabia: 92.
swordsman11868 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 02:45 PM   #7
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I don't know how you can mandate a person to get into a firefight to possibly lose their life. Police, fire, etc are essentially a service. Now, if the servicemember fails to perform their duty, they can be fired, but should they be MANDATED to go into the line of fire? I think that's not something I want the government to do. There's a reason why we have the right to own guns (someplaces)....self protection is the responsibility of one person, yourself.
What about soldiers?
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 03:59 PM   #8
swordsman11868
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
My Ride: 2003 325i
Transmission: Autotragic
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
What about soldiers?


Soldiers are usually immune to prosecution as long as they are following lawful orders. They’re not responsible for their conduct.

That must be why police are called “officers” and feds are “agents”. They are responsible for their own conduct.
__________________
I'm just here to change the world.
BMW Wiki: http://www.bimmerfest.com/wiki/index.php

2016 Beheadings in Saudi Arabia: 92.
swordsman11868 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 04:01 PM   #9
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
But the government can definitely order a soldier to enter a firefight, even if the chances of death are alarmingly high.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 04:18 PM   #10
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 968
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
What about soldiers?
I believe they have their own military code, with things us civilians don't have, ie desertion, etc, because the soldiers rely on one another for protection in a way. Im certain there has been more than a few soldiers that during a heated firefight, they pissed themselves and couldn't bring themselves to get into it. Do I fault them for it? Not really. Should they be punished, still, IMHO, not really. Should they be discharged? Absolutely.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 04:20 PM   #11
NFRs2000nyc
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: NYC/NJ
Posts: 968
My Ride: S2000+Wrangler
Quote:
Originally Posted by VaderDave View Post
But the government can definitely order a soldier to enter a firefight, even if the chances of death are alarmingly high.
Not a US military expert here, but what happens if you disobey said order which has a high probability of getting you killed? Dereliction of duty? For the most part, it's not even something you can train for.
__________________
NFRs2000nyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 04:31 PM   #12
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I believe they have their own military code, with things us civilians don't have, ie desertion, etc, because the soldiers rely on one another for protection in a way. Im certain there has been more than a few soldiers that during a heated firefight, they pissed themselves and couldn't bring themselves to get into it. Do I fault them for it? Not really. Should they be punished, still, IMHO, not really. Should they be discharged? Absolutely.
Refusing to obey a direct and lawful order is punishable under the USCMJ. I think the theory there is that a soldier that refuses to engage in combat not only affects himself, but also affects the safety of the entire squad in combat. So it's not just a matter of "he failed to kill the enemy when ordered to"--it includes "he failed to kill the enemy and as a result two more of his comrades were killed than we expect would have been." So not only would discharge be appropriate, but also some sort of affirmative punishment, depending on circumstances, I guess.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 05:06 PM   #13
swordsman11868
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
My Ride: 2003 325i
Transmission: Autotragic
Were you asking about liability when on foreign soil for soldiers?

Countries have tried to prosecute US soldiers many times. Usually there’s a SoF agreement that shields them. When I was in Iraq even us civilians were covered under it in case we had to use deadly force.


Sent from my iPhone using E46Fanatics
__________________
I'm just here to change the world.
BMW Wiki: http://www.bimmerfest.com/wiki/index.php

2016 Beheadings in Saudi Arabia: 92.
swordsman11868 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 05:18 PM   #14
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by swordsman11868 View Post
Were you asking about liability when on foreign soil for soldiers?

Countries have tried to prosecute US soldiers many times. Usually there’s a SoF agreement that shields them. When I was in Iraq even us civilians were covered under it in case we had to use deadly force.


Sent from my iPhone using E46Fanatics
I wasn't. I was just commenting on the idea that soldiers are required to obey lawful orders, even if those orders involve a high probability of death or other physical harm.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 05:22 PM   #15
swordsman11868
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
My Ride: 2003 325i
Transmission: Autotragic
I think this thread topic points to the liability that Police incur every time they use force.

And in this political/judicial climate many officers choose not to use it. Cops don’t have a SoFA to shield them from prosecution like soldiers.





Sent from my iPhone using E46Fanatics
__________________
I'm just here to change the world.
BMW Wiki: http://www.bimmerfest.com/wiki/index.php

2016 Beheadings in Saudi Arabia: 92.
swordsman11868 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 05:22 PM   #16
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 991
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc View Post
I don't know how you can mandate a person to get into a firefight to possibly lose their life. Police, fire, etc are essentially a service. Now, if the servicemember fails to perform their duty, they can be fired, but should they be MANDATED to go into the line of fire? I think that's not something I want the government to do. There's a reason why we have the right to own guns (someplaces)....self protection is the responsibility of one person, yourself.
Generally speaking we can't really "mandate" anything, we can only hold someone responsible (usually after the fact) for refusing to do what we expect of them. In wartime military, the punishment can be extremely harsh. We have to be very careful that we don't set expectations too high or too low for jobs like cop or firefighter or soldier. We obviously need them to do some sketchy stuff, but we also have to remember that we're trying to recruit and retain human beings to do these jobs.

FWIW, I volunteer once a week at a big, juicy, soft target. The local PD uses our facility for active shooter training in part because its a target, and also our hours make access manageable for them. It just so happened I attended my mandatory annual active shooter training 11 days before the FL shooting. I distinctly remember one of the very first things that was discussed was what to expect from the police response. Our head security dude said in no uncertain terms that LEO would NOT enter the building until they A) had enough resources on scene to enter in force while still maintaining "control" over the exits and B) they had a decent sense of wtf was going on (# of shooters, general location, explosives/armament). So when this FL shooting went down and everyone was griping about the cop staying outside, I was thinking "of course, that's what he's supposed to do".
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Quote:
We will not tolerate intolerance.
----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 05:51 PM   #17
swordsman11868
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
My Ride: 2003 325i
Transmission: Autotragic
The hard part comes down to “threats” of violence.

What do we do if they say they’re going to blow the place up? Or they say have a gun? Or they have a toy gun?

Those are tough days.


Sent from my iPhone using E46Fanatics
__________________
I'm just here to change the world.
BMW Wiki: http://www.bimmerfest.com/wiki/index.php

2016 Beheadings in Saudi Arabia: 92.
swordsman11868 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 06:24 PM   #18
Stankia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Anywhere in an hour
Posts: 63
My Ride: Germans
If cops have no duty to protect, then why the hell do we even have them?
__________________
Stankia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 06:52 PM   #19
swordsman11868
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 1,790
My Ride: 2003 325i
Transmission: Autotragic
No Duty To Protect....upheld once again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stankia View Post
If cops have no duty to protect, then why the hell do we even have them?


On a day to day basis, IMO*, it’s to protect businesses against looting.

Then there’s enforcement of court rulings/judgements.

Lastly they ensure public order and safety. If they feel like it. (Remember the Rodney King riots?).

*Disclaimer: this is in no way an expert legal opinion but it is equivalent to Journalism.
__________________
I'm just here to change the world.
BMW Wiki: http://www.bimmerfest.com/wiki/index.php

2016 Beheadings in Saudi Arabia: 92.

Last edited by swordsman11868; 04-27-2019 at 06:54 PM.
swordsman11868 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2019, 11:02 PM   #20
VaderDave
Invictus
 
VaderDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: El Dorado Hills, CA
Posts: 12,055
My Ride: 330CiC ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by swordsman11868 View Post
I think this thread topic points to the liability that Police incur every time they use force.

And in this political/judicial climate many officers choose not to use it. Cops don’t have a SoFA to shield them from prosecution like soldiers.





Sent from my iPhone using E46Fanatics
Yup. My comment about soldiers was simply in response to NFR's comment about government not having the ability to command people to put themselves in harm's way. The military is a little off-topic, but still germane to his comment.

Anyway: movin' on.
VaderDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
call of duty xbox live question DylloS General Off-Topic 3 11-16-2008 01:08 PM
what is on my rim and how can i get it off? mike330cizhp Car Care & Detailing 5 07-22-2008 11:38 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.