DUI Checkpoint caught on film

[joab]

joab: The fact police have no duty to protect individual citizens is very well documents. If you have trouble finding the cases then log onto lexis-nexus and search there. They can sit and watch a guy die, do nothing, and feel quite confident that they will face no repercusions.

No where have I asked for proof of the well documented opinion that cops have no duty to protect the individual.
I asked you to support your theory that a cop can show willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to a persons life.
You jumped on the bandwagon now stop dancing around the subject.
I have no intention of doing your research on lexis-nexis or anywhere else.

You keep claiming that the cops sat and watched the man be beaten to death.
Cassandasdaddy provided a link for you but it shows that the man died as the result of a sucker punch not a beat down, you have provided no link to prove your often stated belief that the police just sat as they witnessed the beating.

Give me a link to the court decision that exonerated any officer that had a chance to stop the murder but simply watched and ate popcorn.

Sure, if you do a search on "no affirmative duty." It might be illuminating

Nope nothing illuminating there. As I said the opinion that police have no duty to protect the individual is well documented.
Now do you know what significance my mantra has?

Perhaps you could show me where any cop at the scene tried to get a clear shot. No. Actualy hey presto you saved yourself some reaserch siteing a case that shows you exactly what I am talking about.

Actually I'm not the one that cited the case and the fact that neither of us can show any information just shows one thing. Neither of us has any actual knowledge of the event. The only difference is that I will admit that.

By your thinking every cop who responded to Columbine is liable for those deaths because of the fact they did nothing. They had no legal obligation to do so, and they didn't because it was deemed to great a risk to the officers.

No not exactly.
You made the statement that a cop could simply watch as someone was about to blow someones head off and not have to do anything.
My answer to the Columbine remark was simply to show that it was a nonsequitor remark as no cop watched as someone was about to get their head blown off.

You made a specific statement and I responded to that specific statement.
Instead of proving that specific statement you and your buddy are attempting to muddy the waters with peripherals
Unless either of you can show that any cop on the scene had a clear view of one of the murderers taking aim at one of the victims and had a chance to stop it but chose instead to eat popcorn then the comment is simple diversion

I have no intention of doing your research on this
I have better things to do than to look for something that did not happen

 

[dave_pro2a]

Quote: "Cassandasdaddy provided a link for you but it shows that the man died as the result of a sucker punch not a beat down"

Know what you speak of, before you open your mouth.

I watched it. He did not get hit once by a sucker punch, he was beat repeatedly -- it was a vicious assault that took place over time that was significantly longer than just an 'instant.'

But whatever... horse + water ≠ drinking

 

[joab]

Look pal you can say all you want but in the end the only verification of the incident has been supplied by Cassandrasdaddy and the link states that he was blind sided while trying to help someone up.
That is also the evidence that the court heard and convicted him on.
If you have information to the contrary why did you not offer your testimony at trial?

You are the one that does not get it.

And why is it that you wont supply the court ruling on that case that exonerating the officers for showing a willful and wanton disregard for the serious threat to his life.
Why wont you even link up to anyone charging the cops with that.

You back a false statement and now are trying to back peddle by diversion and it's getting boring.
Time to prove your point or admit that you can't

Until then I'm done with you.

 

[bogie]

Went back and looked at this again...

1) I hadn't noticed he was in St. Louis County... That explains a LOT of the police behavior right there... This ain't a bastion of "good cops." The St. Louis County police, following passing of CCW, went out and got a bunch of "no guns" signs made, and proceeded to pass them out to local business, telling them that they _had_ to put them up.

2) Why did he have the video running. Was he _looking_ for trouble? Knowing STL County cops, he coulda had a lot more trouble...

 

[Lupinus]

No not exactly.
You made the statement that a cop could simply watch as someone was about to blow someones head off and not have to do anything.
My answer to the Columbine remark was simply to show that it was a nonsequitor remark as no cop watched as someone was about to get their head blown off.

Ok so they stood outside of a building where people were getting shot. Thats not much of a difference.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Let me share with you guys two experiences I have had recently to show there are both bad cops and good ones:

1. This last semester I was out late one night (around 4:00am) studying with a friend at an all night coffee shop/copy center across the street from the (UF) University. On the way home I noticed my gas gauge was low and, rather than having to stop for gas later that day on the way to class, I decided to get gas then. With gas prices the way they are I decided to drive across town to a cheaper gas station. I decide to save time by cutting through "the hood." In doing so, I inadvertently drove the wrong way down a one way street and was pulled over.

The officer asked for my ID and vehicle reg. I gave him ID and I informed then told him I had a gun in the glove box since that is where my vehicle registration was and that I didn't want him to see me reaching into the glove box where the gun was. I then told him I have a CWP permit. The officer asked me if I had any other weapons, I told him yes I had a .38spl in my pants pocket. Then I was asked to get out of the car. This is where things started to go down hill. The cop asked me to put my hands in the air. I did. He then asked me to walk forward to his car. As I did I dropped my hands and he yelled at me saying that he didn't say to drop my hands. I told him that he didn't say to keep my hands up either and that I was just reacting naturally, that I am not in the habit of walking around with my hands up. He then reached into my pocket to retrieve the .38 saying that "I almost got his nine up against my head" (paraphrased). Then he asked me where I was going and why I was in this neighborhood at 4am. I tried to explain to him but he basically called me a liar saying that he was been doing this job for x (I forgot the exact number) number of years and “knew what was up.”.

To try to prove to him I am no criminal and have nothing to hide, I gave him permission to search my vehicle. During the search he found a used insulin needle (my best friend is diabetic) and asked me if I was diabetic. I told him that my best friend (who I was studying with and he could call if he wished) was. He then questioned why I would have his needle in the car. "Well, I do drive sometimes when we go out to eat and he needs incline." His didn't believe me saying something to the effect of "and he just up in the car." I responded, "YES, as opposed to pulling out a needle and doing it in front of everyone in the restaurant." I then told the office to get a drug kit and test the needle to see all it has in it is (left over) insulin. This ended that part of the situation and around this time four other cop cars arrived and things actually go better. They continued to search my vehicle and then when they were done I was given a ticket for going the wrong way. Then the cop told me my guns was in the glove box and to wait till I got home to load them (yeah right). I opened the glove box and was tossing in the ticket and my information (vehicle reg. and proof on insurance) when my door was yanked open by Supercop, who had his hand on his gun, saying that he had hold me to leave the guns alone and I was about to "get his gun up side my head" (he must like putting guns to people heads). I told him to calm down, I was just putting my stuff away. This made him angrier and he responded "don't ask me to calm down" saying I was about “to have a very bad day.” I closed the glove box, slammed the door and drove off. What an a**hole.

2. This happened just last night. I was driving through a neghvoring city to my home town when I noticed a cop car on my bumper. I thought sure I was speeding and didn’t see a speed limit sign nearby so I started to slow down. Then the lights came on and I pulled over. The officer came up asking me if I knew why I was being pulled over. I said I probably speeding. He said no, I had run a red light. I was shocked I hadn’t noticed a red light. He asked if I saw the light and I said no, I hadn’t been in this town in some time and hadn’t noticed a red light. He asked me where I was headed and where I was going. I said that I was coming from my parent’s home where I was staying for Christmas break, that I am a grad student from UF meeting another UF friend in a town to the north of the city I was in. He asked my ID and vehicle reg. I did the whole ‘gun in glove box with vehicle reg. and I have CWP’ thing. I handed him my gun and ID and he told me to let him know when I found vehicle reg. He walked back to his vehicle; I got vehicle reg and gave it to him. After a few minutes he came back and told me that he wasn’t giving a citation, which was around $200 and told me that the red light (which was actually a red turning arrow) was in fact relatively new. He then gave me back my gun and asked me to wait for him to leave before reloading it. Then he smiled, said “don’t shoot yourself’ (I wondered if he saw the DEA agent video as I had a Glock 40 with me at the time) and left. And this all happened in a city renowned by locals as being a heavily enforced speed trap city.

 

[joab]

Ok so they stood outside of a building where people were getting shot. Thats not much of a difference.

Nice back pedaling

Is there any evidence that the police violated procedure or showed willful and wanton disregard, have any been charged with that and have they been clear based on a ruling from the court that said that they were allowed to. Nope.

Can you give me a complete time lined tactical rundown of the events of Columbine as far as police response or do you just think that they did something wrong because they did not react as you thought they should.
If that is indeed the case what is your tactical background

Cop bashing can be fun but when it is not backed up with real evidence it's just boring

Let me know when you are willing to actually address the issue that you brought up.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

don't hold breath

while waiting .those facts can be a pesky thing so inhibiting to some folks imaginations


its called the "it coulda happened that way" syndrome first exposed and openly codified by charlene drew jarvis daughter of doctor charles drew inventor of the process that gets us blood plasma. now wait for the responses to his name

 

[Lupinus]

Nice back pedaling

Its not backpeddeling. You said they weren't the same, they are. Cop watchs someone gets head blown off, cop waits outside knowing someone is getting their head blown off doing nothing. Same thing.

 

[joab]

Its not backpeddeling. You said they weren't the same, they are.

Not even hardly

Cop watchs someone gets head blown off, cop waits outside knowing someone is getting their head blown off doing nothing. Same thing.

I guess you have some first hand knowledge of the event that I don't. Care to elaborate.

And you did not say that a cop can watch someone get their head blown off, you siad that they could watch someone about to blow someones head off and do nothing but eat popcorn.
Again not the same thing

But since you also refuse the many request for documentation I'll have to end this conversation until you are prepared to do so

 

[The Lone Haranguer]

What would be wrong with handing over your driver's license, registration and proof of insurance and saying something like, "These are my documents as required by law. I have nothing else to say and will not answer any questions." Perhaps for emphasis you could add "Under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."

 

[Lupinus]

Har-
Because you shouldn't be getting stopped for no reason and having to hand over your papers in the first place.

 

[Deanimator]

Now show me one of these so called clear rulings that states that police can show willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to a persons life, or admit that you can't

Do you not read English?

Absent a "special relatiionship" with police, there is NO INDIVIDUAL DUTY TO PROTECT, ***PERIOD***.

You are as likely to have a "special relationship" with the police as I am to have one with Halle Berry.

 

[bogie]

Is there any evidence that the police violated procedure (at columbine)

If the procedure sucks, but it remains, something is wrong.

Most "ordinary citizens" expect that the cops will come running in the event of a Bad Thing Happening. Unfortunately, it has become normal that "procedure" requires that the police cordon off the area and move in to do the paperwork after the fact.

If "procedure" is adhered to, then everything's okay, right?

All you nice Democratic Underground people - get a gun, practice with it, and carry it. Assume responsibility for your own safety. Why? There _are_ people out there who are out to get you, and they're not as "nice" as you.

Now to decide which of my Grateful Dead tie-dyes to wear when I go out with friends this afternoon...

 

[dave_pro2a]

http://www.jpfo.org/dial911anddie.htm

 

[joab]

Do you not read English?

Absent a "special relatiionship" with police, there is NO INDIVIDUAL DUTY TO PROTECT, ***PERIOD***.

You are as likely to have a "special relationship" with the police as I am to have one with Halle Berry.

__________________

Do you

I have already acknowledged that the court have ruled that the police have no duty to protect individuals, you can go back and check if you would like

Now if you are willing to address what I actually am talking about
Where has the court ruled that an officer can act with willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to someones life, as was alleged in the comment that started this thing?

Maybe you are smart enough to ask yourself why I keep repeating the phrase willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat ?

I see that Dave can't get it through his head that these two issues are not the same thing.
And nowhere in his link does it state that the police can or will ignore a serious threat and eat popcorn it only reiterates what has already been reiterated in the thread
Try again

Now why would someone keep repeating "willful and wanton disregard" I wonder

 

[dave_pro2a]

Blah blah blah.

"no affirmative duty"

Go buy Dial 911 and Die.

 

[joab]

Does not equal willful and wanton disregard.
Why can't you understand that?

Never mind, check your PM

Somebody let me know when he gets it

 

[Deanimator]

Now if you are willing to address what I actually am talking about
Where has the court ruled that an officer can act with willful and wanton disregard to a serious threat to someones life, as was alleged in the comment that started this thing?

If there's no legal duty to protect, and no legal penalty for failing to do so, the cop can do [or not do] as he pleases.

You need to show a LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT.

You of course CANNOT.

 

[dave_pro2a]

 

[Zak Smith]

There are tons of legal cites if one plugs "police duty to protect" into Google. Enjoy.

 

[michaelbane]

Comment on Zen21Tao's story

The cop in Zen21Tao's first scenario deserves to be sued into a cardboard box on a steam vent in the nearest red light district.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

presuming

that the story was actually as presented to us.... right?

 

[Zen21Tao]

The cop in Zen21Tao's first scenario deserves to be sued into a cardboard box on a steam vent in the nearest red light district.

Thanks for your understanding. The problem with the officer in the first story was that he is used to the people he encounters in that "seedy" area of town actually being up to no good. I completely understand that. However, when he came upon me he had already determined, even before pulling me over, that I HAD to be up to no good as well. Everything he did after pulling me over was just an attempt to prove to himself he was correct. I should stress that fact the other 4 officers that arrived on the scene gave me absolutely NO problems what so ever.

presuming
that the story was actually as presented to us.... right?

I assure you the story happened EXACTLY as I said. I have numerous LEO friends, have worked on the politcal campains of three promenant political LEOs and have a glowing letter of recommendation from one in my University academic file. I have said that there are both good and bad LEOs out there and that the bad ones overshadow the good ones. Just to be clear, MOST of my interactions with LEOs have been extremely positive but the few bad ones I have had have been quite memoriable.

 

[joab]

There are tons of legal cites if one plugs "police duty to protect" into Google. Enjoy.

Once again I have already agreed to that, hell I have brought it up many times here
And as I have also said it does not allow for willful and wanton disregard.

You need to show a LEGAL DUTY TO PROTECT.

No you don't

If you can prove willful and wanton disregard for a serious threat you will prevail in a civil suit against a police aganecy.
A cop sitting idly by as he watches some about to blow someones head off would be guilty of willful and wanton disregard for a serious threat against another person.
Will the cop be charged with that crime, no
As a citizen he should not be , but the agency that he works for can be successfully sued. Which is the only recourse any of us have for any profession
It's the equivilant of malpractice

If you read the remarks in the SCOTUS decision
One of the supremes stated that since they have a duty to everyone they have a duty to no one individulal.
It did not exempt them from performing the duty for which they are tasked and for which we are led to believe that they will perform.

In other word a cop can not just sit and eat popcorn as he witnesses a murder about to be committed without some repercussions

What did Officer Horka do which caused the lawsuit to be returned to the court system for additional proceedings? It is alleged that even after repeated pleadings by Jane Doe, Officer Horka declined to break down the door of the apartment stating that he did not want to be responsible for the property damage.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that police have no duty to respond to any particular person’s call for help, absent a special relationship such as a police informant who is promised protection. And in Colorado, she will have to prove that the dispatcher “willfully and wantonly” disregarded a serious threat to someone’s life.

"Willful and wanton conduct" as used in this Act means a course of action which shows an actual or deliberate intention to cause harm or which, if not intentional, shows an utter indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of others or their property.

He sued defendants for negligence, assault, and battery, and prayed for punitive damages based on willful and wanton conduct. Plaintiff also alleged defendants used excessive force in violation of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The jury returned verdicts for defendants on all claims.