|
31 Jul 13 - 09:19 PM (#3544140) Subject: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Songwronger Some police departments around the U.S. use "To Protect and Serve" as a motto. The video at the link below addresses how that's practiced in New York City: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xZKVSNjlSp0 A fairly long video at 13+ minutes, but well worth watching. For those of you who can't watch, it starts with an interviewer asking some subway riders in NYC if they trust the police to help them, if they think the police will be there when they need them, and if they think the police protect and serve. All the respondents say they trust the cops. Then the interviewer introduces Joe, a man who was attacked on the subway. His story is astounding. Two cops, 3 feet away behind a metal door with a window in it, watched as a serial killer attacked him with a butcher knife. Cries for help, etc, and the cops didn't come out from behind their protective door until the victim had disarmed the killer. Then the cops nearly let the victim bleed to death, and then they took credit for capturing the killer. Joe is now suing, and the NYPD's defense is that they're not obligated to protect people. Amazing. |
|
31 Jul 13 - 09:38 PM (#3544144) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: michaelr And two Detroit police sergeants were arrested for pistolwhipping and robbing a man at gunpoint. Sweet. |
|
31 Jul 13 - 11:42 PM (#3544170) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Rapparee ...[the Court ruled that the police owe] no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual...and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.... However, in a split decision a three judge division of this court determined that appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings.... After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal. --Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181), decided December 21, 1981. I fail to see your point. The police do NOT owe you individual attention unless you are the suspected person. Read the above decision, which still stands across the US. |
|
01 Aug 13 - 12:27 AM (#3544173) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Songwronger But the people in the video all believe that they are being protected by the police. As the victim indicates at the end of the video, if the job of the police is not to protect and serve, then that needs to be addressed. |
|
01 Aug 13 - 02:35 AM (#3544186) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: mg The bad guy should have been shot dead...but the police know what will happen if they do... |
|
01 Aug 13 - 03:59 AM (#3544201) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Suzy Sock Puppet Don't forget this http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales Restraining orders not worth the paper they're written on... |
|
01 Aug 13 - 06:09 AM (#3544228) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: gnu Disgusting. |
|
01 Aug 13 - 10:29 AM (#3544299) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Rapparee The police exist to serve and protect society (or the State), not a particular individual. This is a point often made by those who argue in favor of such things as "concealed carry" and against any rational control of firearms. Query: Why doesn't any want to control weapons other than firearms? Machetes, say, or police batons. Both are easily available in stores and over the Web and both can cause considerable -- and quick -- destruction to others when used correctly. |
|
01 Aug 13 - 12:00 PM (#3544330) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Suzy Sock Puppet Depending on which news source you check out, the police look better or worse in the above mentioned incident. However, it's a fact that the officers admitted that they stayed behind the metal door because they thought that Gelman had a gun, so obviously, Lozito's version is closer to the truth. Anyway you look at it, the police officers failed to act out of fear for their personal safety. In other words, they were too scared to do their jobs. But wait! That's okay because the Supreme Court has already reinterpreted the constitutionality (???) of what has traditionally been considered a police officer's duty; they have redefined a police officer's professional obligation to the public. They don't really have one. That's curious as, generally speaking, an employer can override someone's Constitutional rights via terms of employment. In any case, the Supreme Court has decided that a police officer has no "special duty" to protect the public. So who do they work for? Is it us? Not hardly. They work for the state which is not synonymous with society, at least not anymore. Therefore, police can overreact, pull out and use their various weapons without just cause and maim or kill innocent unarmed persons, or conversely, not react at all. They currently operate with impunity. The police may fail to take the appropriate action out of sheer cowardice or insolence with no repercussions at all. |
|
01 Aug 13 - 12:47 PM (#3544337) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: number 6 Video of a Toronto police officer shooting (killing) an 18 year old 9 times and then they taser him. Obviously the teen (Sammy Yatim) was mentally unstable but he was armed only with a knife, no one was on the streetcar at the time of the shooting. Obviously this situation could, and should have been handled differently. Toronto Police shoot teen on streetcar biLL |
|
01 Aug 13 - 01:02 PM (#3544343) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: number 6 I forgot to add to the above post ... who were the police serving in this incident, and who were they protecting? biLL |
|
01 Aug 13 - 06:20 PM (#3544411) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Rapparee ... the Supreme Court has already reinterpreted the constitutionality (???) of what has traditionally been considered a police officer's duty; they have redefined a police officer's professional obligation to the public. They don't really have one. Citation, please. The case I cited above if from the DC Court of Appeals, not the Supremes. I would, really, like to know the Supremes decision -- I'm not being a wise ass. |
|
01 Aug 13 - 07:24 PM (#3544431) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Suzy Sock Puppet I couldn't get that link on my iphone so I looked up the shooting and found this: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=12t3u9sWhK4 The witness in the video seemed a little dismayed by the lack of assessment by police before rushing in to use lethal force. Obviously, this individual could have been tazed, disarmed and taken into custody without too much difficulty. There was really no need to open fire like that. But you have to understand, to them he was not quite human, they didn't value his life. He's was a problem. Problem solved. It's getting more like that in case you haven't noticed. Makes you worry about ever winding up in the wrong place at the wrong time. Mistaken identity could get you killed. Police now fear any kind of physical contact whatsoever. They consider it an imminent threat to their personal safety. It doesn't even have to be violent contact. They fear anyone who is not 100% obedient to their commands. There are no extenuating circumstances in this regard- no allowances made for mental illness, injury, intoxication or substance abuse, dementia, whatever- zero tolerance. The link below illustrates this point. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/11/348748.shtml To answer your question, they protect and serve the state. They're part of the state apparatus. They answer only to those higher up on the food chain, not to the public who foot their paychecks and pensions and most certainly not any member of any disenfranchised group. |
|
01 Aug 13 - 07:49 PM (#3544436) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: gnu Was Sammy laying on the bus floor when the "six shots" were fired? Can one see this in the video? |
|
01 Aug 13 - 07:58 PM (#3544439) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: gnu I have watched the video over twenty times. I have another question or two. Why was the video edited? Why are the police officers in a different spot when the video resumes? Why do they seem to have their weapons pointed in a different direction? Looks to me like they are firing "away from" the bus and not into the bus. Am I missing something here? |
|
02 Aug 13 - 12:02 AM (#3544497) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Don Firth On August 30th, 2010, the Seattle Police Department "serves and protects" John T. Williams, a Native American woodcarver. Williams made his meager living by carving small totem poles to sell to novelty stores which, in turn, sold them to tourists. Williams was deaf. This video is from the dashboard camera of the police car. You can see Williams crossing the street, legally, in the crosswalk, in front of the police car. He appears to be studying the piece of wood he's carrying, and in his other hand, he's carrying a small knife. The knife was reported to have had a three inch blade, which is legal, and despite what the officer told the other police officers appearing on the scene, another witness said that he saw the knife laying on the sidewalk beside the body, and it was closed. All you need to watch is the first few minutes of the video, and then decide for yourself if the officer gave Williams enough time to respond to his order. Remembering that Williams was deaf. CLICK, and quickly scroll down. ". . . to serve and protect. . . ." Don Firth |
|
02 Aug 13 - 12:32 AM (#3544505) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Rapparee Remind me never to whittle in Seattle. By 2010, Pocatello had both Tasers and bean-bag shotguns in their cars. Every cop had been trained in their use and had felt what being on the receiving end of a Taser felt like. Yes, there are times the police need to use lethal force. It shouldn't be all that frequently because other options are available. There is also "suicide by cop" and THAT is an entirely different story. |
|
02 Aug 13 - 01:52 PM (#3544750) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Suzy Sock Puppet Hmmm... http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/08/01/2396801/escambia-sheriff-unarmed-sho |
|
02 Aug 13 - 02:49 PM (#3544776) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Rapparee Again, why was deadly force used before resorting to less lethal methods, including voice commands? "POLICE! Turn around slowly and keep your hands up!" when said with authority, at night, would get my attention. (The cops shot 15 times and only gave him a leg wound? And the Sheriff is pleased with their training? Methinks the Sheriff is past due for a Review...and so is the county's training policy.) |
|
02 Aug 13 - 05:56 PM (#3544832) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Songwronger I talked to an ex cop today, told him about the subway incident and video. He spouted the shit about not being bound to protect. Pretty disgusting. He mentioned the Toronto shooting and said they empty their guns in order to kill. That way there's no injured party to sue them afterwards. And he said about the scalp wounds in the subway incident that they may have been trying to let the man bleed to death. They often let people "bleed out" so there won't be any inconvenient lawsuits later on. A lot of crime scenes are "sealed," even against EMS, so that people can have time to die. The cops say it's for people's safety, but it's the bleeding thing. |
|
02 Aug 13 - 06:47 PM (#3544853) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Rapparee Excuse me, but you're wrong. I believe your informant was feeding you a line and you swallowed all of it. |
|
02 Aug 13 - 07:00 PM (#3544859) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Several examples of a nation with the mindset READY,....FIRE,....AIM! Don T. |
|
02 Aug 13 - 07:18 PM (#3544865) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: GUEST,SJL Uh-uh. My boyfriend took a firearms safety class taught by a cop and he told them to shoot to kill so that there would only be one witness. No lie. Not that George Zimmerman would have been convicted if Trayvon had lived... |
|
02 Aug 13 - 08:20 PM (#3544898) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Don Firth I had a friend who worked in an all-night gas station. He was generally there by himself. A cop usually drove in a couple of times during the wee, small hours of the morning to make sure everything was okay. My friend carried a Browning 9mm. automatic, which the cop knew about. The cop's advice to my friend? "A 9mm. like that is pretty powerful. But use jacketed bullets. That way, you can cooperate with the guy and let him have the money, then when he's leaving, shoot him in the back. A jacketed bullet will more than likely go right through the guy, and no one will really be able to tell which way it entered his body." Code of the West? Don Firth |
|
02 Aug 13 - 10:14 PM (#3544934) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: GUEST,BigDaddy My Michigan hometown is patrolled by the County Sheriff's Department. I have been stopped in my hometown for allegedly having a small chip off the corner of my license tab. The chip in question didn't affect any of the info on the tab. I was required to buy a new tab and provide proof to the court. I have been stopped for not wearing a seat belt (even though I was). When the officer approached me he realized his mistake and sent me on my way with no apology. I have been approached because an officer didn't see my handicap parking tag. I had just removed it (as the law requires) prior to pulling out of a parking space. He made me show it to him before reluctantly letting me go. I went to the local cop shop recently to file a report regarding a known addict who was trying to extort money from my 80-year-old in-laws. I was told there was nothing they could do, as it was only a misdemeanor and it wasn't really worth their time. Got justice? |
|
02 Aug 13 - 11:44 PM (#3544962) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Rapparee Got persistence? Called the Chief? Called the Mayor's Office? Raised hell? Unlike Canada, the police in the US are subject to the City Council or the County Commissioners or the State Legislature. And I too have taken firearms training from cops -- once in Kentucky and most recently here in Idaho. NEVER was I given such guidance -- but I will say this: if the time EVER came when I had to shoot someone, I would shoot twice: once in the body and once in the head. Unlike the police (who have advanced law enforcement training and under the law are held to a higher standard), I'm just a citizen who would be defending myself. But believe this if you never believe anything else: I will NOT stand my ground, I will NOT go somewhere or do something to put myself or anyone I care about in danger, I will leave before I would fight. That's because I've BEEN there and done that and I no longer need the so-called "thrill" of an adrenaline rush or combat of some sort to get my rocks off. And believe this, as well: if forced into it, even if I had nothing other than my bare hands, I would literally cripple you for life if I did not kill you. Farewell to this thread. |
|
03 Aug 13 - 12:48 AM (#3544966) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: GUEST,SJL No Don. That's not the code of the West. The code of the West is this: Depends on what you want to do. Find some way to push the panic button. Don't have a panic button? Get a union! If you want to defend the money, you pull the gun right out. If he's armed and you don't know what you're doing, he might pull out his his gun and shoot you and take the money. Or he may run away. If he's a robber in the Old West chances are he has a gun and he knows how and is willing to use it. If you're not the type to shoot someone and he's armed, you're done fer. Just give him the money. Now if you get the vibe that he might be one of those extra special robbers who doesn't want to leave any witnesses, you got a problem. Hopefully, already you have pushed the panic button and police are on their way. Find some pretense to get your gun and do your best. Because you already gave him the money, he won't be expecting it. Better get out to the range now and again if you're toting a gun. That's the Old West Don. Don't shoot anybody in the back. Let the police track him down. |
|
03 Aug 13 - 01:34 AM (#3544974) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: Don Firth Guest SJL, I DO hope you are aware that I was being sardonic. Don Firth |
|
03 Aug 13 - 01:58 AM (#3544976) Subject: RE: BS: To Protect and Serve From: GUEST,SJL Oh that's funny. I have a funny story. My son and daughter-in-law live in an apartment where I am often caring for my grandson. One day their landlord Dan and his father-in-law came over to make a repair. And as they were talking amongst themselves, I thought I heard, "That character on Bonanza." So I run right out to the kitchen and say, "Character on Bonanza? Which one?" And Dan said, "We were saying 'character on Van Anden' (a street in our town, one of their houses). It was funny. I couldn't help them. I didn't know this character on Van Anden. We all had a good laugh. But I do know that Van Anden was an old Irish neighborhood. I lived there myself with my grandparents. Hiberians are still there. |