# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Number of police officers killed on job up 40 percent over last year

## DonGlock26

> *Number of police officers killed on job up 40 percent over last year*
> 
> 
> By Matt Finn Published June 15, 2014 FoxNews.com
> 
> 
> Last week’s Las Vegas shootings that left five dead, including two on-duty police officers, coincides with a nationwide increase of officers killed in 2014.
> According to the Nationwide Law Enforcement Memorial Foundation, 63 officers have died on the job this year compared to 45 at the same time last year -- a 40 percent increase.  Twenty-three of those deaths were due to firearm-related incidents, a 53 percent increase from the same time last year.
> 
> ...

----------


## michaelr

From 45 to 63. 

How many unarmed civilians were killed, beaten, and murdered by sharp sticks shoved down the throat? What's that increase.

The militarized police state is going to bring a higher casualty rate to both sides. No knock warrants are a large part of thin increase in police deaths, and people do have the right to defend there homes.

It's fucking stupid, but there are copsuckers the defend no knocks and the militarized police state, then bitch about the results......the PREDICTED results!

----------

Gemini (06-16-2014),Invayne (06-15-2014),TP Sweetie (06-18-2014)

----------


## St James

Someone once asked me when I thought the war would start. Sad and sorry to say, it looks like it may have already started..........
When people have had enough "law" they will rebel.
One side keeps pushing the other, and now it would seem that some have drawn a line in the sand.............

----------

Invayne (06-15-2014),michaelr (06-15-2014),TP Sweetie (06-18-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

We need good cops and I am sorry we lose so many each year. This is what I think.

----------

michaelr (06-15-2014),Rudy2D (06-15-2014)

----------


## Invayne

Looking for sympathy...nope, can't find any.  :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------

Gemini (06-16-2014),michaelr (06-15-2014),St James (06-15-2014),TP Sweetie (06-18-2014)

----------


## squidward

the savagery will increase along all segments of society. We're a society in decline, with a growing population of shit heads, civilian and public alike.

----------

DeadEye (06-15-2014),Gemini (06-16-2014),Invayne (06-15-2014),michaelr (06-15-2014),St James (06-15-2014),TP Sweetie (06-18-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

Many of these killings are due to the fact of illegals.  Two police officers were killed,  by illegal immigrant drunk drivers with prior DUI arrests. Two were killed just checking the camera at the border and left to die. Two others were killed one female officer wounded by drug carriers not wanting to be caught near the border. Another was killed by sniper fire. This is just the ones I know of last year. One was hospitalized when a big rock was thrown at him from behind. The news only talks about one getting killed by officers throwing rocks. Yes it will continue going up.

----------

DeadEye (06-15-2014),michaelr (06-15-2014)

----------


## DeadEye

> Many of these killings are due to the fact of illegals.  Two police officers were killed,  by illegal immigrant drunk drivers with prior DUI arrests. Two were killed just checking the camera at the border and left to die. Two others were killed one female officer wounded by drug carriers not wanting to be caught near the border. Another was killed by sniper fire. This is just the ones I know of last year. One was hospitalized when a big rock was thrown at him from behind. *The news only talks about one getting killed by officers* throwing rocks. Yes it will continue going up.


Most of the time it is the same around here but we do get coverage when our officers are cut down or become injured. I do wish that they would spend more time on the effects it has on his or her families though. Life is a precious thing and those who die in the line of duty deserve our respect and admiration.

----------

michaelr (06-15-2014),Roadmaster (06-15-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

These people not wanting to get caught will kill police. I remember away from the border officer Kevin Will with the Houston police was at a road block, something big crime had happened and a drunk and high illegal that had been deported twice with a criminal record crashed his car into the road block killing officer Will. They also have threatened to kill more police in Arizona. There is a difference in wanting to get bad cops held accountable then targeting all cops.

----------


## michaelr

> Looking for sympathy...nope, can't find any.


I feel for the families, and for the cop who died.

I also think this is just the beginning. The cops must not have an ''I'm just following orders'' attitude. If I were a cop, I'd never toss a gernade in a home, or serve a no knock warrant, and when the superiors made the stupid claim that we want them dead, I'd laugh. 

Sadly the cops aren't smart, it's designed that way, and the government that declared war on us, is using these low IQ individuals as disposable fodder.

----------

Gemini (06-16-2014),Invayne (06-16-2014)

----------


## Rudy2D

> 


Which is why I wear a lion-head pinkie-ring.

----------


## DonGlock26

> From 45 to 63. 
> 
> How many unarmed civilians were killed, beaten, and murdered by sharp sticks shoved down the throat? What's that increase.


How about you prove that happened once? Can you manage that?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Someone once asked me when I thought the war would start. Sad and sorry to say, it looks like it may have already started..........
> When people have had enough "law" they will rebel.
> One side keeps pushing the other, and now it would seem that some have drawn a line in the sand.............


What's the other side? Meth dealers? People resisting arrest? If they want a war, are they prepared to be killed on sight or made to disappear? That's how wars and police states really operate. People in real police states don't sue and have their lawyer lie to Courtroom News.com pending his lawsuit going to court. 

I do think that the anarchist/leftist propaganda is making the job of the police more dangerous and they will be more likely to pull their triggers.

----------


## michaelr

> How about you prove that happened once? Can you manage that?


No imagination needed. Despite your denials and silly comments/excuses, it's been done! Imagine that......

----------


## DonGlock26

> Looking for sympathy...nope, can't find any.


I kind of feel the same way when meth heads burn themselves up or dopers OD. :Smiley ROFLMAO:

----------


## DonGlock26

> No imagination needed. Despite your denials and silly comments/excuses, it's been done! Imagine that......


Go for it. Right here, right now.

----------


## michaelr

> Go for it. Right here, right now.


It's been done, and you ain't worth the time it takes to repeat it.

I'm fixing to smoke some ribs, good stuff. Have a good evening Glock, and I do feel for the families of these cops. Too many lonely kids on fathers day. Sucks!!

Later.

----------


## St James

Don, I get the feeling that you are lumping me in the same bunch as meth heads.......... You know as well as the rest of us that not all cops are golden. I am NO fucking meth head, Don. I'm just a hard working smuck who is being forced to kneel before false authority.
Do not insult me ever again.................

----------


## DonGlock26

> It's been done, and you ain't worth the time it takes to repeat it.
> 
> I'm fixing to smoke some ribs, good stuff. Have a good evening Glock, and I do feel for the families of these cops. Too many lonely kids on fathers day. Sucks!!
> 
> Later.



Hahahahaha!!!  I knew you'd puss out.  Take your bullshit with you.

----------


## Invayne

> I kind of feel the same way when meth heads burn themselves up or dopers OD.


Everybody gets what's coming to them... :Dontknow:

----------


## patrickt

This is a pitiful thread.

While every single death can be a tragedy to someone the number killed compared to the total number is insignificant. With well over 500,000 law enforcement officers less than 150 killed in the line of duty in a given year is not a significant number. When dealing with small numbers, percentages of increase and decrease are misleading.

There is no "war". In the battle for Iwo Jima, the U.S. forces suffered 6,821 killed and 18,844 wounded. That's a war. An officer killed by a drunk in a domestic dispute is not an act of war. Despite the bigotry of some it isn't because of illegal immigrants, gays, or Jews. I don't know what MichaelR said since I don't read his posts but Invayne's comment that "Everyone gets what's coming to them" is childish and incredibly stupid.

These deaths are by all causes while working. One year multiple deaths were caused by an airplane crash. Many deaths are due to traffic accidents. If a fat guy had a heart attack while chasing a cow it would count as a death in the line of duty.

I wonder how many truckers are killed each year in the "line of duty"? Oh, right, nobody cares.

----------


## Micketto

> How many unarmed civilians were killed, beaten, and murdered by sharp sticks shoved down the throat? What's that increase.


None that we know of.

Unless you're going to rewrite the facts as usual,  and blame a death on that.... then all of them.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-16-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Everybody gets what's coming to them...


In you mind? Perhaps.

----------


## DonGlock26

> This is a pitiful thread.
> 
> While every single death can be a tragedy to someone the number killed compared to the total number is insignificant. With well over 500,000 law enforcement officers less than 150 killed in the line of duty in a given year is not a significant number. When dealing with small numbers, percentages of increase and decrease are misleading.
> 
> There is no "war". In the battle for Iwo Jima, the U.S. forces suffered 6,821 killed and 18,844 wounded. That's a war. An officer killed by a drunk in a domestic dispute is not an act of war. Despite the bigotry of some it isn't because of illegal immigrants, gays, or Jews. I don't know what MichaelR said since I don't read his posts but Invayne's comment that "Everyone gets what's coming to them" is childish and incredibly stupid.
> 
> These deaths are by all causes while working. One year multiple deaths were caused by an airplane crash. Many deaths are due to traffic accidents. If a fat guy had a heart attack while chasing a cow it would count as a death in the line of duty.
> 
> I wonder how many truckers are killed each year in the "line of duty"? Oh, right, nobody cares.



I think we treat line of duty deaths differently because they are protecting the public and going to the sound of the guns rather than away from them. 

Traffic deaths probably killed more Americans in 1944 than died on D-Day. We tend to look at D-Day differently than running up to the corner store.

----------


## patrickt

> I think we treat line of duty deaths differently because they are protecting the public and going to the sound of the guns rather than away from them. 
> 
> Traffic deaths probably killed more Americans in 1944 than died on D-Day. We tend to look at D-Day differently than running up to the corner store.


A police officer killed a young man one night and asked that I be called. When I arrived he was quite upset and asked if I would go tell his wife what happened. I did, of course, and I was shocked when I finished explaining and she said, "He doesn't love me. If he did he wouldn't have a job where he might get killed."

"If he was a clerk in a shoe store every day he went to work he might get killed."
"But, he didn't go looking for it."

"That's true. Maybe he loves you so much he wants to keep you and other people safe."
"I don't care about other people."

I understand that, Don, but that doesn't mean I want to exaggerate the issue. That doesn't mean I want to tolerate fools talking about a war and about how it's because of illegal aliens.

The number killed is statistically insignificant one year to the next. The numbers are too small. We don't even limit the consideration to those killed by someone. Traffic accidents, airplane crashes, heart attacks, are the same as an ambush.

The memorial outfit has a business to pursue and that business involves glorifying all of it. A friend of mine accidentally shot himself in the leg while investigating a burglary. Another friend accidentally shot himself on the pistol range. Neither died but had they, they would have been part of the "killed in the line of duty" statistics and part of the memorial industry. There is more than one "memorial" business for police officers.

"_2008 police suicides: 141__2009 police suicides: 143_
_2012 police suicides: 126_

Profile of suicide cases:
_Average age, 2012:   42_
_Average yrs on job:   16_

_Some additional                                    data from the study that might be of interest to you includes:

91 percent of                                    suicides were by males.

Ages 40 –                                     44 were most at risk.

Time on the job:                                     15 – 19 years were most at risk.

63 percent of                                    suicide victims were single.

11 percent of                                    suicides were veterans."

_
http://www.policesuicidestudy.com/id16.html

"41 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty in 2008."
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2008/...slykilled.html

Wow. In 2008, 41 officers were killed in felonies. That excludes accidents, heart attack, and other causes. And 141 committed suicide. I suspect this number is just the current officers who committed suicide and does not include retired officers who committed suicide.

These are just offered for a little perspective.

----------


## michaelr

> None that we know of.
> 
> Unless you're going to rewrite the facts as usual, and blame a death on that.... then all of them.


Well, you have a way of being dishonest. We have it on the board, and you laid your hate on the threads.

----------


## Micketto

> Well, you have a way of being dishonest. We have it on the board, and you laid your hate on the threads.


Lame attempts at insults is a poor way of supporting your claim.

So you agree you're just lying about that earlier accusation ?


Answer, before your whining gets me another thread ban.

----------


## michaelr

> Lame attempts at insults is a poor way of supporting your claim.
> 
> So you agree you're just lying about that earlier accusation ?
> 
> 
> Answer, before your whining gets me another thread ban.


balh...blah....blah!

Hey, only you can prevent a TB....hahahaha

----------

Invayne (06-16-2014),St James (06-18-2014)

----------


## patrickt

Now do you see why I don't bother reading MichaelR's posts. And, if you didn't quote them I wouldn't even see what the self-confessed "motherfuck" wrote.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-16-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> Now do you see why I don't bother reading MichaelR's posts. And, if you didn't quote them I wouldn't even see what the self-confessed "motherfuck" wrote.


If you're addressing that to me, I do apologize.  I completely understand the desire to avoid the childish nonsense he provides.
In this case, when he's called out on his lie he just deflects with stupidity.

I'll do what I can  :Wink:

----------


## Roadmaster

> I think we treat line of duty deaths differently because they are protecting the public and going to the sound of the guns rather than away from them. 
> 
> Traffic deaths probably killed more Americans in 1944 than died on D-Day. We tend to look at D-Day differently than running up to the corner store.


 Because he is for open borders. Close to 8,000 federal officers assaulted with knifes, other objects, fights, shot at ect. Many of the border patrol were injured not killed.

----------


## Gemini

> I feel for the families, and for the cop who died.
> 
> I also think this is just the beginning. The cops must not have an ''I'm just following orders'' attitude. If I were a cop, I'd never toss a gernade in a home, or serve a no knock warrant, and when the superiors made the stupid claim that we want them dead, I'd laugh. 
> 
> Sadly the cops aren't smart, it's designed that way, and the government that declared war on us, is using these low IQ individuals as disposable fodder.


It's true, the powers that be do not want intelligent thinking officers on the force.  Most policing is done for profit anyways.

A fine does not make anybody safer.  Sending a dangerous person to a cell does though.  So why fine people?  The only logical explanation is that it is more about money than it is about anything else.

Did these officers deserve it?  Probably not.

Do people deserve to have their right habitually violated because they are following unconstitutional protocols?  Absolutely not.

Where are the violins for the people that police accidentally kill or deliberately frame?  

Police generally deserve the apathy they get.

----------

Invayne (06-16-2014),michaelr (06-16-2014)

----------


## patrickt

> Because he is for open borders. Close to 8,000 federal officers assaulted with knifes, other objects, fights, shot at ect. Many of the border patrol were injured not killed.


 Any citation for that?

Generally speaking, a police officer--not a federal officer--has a job that involves fighting at times. It even involves getting assaulted at times. At times, you have to arrest people and take them to jail and sometimes they don't want to go. They are also usually drunk or under the influence of some other drug.

I do forget that in today's world, someone saying something harsh constitutes an assault. It didn't when I was working.

I had my nose broken twice on the job. Some ribs got cracked once. But my job was far less dangerous than a friend of mine who was a cowboy/trucker hauling cattle and buffalo.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-18-2014)

----------


## Roadmaster

In NC only one officer was killed last year. Border patrol gets shot at and assaulted 10 times more than most cops every day. Even if they see a person on the phone that is not an officer your life is in danger. They are bringing in many pounds of drugs and will shoot, fight or kill not to give up these drugs. They are not small time drug dealers. You are comparing beat cops to cops going after the mafia, big difference. Yes I do think the ones on the border that are not crooked is more dangerous than hauling cattle.

----------


## Invayne

> I'm sure the families couldn't care less what a useless cnt who spends her life online feels for them.
> 
> Can only wonder how many here will even know when you die.... let alone care.
> 
> But while we're on the subject...  my hope is that it happens at the hands of a murderous rapist that survived a cop's gunshot wound, and was released on a technicality after the police brought him in the day before.... for the same thing.
> 
> But that's just me.


And nobody gives a shit what you think...but that's just me.

----------

michaelr (06-16-2014),Roadmaster (06-16-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> If you're addressing that to me, I do apologize.  I completely understand the desire to avoid the childish nonsense he provides.
> In this case, when he's called out on his lie he just deflects with stupidity.
> 
> I'll do what I can


Really. How many threads do you trash with your hatred and make the threads about me. The cops murder hundreds of us a year, beat without cause, kill countless dogs, hell now their coming after the elderly and children. But copsuckers deny that and have an excuse for it all, then vile contempt for people who call them on their bullshit. You, hell you go one further, you lie about me and that's unforgivable!

So you don't like me, good, because I don't need you to!

----------

Invayne (06-16-2014)

----------


## michaelr

> And nobody gives a shit what you think...but that's just me.


No, me too!

----------

Invayne (06-16-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> No, me too!


Fucking trolls are best ignored.

----------

michaelr (06-16-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> A police officer killed a young man one night and asked that I be called. When I arrived he was quite upset and asked if I would go tell his wife what happened. I did, of course, and I was shocked when I finished explaining and she said, "He doesn't love me. If he did he wouldn't have a job where he might get killed."
> 
> "If he was a clerk in a shoe store every day he went to work he might get killed."
> "But, he didn't go looking for it."
> 
> "That's true. Maybe he loves you so much he wants to keep you and other people safe."
> "I don't care about other people."
> 
> I understand that, Don, but that doesn't mean I want to exaggerate the issue. That doesn't mean I want to tolerate fools talking about a war and about how it's because of illegal aliens.
> ...


I guess your "perspective" can be applied to the military, but I'm not about to do it.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Now do you see why I don't bother reading MichaelR's posts. And, if you didn't quote them I wouldn't even see what the self-confessed "motherfuck" wrote.


It is fun to pick his moonbat kook website articles apart. Half the time, he has no idea what he posted.

----------


## DonGlock26

> It's true, the powers that be do not want intelligent thinking officers on the force..


Based on a few cities refusing to take recruits who score above a certain level? You are applying that to every city, state, and county?

Let's assume that you want cops with master degrees on constitutional law. Are you willing to pay them a wage that would attract a person with a legal master degree?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Any citation for that?
> 
> Generally speaking, a police officer--not a federal officer--has a job that involves fighting at times. It even involves getting assaulted at times. At times, you have to arrest people and take them to jail and sometimes they don't want to go. They are also usually drunk or under the influence of some other drug.
> 
> I do forget that in today's world, someone saying something harsh constitutes an assault. It didn't when I was working.
> 
> I had my nose broken twice on the job. Some ribs got cracked once. But my job was far less dangerous than a friend of mine who was a cowboy/trucker hauling cattle and buffalo.


Good points, they are only looking at officers that are killed. Trauma centers, better tactics, better body armor, better weapons all lower the death rate. That doesn't mean that criminals aren't trying to murder police officers.





> *gion and Geographic Division, 2012
> *
> 
> Criminal Justice Information Services Division
> Feedback | Contact Us | Data Quality Guidelines | UCR Home
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## Micketto

> Good points, they are only looking at officers that are killed. Trauma centers, better tactics, better body armor, better weapons all lower the death rate. That doesn't mean that criminals aren't trying to murder police officers.


You know that's porn to these idiots here.  They're rubbing one out as they read that.

They're lucky cops don't care what they think of them, and are willing to risk their lives to protect their children when they're raped and/or kidnapped without first asking if their parents applaud the deaths of cops.

That traffic pursuit/stop stat... I'd love to know the percentage of cops killed just for pulling a vehicle over (without pursuit).

I know it's not the higher of the two, but I wonder where it falls in the scheme of things.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-17-2014)

----------


## Gemini

> Based on a few cities refusing to take recruits who score above a certain level? You are applying that to every city, state, and county?
> 
> Let's assume that you want cops with master degrees on constitutional law. Are you willing to pay them a wage that would attract a person with a legal master degree?


No.  Because I can get a superior product with less money.  Change the protocols, de-unionize them, and fire the ones that need firing, and prosecute those that need prosecuting.  The system that allows for the abused to take place is the problem.

Individual officers will evolve or perish in the profession.  When tangible penalties are not divorced from bad performance, improvement of a service happens.

----------

St James (06-18-2014),TP Sweetie (06-18-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> You know that's porn to these idiots here.  They're rubbing one out as they read that.
> 
> They're lucky cops don't care what they think of them, and are willing to risk their lives to protect their children when they're raped and/or kidnapped without first asking if their parents applaud the deaths of cops.
> 
> That traffic pursuit/stop stat... I'd love to know the percentage of cops killed just for pulling a vehicle over (without pursuit).
> 
> I know it's not the higher of the two, but I wonder where it falls in the scheme of things.



Look at page 423-424:

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/jbs/Criminal...sAssaulted.pdf

_

----------

Micketto (06-17-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> No.  Because I can get a superior product with less money.  Change the protocols, de-unionize them, and fire the ones that need firing, and prosecute those that need prosecuting.  The system that allows for the abused to take place is the problem.
> 
> Individual officers will evolve or perish in the profession.  When tangible penalties are not divorced from bad performance, improvement of a service happens.



Really? And, what will your raw material be for your "superior product"? What education/IQ level will you set? Or, are you just going to take anyone with a heart beat and fire them after they commit a criminal act and get your unit of gov't sued?

----------


## Gemini

> Really? And, what will your raw material be for your "superior product"? What education/IQ level will you set? Or, are you just going to take anyone with a heart beat and fire them after they commit a criminal act and get your unit of gov't sued?


Raw material would largely be the same.  But even the simplest of people can tighten up if they know their bacon is on the line and that there are tangible consequences to their actions. 

Most intelligent people don't pick a job on the police force.  But we could indeed raise the bar in some areas with regard to training and selection of recruits without narrowing the pool too much.  I don't need or necessarily want somebody with a master's degree on law enforcement.  You don't need geniuses hauling people off to jail - you need them inventing better light bulbs.  But for those without proper impulse control, there must be consequences.  You can be a dimwit and still be a good cop.  Just like you can be a smart guy and be a curse to mankind with a badge.

I'm not anti-cop, I'm pro-responsibility.  When swat teams break in guns blazing and shoot the wrong guy, or gun someone down for doing nothing wrong - there should be hell to pay for everybody involved.

That being said, it is a nice feeling knowing that the boys in blue will show up and deal with someone physically so you don't have to.

I'm for the ending of abuses and violations of rights.  Badges do not grant extras rights or other comic book super powers.  But some cops sure act like they are Bog's gift to the world.

----------

Invayne (06-17-2014),St James (06-18-2014),TP Sweetie (06-18-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Most intelligent people don't pick a job on the police force.


How do you know this?





> The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22,*the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.
> 
> *http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn.../#.U6C4yPldUfU


The average cop is a little above average. Therefore, many are even more intelligent than a little above average.

----------


## Gemini

> How do you know this?


The cruel reality of experience.  




> The average cop is a little above average. Therefore, many are even more intelligent than a little above average.


Sorry, I have encountered too many mouth breathers that wear a badge.  Some are bright, most are quite dim.  It's why they get a job that is hard to get fired from that lets them unleash aggression with a monopoly on force and evidence.

Also, try to address the rest of the post.

What's wrong with wanting a system where both parties have to be accountable for their actions?

----------


## TP Sweetie

> Looking for sympathy...nope, can't find any.


It looks to me like they are sowing that which was reaped.

----------

Invayne (06-18-2014)

----------


## TP Sweetie

> What's the other side? Meth dealers? People resisting arrest? If they want a war, are they prepared to be killed on sight or made to disappear? That's how wars and police states really operate. People in real police states don't sue and have their lawyer lie to Courtroom News.com pending his lawsuit going to court. 
> 
> I do think that the anarchist/leftist propaganda is making the job of the police more dangerous and they will be more likely to pull their triggers.


Are you seriously burying your head in the sand regarding the behavior of the police over the past half-a-decade or so?

----------


## Micketto

> It looks to me like they are sowing that which was reaped.


Yeah, those damned no-good cops... risking their lives and doing their best to protect the American society.

They all deserve to die because a very small percentage of them have abused their power.

Good call, genius.   You'll fit right in here.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-18-2014)

----------


## St James

> Yeah, those damned no-good cops... risking their lives and doing their best to protect the American society.
> 
> They all deserve to die because a very small percentage of them have abused their power.
> 
> Good call, genius.   You'll fit right in here.


courts have ruled on at least two occasions that the POLICE are not here to protect you.
street cops are revenue generators.. Contrary to what yer boy claims, they never run towards gun fire, they wait until the smoke clears. The travel in packs, wear the same uniform. have their own set of rules, sell drugs traffic in illegal weapons, shoot innocent people, beat  defenseless people up, ....hmmmm sounds like the Crips and cops have a lot in common.

----------

Gemini (06-18-2014),Invayne (06-18-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> The cruel reality of experience.  
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have encountered too many mouth breathers that wear a badge.  Some are bright, most are quite dim.  It's why they get a job that is hard to get fired from that lets them unleash aggression with a monopoly on force and evidence.
> 
> Also, try to address the rest of the post.
> 
> What's wrong with wanting a system where both parties have to be accountable for their actions?


Intelligent people know that anecdotal accounts are meaningless. You are lacking in basic intelligence yourself.

Who is not accountable?

----------


## DonGlock26

> Are you seriously burying your head in the sand regarding the behavior of the police over the past half-a-decade or so?


Like what? Like the North Hollywood shootout?

----------


## DonGlock26

> courts have ruled on at least two occasions that the POLICE are not here to protect you.
> street cops are revenue generators.. Contrary to what yer boy claims, they never run towards gun fire, they wait until the smoke clears. The travel in packs, wear the same uniform. have their own set of rules, sell drugs traffic in illegal weapons, shoot innocent people, beat  defenseless people up, ....hmmmm sounds like the Crips and cops have a lot in common.


Stop misrepresenting what the court said. They do not have a responsibility for your individual safety absent a special relationship (you called them to your house to protect you from a spouse for example), so that you may not sue for a lack of protection should a criminal attack you. 

They do protect us as a whole by enforcing the laws, patrolling, and responding to calls for help or crimes in progress. I post articles regularly about officers saving lives from criminal attack, fire, etc. and you stay the hell out of them.

----------


## Micketto

> courts have ruled on at least two occasions that the POLICE are not here to protect you.


I don't care what a court has said on two occasions.  The court said OJ was innocent.

I bet if a court said cops were "good"... you'd suddenly stop touting court findings.

Call one the next time your wife is beating you up.... when they come, thank them.

----------


## St James

> Stop misrepresenting what the court said. They do not have a responsibility for your individual safety absent a special relationship (you called them to your house to protect you from a spouse for example), so that you may not sue for a lack of protection should a criminal attack you. 
> 
> They do protect us as a whole by enforcing the laws, patrolling, and responding to calls for help or crimes in progress. I post articles regularly about officers saving lives from criminal attack, fire, etc. and you stay the hell out of them.


ok, glove are off, then......

----------


## St James

> I don't care what a court has said on two occasions.  The court said OJ was innocent.
> 
> I bet if a court said cops were "good"... you'd suddenly stop touting court findings.
> 
> Call one the next time your wife is beating you up.... when they come, thank them.


there's no "beatings" going on here. Never has and never will.
I won't call the cops until the body stops twitching............
My "No Trespassing" sign applies to them as well as you

----------

Invayne (06-18-2014)

----------


## TP Sweetie

> Yeah, those damned no-good cops... risking their lives and doing their best to protect the American society.
> 
> They all deserve to die because a very small percentage of them have abused their power.
> 
> Good call, genius.   You'll fit right in here.


If you're the standard, looks like I'll be slumming.

----------

Invayne (06-18-2014),St James (06-18-2014)

----------


## Micketto

> If you're the standard, looks like I'll be slumming.


I guess an ability to apply any sort of logic to my comment would have told you the standard is dumbass cop-haters.

They welcome you.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-18-2014)

----------


## TP Sweetie

> I guess an ability to apply any sort of logic to my comment would have told you the standard is dumbass cop-haters.
> 
> They welcome you.


Maybe you should take remedial English, since you are apparently incapable of making your point clearly on the first try.

----------


## Micketto

> Maybe you should take remedial English, since you are apparently incapable of making your point clearly on the first try.


Why did you put a comma after English ?!

Anyway, seems you are the only one confused by plain English.  Everyone else here understands me quite clearly.

Focusing on me, instead of the topic, will lead you down a very disappointing road of defeat and embarrassment.

Don't waste your time.... or Trin's bandwidth.

----------


## DonGlock26

> ok, glove are off, then......


You were talking tough weeks ago and nothing happened. Are you going to join our serious debate without discussing homosexual activity? Try it.

----------


## Micketto

> there's no "beatings" going on here. Never has and never will.
> I won't call the cops until the body stops twitching............


It's your wife, dude.   
Divorce is a better option.

----------


## DonGlock26

> there's no "beatings" going on here. Never has and never will.
> I won't call the cops until the body stops twitching............
> My "No Trespassing" sign applies to them as well as you


So, what are you trying to avoid saying? Are you claiming that you would shoot police officers that knocked on your door?

----------


## Micketto

> You were talking tough weeks ago and nothing happened. Are you going to join our serious debate without discussing homosexual activity? Try it.


Proclaiming the "glove are off", then disappearing, wasn't all that intimidating.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Why did you put a comma after English ?!
> 
> Anyway, seems you are the only one confused by plain English.  Everyone else here understands me quite clearly.
> 
> Focusing on me, instead of the topic, will lead you down a very disappointing road of defeat and embarrassment.
> 
> Don't waste your time.... or Trin's bandwidth.



Have you noticed how the people who dislike the police are unable to discuss the OP topics, facts, and evidence? They only want to attack people who do not agree with them or talk about homosexual acts.

----------

Micketto (06-18-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Proclaiming the "glove are off", then disappearing, wasn't all that intimidating.


It wasn't then, and it sure isn't now.

----------


## Micketto

> Originally Posted by stjames1_53
> 
> 
> there's no "beatings" going on here. Never has and never will.
> I won't call the cops until the body stops twitching............
> 
> 
> So, what are you trying to avoid saying? Are you claiming that you would shoot police officers that knocked on your door?


I thought he meant he would wait for *<<removed>>* _then_ call the cops.

----------


## Micketto

> Have you noticed how the people who dislike the police are unable to discuss the OP topics, facts, and evidence? They only want to attack people who do not agree with them or talk about homosexual acts.


Of course I've noticed.  
Thread-bans due to turning the same insults around on them was one hint.

All those "bad-cop" threads they post are 60% name calling and 40% general ignorance.

I enjoy the 60% but the 40% is tough to deal with  :Wink:

----------

DonGlock26 (06-18-2014)

----------


## St James

> Of course I've noticed.  
> Thread-bans due to turning the same insults around on them was one hint.
> 
> All those "bad-cop" threads they post are 60% name calling and 40% general ignorance.
> 
> I enjoy the 60% but the 40% is tough to deal with


so, it is your contention that no cop has ever done wrong...... *<<removed>>*

----------


## Trinnity

*These threads turn nasty every time and I'm quite weary of watching the bickering.

You all are gonna force me to turn to more thread bans or closing these threads if you don't stop attacking each other.

I'll infract all of you if that's what it takes to stop this fighting, over and over, over this issue.* :Angry20:

----------


## Micketto

> so, it is your contention that no cop has ever done wrong...... *<<removed>>*


No.  
Plenty have.

I assume there was supposed to be a question mark after that, because putting words in my mouth would be ridiculous.  

Bad cops, are a small percentage of total cops... and hardly worth the focus you all are investing in it. For some of you it's an obsession.
As shown when celebrating the deaths of cops, and making stupid comments like "they reap what they sow".

Sorry I missed the rest of your comment though.  Probably would have been riveting.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-18-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> No.  
> Plenty have.
> 
> I assume there was supposed to be a question mark after that, because putting words in my mouth would be ridiculous.  
> 
> Bad cops, are a small percentage of total cops... and hardly worth the focus you all are investing in it. For some of you it's an obsession.
> As shown when celebrating the deaths of cops, and making stupid comments like "they reap what they sow".
> 
> Sorry I missed the rest of your comment though.  Probably would have been riveting.


That's the bizarre part. Everyone acknowledges that there are bad cops. The problem many have with this sub-forum's cop bashing is that the OP's sources are usually extremely one-sided with an obvious bias that those who hate the police ignore.

----------


## Micketto

> That's the bizarre part. Everyone acknowledges that there are bad cops. The problem many have with this sub-forum's cop bashing is that the OP's sources are usually extremely one-sided with an obvious bias that those who hate the police ignore.


Yeah... and better than that is when they come up with stories from 4 or 5 years ago.

Come to think of it... based on that,  the number of bad cops must be smaller than I was guessing.

----------


## Gemini

> Intelligent people know that anecdotal accounts are meaningless. You are lacking in basic intelligence yourself.
> 
> Who is not accountable?


Indeed, anecdotal accounts are meaningless, I was referring to common knowledge.  So instead of using your higher brain to address the topic, you predictably use instinct to attack when reptile logic fails.

This is what is wrong with cops and the people who blindly defend them.  When confronted peacefully and intelligently they can only react, not respond.

----------


## patrickt

Who considers "common knowledge" logical? It's simply what "everybody knows" and that is almost always wrong.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-18-2014)

----------


## Invayne

> The average cop is a little above average. Therefore, many are even more intelligent than a little above average.


I assume you have a link to this claim....

So it's only Connecticut that hires low IQ cops?

----------


## TP Sweetie

> Why did you put a comma after English ?!
> 
> Anyway, seems you are the only one confused by plain English.  Everyone else here understands me quite clearly.
> 
> Focusing on me, instead of the topic, will lead you down a very disappointing road of defeat and embarrassment.
> 
> Don't waste your time.... or Trin's bandwidth.


Apparently you need remedial punctuation as well. 

You're a waste of time, you say? That's just sad! Sign up for remedial self-esteem.

----------


## Invayne

> courts have ruled on at least two occasions that the POLICE are not here to protect you.


Protecting people is not their job. The Supreme Idiots have stated they are not obligated to do so. Everyone knows this except  shit-talking trolls. (well, even he knows it, I'm sure, but what fun would it be if he couldn't start an argument with someone? :Dontknow: )




> street cops are revenue generators.. Contrary to what yer boy claims, they never run towards gun fire, they wait until the smoke clears. The travel in packs, wear the same uniform. have their own set of rules, sell drugs traffic in illegal weapons, shoot innocent people, beat  defenseless people up, ....hmmmm sounds like the Crips and cops have a lot in common.


Standard police procedure in the New Amerika.

----------

TP Sweetie (06-18-2014)

----------


## Gemini

> Who considers "common knowledge" logical? It's simply what "everybody knows" and that is almost always wrong.


Are you postulating that the sky without clouds is not blue?  Or that a man without a pulse is not dead?

Somethings don't require a peer reviewed article to be validated as truth.  Even then, biases in studies are not always absent.

Sorry, cops being above average intelligence just doesn't pass the stink test.  Perhaps in one area, but not by and large as a majority.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Yeah... and better than that is when they come up with stories from 4 or 5 years ago.
> 
> Come to think of it... based on that,  the number of bad cops must be smaller than I was guessing.


Exactly, there are millions upon millions of police contacts with citizens, but a few controversial incidents makes cops corrupt murderers in the cop hater's eyes?

That's just insane.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Indeed, anecdotal accounts are meaningless, I was referring to common knowledge.  So instead of using your higher brain to address the topic, you predictably use instinct to attack when reptile logic fails.
> 
> This is what is wrong with cops and the people who blindly defend them.  When confronted peacefully and intelligently they can only react, not respond.


Define "common knowledge". Where did it come from? Who gathered it? Is it peer reviewed? 

I'd like to see some logic from you frankly. I did respond. Your reliance on anecdotal evidence and "common knowledge" is absurd on its face.

----------


## DonGlock26

> Who considers "common knowledge" logical? It's simply what "everybody knows" and that is almost always wrong.


I think he's trying to say "because I say so".

----------


## DonGlock26

> I assume you have a link to this claim....
> 
> So it's only Connecticut that hires low IQ cops?


Post #49. 

Are you claiming that the entire state of Connecticut hires only low IQ people?

----------


## DonGlock26

[QUOTE=Invayne;330882]Protecting people is not their job. The Supreme Idiots have stated they are not obligated to do so. Everyone knows this except  shit-talking trolls. (well, even he knows it, I'm sure, but what fun would it be if he couldn't start an argument with someone? :Dontknow: )

/QUOTE]





> No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions
> 
> _By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado_
> 
> Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.
> 
> Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.
> 
> *Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.**1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns.* Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.
> ...



Continued:

----------


## DonGlock26

> *Undercover Officers and Operatives:* Whether a duty to protect is owed to undercover officers and citizens is another subject that has been considered by several courts. The Sixth Circuit found a due process claim was stated where the city released undercover police officers' home addresses and other personal information to defense counsel, as by releasing the information the city created a very real threat to the officers and their families.27
> The District of Columbia Circuit found, after analyzing extensive case law, that it was not clearly established whether there was a duty to protect an undercover operative who was beaten to death by a third party in 1997.28
> 
> The Seventh Circuit rejected a due process claim against a police officer who was the control officer for a paid informant who was shot in the head by his cousin.29 In contrast, the Seventh Circuit held that police were liable when a deputy chief created danger to an informant who requested that his taped telephone call to police about an alleged theft not be released to the suspect, who killed him after the tape was released. By releasing the tape, the deputy chief created a danger to the informant who otherwise would not have faced the danger.30
> 
> *Rescues by Third Parties, and Prevention of Rescues:* Federal courts appear to be split on whether law enforcement interference with private rescue attempts falls within the state-created danger exception to the duty to protect. The Seventh Circuit has held that recklessly interfering with private rescue attempts without providing alternatives was a due process violation.31
> 
> The District of Columbia Circuit found there was no constitutional duty to rescue, and private rescues could be prevented without incurring liability, especially where police were entitled, if not obligated, to prevent the would-be rescuer from endangering her life.32 Where the police returned a child to his abductor and prevented others from helping a child or investigating further, a substantive due process claim was stated.33
> 
> ...

----------


## DonGlock26

> Are you postulating that the sky without clouds is blue?  Or that a man without a pulse is not dead?
> 
> Somethings don't require a peer reviewed article to be validated as truth.  Even then, biases in studies are not always absent.
> 
> Sorry, cops being above average intelligence just doesn't pass the stink test.  Perhaps in one area, but not by and large as a majority.


That is not an intelligent reasoned position based on evidence and facts at all.

----------


## Gemini

> Define "common knowledge". Where did it come from? Who gathered it? Is it peer reviewed?


It is too nebulous to define.  Yet, almost every human on the planet knows the sky is blue.  Fancy that?




> I'd like to see some logic from you frankly. I did respond. Your reliance on anecdotal evidence and "common knowledge" is absurd on its face.


Dude, whatever.  I get it, you think cops are super, they wear capes, always catch the bad guy, can do no wrong and never hurt or steal from innocent people.  A debate with you on this topic is pointless.

Park your red and blue unicorn with sirens outside.




> I think he's trying to say "because I say so".


You still never addressed the rest of the post.  When you get to addressing the bit about responsibility and accountability I'll be waiting.

But you still have to leave your red and blue unicorn outside.

----------


## Gemini

> That is not an intelligent reasoned position based on evidence and facts at all.


So you're the sole arbiter of what is and isn't common knowledge?  Or that which is intelligent?  Or will you depend upon my typos to aid your argument?

I wonder, what lofty titles of grandeur do you accord yourself?

Anyways, If you want to talk about police accountability and responsibility - go for it.  But if you want to proclaim your gospel without actual debate then there is little else to talk about.

----------


## DonGlock26

> It is too nebulous to define.  Yet, almost every human on the planet knows the sky is blue.  Fancy that?
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, whatever.  I get it, you think cops are super, they wear capes, always catch the bad guy, can do no wrong and never hurt or steal from innocent people.  A debate with you on this topic is pointless.
> 
> Park your red and blue unicorn with sirens outside.
> 
> 
> ...



Here's a clue. If your source for truth is "too nebulous to define", then your source is no real source at all. You are simply trying to justify your beliefs and failing at it rather spectacularly. 

The color of the sky has nothing to do with the topic that you are speaking of. Can you see that much? Your sky point is meaningless.

Emotional rant noted and rejected as foolish and childish.

What do you want me to address?

----------


## DonGlock26

> So you're the sole arbiter of what is and isn't common knowledge?  Or that which is intelligent?
> 
> I wonder, what lofty titles of grandeur do you accord yourself?
> 
> Anyways, If you want to talk about police accountability and responsibility - go for it.  But if you want to proclaim your gospel without actual debate then there is little else to talk about.



How can anyone be a sole arbiter of "common knowledge"? You are making my point for me. What you call "Common knowledge" is subjective opinion that you happen to share. 

Bane of the Bullshitter? I rather like that one.

What would you like to know about it?

----------


## JB

You know, I feel for those that have been lost, their family and friends. And I respect the job they had to do. I am sorry they lost their lives in the line of duty.

But to me; unfortunately it's a product of the job. Police have been killed in the line of duty since their was a line.

While I feel sympathy for individuals, I also recognize the risk associated with being a cop. Society dictates that it is an acceptable risk and I respect that as well.

Stay safe out there.

----------


## Gemini

> Here's a clue. If your source for truth is "too  nebulous to define", then your source is no real source at all. You are  simply trying to justify your beliefs and failing at it rather  spectacularly.




@DonGlock26 For one who has a diet of lies and propaganda on the topic, don't presume to be an authority figure to me in matters of truth.

Some things don't require sourcing.  If I were to nit pick sources I would say that some relatively unknown blog is hardly a source, but I don't really feel like digging that far into it given my opponent.




> The color of the sky has nothing to do with the topic that you are  speaking of. Can you see that much? Your sky point is meaningless.


I get it, you don't like abstractions/metaphors etc...  Noted.





> * What do you want me to address*?







> No.  Because I can get a superior product with less money.  Change the protocols, de-unionize them, and fire the ones that need firing, and prosecute those that need prosecuting.  *The system that allows for the abuses to take place is the problem*.
> 
> Individual officers will evolve or perish in the profession.  *When tangible penalties are not divorced from bad performance, improvement of a service happens*.





> Raw material would largely be the same.  *But even the simplest of people can tighten up if they know their bacon is on the line and that there are tangible consequences to their actions*. 
> 
> Most intelligent people don't pick a job on the police force.  But we could indeed raise the bar in some areas with regard to training and selection of recruits without narrowing the pool too much.  I don't need or necessarily want somebody with a master's degree on law enforcement.  You don't need geniuses hauling people off to jail - you need them inventing better light bulbs.  But for those without proper impulse control, there must be consequences.  You can be a dimwit and still be a good cop.  Just like you can be a smart guy and be a curse to mankind with a badge.
> 
> * I'm not anti-cop, I'm pro-responsibility.  When swat teams break in guns blazing and shoot the wrong guy, or gun someone down for doing nothing wrong - there should be hell to pay for everybody involved*.
> 
> That being said, it is a nice feeling knowing that the boys in blue will show up and deal with someone physically so you don't have to.
> 
> * I'm for the ending of abuses and violations of rights.  Badges do not grant extras rights or other comic book super powers.  But some cops sure act like they are Bog's gift to the world*.





> The cruel reality of experience.  
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I have encountered too many mouth breathers that wear a badge.  Some are bright, most are quite dim.  *It's why they get a job that is hard to get fired from that lets them unleash aggression with a monopoly on force and evidence*.
> 
> *What's wrong with wanting a system where both parties have to be accountable for their actions*?




In case you're wondering, the bold.  What is wrong with wanting a transparent and accountable system?  Why should cops have special union procedures for investigation when a matter could be criminal?  Why are they unionized at all?  Shouldn't bad police be fired?

Here's a video, perhaps you can tell me where the cops went wrong-




Because I can find many places.  _Many_.

----------


## patrickt

Gemini: "It is too nebulous to define. Yet, almost every human on the planet knows the sky is blue. Fancy that?"

And the sky over my city was gray today. I suppose liberals called it blue, though. Imagine that. Common knowledge is what "everybody knows" and it's wrong as often as it's right.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-18-2014)

----------


## Gemini

> *Are you postulating that the sky without clouds is not blue*?  Or that a man without a pulse is not dead?
> 
> Somethings don't require a peer reviewed article to be validated as truth.  Even then, biases in studies are not always absent.
> 
> Sorry, cops being above average intelligence just doesn't pass the stink test.  Perhaps in one area, but not by and large as a majority.





> Gemini: "It is too nebulous to define. Yet, almost every human on the planet knows the sky is blue. Fancy that?"
> 
> *And the sky over my city was gray today*. I suppose liberals called it blue, though. Imagine that. Common knowledge is what "everybody knows" and it's wrong as often as it's right.


Read it slowly.  Again if necessary.

----------


## DonGlock26

> For one who has a diet of lies and propaganda on the topic, don't presume to be an authority figure to me in matters of truth.
> 
> Some things don't require sourcing.  If I were to nit pick sources I would say that some relatively unknown blog is hardly a source, but I don't really feel like digging that far into it given my opponent.
> 
> 
> 
> I get it, you don't like abstractions/metaphors etc...  Noted.
> 
> 
> ...



You were taken to task for trying to represent your opinion as proven fact.  Lies and propaganda? That is the purview of the cop haters here. They spread biased media articles and plaintiff's attorney's claims as "fact". There's your lies and propaganda. I'm attacked for telling the lynch mob of the week to look for facts, evidence, and an actual investigation. That is too much from some people to handle apparently.

Sorry, trying to claim that your position is true because of "common knowledge" is just ignorance or intellectual laziness.




You aren't using "abstractions/metaphors" you are using the fallacy of weak analogy.


You are acting like the police are not held accountable. They most certainly are. But, what you seem to have trouble accepting is that they do have authority and the power to use force to subdue lawbreakers.


If you made the police like everyone else in an investigation for a use of force, they could simply all take the fifth amendment. But, they can't. They will be fired, if they do. They must report on what happened. That is why there is a process that protects their rights somewhat as citizens under the same constitution that you enjoy.


Was the man holding a knife?

----------


## Gemini

> You were taken to task for trying to represent your opinion as proven fact.  Lies and propaganda? That is the purview of the cop haters here. They spread biased media articles and plaintiff's attorney's claims as "fact". There's your lies and propaganda. I'm attacked for telling the lynch mob of the week to look for facts, evidence, and an actual investigation. That is too much from some people to handle apparently.
> 
> Sorry, trying to claim that your position is true because of "common knowledge" is just ignorance or intellectual laziness.
> 
> You aren't using "abstractions/metaphors" you are using the fallacy of weak analogy.


Dross to be cast aside...




> You are acting like the police are not held accountable. They most certainly are. But, what you seem to have trouble accepting is that they do have authority and the power to use force to subdue lawbreakers.


Ah...something interesting.  Indeed, they are vested with authority - dubious authority, but that is for another time.  What do you say to a citizen about using force to resist and unlawful detention/search of their person by a cop on a power trip?  In the right or in the wrong?

You say they are held accountable and they are...sort of.  Paid admin leave is a terrible punishment I hear *eyeroll*.  If a cop acts outside the legal powers vested in him and it isn't horrible enough, he gets reprimanded sometimes.  If a citizen uses force to defend against this unlawful use of his powers, the books are thrown at him and he better have good legal counsel or he is toast, unless the cop is spectacularly egregious in his overstepping of his bounds.

Why the double standard?  Why can we not fire people who habitually violate their lawful authority?




> If you made the police like everyone else in an investigation for a use of force, they could simply all take the fifth amendment. But, they can't. They will be fired, if they do. They must report on what happened. That is why there is a process that protects their rights somewhat as citizens under the same constitution that you enjoy.
> 
> 
> * Was the man holding a knife*?


Two actually. 

Honest question:  Did you even watch the video?

----------

Invayne (06-18-2014),michaelr (06-18-2014)

----------


## TP Sweetie

> No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions
> 
> _By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado_
> 
> Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.
> 
> Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.
> 
> *Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.**1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns.* Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.
> ...

----------

St James (06-18-2014)

----------


## DonGlock26

> Dross to be cast aside...
> 
> 
> 
> Ah...something interesting.  Indeed, they are vested with authority - dubious authority, but that is for another time.  What do you say to a citizen about using force to resist and unlawful detention/search of their person by a cop on a power trip?  In the right or in the wrong?
> 
> You say they are held accountable and they are...sort of.  Paid admin leave is a terrible punishment I hear *eyeroll*.  If a cop acts outside the legal powers vested in him and it isn't horrible enough, he gets reprimanded sometimes.  If a citizen uses force to defend against this unlawful use of his powers, the books are thrown at him and he better have good legal counsel or he is toast, unless the cop is spectacularly egregious in his overstepping of his bounds.
> 
> Why the double standard?  Why can we not fire people who habitually violate their lawful authority?
> ...


LOL!!!  I guess you are done trying to mold bullshit into "common knowledge". Laughable.

The recourse to an unlawful search is not to try and murder the cop. The recourse is to file a complaint, fight any charges, and sue.

This "paid vacation" is nothing of the sort. They are under investigation, facing possible disipline, firing, and criminal charges. That's hardly a vacation. They get paid because they are assumed innocent until the investigation is done. Is this really news to you?

So, basically, you are an anarchist.

People do get fired for violating their lawful authority. They also get prosecuted.


Yes, there has been a thread on it here. How many cases do you want to bring up?

----------


## DonGlock26

> 



Too many big words?

----------


## TP Sweetie

> Too many big words?


I see you don't grasp the concept of 'too long: didn't read.'

----------


## Micketto

> Too many big words?


Problem: Banned, new ID, want to be included but can't form a coherent thought.

Solution: Post a GIF.

----------

DonGlock26 (06-19-2014),TP Sweetie (06-20-2014)

----------

