"To Protect and Serve"
#1
That's what it used to say on the side of cop cars. It doesn't anymore. With the gun debates going on, what are your (as in anyone) views on who you feel is responsible for your protection. We always hear a certain portion of the left saying just call the cops. So how are we supposed to get to the point of safety to call the cops if we are being assaulted? If we have the chance to call the cops, what is the likelihood they are going to be in time to stop a crime in action? Nowhere in the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor does it say they are required to protect or serve.

Here is how the supreme court viewed this back in 2005.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politi...html?_r=2&

Quote:Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

<snip>
Reply
#2
Do you think about anything else besides Guns, Death, and Destruction?
Reply
#3
What police department had cars that said "to protect and serve"? I don't think it was around here. We always knew better than that. Smiling
Reply
#4
(01-11-2013, 04:58 PM)PonderThis Wrote: What police department had cars that said "to protect and serve"? I don't think it was around here. We always knew better than that. Smiling

Down south they used to say that.
Reply
#5
[Image: 1331817213896_adam12season2adam12201_102...90_295.jpg]
OL's been watching Adam 12 reruns again.
Reply
#6
(01-11-2013, 05:00 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-11-2013, 04:58 PM)PonderThis Wrote: What police department had cars that said "to protect and serve"? I don't think it was around here. We always knew better than that. Smiling

Down south they used to say that.

Who could have guessed you were from the south.
Reply
#7
Los Angeles County Sheriffs did.
Reply
#8
In Rohnert Park, the police come under 'Department of Public Safety' .


RPDPS Mission Statement:

Make Rohnert Park the Safest City Along the U.S. 101 Corridor.


love the picture they put on their web page


[Image: ShowImage.aspx?imageid=457]
Reply
#9
(01-11-2013, 05:08 PM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-11-2013, 05:00 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-11-2013, 04:58 PM)PonderThis Wrote: What police department had cars that said "to protect and serve"? I don't think it was around here. We always knew better than that. Smiling

Down south they used to say that.

Who could have guessed you were from the south.

Yep,'evil Southern California.
Reply
#10
(01-11-2013, 09:39 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-11-2013, 05:08 PM)PonderThis Wrote:
(01-11-2013, 05:00 PM)orygunluvr Wrote:
(01-11-2013, 04:58 PM)PonderThis Wrote: What police department had cars that said "to protect and serve"? I don't think it was around here. We always knew better than that. Smiling

Down south they used to say that.

Who could have guessed you were from the south.

Yep,'evil Southern California.

DIE, YE HERETIC!!!!!
Reply
#11
I spent a week in Rodent Park, one day.
Reply
#12
(01-11-2013, 08:31 PM)chuck white Wrote: In Rohnert Park, the police come under 'Department of Public Safety' .


RPDPS Mission Statement:

Make Rohnert Park the Safest City Along the U.S. 101 Corridor.


love the picture they put on their web page


[Image: ShowImage.aspx?imageid=457]

Aren't those the much feared and hated "assault axes" being held by the firefighters?
Reply
#13
I don't think they are semi-automatic "assault axes".
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)