Common sense interaction with LE

[Flanmedic51]

This is a 2005 article referencing the laxed laws of several States in regards to domestic violence and the strength that a PFA order holds. If a cop drives by and witnesses an armed robbery, he has a duty to act and respond to it. Such as he does to stop a speeding vehicle. Its everything under criminal and vehicle laws. Let's compare apples to apples please.

I'm sorry where, exactly, did you get your law degree?

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals (equivalent to a state supreme court) case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.

You stated that dean's contention that police do not have a duty to protect was false. Clearly the statement is not false. let's compare what you actually said to the truth please

Both these cases are under special circumstances as anyone can read. But to reference these cases as an example that the police won't respond to a call is bogus. Yea, I read these cases before and what it entails. But these posts have no bearing on what this post was originally about. Another classy attempt at spreading anti cop.

 

[Treo]

Both these cases are under special circumstances as anyone can read. But to reference these cases as an example that the police won't respond to a call is bogus. Yea, I read these cases before and what it entails. But these posts have no bearing on what this post was originally about. Another classy attempt at spreading anti cop.

Again, Troll, no one said anything about the police not responding to a call. What was stated was that the police do not have a duty to protect individuals.

Please cite your evidence to the contrary

 

[Flanmedic51]

Again, Troll, no one said anything about the police not responding to a call. What was stated was that the police do not have a duty to protect individuals.

Please cite your evidence to the contrary

Troll? Umm ok. So I have a debate with you and you resort to name calling because you are citing court cases that have no bearing on this discussion. The court cases cited are only to release the liability off from the officers because extenuating circumstances occurred unfortunately for the victims, in which the officers ultimately did no wrong doing. So you take these courts cases, bring them to this forum and play semantics. Whatever floats your boat. I'm glad you're the expert here. I guess I'll have to call my Town Manager and tell him to take "Serve and Protect" off the police cruisers because I spoke to an expert on an internet forum. 10-4 buddy.

 

[SGB]

Please cite your evidence to the contrary

 

[Treo]

I really didn't think I was being obtuse did you understand what I wrote?

 

[Deanimator]

Both these cases are under special circumstances as anyone can read. But to reference these cases as an example that the police won't respond to a call is bogus. Yea, I read these cases before and what it entails. But these posts have no bearing on what this post was originally about. Another classy attempt at spreading anti cop.

They may respond, they may not respond. That does NOTHING to change the SETTLED LAW that:

• They have no LEGAL duty to respond.
• They have no LEGAL liability if they fail to respond.

And that leaves aside the fact that they are overwhelmingly unlikely to respond IN TIME.

Police "protection" of individuals is a malicious and mendacious fairytale.

Police don't protect individuals.
Police draw chalk outlines around individuals who fail to protect themselves.

 

[Deanimator]

I guess I'll have to call my Town Manager and tell him to take "Serve and Protect" off the police cruisers because I spoke to an expert on an internet forum. 10-4 buddy.

If it said instead, "Have a Nice Day" could you sue them if you didn't?

You've been proved wrong... repeatedly.

Of course I'll bet you claim that Katherine Johnston was a "drug dealer" too.

 

[NavyLCDR]

If a cop drives by and witnesses an armed robbery, he has a duty to act and respond to it. Such as he does to stop a speeding vehicle. Its everything under criminal and vehicle laws.

There are a whole lot of cops not doing their duty then (thankfully for me). I've driven by many, many police officers above the speed limit and they just let me go on by, shirking their duties.

Link Removed

 

[SGB]

I really didn't think I was being obtuse did you understand what I wrote?

YES .............. yes I did.