to eat doughnuts and shoot dogs...
Posted on 08/03/2013 6:54:14 AM PDT by marktwain
Yes, Gelman's from the the Ukraine, but local to me, there was a Russian that was a nuisance. Mental, alcoholic, and a two-fisted smoker, he'd be alternating cigarettes while drunkenly meandering his way across one of the main drags.
BTB, didn't Al Sharpton sue NYC (NYPD) for failing to protect him during one of his rabble-rousing/community-organizing marches? A resident of the targeted neighborhood stabbed Sharpton.
I remember a photo of an greasy, but alert Sharpton being loaded into an ambulance with a [forgetten] caption of how much he took the city for.
I was perplexed as to why he was able to do that.
No duty to protect? Then what are we paying them for?
“No duty to protect? Then what are we paying them for?”
Not duty to protect *you*. They have a duty to protect “society at large”, which translated means “follow orders and protect the government”.
Nowhere have I seen a court mention that they have a duty to protect the Constitution, which they take an oath to do.
to eat doughnuts and shoot dogs...
This is why I laugh at those supposed "rugged individualists" on this site. The rationale for these cases rises from the individualism forming one of the premises of the Common Law.
The Civil Law imposes a duty to help one in peril or injured.
I happen to personally believe that an armed policeman should be required to come to the aid of a victim of a crime where possible
Just talking about national rate.
That some cities are going up but the national rate remains low, just means that other areas are even safer.
“This is why I laugh at those supposed “rugged individualists” on this site. The rationale for these cases rises from the individualism forming one of the premises of the Common Law.”
I think it is much simpler. If the court ruled that the police had a duty to protect individuals, they could be sued for every crime that occurs. It would rapidly bankrupt the State.
I do not know of any government anywhere that allows police to be sued because an individual was the victim of a crime, unless the police had a “special duty” such as being assigned to guard someone, and then egregiously failed in that “special duty”.
“...The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no “special duty” to intervene at the time,...”
Let that sink in folks. It doesn’t matter to them if you’re attacked by some feral animal and die.
THE POLICE - you know, those “To Serve And Protect” heroes - have “No Special Duty To Intervene” - their words.
Demand your right to carry, and don’t stop pushing until they acquiesce. If the legislators don’t listen, remove them at every election cycle.
Law-abiding Gun owners put up with more infringement on our basic CIVIL, HUMAN, and CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS than ANY other group in this country.
How these people view your right to defend yourself is the litmus test for how they view ALL of your rights.
New York’s Sullivan Law must go.
If the libtards go after Stand Your Ground in other states, we need to go after the Sullivan Law in NYC, and other no-issue states, like New Jersey.
“...Not duty to protect *you*. They have a duty to protect “society at large”, which translated means “follow orders and protect the government”....”
But...the rationale we always hear the left whining about is that “you don’t need to carry a gun; that’s what the POLICE are for...”
Throw their own words back in their faces.
Their job is to draw the chalk line around your corpse and then fill out the necessary paperwork in triplicate.
The only person responsible for your safety is you. You are the First Responder.
I submit that if ANY one of those four people that this feral piece of sh*t “Maksim Gelman” murdered had had a gun, there wouldn’t be four dead and one stabbed. He’d be bleeding out on the subway floor and saving NY taxpayers a ton of money.
Bernard Goetz had it right back in the day.
To Protect and Serve ... myself!
They would have continued to cower in their safe pace.
Yeah, they thought he had a gun and that they were in danger themselves...but somehow didn’t see that as being a potential danger to this other guy? Riiigggghhhttt... Liberal / coward logic from two wanna-be men hiding.
“To Protect and Serve” needs to be changed to “Just Pay The Fine And You’ll Be Good To Go”.
Courts have said this over and over again.
The fact is that since no police authority is obligated to protect you, they can have no legitimate authority to prevent you from protecting yourself by instituting 'gun control'.
The Founders expounded on the RIGHT to keep and bear arms, but they were fully aware that it came with the DUTY to do so.
The majority of people today, however, think 'rights' are only a one-way street.
LOL! We've been calling it 'to Collect and Observe'
I do not know about the Civil Law and a governmental officers duty to protect or help an injured person. There does not necessarily have to be a response in damages for breach of any duty to protect-loss of ones job could be enough punishment.
“Demand your right to carry, and don’t stop pushing until they acquiesce. “
Failure right there. They will just use deadly force AGAINST you if you try to carry but otherwise IGNORE YOU. The key is that they WILL use deadly force whenever they feel like it but FORBID your availing yourself of it.
The only thing that will stop this mode is if you INFORM them that you will carry as per your rights and respond with what ever force is necessary if anyone decides they are going to resent it.
Thanks. Bookmarked.
“...The only thing that will stop this mode is if you INFORM them that you will carry as per your rights and respond with what ever force is necessary if anyone decides they are going to resent it...”
I hear you. But how many people are willing to take it to that logical and inevitable conclusion?
I’m merely saying to work within the system - while it is workable (and I know that point is debatable - most gunnies I know are already quoting the Claire Wolf “when is it time” scenario and have determined that it’s WELL PAST time).
But Carry is ALWAYS an individual option, left up to the person to decide for themselves. You take the risks you’re willing to take, to negate the potential threat to your life.
Problem is, WE - the people who make the system work - are caught between the thugs without badges and the thugs WITH badges enforcing blatantly unconstitutional - and therefore ILLEGAL - law at the behest of criminal politicians and judges who disregard the law of the land.
Carrying is civil disobedience in some states. Folks must decide if the risk is worth it - “Do I risk being murdered by the Thug without a Badge if I DON’T carry, or do I risk being murdered by a thug WITH a badge if I do?”
That’s a sick, psychotic choice being forced upon Citizens, by sick, psychotic people.
And folks just go along with it every day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.