Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Did Officers Stop For White Castle "Sliders" En Route To 911 Calls? Husband Murdered Ronayle White
NBC5.com ^ | 05.22.02

Posted on 01/06/2004 10:22:01 AM PST by Coleus

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last
To: beelzepug
When I was a teenager (Jurassic period), "sliders" refered to really greasy french fries. (NW Wash. state)

If you've never had White Castle hamburgers (they're itty-bitty square things.......), then you'll have to understand that they are about 50% fat, 25% onion, and 25% beef parts.

61 posted on 01/06/2004 11:52:27 PM PST by NotJustAnotherPrettyFace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
Their mentality is disgusting. I don't think I know of a Chicago cop that does not have that way of thinking. They have bought into the liberal notion that the government should take care of the peons, and that since they are agents of the government, they know so much more than us simpletons. I was very surprised when Officer Narrowminded said that he had no problem with me having a gun. I thought he would tell me that I was too emotional to safely use a firearm, since I am a woman.
62 posted on 01/06/2004 11:57:37 PM PST by Rollee (Our country is not the doormat nor the ATM of the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Rollee
If they value a burger over a black woman's life then they should not be policeofficers. Fortunately where I live the cops are wonderful (sure pay them enough to boot). However that gun on the hip does something to certain people's mentality.
63 posted on 01/07/2004 12:00:34 AM PST by cyborg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
I just remembered something else from that party. All of these cops were discussing their favorite places to sleep while on duty. One guy talked about waking up with drool all over his face and looking over at his female partner and she was asleep and drooling too. Sleeping cops. Not very comforting for the peons of Chicago, I would imagine. I wish I had a tape recorder that night - the rhetoric and stories were ridiculous.
64 posted on 01/07/2004 12:03:42 AM PST by Rollee (Our country is not the doormat nor the ATM of the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Coleus
I didn't see the results of the investigation but if the story is true that the police were at White Castle eating "agita burgers" instead of answering 3, 911 calls in a span of 17 minutes then they should be in jail.

i agree but it doesnt go far enough mayor daly also needs to go to prison for public endagerment and manslughter if not actual first degree murder it was his lifelong policy against guns in chicago that made it posible for her to be murdered while she was unarmed

65 posted on 01/07/2004 12:08:01 AM PST by freepatriot32 (today it was the victory act tomorrow its victory coffee, victory cigarettes...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
You are right about deserving the job. The thing that makes me laugh about these guys (they are my husband's friends BTW) is that my black friends live in much nicer and cleaner homes than they do.

I have often wondered how they (the cops)can look down upon people who stand head and shoulders above them. What blows my mind even more is that they go to church every Sunday!

66 posted on 01/07/2004 12:10:25 AM PST by Rollee (Our country is not the doormat nor the ATM of the world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: CHICAGOFARMER
Dial 9mm instead of 911
I don't do 9mm's. Its nothing smaller than a .357 magnum or .45 ACP for me. If I have to use it, I want to be certain the perp won't get up again.
67 posted on 01/07/2004 6:09:16 AM PST by wjcsux (DemocRATS, out of touch with America, out of touch with reality.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
The service the police provide is not the protection of any specific individual, saith the court, but the protection of "society in general" by taking reports of criminal activity, gathering evidence, and seeking out and apprehending suspected criminals for delivery into the court system.

Really? Then why do Politicians and their Families,JUDGES, Big FatCat Businessmen, Diplomats, and Sports Stars get POLICE PROTECTION?!

Aren't THEY "Specific InDUHviduals"?!

Nope...if that "law" is upheld, then NO POLICE PROTECTION for ANT Politcian or Judge can be allowed!

Case Closed!

I beg your pardon for my bellicosity, but the new Bush "Illegal Infiltrators are OK" Doctrine has pi$$ed me off ROYALLY!

68 posted on 01/07/2004 1:35:44 PM PST by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
In Riss, the court held that

". . . to proclaim a new and general duty of protection in the law of tort, even to those who may be the particular seekers of protection based on specific hazards, could and would inevitably determine how the limited police resources of the community should be allocated and without predictable limits.

[]

Before such extension of responsibilities should be dictated by the indirect imposition of tort liabilities, there should be a legislative determination that that should be the scope of public responsibility."

In other words, the court held that it is not the business of the judiciary to declare that the police are liable for not providing 24-hour protection to an individual who is receiving threats, and if there should be liability, the legislature should be the one making the determination.

The holding in Riss does not have much (if any) bearing on this case.

69 posted on 01/07/2004 4:22:04 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
In California, at least, they passed a law to the opposite effect, prohibiting most causes of action in situations such as this, in Government Code Section 845:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

70 posted on 01/07/2004 4:26:30 PM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Itzlzha
I finally dug my copy of Dial 911 And Die out of storage, and here's the section on Illinois:
Under Illinois law, city and county governments are generally not liable for failing to supply police protection.1 Similarly, the governments are not legally liable for the injuries that police officers negligently cause while performing their official duties.2 A "special duty" exception to the rule exists which, if proved, would allow a victim of police negligence to sue. To invoke the exception, the victim must prove all four of the following elements:

  1. the police (government) was "uniquely aware" of the danger to the victim;
  2. the police did or failed to do some specific act;
  3. the act (or failure to act) was "affirmative or willful in nature;" and
  4. the victim was injured while he or she was under the direct and immediate control of the police (government's employees).3

Can the city police be liable for failing to respond to a crime victim who dials 911?

Sit and Watch for the Police

Sylvia Galuszynski and her mother heard noises in the evening of January 24, 1984, and discovered an intruder trying to break into their Chicago home.4 At 9:45pm, Sylvia dialed 911 to report the imminent invasion. The 911 operator, a police department employee, answered the call, took the information, and told Sylvia to "watch for the police" because they were on the way.

The police were not on their way; they did not arrive until 10:10pm. By then, the armed invaders had attacked and injured Sylvia and her mother, and had stolen and injured Sylvia and her mother, and had stolen money, jewelry, and other items. Could Sylvia and her mother sue the police for failing to promptly respond to the emergency 911 call?

The Illinois court recited the statutory law: "Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable... for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, [for] failure to prevent the commission of crimes, [or for] failure to apprehend criminals."5 The Court went on to say that "the duty of the police is to preserve the well-being of the community at large." That duty "is generally not owed to specific individuals."

Sylvia and her mother would lose their case under the general rule. But what about the "special duty" exception (set forth above)?

The court held that Sylvia and her mother had offered evidence for the first three elements of the "special duty" exception. Then came the bad news: they had no evidence or proof of the fourth element. The two victims could not show that they had been under the "direct and immediate control" of the police when they suffered their injuries. The police had not placed the two women into danger by anything the police had done. Therefore, the Court held, the police had owed no legal duty to respond to protect the women from the ongoing attack.

Ditched, Battered and Bewildered

Even when the police are on site, they have little duty to protect citizens. Valiant Poliny and Donald Nagolski were walking in Chicago on July 20, 1985, when Rolando Calderon attacked and beat them.6 Witnesses took Nagolski to the hospital, while Poliny followed Calderon up the street. Soon Poliny flagged a police car and led the two officers to Calderon.

Calderon was standing with some friends, one of whom was Jose Rosario. While the officers were arresting Calderon, Rosario and another man verbally abused Poliny and threatened to hurt him because he had helped the police arrest Calderon. Poliny asked the officers to help him get to the station house to file his complaint. He also asked the officers specifically not to leave him alone with Rosario. The officers refused Poliny's requests and left the scene. Rosario attacked and battered Poliny after the police were gone.

Poliny sued the officers and the police department for negligently failing to protect him from Rosario. The appellate court of Illinois upheld the trial court ruling: Poliny's case was dismissed.

Under the general rule, the Chicago police owed no duty to protect Poliny. The "special duty" exception also did not apply, because Poliny "was not in the immediate control of the police when he was attacked by Rosario."7 The fact that the police knew of the threats against Poliny but just left him alone on the street to face the hoodlums, did not move the court even to allow a trial against the police.

Fortunately, Sylvia Galuszynski and Valiant Poliny survived the attacks on them... no thanks to the 911 operators or to the police. Would the attacks have taken place if the intended victims had been equipped and ready to defend themselves with firearms?


1Leone v. City of Chicago, 619 N.E.2d 119, 121 (Ill. 1993); 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/1-101, 10/4-102 (West 1992)
2Leone, 619 N.E.2d at 122.
3Id.
4The facts and law of this case are set forth in Galuszynski v. City of Chicago, 475 N.E.2d 960 (Ill. App. 1985).
5Galuszynski, 475 N.E.2d at 961, quoting the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act, §4-102, now codified at 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. 10/4-102.
6The facts and law of this case are set forth in Poliny v. Soto, 533 N.E.2d 15 (Ill. App. 1998).
7Id. at 18.


71 posted on 01/20/2004 11:51:30 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: mvpel

city and county governments are generally not liable for failing to supply police protection. >>

then i hope the citizens can carry a gun for protection.


72 posted on 03/09/2009 7:41:59 PM PDT by Coleus (Abortion, Euthanasia & FOCA - - don't Obama and the Democrats just kill ya!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: stlnative
Where I come from they are not called Sliders, they are called Belly Bombers (in the St. Louis Area)

We used to call them rectum rockets

73 posted on 03/09/2009 7:45:47 PM PDT by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson