Posted on 01/09/2013 3:01:18 PM PST by Red in Blue PA
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Someone has to shoot the dogs.
"Officer, this man is going to shoot me."
"Yer on yer own, pal. I don't have to do nothing until he shoots. Then I can get him for discharging a weapon inside the city limits."
"That's crazy!"
"OK, wise guy! Yer under arrest!"
Been that way for YEARS ...
They are REVENUE ENHANCEMENT AGENTS period
TT
Admission that 911 is really the governments definition of Dial A Prayer.
“Hello, police department, “We Serve and Protect,” uh, wait, forget that motto. If this is an emergency and you need protection or feel your life is in danger, please hang up and call a friend. If you survive, tomorrow you need to go out an buy some guns and a lot of ammo.
For fender benders, press 1. Parking violations, press 2. Dead bodies, press 3. For other problems, press 0, where an operator will tell you the only choices are 1, 2, 3, and 0.
We do not handle loud parties or barking dogs any longer, so do not press 4 or 5 or we will charge you will phone harrassment. Goodbye!”
The breakdown of American society continues apace.
The rift between the gov’t and law abiding citizenry grows wider.
The security of the nation’s domestic and foreign policy has been compromised.
It’s just a matter of time ...
Then we shouldn’t have to pay for them, right?
Then we shouldn’t have to pay for them, right?
You are quite correct. When I served on a Grand Jury in San Francisco in the early 80’s it was made quite clear that the police are essentially agents of the District Attorney. Their duty is to the law. People have a false impression, probably due to media crime dramas, that the police have a primary duty to “Protect and Serve” the citizenry.
The impression is that the duty is to the citizen but it actually is to the enforcement of the law, however flawed that may be and when the average citizen realizes that it is usually a somewhat of a shock.
Right now the liberals are attempting to create a government duty to provide healthcare. Does this mean that people can sue the government when their healthcare is inadequate, as proven by the fact that they die?
If so, then how much of the national treasure must be expended to save any particular person's life? Is a trillion dollars too much? How about a billion?
Millions of people every year die of heart disease. Is the government responsible and must the government spend untold trillions to research and eliminate heart disease? Certainly if the government has a duty to provide healthcare then how can it justify failing to spend any amount at all to cure such a disease?
Similar reasoning applies to police departments. How many policemen must be hired for each person in the nation in order to satisfy the requirement if the police have a duty to protect everyone?
Police departments are very similar to fire departments. There is no guarantee that the firemen will arrive in time and be able to extinguish the blaze. If you want to be an American, then you need a fire extinguisher and a gun in your home.
We have police because someone has to do the paperwork after a crime has been committed.
And don’t forget the Johnson County Cattle War of 1892:
http://www.wyohistory.org/essays/johnson-county-war
Dog control
Don’t be silly. You have to pay your taxes.
Connect the dots:
The U.S. Supreme Court has written: “Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other.” Luria v, U.S., 231 U.S. 9, 22. (1913)
As an aside to the above, every dictionary I’ve seen has a definition of citizen: a duty of allegiance in return for a duty to protect.
The State is the body politic. A body politic is the citizens.
Connect the dots:
There is no duty to protect > there is no obligation of negligence > there are no citizens > there is no body politic > there is no State.
Factually what is a State? What is the State of Arizona? The State of Arizona is an act of congress — words on paper. A legal fiction. Prior to February 14, 1912, the State of Arizona didn’t exist.
What is government? Men and women providing services by compulsion/violence.
Politicians don’t represent people. Pay the tax or go to jail isn’t representation. It’s ownership, or at least enslavement.
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.