More on no requirement of LEO's to protect citizens.

[manwithoutahome]

It may have been VA that had the radar sign. It was a long drive from FLA to my next station, Griffiss AFB in NY.

And I must give notice that I'm not trying to pick on Steve.

The biggest problem that I can think of is that a few make it bad for the majority. Just like the anti's just bring up the few times that a law-abiding gun owner does something stupid, the same goes for LEO's.

The thing that really puts the people off on LEO's are small things like the head LEO's saying that us "civilians" (forgetting that they too are civilians) don't need guns and shouldn't have certain guns. Or that they should have more Rights then normal "civilians" and should have the right to carry anytime, anywhere they please while busting the average "joe" for doing the same thing, or wanting to do the same thing.

As for the LEO's "rushing" into a place to help protect others, that is what you signed up for, that is your job. As it was my job in the military to put my life on the line for my country as well as my comrades if needed and when needed. I also have family that was at home that I wanted to come back too but I also had a job to do that involved high risks with death being one of the risks.

IMHO, all this discussion would be moot is we just payed attention to and lived by the Constitution, as written. Where everyone took care of themselves, had the Right to use the tools that are most effective, and helped the LEO's (or Sheriffs at the time) to get the criminals off the street. It would be a much better world IMNSHO.

Wayne

 

[R.H. Lee]

The liability shield is a good thing. We wouldn't have any police without it unless there was some kind of cap on damage awards and a Federal insurance program to spread the risk (cost) as widely as possible. There would have to be passed into law a statutory definition of the circumstances under which the police would be liable for failure to fullfiill some defined duty to protect.

This is true, however the law (and the interpretation of same) is far from absolute. Isn't there a legal principle known as "the reasonable man" theory? IIRC, the application of the idea "what would a reasonable man do" under given circumstances? Clearly, the opening topic described a situation where any reasonable man would determine that the police in question were negligent, criminally negligent, IMHO.

 

[Billy the Kid]

"don't put faith in strangers, or police, or anyone else to protect and/or help me. I make sure the fluids are filled, know where the tire is stored, have the proper basic tools that may be needed for basic repairs and have a cell phone BEFORE I go on a road trip. I don't feel sorry for someone who doesn't prepare for basic everyday troubles. If it were someone else's car, then they should have been prepared. Let them bust their knuckles."


Curious why do we need the police then? I want to know why my taxes are so high to pay for the salary of losers who cant even help when theyre not even busy.

By the way my girlfriends father has back issues, im sure youd allow an older fellow to bust his back and struggle with a giant van tire because of your high and mighty principals, but in the real world we dont all check our fluids or run flat tire drills before going on a trip. The police are supposed to be a failsafe in that instace of emergency.

How would it have looked on the news if i had gotten smashed into by a car and it later came to light that 4 officers drove by and ignored us knowing we were in a dangerous situation? By the way i dont want to hear this crap about "theyre not there to protect just me" because highway accidents seldom happen to a single person, 1 car crashes and then affects all the cars around it causing other crashes. This was a public nuisance that should have been handeld by the police... next time ill be sure to park my flat tired car in the middle of the highway and make a huge jam.

 

[R.H. Lee]

Billy the Kid-The police have no duty to help you change a tire. You should not be out on the highway without proper tools to accomplish same. If I had been a cop, I would have stopped to help, though, then cited you for blocking/impeding traffic and/or creating a hazardous situation.

Maybe your girlfriend's father needs an Auto Club membership.

 

[braindead0]

The police are supposed to be a failsafe in that instace of emergency.

That wasn't an emergency, to a someone coming on to the scene you were in the process of changing the tire. If you felt that doing so was dangerous, then everyone should have exited the vehicle and got to the safest location.. then call a tow truck.. Or,lacking a mobile phone..wait.

At that point I'd imagine a LEO would have stopped, because you're all standing around obviously not taking care of the issue.

Carry a tire plug kit, air compressor and learn how to use them.. I can plug a tire far faster than replace one, and that will take care of 90% of the flats you're likely to get.

I forgot who said it, but: ""Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part".

I often stop and help people that are obviously not able to take care of a flat, or other problem (if it's safe) but when I see people in the process of replacing a tire, well.. no sense stopping it's under control.

 

[Diggler]

Or you could do what Charlie Daniels would do:

Well, the spare was flat and I got uptight
'Cause there wasn't a fillin' station in sight
So I just limped on down the shoulder on the rim.

 

[sendec]

"Cowering in Fear?"

Columbine was a classic case of cluster copulation, that is'nt news. But I would contend that the on-scene cops were'nt cowering, but waiting for someone to make a decision. The after-action analysis of incidents like these that involve multiple agencies, multiple supervisors and multiple agendas are next to impossible to manage even without gunfire crackling in the background and stuff blowing up across town. Like the WTC, a large issue was keeping cops from charging off on their own and taking care of business with no semblance of command and control.

No one in the LE community was happy with the way Columbine turned out. There have been dramatic changes in the way agencies will approach the next similar incident. But to imply that the issue was cowardice is just shoddy.

As for changing tires, well, young sir, I have changed plenty, but if I am on my way to a call, you may have to wait. I cannot imagine anything that might be a lower priority than helping a healthy male change a tire, sorry if I am stereotyping, but grow a spine. And if you would rather put your butt at risk than drive on the rim to a safe place that's your call. I would prefer you not get killed doing something witless, 'cause the paperwork on fatals is a bear.

"Public nuisance" - heh heh, nice choice of words.

 

[alan]

As I recall, the concept of the police NOT owing any particular service to the individual is well established in the law, as that old saying goes.

Now then, what this says of or to what one sees on police cruisers, the shield and that TO SERVE AND PROTECT business, I cannot say, though I do suspect that it says something.

As to the poster, possibly a police officer, who noted, "I can't be everyplace at once" or words to that effect, he is entirely correct. We now come to judgement calls, and it is mistakes in judgement that get people killed. Some of the victims are police officers too.

Finally, with respect to those who proclaim or subscribe to the specious idea that "you don't need those things (guns), the police are there to protect you", I submit that that scam belongs with "the check in in the mail", "it's the same deal for everyone" and "of course, I will still respect you in the morning". I also submit that those who proclaim or so subscribe are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Finally, and this will no doubt really frost some, where government, for whatever reason, deprives them individual of the means of self defense, then government has undertaken the absolute responsibility for the protection of that individual. Given that government denies this responsibility, while it takes such power unto itself, where it is able, we have one hell of a problem, and like it or not, the individual, in the last analysis, is left to their own devices.

To government, one might say, respecting the foregoing, LEAD, FOLLOW OR GET OUT OF THE WAY.

 

[Treylis]

In the Columbine school shooting unarmed people were being systematically murdered and dying of their wounds while a virtual army of specially trained, equipped and armored cops were cowering outside, afraid to confront the two boys with guns.

I was rather disgusted with how that turned out myself.

 

[braindead0]

I was rather disgusted with how that turned out myself.

I was rather disgusted that not one parent had the courage to go in and do the job his/herself. Yeah, sure the cops would try to stop you (and likely succeed), but not even bothering to try says a lot about how far we've fallen.

 

[WilderBill]

Billy,
I have often seen LEOs in Texas park their patrol cars behind and a little out into oncoming traffic to protect someone changing a tire.
I also have noticed that the persons being protected were usually young, female and pretty. Even then, they were changing their own tire.

It would be just common courtisy to stop, offer to help, block oncoming traffic and maybe even put out a flair or two. It wouldn't have to be a LEO doing that either. Some poeple carry flares, tools even occasionally a floor jack.
The trouble with that is that common courtisy is just like common sense, in that it ain't common anymore.

 

[manwithoutahome]

I will have to say, to CYA in case I'm ticking too many LEO's off here , that I will say that there is a HUGE difference (here anyway in Eugene) between appointed and hired LEO's (City Police and State Police) and the elected LEO's (Sheriff and his/her deputies).

Appointed: Will not lift a finger for anything or anyone. Likes money, as in tickets, tickets, tickets. Will drive by a crime in process and ignore it because there is no money in it for them. Will wait for the 911 call (this I've seen first hand with my across the street neighbor).

Elected: Will stop and help. My Mom's car gave out and a nice lady deputy stopped to ensure everything was okay. Mom said that she needed to get ahold of me but didn't have a cell (she does now, I bought her one). Lady Deputy loaned my Mom her PRIVATE phone.

Same Lady Deputy that stopped me when I was 60 days into the state (becoming a resident). Oregon only allows 30 days to get your car registered and tagged. I was waiting for my title replacement. She smiled, said welcome to Oregon and bid me a good day.

To continue with the tagging story. I got the tags and was on my way home to put them on. I have "safety" bolts on my rear tag (makes it harder for the tags to be stolen) and the tool was at home. Got pulled over by a state trooper IN MY DRIVEWAY!. He came up and mentioned my tags and that he had seen my car for more than 30 days. I showed him the tags that were on my front seat. Told him I needed to get my front tag bracket as well as the tool to change out the rear tag. Wrote me a ticket anyway. I won in court .

So maybe that is the difference. If an LEO works for a boss that is appointed then it's "we serve ourselves and money" but when the boss is elected by the People, it's "serve and protect". Something to think about .

Wayne

 

[Art Eatman]

Seems to me there's a lack of understanding of either the legal duties of members of a police force, or of the court cases from which this thread derived.

As to the court cases, most are fairly narrowly drawn. A for-instance is that if the police are informed of some crime in progress, and when they arrive at the scene there is no activity that is visible or audible, they have no mandated duty to investigate further. As best I can tell, most police DO investigate further.

Note that police get literally millions of calls per year. Yet, there are two federal court decisions of which I know, and I've read of less than a dozen state court decisions. (I first ran across this a few years ago; I've used this argument against anti-gunners.)

The "cops have no duty to help" is not a worthwhile generalization, except as it shows the foolishness of "always" as espoused by the anti-gun crowd. The key is that there is no "always" for any sort of protection by anybody or anything--whether it's your own armaments or your seatbelts.

Flat tire? Dangerous place? What costs more, a new tire and wheel, or a trip to either a hospital or a morgue? Drive to a safe place; that's less costly than the deductible of one's health insurance policy.

Art

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

manwithoutahome, I agree with you 100%. There shouldn't be any police departments in the United States of America. Our traditional system of elected sheriffs is much more appropriate in a free republic. All official power must be answerable to the people at election time, or it will inevitably be corrupt. It's the nature of human kind.