The Myth of Police Protection

[CCTelander]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.


During the early morning hours of March 16, 1975 two men (Marvin Kent and James Morse) broke into a house occupied by three women in Washington DC. They found Mrs. Miriam Douglas and her four year old daughter asleep, at which point "...The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forcer Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her." (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)) This happened in front of her daughter.

The two other women in the house, Carrolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro, heard Douglas' screams and called the police. Within 3 minutes four squad cars were dispatched to the house, but the call was radioed out as a "Code 2," a lower priority call than the "Code 1" usually used for crimes in progress.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled out a window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to show up. When the police arrived, they knocked on the front door, received no response, and just left.

The two women crawled back in through the window and called the police AGAIN. The call was logged as "investigate the trouble," but no officers were dispatched.

The men then kidnapped all three women. They forced the women at knifepoint to go to Kent's apartment where "...For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse." (Id.)

The three victims sued DC and the officers involved for negligently failing to provide adequate police protection, but their case was dismissed. No jury ever heard any of the evidence.

The court stated that "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection." According to the court, this rule "rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." (Id. emphasis added)

The Supreme Court itself ruled that one has no constitutional right to state protection in DeShaney v. Winnebego County Dep't. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989). Every jurisdiction in the country has upheld similar rulings. It's part of the "qualified immunity" that government claims for itself. It's one of the most well-settled issues in American Jurisprudence.

Government, AT ANY LEVEL, has no positive duty to protect your life, liberty, or property. They tell you flat out, if you bother to look, that this is the case.

[phill4paul]

Quite right. At least they admit it.

Law Enforcement is NOT for the protection of any individual citizen.

It is there to protect the interests of the state over the individual citizens.

[Vessol]

The moral of the story? Don't depend on the state to protect you, you are your own protector as well as your families.

[Bruno]

horrible story

as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes (or hours) away (or never show)

[heavenlyboy34]

The moral of the story? Don't depend on the state to protect you, you are your own protector as well as your families.

Wow, how correct! I wish everyone on this board understood what you said here.:(

[CCTelander]

Quite right. At least they admit it.

Law Enforcement is NOT for the protection of any individual citizen.

It is there to protect the interests of the state over the individual citizens.

Exactly.

I always thought, since I first learned about this stuff, that the fact that they are NOT under any positive duty to protect an individual's rights, it begs the question who exactly ARE they there to protect?

Your last comment, in bold, hits the nail right on the head.

[CCTelander]

The moral of the story? Don't depend on the state to protect you, you are your own protector as well as your families.

And when you do so the odds are pretty good that YOU will be branded the "criminal." Justice for all? Riiiiggghhht.

[Vessol]

And when you do so the odds are pretty good that YOU will be branded the "criminal." Justice for all? Riiiiggghhht.

Yup. They can't have the people thinking they can protect themselves, afterall, how will you get people to support increased budgets for police and the expansion of the state if they realize that they themselves are their own security?

[Pauliana]

And if you try to protect yourself or your neighbors gas station, this is the language they use - http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/6837781.html

[Pauliana]

comments section on that story is great, btw

[getch36]

Quite right. At least they admit it.

Law Enforcement is NOT for the protection of any individual citizen.

It is there to protect the interests of the state over the individual citizens. So true................

[CCTelander]

If anyone is interested in more information on this topic, I'd suggest getting the book Dial 911 and Die available from JPFO and probably also from Amazon. It's a good introduction to the whole sordid mess.

Also, Marc Stevens has more info on this issue specifically and many other legal/constitutional issues at his site here:

http://marcstevens.net/

I'd also recommend his book Adventures in Legal Land for more eye-opening information.

[Anti Federalist]

In the educational spirit of this thread I'll also take the opportunity to post this again.

This video, of a law school professor, is REQUIRED viewing.

YouTube - Dont Talk to Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

[phill4paul]

In the educational spirit of this thread I'll also take the opportunity to post this again.

This video, of a law school professor, is REQUIRED viewing.

YouTube - Dont Talk to Police (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc)

Absolutely! It has gone to all my friends including a few lawyers I know.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

"Necessary tyranny" is organized crime. Organized crime is nothing more than good and bad men working together to exploit the masses. That is why we need to hold the Civil-Purpose of the people above the legal precedence of tyranny, the self evident and unalienable Truth above the stark reality we perceive with our five senses, and the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers above even the supreme law of the land.
This means not using our government as much as possible. We need to shut as much of it down as possible. The government needs to go back to doing what it use to do best -- picking up the garbage.

[coyote_sprit]

I can sit through extremely graphic movies, but even so much as reading about rape makes me queasy.

[jclay2]

So what are you supposed to do, if a cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking and you havn't? Do you say that I will not answer your question?

[phill4paul]

So what are you supposed to do, if a cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking and you havn't? Do you say that I will not answer your question?

Fuck with him severely, because you are sober!;)

And have a cam recording to a remote location so you can sue the city after he has tasered you.

In all honesty the choice is yours. The best answer is NO answer. Simply tell him that at the advise of your legal counsel you are under no obligation to answer his questions regarding any information excepting establishment of identity.
Then ask him if all the paper work you have given him (DL/Registration) is in proper order. If he replies in the affirmative ask him if you may proceed or if you are being detained.

[low preference guy]

I think we need a new forum called "Law Enforcement". There are way too many police abuses everyday and it would be great if there is a place to go to be aware of what's going on. We could also have advice from different people, like the lawyer who made that video advising not talking to the police if one doesn't have to.

"Law Enforcement" forum. What do you guys think?

[Reason]

Can we get some links to that OP story please.

[heavenlyboy34]

Very interesting and worthy post, OP. :cool:

[CCTelander]

Can we get some links to that OP story please.

I first read about the case back in the mid-1980s while doing legal research on 2nd Amendment issues. It's common knowledge among 2nd Amendment and gun rights advocates, and the story can be found on just about every pro-gun site on the web.

Here's the Wikipedia enrty on it:

here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia)

And here's the actual case from gunrightsalert.com:

here (http://gunrightsalert.com/documents/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia_444_A_2d_1.pdf)

Hope this helps.

EDIT: Fixed links.

[CCTelander]

Very interesting and worthy post, OP. :cool:

Thanks.

Ain't government just grand? On the one hand they do everything they can get away with to make it more difficult to flat impossible for individuals to defend themselves, while on the other they're simultaneously denying any responsibility to provide protection.

Who but government types would create such a flat out evil state of affairs? And then label it "justice." Puh-lease.

[CCTelander]

bump

[Thesemindz]

bump

[CCTelander]

I can't believe that this thread has gotten so little attention, especially considering how much attention the police abuse threads usually get.

[libertyjam]

old news

[CCTelander]

old news

Glad to see that you're well informed on the issue. But keep in mind that there are likely others who are not.

[InterestedParticipant]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.
Do you recall where this story was originally posted?

I ask because one of their goals are to break-up our local police forces by reducing trust between police and the community, reducing the competency of police, dumb-down police training, under-fund police departments, and to highlight stories like this in the media.

So, while this is clearly an egregious act and total incompetence by the police, and a telling decision by the courts, I'm still left wondering if there is more to understand here.

[ScoutsHonor]

"Necessary tyranny" is organized crime. Organized crime is nothing more than good and bad men working together to exploit the masses. That is why we need to hold the Civil-Purpose of the people above the legal precedence of tyranny, the self evident and unalienable Truth above the stark reality we perceive with our five senses, and the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers above even the supreme law of the land.
This means not using our government as much as possible. We need to shut as much of it down as possible. The government needs to go back to doing what it use to do best -- picking up the garbage.
Amen to that! :p

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

So what are you supposed to do, if a cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking and you havn't? Do you say that I will not answer your question?

The "Truth" cannot be destroyed. Whoever falls by the wayside in their quest for it will be healed by the hand of the Almighty while those in contempt of it are in danger of standing in judgement.

[ScoutsHonor]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

What amazing, totally outrageous, absolute rubbish this is.

How on earth do we the citizens allow these people to get away with being paid to protect us, yet they are not required to protect us??

I had no idea the laws in this country had reached this level of insanity. How *sweet* a deal this is for the ethically deficient.

This is something we could have fought, on a local level. Were we just not aware? Why didn't we object??

Anybody know? :confused::mad:

[CCTelander]

What amazing, totally outrageous, absolute rubbish this is.

How on earth do we the citizens allow these people to get away with being paid to protect us, yet they are not required to protect us??

I had no idea the laws in this country had reached this level of insanity. How *sweet* a deal this is for the ethically deficient.

This is something we could have fought, on a local level. Were we just not aware? Why didn't we object??

Anybody know? :confused::mad:

The legal doctrine of "sovereign" or qualified immunity has actually existed for hundreds of years. It came down to us from English common law.

If you think about it, there's no realistic way the "authorities" CAN be responsible for protecting our "rights," unless there's literally a cop for every individual.

Sovereign immunity does indeed suck. But the real question here, to me, is: If they aren't responsible for protecting our rights and, in reality simply couldn't even if they were to accept such a responsibility, then what do we need them for?

[InterestedParticipant]

The legal doctrine of "sovereign" or qualified immunity has actually existed for hundreds of years. It came down to us from English common law.

If you think about it, there's no realistic way the "authorities" CAN be responsible for protecting our "rights," unless there's literally a cop for every individual.

Sovereign immunity does indeed suck. But the real question here, to me, is: If they aren't responsible for protecting our rights and, in reality simply couldn't even if they were to accept such a responsibility, then what do we need them for?
We don't

[CCTelander]

We don't

My thoughts exactly.

[Andrew-Austin]

Police are above the law, or they are the law, as they are the agents of the ruling class. They scarcely protect citizens because they have no incentives to. They get paid one way or another as their relationship with citizens obviously is not voluntary, and their departments have no competition. Would you feel the need to go off and fight real crime under such conditions? No its dangerous, you would be more content to do miscellaneous shit like racking up ticket income from people who commit victimless crimes, like your superiors want you to do. You of course couldn't rock any boats, but you can easily get by just fine as a douche who provides little to no services.

And since the state has a monopoly on law/legislation, in the event of conflict between the state's agents and citizens, it will of course rule in the favor of its agents (even though they might have been the aggressors). A lot of cops get their rocks off pushing people around, we've all witnessed the "jackboot" psychology as Alex Jones would say. Just as democracy attracts the best liars and people with the least amount of moral scruples to become legislators, I imagine the same can apply to the legislation enforcers. Though of course this is a generalization and there are rare exceptions, the ingredients are all there to produce what can only laughably be called "service and protection" at a high and involuntary rate.

The only thing tugging them along is the need for at least the guise of providing a service, and the slow nagging of the political process. But there is an awful lot of propaganda surrounding the "boys in blue", and people can't imagine things being any other way to begin with.

[fisharmor]

If you haven't read about Deshaney v. Winnebago County, you probably should.
The decision is actually a consistent libertarian position.
Yes, it sucks profoundly that there is a 30 year old somewhere who has been in a home for the mentally retarded since age 4 simply because his father beat him, and yes, it sucks profoundly that it could have been prevented.
However, you can't be all for government intervention and libertarian at the same time.
What we need to remember most of all from that case is that the father only did 2 years in jail as a result.
That is the injustice of this case, not that the government didn't prevent it.

As already pointed out, the police can't prevent crime - they can only respond to it. I agree in theory with having a team of responders. Like the rest of you, I disagree sharply with the idea of having a team of prowlers.

Both cops and criminals are going to go for the easy targets. It's human nature, and it's simple economics. And the solution is also economic: increase the number of hard targets to reduce crime, and, since we can't reduce the number of easy targets for cops, we need to reduce the number of cops. Preferably to zero.

[ScoutsHonor]

The legal doctrine of "sovereign" or qualified immunity has actually existed for hundreds of years. It came down to us from English common law.

Slavery existed for hundreds of years too--that didn't stop us from doing away with it. This is totally immoral and irrational, and cannot be justified by "tradition."


If you think about it, there's no realistic way the "authorities" CAN be responsible for protecting our "rights," unless there's literally a cop for every individual.

Of course they can; they can be required by their contracts to respond to calls for help, as this is their job and their duty. If they do any less, they must be fired for negligence and incompetence, and perhaps be *sueable.*


Sovereign immunity does indeed suck. But the real question here, to me, is: If they aren't responsible for protecting our rights and, in reality simply couldn't even if they were to accept such a responsibility, then what do we need them for?

Same answer as IP's - we don't. But we DO need protective services. I wonder what the "AnCaps" recommend....

The (very obvious) point is, if they DO NOTHING, (1) they should not be getting paid, since this isn't Alice in Wonderland, last time I looked. And secondly, we the people do rightfully need protection of our persons and property assured to us, and these PARASITES stand as an obstruction to our ever having this rightful service, because they pretend to BE that service. But because they aren't, we are essentially left naked.

NOT a smart deal for the American people, to put it mildly!

[ScoutsHonor]

police are above the law, or they are the law, as they are the agents of the ruling class. They scarcely protect citizens because they have no incentives to. They get paid one way or another as their relationship with citizens obviously is not voluntary, and their departments have no competition. Would you feel the need to go off and fight real crime under such conditions? No its dangerous, you would be more content to do miscellaneous shit like racking up ticket income from people who commit victimless crimes, like your superiors want you to do. You of course couldn't rock any boats, but you can easily get by just fine as a douche who provides little to no services.

And since the state has a monopoly on law/legislation, in the event of conflict between the state's agents and citizens, it will of course rule in the favor of its agents (even though they might have been the aggressors). A lot of cops get their rocks off pushing people around, we've all witnessed the "jackboot" psychology as alex jones would say. Just as democracy attracts the best liars and people with the least amount of moral scruples to become legislators, i imagine the same can apply to the legislation enforcers. Though of course this is a generalization and there are rare exceptions, the ingredients are all there to produce what can only laughably be called "service and protection" at a high and involuntary rate.

The only thing tugging them along is the need for at least the guise of providing a service, and the slow nagging of the political process. But there is an awful lot of propaganda surrounding the "boys in blue", and people can't imagine things being any other way to begin with.

+100

[CCTelander]

Slavery existed for hundreds of years too--that didn't stop us from doing away with it. This is totally immoral and irrational, and cannot be justified by "tradition."


My appologies. I was probably a bit unclear in my response. I wasn't in any way defending sovereign or qualified immunity.

My first 2 comments were mainly in response to this part of your original post:


I had no idea the laws in this country had reached this level of insanity. How *sweet* a deal this is for the ethically deficient.

This is something we could have fought, on a local level. Were we just not aware? Why didn't we object??

It seemed to me that you were asking something along the lines of: "What, were WE asleep at the wheel here?" "How could we have let this happen?" etc.

My comments were meant to point out that WE didn't let anything happen. The legal doctrine of sovereign immunity has been "the law of the land" right from the beginning. It was foisted on us hundreds of years before anyone here was even born. The courts have consistently upheld it, at all levels, in every jurisdiction ever since.



Of course they can; they can be required by their contracts to respond to calls for help, as this is their job and their duty. If they do any less, they must be fired for negligence and incompetence, and perhaps be *sueable.*


If there's going to be government (I support a stateless society but that's another conversation), then EVERY person holding a position of power, no matter how innocuous or menial needs to be held 100% accountable for everything they do in that position. No immunity whatsoever under any circumstances.

Sadly, attempting to eliminate, or even cut back sovereign immunity is likely to be an even tougher battle than most other "reforms" would be. It cuts at the very roots, the foundations of government and those in power are NOT likely to allow anything to be done about it.

Furthermore, they really can't protect our "rights" to any significant degree, even if they wanted to. As an example:

About ten years ago I was mugged about half a block from my house. Six guys jumped me, beat the shit out of me and stole some money. It happened on a fairly busy street, although it was late at night.

There was no opportunity to even call for help, let alone time for said "help" to arrive. Couldn't even call the cops until I got back home, long after everything was over. They came out, took a report, including a statement by an eye witness, and that was it. Never found the guys, probably never even looked.

Even if the police WERE required to actually "protect" my "rights," what exactly could they have done? They weren't there, on the scene when the crime actually happened. Unless I had a cop going around with me everywhere I go, they usually won't be.

As the saying goes, "When seconds count the police (or even private protection agencies for that matter) are only MINUTES away."

With MANY crimes, perhaps even MOST, this is the case. Ultimately the responsibility for the defense of our "rights" rests squarely with us, 100%. WE'RE the ones who are there, on the scene, when the infringements actually happen. We're the only ones that can really do anything, except in rare cases, at that point.



Same answer as IP's - we don't. But we DO need protective services. I wonder what the "AnCaps" recommend....


Sure, we do need some kind of protection agencies. Somebody needs to investigate and find the perpetrators so we can seek restitution. But definitely NOT an organization granted a monopoly on the service, and with absolutely no incentives to actually do the right thing when the time comes.



The (very obvious) point is, if they DO NOTHING, (1) they should not be getting paid, since this isn't Alice in Wonderland, last time I looked. And secondly, we the people do rightfully need protection of our persons and property assured to us, and these PARASITES stand as an obstruction to our ever having this rightful service, because they pretend to BE that service. But because they aren't, we are essentially left naked.


Can't argue with you. They're pretty much useless as is. But even if the situation were otherwise, the responsibility for our own defense would still fall, most of the time, on us.



NOT a smart deal for the American people, to put it mildly!


One of MANY losuy deals the people get screwed with.

[KCIndy]

I ask because one of their goals are to break-up our local police forces by reducing trust between police and the community, reducing the competency of police, dumb-down police training, under-fund police departments, and to highlight stories like this in the media.
.


Who are you talking about???

[Vessol]

I love the google ads for this thread, all criminal defense attorney ads.

[CCTelander]

Do you recall where this story was originally posted?

I ask because one of their goals are to break-up our local police forces by reducing trust between police and the community, reducing the competency of police, dumb-down police training, under-fund police departments, and to highlight stories like this in the media.

So, while this is clearly an egregious act and total incompetence by the police, and a telling decision by the courts, I'm still left wondering if there is more to understand here.

Sorry IP, I missed this post the first time through.

I first read about it while doing legal research into constitutional issues back in the mid- to late 1980s. Here's the correct cite:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, 4 (D.C. 1981)

You can easily look it up at any university law library, assuming they'll let you use it. Back in those days we had to fight tooth and nail for the "privillege" of using law libraries that our tax dollars paid for. I have to assume it would be even worse now, though I haven't done any of that kind of research in quite a few years.

If you have a West Law or Lexis subscription it's available online, but those are prohibitively expensive.

I'd suggest getting the book Dial 911 and Die from JPFO or Amazon. You may not fully trust groups like JPFO, but every citation in the book is pretty easily verifiable, so long as you can get access to a decent law library.

As far as brearking up local police forces, great idea! Get rid of all of them and replace them with private security firms. Professional government police forces were never intended to "fight crime" or protect individual rights anyway. Their primary purpose has always been to keep certain segments of society under control (mostly any segment that criticizes government). A little research into their history demonstrates this quite clearly.

They're tax parasites. Government paid thugs there to make sure individuals don't somehow get the crazy idea that they're actually the sovereigns. We don't need them. We got by quite well for close to a century without them. When they finally go, good riddance.

[CCTelander]

I love the google ads for this thread, all criminal defense attorney ads.

That's hilarious.

[Kalashnikov Josh]

What I find appalling,is that even tho the government has made it clear they have no obligation to protect the people via the police mechanism,they still insist on 'gun control'......and victimizing people who dare defend themselves with the 'justice system'.

So where does a setup like that leave us?

easy.

set up.

[CCTelander]

What I find appalling,is that even tho the government has made it clear they have no obligation to protect the people via the police mechanism,they still insist on 'gun control'......and victimizing people who dare defend themselves with the 'justice system'.

So where does a setup like that leave us?

easy.

set up.

Sadly, that's all too true.

[CCTelander]

bump

[Travlyr]

Appreciate the bump.

Everything was fine in my world, until I read this. What good are they to us if they aren't going to protect us? Oh, yeah... the money/jobs thing.

[CCTelander]

Appreciate the bump.


No problem.



Everything was fine in my world, until I read this. What good are they to us if they aren't going to protect us? Oh, yeah... the money/jobs thing.


Sorry if it ruined your day man. But I always feel it's better to be aware of the situation than to go about unaware and maybe get blindsided by it some day.

[Matt Collins]

Rights and responsibilities are in tandem. When one gives up their responsibility to protect themselves, they will eventually lose the right to protect themselves. When one gives up the responsibility to educate their children, they will also lose their right to educate their children too.

[ninepointfive]

I think we need a new Folder somewhere called "Law Enforcement". There are way too many police abuses everyday and it would be great if there is a place to go to be aware of what's going on. We could also have advice from different people, like the lawyer who made that video advising not talking to the police if one doesn't have to.

"Law Enforcement" folder. What do you guys think?

+1

[CCTelander]

+1

Good idea.

[CCTelander]

bump

[CCTelander]

Bump for relevance to other threads.

[phill4paul]

Some more court cases regarding OP.

http://home.absolute.net/xode/nwofraud/obvious_fraud/protectnscam.htm

[ninepointfive]

bump for law enforcement forums

[Kregisen]

bump for law enforcement forums


I concur!

[low preference guy]

bump for law enforcement forums

+1!!!!!!!!!

Josh, what do you think? :cool:

[CCTelander]

bump

[osan]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

Jesus... what a horror story.

The USA is SO fucked, and the worst bit is that it doesn't have to be this way.

[CCTelander]

Jesus... what a horror story.

The USA is SO fucked, and the worst bit is that it doesn't have to be this way.

As long as people fear their neighbor more than they fear the state, or desire to control their neighbor "for the common good," which amounts to the same thing, it will be this way. Unless, of course, we manage to get rid of the state.

[CCTelander]

bump

[CCTelander]

Bump because, sadly, it remains relevant.

[CCTelander]

Bump because, sadly, it remains relevant.


Still relevant. Still a travesty.

[CCTelander]

Bump for continued relevance.

[CCTelander]

bump

[heavenlyboy34]

The moral of the story? Don't depend on the state to protect you, you are your own protector as well as your families.

I feel like I've been saying this around here forever, but some ne'er-do-wells insist I'm wrong! :eek:

[CCTelander]

I feel like I've been saying this around here forever, but some ne'er-do-wells insist I'm wrong! :eek:


That's because if they admit that you're right, they have to actually accept 100% responsibility for their own lives and circumstances. That's an incredibly frightening proposition for most people.

[heavenlyboy34]

That's because if they admit that you're right, they have to actually accept 100% responsibility for their own lives and circumstances. That's an incredibly frightening proposition for most people.

That has been my experience as well. I'll have to blog about that sometime. :cool:

[CCTelander]

That has been my experience as well. I'll have to blog about that sometime. :cool:


The sad thing is that they'll likely never experience the very real sense of liberation and freedom that comes with accepting that responsibility.

And, since whether they accept it or not, it still remains right there where it's always been, they actually get nothing but an illusion for their trouble.

[speciallyblend]

police are like janitors. they are there to pick up the pieces and smudge the mess around!!

[CCTelander]

police are like janitors. they are there to pick up the pieces and smudge the mess around!!


They're mere historians, at best. They come out, write down what happened, and dsraw a chalk outline around the bodies.

[speciallyblend]

They're mere historians, at best. They come out, write down what happened, and dsraw a chalk outline around the bodies.

pretty much, the only person that will save you in a time of crisis!!! Is yourself!!

police are of 0 use in any crime at the moment!!

[CCTelander]

pretty much, the only person that will save you in a time of crisis!!! Is yourself!!

police are of 0 use in any crime at the moment!!


Like the old truism goes, "When seconds count the police are only MINUTES away."

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

Can't even go a few days lately without seeing a good reason to bump this thread again. Think about that, and weep.

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

Bump because it's STILL relevant.

[speciallyblend]

Police are like Janitors, instead of cleaning up the mess they only spread the crap around! or Historians;)

[Mach]

I've always known about this, I see reality, not what I'm taught to see.

If you have kids go to some kind of parents day at their school and start telling the whole classroom about this.... they'd probably call the police on you.

[CCTelander]

bump

[Anti Federalist]

Bumpity bumpity bump

[Fox McCloud]

actually, police do "protect and serve", as they're merely peace officers.

That said, I'd argue that in today's society, true police/peace officers are gone...instead we have servants of the state---which are, IMHO, accurately titled "law enforcement".

Either way, assuming that quip about the Supreme Court case is accurate, it proves the point a number of anarcho-capitalists have been making for years; the military, police, and guard are not there to "defend the people/citizens" they're there to defend and insure continuity of the state.

[Lucille]

One of our employees was robbed of all of his valuables (guns, jewelry, electronics, etc) by his neighbor over the weekend. He could even still see the footprints leading from their house to his. He called the Co. Sheriff's office, they came over, and was told there was nothing they could do.

I told my DH he should have told them he thought there was a drug operation in the house, and that he thinks they also robbed his house, and they would have been busting down the guy's door within the hour.

To Protect and Serve the State.

[coastie]

One of our employees was robbed of all of his valuables (guns, jewelry, electronics, etc) by his neighbor over the weekend. He could even still see the footprints leading from their house to his. He called the Co. Sheriff's office, they came over, and was told there was nothing they could do.

I told my DH he should have told them he thought there was a drug operation in the house, and that he thinks they also robbed his house.....



:eek::confused:

...and then they would've promptly shot and killed the dogs and kids, stun grenad-ed to death whomever was left, and then burned her down to the ground for good measure. Hell, they might even show up at the wrong house;) Hooray for state violence on your behalf!:rolleyes:

[Lucille]

:eek::confused:

...and then they would've promptly shot and killed the dogs and kids, stun grenad-ed to death whomever was left, and then burned her down to the ground for good measure. Hell, they might even show up at the wrong house;) Hooray for state violence on your behalf!:rolleyes:

LOL... FWIW, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek.

[osan]

horrible story

as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes (or hours) away (or never show)

Reminds me of a murder on Broadway in the vicinity of 48th street in Manhattan perhaps 25 years ago. In those days it was a real shit neighborhood - the upper end of Hell's Kitchen. Woman is being beaten - screaming. Neighbors call cops. This went on for HOURS. Finally the screaming stopped. Three DAYS later the stupid ass and utterly worthless NYPD show up. Of course the woman had been dead for three days. But what's another dead ****** in the scheme of life in NYC, right?

Police are less than worthless. Don't want them. Don't need them. Not all are bad guys, but enough are to ruin things for everyone and that is all I need to know.

I say eliminate them one and all.

[coastie]

LOL... FWIW, my tongue was firmly planted in my cheek.

I hear ya, so was mine.:p

I was also alluding to the all too common attitude nowadays to do exactly as you said it though, drives me insane.:(

[aGameOfThrones]

Bump :)

[ClayTrainor]

Understanding this thread could save your life one day. :)

[DamianTV]

...

The three victims sued DC and the officers involved for negligently failing to provide adequate police protection, but their case was dismissed. No jury ever heard any of the evidence.

The court stated that "official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection." According to the court, this rule "rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." (Id. emphasis added)


Thread was recently Referenced, thus needs emphasis on WHY it was Referenced.

[heavenlyboy34]

still an epic thread after all this time. :cool:

[CCTelander]

bump

[donnay]

Great thread!

911 would be the very last thing I would do if an intruder was in my home.

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

Sadly, STILL relevant.

[CCTelander]

Bump for the elderly couple in IL.

[Krugerrand]

Bump for the elderly couple in IL.

This thread should just be stickied in Individual Rights and Liberties.

[ClayTrainor]

This thread should just be stickied in Individual Rights and Liberties.

Qft

One of the most important threads on rpf, IMHO

[CCTelander]

This thread should just be stickied in Individual Rights and Liberties.



Qft

One of the most important threads on rpf, IMHO


Thanks to you both.

I thought it was pretty important information too, but every time it gets bumped it picks up maybe a couple of extra views and then drops off, so we may be in the minority on that one! :D:confused::D

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

bump

[AFPVet]

Don't dial 911 for help... dial 1911 :) ... or Sig, Glock, Springfield....

[CCTelander]

Feeling safer yet?

[CCTelander]

///

[heavenlyboy34]

Glad this is still getting bumped. Useful info. :cool:

[heavenlyboy34]

Thanks.

Ain't government just grand? On the one hand they do everything they can get away with to make it more difficult to flat impossible for individuals to defend themselves, while on the other they're simultaneously denying any responsibility to provide protection.

Who but government types would create such a flat out evil state of affairs? And then label it "justice." Puh-lease.
Umm, a really large and powerful street gang? ;)

[CCTelander]

Umm, a really large and powerful street gang? ;)


True.

[John F Kennedy III]

I was told a long time ago that the Constitution says the government cannot militarize against its own people and that police are a violation of this. I never found where it says this but this thread reminded me of it.

[Travlyr]

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm)

Roger Roots

Yet the dissident English colonists who framed the United States Constitution would have seen this modern 'police state' as alien to their foremost principles.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

Sadly, still relevant.

[heavenlyboy34]

Sadly, still relevant.
Yep. :( Here's an extra bump for ya.

[CCTelander]

///

[Anti Federalist]

Good timing

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?326745-OH-Family-gets-SWAT-raid-over-neighborhood-dispute-cops-kill-family-dog.

[CCTelander]

Good timing

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?326745-OH-Family-gets-SWAT-raid-over-neighborhood-dispute-cops-kill-family-dog.


LOL! I just posted my usual in that thread, linking back to this one!

[CCTelander]

Still relevant.

[CCTelander]

bump

[Krugerrand]

bump

About that "Serve and Protect" motto....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?327509-quot-U-raise-em-we-cage-em.-quot

http://media.sacbee.com/smedia/2011/10/31/19/59/eDukf.Em.4.jpg

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

///

[DamianTV]

This thread would benefit from being stickied, maybe not necessarily in this thread, but I think the information in it is just THAT powerful.

[CCTelander]

This thread would benefit from being stickied, maybe not necessarily in this thread, but I think the information in it is just THAT powerful.


I agree. It's been suggested before, but for whatever reason hasn't made it.

[noneedtoaggress]

bump for sticky.

[heavenlyboy34]

Police are above the law, or they are the law, as they are the agents of the ruling class. They scarcely protect citizens because they have no incentives to. They get paid one way or another as their relationship with citizens obviously is not voluntary, and their departments have no competition. Would you feel the need to go off and fight real crime under such conditions? No its dangerous, you would be more content to do miscellaneous shit like racking up ticket income from people who commit victimless crimes, like your superiors want you to do. You of course couldn't rock any boats, but you can easily get by just fine as a douche who provides little to no services.

And since the state has a monopoly on law/legislation, in the event of conflict between the state's agents and citizens, it will of course rule in the favor of its agents (even though they might have been the aggressors). A lot of cops get their rocks off pushing people around, we've all witnessed the "jackboot" psychology as Alex Jones would say. Just as democracy attracts the best liars and people with the least amount of moral scruples to become legislators, I imagine the same can apply to the legislation enforcers. Though of course this is a generalization and there are rare exceptions, the ingredients are all there to produce what can only laughably be called "service and protection" at a high and involuntary rate.

The only thing tugging them along is the need for at least the guise of providing a service, and the slow nagging of the political process. But there is an awful lot of propaganda surrounding the "boys in blue", and people can't imagine things being any other way to begin with.
http://creativegreenius.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/i-am-the-law.jpg?w=281&h=400;)

[DamianTV]

I agree. It's been suggested before, but for whatever reason hasn't made it.

It might not be appropriate to sticky in this forum, but another forum I believe it would be ideal to sticky. I'd suggest the "Individual Rights & Liberties" thread because the threat that the police pose to the public is much more of a problem than most people think it is. And so is the assumption that if you call the police, they have to help you, when in fact, too many times, the exact opposite has happened, in sometimes lethal conditions for the people calling for help.

Police Protection is NOT a Right. Its not even Guaranteed. People need to know what is a Right and what is Not a Right, and thus, my strong recommendation for a sticky.

[CCTelander]

Another bump for continued relevance.

[CCTelander]

It might not be appropriate to sticky in this forum, but another forum I believe it would be ideal to sticky. I'd suggest the "Individual Rights & Liberties" thread because the threat that the police pose to the public is much more of a problem than most people think it is. And so is the assumption that if you call the police, they have to help you, when in fact, too many times, the exact opposite has happened, in sometimes lethal conditions for the people calling for help.

Police Protection is NOT a Right. Its not even Guaranteed. People need to know what is a Right and what is Not a Right, and thus, my strong recommendation for a sticky.


I really wish someone would take your recommendation to heart. It would save having to bump this puppy all the time!
:)

[squarepusher]

http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/attachments/suggestions-box/16844d1269831963-bumping-threads-1269829901124.jpg

[CCTelander]

http://www.blowoutcards.com/forums/attachments/suggestions-box/16844d1269831963-bumping-threads-1269829901124.jpg


lulz! Awesome pic! ;)

[CCTelander]

bump

[DamianTV]

Bump. Hell, this thread ought to be Stickied somewhere...

[Anti Federalist]

Bump.

[DamianTV]

Seriously people, if you havent read this thread, read it from Post #1 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?228509-The-Myth-of-Police-Protection).


...

Government, AT ANY LEVEL, has no positive duty to protect your life, liberty, or property. They tell you flat out, if you bother to look, that this is the case.

[John F Kennedy III]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

Disgusting? Yes. Surprising? No.

[John F Kennedy III]

Thread should be stickied on front page :p

[DamianTV]

Agree. Vote for Sticky!

[phill4paul]

Agree. Vote for Sticky!

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT1jtWF9LPrObXSCcN8QXt2RzAxG3QvQ Uo0mjdtY2_UR2VAYuvWGA

[Jingles]

Yeah, I don't really fell that a violent gang funded by the stolen money of others by the force of the state exactly "protects" me...

[John F Kennedy III]

I asked the question and then forgot to check for an answer until last night. But I think what Travlyr said should be repeated:

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm)

Roger Roots

Yet the dissident English colonists who framed the United States Constitution would have seen this modern 'police state' as alien to their foremost principles.


THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEXT

The Constitution contains no explicit provisions for criminal law enforcement. Nor did the constitutions of any of the several states contain such provisions at the time of the Founding. Early constitutions enunciated the intention that law enforcement was a universal duty that each person owed to the community, rather than a power of the government. Founding-era constitutions addressed law enforcement from the standpoint of individual liberties and placed explicit barriers upon the state.

[CCTelander]

bump for continued relevance.

[XTreat]

\\

[osan]

I asked the question and then forgot to check for an answer until last night. But I think what Travlyr said should be repeated:

ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL? (http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm)

Roger Roots

Cool. Lets dissolve every police department in the nation.

All in favor...

[CCTelander]

bump

[heavenlyboy34]

I deem this thread bump and sticky-worthy. So let it be written, so let it be done.

[CCTelander]

I deem this thread bump and sticky-worthy. So let it be written, so let it be done.


At the risk of seeming immodest, you've got my vote! ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

At the risk of seeming immodest, you've got my vote! ;) Thanks! Being an honorary mod and bearer of Oyarde's title of nobility and all, I'm hoping my clout helps the cause. :cool:

[CCTelander]

Thanks! Being an honorary mod and bearer of Oyarde's title of nobility and all, I'm hoping my clout helps the cause. :cool:


Lulz! Good luck with that! ;)

[heavenlyboy34]

Lulz! Good luck with that! ;)
Why, thank ye, good forumer! ~hugs~ :)

[CCTelander]

Why, thank ye, good forumer! ~hugs~ :)


You're welcome, of course.

[CCTelander]

bump

[CCTelander]

another bump for continued relevance

[heavenlyboy34]

Still no sticky? :confused: WTF? /waves magic wand

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

This is why everyone should have a gun.

[DamianTV]

Still no sticky? :confused: WTF? /waves magic wand

Seriously? Where is the Sticky?

[heavenlyboy34]

Seriously? Where is the Sticky? Dunno. My wand is done broke. :(

[DamianTV]

Well, bumping for the newcomers with this thread is definitely something that needs to be done from time to time. Thus, if you've never seen this thread before, go read the FIRST POST.

[CCTelander]

bump

[pcosmar]

Well, bumping for the newcomers with this thread is definitely something that needs to be done from time to time. Thus, if you've never seen this thread before, go read the FIRST POST.

And add this to your reading.

Why Police should NOT exist in a free society.
http://www.constitution.org/lrev/roots/cops.htm

[CCTelander]

bumpity bump, bump

[John F Kennedy III]

Bump

[XTreat]

\\

[J_White]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

terrible !
so police are their to protect the rulers, and they want to take away our guns too !

[heavenlyboy34]

SOMEBODY STICKY THIS NAO!!!

[DamianTV]

I just came across this post on another (http://www.californiafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=057626;p=) site and felt it is worth while to share in this thread, thus stickying by way of the everbump.


You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few that are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.) Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

the people on top don't care if we die. they only care if we are able to defend ourselves against them. truth.

[jkr]

http://talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=48361&pageNumber=0&pageSize=15
POLICE ARE A PRIVATE ARMY OF THE BAR association!

The Dick Act of 1902 also known as the Efficiency of Militia Bill H.R. 11654, of June 28, 1902 invalidates all so-called gun-control laws. It also divides the militia into three distinct and separate entities.



** SPREAD THIS TO EVERYONE **

The three classes H.R. 11654 provides for are the organized militia, henceforth known as the National Guard of the State, Territory and District of Columbia, the unorganized militia and the regular army.

The militia encompasses every able-bodied male between the ages of 18 and 45. All members of the unorganized militia have the absolute personal right and 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms of any type, and as many as they can afford to buy.

The Dick Act of 1902 cannot be repealed; to do so would violate bills of attainder and ex post facto laws which would be yet another gross violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The President of the United States has zero authority without violating the Constitution to call the National Guard to serve outside of their State borders.

The National Guard Militia can only be required by the National Government for limited purposes specified in the Constitution (to uphold the laws of the Union; to suppress insurrection and repel invasion).

These are the only purposes for which the General Government can call upon the National Guard.

Attorney General Wickersham advised President Taft, "the Organized Militia (the National Guard) can not be employed for offensive warfare outside the limits of the United States."

The Honorable William Gordon, in a speech to the House on Thursday, October 4, 1917, proved that the action of President Wilson in ordering the Organized Militia (the National Guard) to fight a war in Europe was so blatantly unconstitutional that he felt Wilson ought to have been impeached.

During the war with England an attempt was made by Congress to pass a bill authorizing the president to draft 100,000 men between the ages of 18 and 45 to invade enemy territory, Canada.

The bill was defeated in the House by Daniel Webster on the precise point that Congress had no such power over the militia as to authorize it to empower the President to draft them into the regular army and send them out of the country.

The fact is that the President has no constitutional right, under any circumstances, to draft men from the militia to fight outside the borders of the USA, and not even beyond the borders of their respective states.

Today, we have a constitutional LAW which still stands in waiting for the legislators to obey the Constitution which they swore an oath to uphold.

Charles Hughes of the American Bar Association (ABA) made a speech which is contained in the Appendix to Congressional Record, House, September 10, 1917, pages 6836-6840 which states:

"The militia, within the meaning of these provisions of the Constitution is distinct from the Army of the United States." In these pages we also find a statement made by Daniel Webster, "that the great principle of the Constitution on that subject is that the militia is the militia of the States and of the General Government; and thus being the militia of the States, there is no part of the Constitution worded with greater care and with more scrupulous jealousy than that which grants and limits the power of Congress over it."

"This limitation upon the power to raise and support armies clearly establishes the intent and purpose of the framers of the Constitution to limit the power to raise and maintain a standing army to voluntary enlistment, because if the unlimited power to draft and conscript was intended to be conferred, it would have been a useless and puerile thing to limit the use of money for that purpose.

Conscripted armies can be paid, but they are not required to be, and if it had been intended to confer the extraordinary power to draft the bodies of citizens and send them out of the country in direct conflict with the limitation upon the use of the militia imposed by the same section and article, certainly some restriction or limitation would have been imposed to restrain the unlimited use of such power."

The Honorable William Gordon

Congressional Record, House, Page 640 - 1917

[John F Kennedy III]

This thread is overdue for a bump.

[bolil]

I miss the anarchist here who have taught me so much. I can't even remember what I was like before.

[heavenlyboy34]

Still no sticky? WTF, admin? :eek:

[bunklocoempire]

Yes, bump for peace and safety

When it is in the best interest for bad guys to fear and respect the people right in front of them there is peace and freedom.

When the bad guys only have to worry about fearing some cop not present there isn't any incentive to fear or respect those who are not cops.

One method favors the freedom of the law abiding citizen interested in self policing and relationships while the other one favors freedom for criminals who do not care to get along with others -Be that cops or criminals or politicians.

I'll tell it again:

My folks raised me with fear and respect for ordinary people who were armed. There was never any talk of going to jail for this or that or getting caught by police. Just straight up "They'll shoot you -and I wouldn't blame them" when referring to any violent behavior to people or their things that my folks believed was unacceptable for me. This naturally implies that others should respect and fear me. Mutual respect goes a long way.

[J_White]

so the taxpayers are paying these people so that the "peace officers" can protect the state against the citizens ?
we are paying for our own prison guards ?

[Anti Federalist]

so the taxpayers are paying these people so that the "peace officers" can protect the state against the citizens ?
we are paying for our own prison guards ?

Yup...you got it.

Oh and bonus... when they throw people in the prison that you paid for, they compete for your jobs and wages, making doo-dads for the military for $.25 an hour, among other things.

[DamianTV]

Slavery was made illegal. They didnt say shit about a Prison Populus.

[CCTelander]

so the taxpayers are paying these people so that the "peace officers" can protect the state against the citizens ?
we are paying for our own prison guards ?


Precisely.

[CCTelander]

Slavery was made illegal. They didnt say shit about a Prison Populus.

Slavery was just expanded to include every one, not just some. It continues happily along to this very day. And the best part is that the slaves, the tax cattle, actually believe they're free. Except, of course, for a few malcontents. The cops exist to taze, beat, kidnap, and kill those malcontents into submission. Or extinction. Whichever comes first.

[Todd]

Glad someone found this thread: Thought it had gone down the memory hole. Very needed today because I'm having a discussion with a Pastor friend who wants all kind of regs on gun ownership.....from psychological evals, to people having to write essays before they can own a gun. LOL.. It's comical in a sad way.

[DamianTV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--GNUZQZfxI&feature=player_embedded

http://photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/05/29/woman-records-police-barging-into-her-home-in-case-of-mistaken-identity/

A disturbing video of police barging into a woman’s home without a search warrant, demanding her identification – only to learn she was not the person they were looking for – has emerged on Youtube, demonstrating just how unprofessional police can act when they don’t realize they are being recorded.

...

[InterestedParticipant]

I admit I haven't even watched the video, nor have I read any of this thread in years, but how does one know that the video referred to in the previous post is not performed by paid actors?

[DamianTV]

Glad someone found this thread: Thought it had gone down the memory hole. Very needed today because I'm having a discussion with a Pastor friend who wants all kind of regs on gun ownership.....from psychological evals, to people having to write essays before they can own a gun. LOL.. It's comical in a sad way.

Just make sure your pastor understands that when Guns are made illegal, the only ones that will not have access to guns are the law abiding citizens. Everyone else that ignores the law will be able to point their guns at the law abiding (obedient) citizens, and the ones that follow the law are really the only true victims of the Law.

[Anti Federalist]

////

[DamianTV]

More and more relevant every single day...

[CCTelander]

Bump

[phill4paul]

Relevant bump.

[John F Kennedy III]

Scribity.

[phill4paul]

Relevant Bump.

[CCTelander]

bump

[Anti Federalist]

http://i.imgur.com/8VkDHlf.jpg

[heavenlyboy34]

http://i.imgur.com/8VkDHlf.jpg
:eek: :(

This kind of nonsense is why we can't have nice things. :(

[UWDude]

It's funny. Where I work recently. We had a crime. The police of course, would not be able to stop it.
I really did not want to file a police report, but decided I had to... ....why?
Would they investigate and catch the perp?
Nope.
Nope, actually, I had to have the police file a report... so... I WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTED OF CRIMINALITY when claiming a loss with the I.R.S.
BACKWARDS LAND.

OH, also, had I caught the guy, and beat him... ...guess who would be sued and going to jail?

worthless government.


P.S. The police still have yet to arrive for that report. HA HA HA HA HA.

[Anti Federalist]

Bump for the cops falling down on the Fedcoat's gun used to kill that women in SF.

[LibForestPaul]

horrible story

as the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes (or hours) away (or never show)

They will still vote democrat, for more gun control, and more state largess.

[Anti Federalist]

Le' Bumpe'

[Dianne]

Wow, how correct! I wish everyone on this board understood what you said here.:(

That is the truth. So many people think the police will magically appear within seconds of being called. The time you wait for them is an eternity. We are on our own !!! We have to defend our own homes and family.

[phill4paul]

Le' Bumpe'

In AmeriKa the citizens protect the police but the police don't protect themselves. I think to myself. What a country!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?481475-It-is-Your-quot-Duty-quot-to-Protect-and-Serve-the-Police

[phill4paul]

Bump

[phill4paul]

Relevant bump WRT Orlando nightclub shooting in which police did not pursue a gunman into a packed night club.

[phill4paul]

Relevant bump for thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496659-We-Need-the-Police-Because

[acptulsa]

Relevant bump for thread: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?496659-We-Need-the-Police-Because


Hat tip to Suzanimal for the following:


Did a delay in response give the gunman more time? Cops face questions over why it took three hours for SWAT teams to storm Orlando nightclub as police chief admits officers may have shot some of the VICTIMS

...Police Chief John Mina has also admitted that some of the victims may have been hit by officers' gun fire.

However he insisted it is a part of the investigation into the horrific attack.

He said: 'I will say that is all part of the investigation. But I will say when our SWAT officers, about eight or nine officers, opened fire, their backdrop was a concrete wall. And they were being fired upon, so that is all part of the investigation.'

The decisions made by Orlando police made them targets for scrutiny among experts in police tactics.

They said the lessons learned from other mass shootings show that officers must get inside swiftly — even at great risk — to stop the threat and save lives.
'We live in a different world. And action beats inaction 100 per cent of the time,' said Chris Grollnek, an expert on active-shooter tactics and a retired police officer and SWAT team member.

Authorities in Orlando say the situation changed from an active-shooter scenario to a hostage situation once gunman Mateen made it into one of the bathrooms where club-goers were hiding.

He first had a shootout with the off-duty officer at the club's entrance.

Then two other officers arrived and the firing continued.

Experts say there's a big difference between responding to a lone gunman and a shooter who has hostages.

In active-shooter situations, police are now trained to respond immediately, even if only one or two officers are available to confront the suspect.
In a hostage crisis, law enforcement generally tries to negotiate.

Once in the restroom, Mateen called 911 and made statements pledging allegiance to the Islamic State, Orlando Police Chief John Mina said Monday.
That's when the shooting stopped and hostage negotiators began talking with him, the chief said.

'We had a team of crisis negotiators that talked to the suspect, trying to get as much information as possible, what we could do to help resolve the situation... He wasn't asking a whole lot, and we were doing most of the asking,' Mina said.

But Mateen soon began talking about explosives and bombs, leading Mina to decide about 5am to detonate an explosive on an exterior wall to prevent potentially greater loss of life.

The explosives did not penetrate the wall completely, so an armored vehicle was used to punch a two-foot-by-three-foot hole in the wall about two feet from the ground.
'We knew there would be an imminent loss of life,' Mina said.

Hostages started running out, as did Mateen, who was killed in a shootout with SWAT team members.
It turned out there were no explosives.
...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4BaJ0Hz7h

Well, now. The cops had Mateen outnumbered three to one before he got inside, yet these three trained, experienced officers could not stop him.

They had Mateen on the telephone and seem to have known he was in a restroom, yet they did not send someone in to evacuate, they did not call the bartender and tell him to set off the fire alarm, they did not suggest that someone--anyone--inside yell, "FIRE!" Why not? Because yelling fire in a crowded public building is illegal, and it's entrapment for cops to advise someone to do an illegal thing?

There were innocents on the patio. They had a fire ladder truck, they had helicopters, and the wall surrounding the patio could not have been soundproof. A plumber with two ladders on his truck could have evacuated that patio. One guy with a sawzall could have evacuated that patio. Anyone with a car could have shouted, 'stay away from this wall' and knocked a hole in it with his or her car, and evacuated the patio. Apparently the people on the patio had the door barricaded. If that barricade had been torn down, some of the people inside could have been evacuated. But the plumber, or the guy with the sawzall, or the person with a car, was not allowed into the area by the cops. And the cops did not do these things either, or ask the firemen to do it. Why? Because their superiors had declared it a hostage situation, and regulations do not allow any breach of the perimeter during a hostage negotiation--even if there's no possible way the shooter can know it's happening?

If they had gained access to the patio door, they would have had a silent way in which was not the front door. Instead, they blew holes in the wall, or tried to, and then used a battering ram. Why? What is the purpose of using shock and awe tactics if you aren't competent to pull them off? What is the point of battering the hole you failed to create with your explosives, when the point of using explosives was to gain the element of surprise?

And why won't they say how many of the victims were shot not by the perp, but by the police?

If three cops are manning the door, but a guy carrying an unconcealed AR-freaking-15 cannot be denied entrance to the building, if the cops are just going to putz around for three hours and then do everything wrong, if the cops are so hamstrung by their own regulations and chain of command that they can't even pull hostages out of a patio, and in the end they are going to shoot innocents with as much abandon as the perpetrator himself, then why are we banning handguns in bars and talking about banning them everywhere else too?

One competent civilian could have ended this thing in the first two minutes. Which would not only have saved dozens of lives, but would have saved the Orlando Police Department the embarrassment of making complete asses of themselves. If only there had not been a law against carrying firearms in a bar. And all because the police are professionals, and we have to let them handle it.

Well. So much for that theory. Now. Can we do the sane thing yet?
..

[CCTelander]

///

[phill4paul]

Bump for Winning!

[phill4paul]

Relevant bump....

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519647-Armed-deputy-who-failed-to-confront-gunman-at-Florida-school-resigns&p=6592237#post6592237

[CCTelander]

Bump for relevance to recent school shooting where we can see this pollicy in action.

[Anti Federalist]

That Florida thing has got me so fucking furious I can't see straight.

[CCTelander]

That Florida thing has got me so fucking furious I can't see straight.


Well, we can at least be grateful that Hillary didn't get elected or we'd be fighting off rafts of new gun control right now. Wait ...

[CCTelander]

///

[CCTelander]

bump

[Pauls' Revere]

Remember whe 51 police officers deserted the citizens of New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/10/30/no-police-fire-51-for-desertion.html

[CCTelander]

Bump for relevance to other threads.

[phill4paul]

Bump.

[phill4paul]

Additional confirmation...


Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit

A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.

“The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor,” she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.

“As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody” — for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.

ronpaulforums.com/search.php?do=getnew&contenttype=vBForum_Post

[shakey1]

...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXbQNMWV61A

[CCTelander]

bump

[acptulsa]

By J. D. Heyes

Our founders had many important reasons for enshrining the “right to keep and bear arms” in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, but the most notable of those was that all persons should have the most effective means of self-defense available to them.

Now, more than 230 years later, a federal judge has reaffirmed what our founders knew centuries ago: It’s foolhardy to rely on the government for protection against those who seek to do us harm.

As reported by The New York Times, that’s not what the judge sought to do, however:

The school district and sheriff’s office in the Florida county that is home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February massacre, a federal judge has said in a ruling.

The decision was made in a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the Feb. 14 attack in Parkland, Fla. A total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives; 17 others were injured.

According to U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom, even an officer who was stationed at the school specifically to protect kids from the very threat posed by shooter Nikolas Cruz in February 2018 was ‘not obligated’ to act. Meanwhile, a county judge, Patti Englander Henning, ruled “that Scot Peterson, the armed sheriff’s deputy who heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the attack, did have an obligation to confront Mr. Cruz.”

Two different interpretations of police obligations from two judges ruling on the same incident. Perfect.

Good read...

https://thenationalsentinel.com/2019/04/30/the-best-concealed-carry-argument-ever-federal-judge-rules-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-you/
..

[CCTelander]

Bump for relevance to current "gun control" issues.

[CCTelander]

Currently relevant?

[CCTelander]

So, those cops standing around watching as violent criminals loot and burn your business to the ground? Just doing their job.

[CCTelander]

I figured I'd start updating this thread with a few additional examples to give people a better idea just how bad this situation really is. I'll be taking selected quotes from the book Dial 911 and Die by Richard W. Stevens.

California


Please Call Back When Your Killer Arrives

Over a period of a year, Ruth Bunnell had called the San Jose police at least 20 times to report that her estranged husband Mack had violently assaulted her and her two daughters. Mack had even been arrested once for an assault.

Mack called Ruth on September 4, 1972, and said he was coming to her house to kill her. Ruth called the police for immediate help. The police department 'refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack had arrived.'

Forty-five minutes later, Mack arrived and stabbed Ruth to death. Responding to a neighbor's call, the police came to Ruth's house ... after she was dead.

Ruth's estate sued the city police for negligently failing to protect her. The police had known of Mack's violent past and Ruth's 20 previous calls. YEt when she called the police and told them of Mack's threat to kill her that day, the police outright refused to come.

The court held that the City of San Jose was shielded from the negligence suit because of the state statute, and because there was no 'special relationship' between the police and Ruth. The police had not even started to help her, and she had not relied on any promise that the police would help.

In every sense Ruth had no right to police protection. She dialed the equivalent of 911, and died. - Richard W. Stevens, Dial 911 and Die, pgs 42-3

[Pauls' Revere]

Bump