livendive 8 #151 February 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Cops are under no obligation to put themselves in unnecessary danger of life or even injury for a pet. Disagree. I think we have seriously screwed up the ratio of authority to responsibility and accountability in our law enforcement organization, i.e. there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I understand that my opinion is likely too uncommon to even be considered part of a minority, but such is life. the police certainly are not required to put themselves in harms way to protect you. did you realize the SCOTUS said that the police have no obligation to protect you from harm? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html Quote 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 you can count on the police and emergency services to respond to your call (most of the time) but when is always the question. Be prepared to deal with whatever you have to deal with in the minutes before they get there (3-7min average response time to my neighborhood). Like I said, I think we've screwed up the ratio of authority to responsibility and accountability in law enforcement. I agree that the police are not responsible for my safety, and they are just barely accountable for their actions, with free passes for poor decisions being the standard rather than the exception. Personally, I think the authority they're granted is out of whack with these low expectations. Nobody should have the authority to make decisions for which they will not be held accountable. The dog is dead. The police officer shot it. The reason for this was "fear for her safety", i.e. the standard excuse to avoid accountability. If a shot had gone awry and hit a family member on the porch, it would have been a "tragic accident." The purported context was to protect whomever had called 911 from harm, which you just said was not her responsibility. I have no problem with the discrete exercise of authority in high-stress situations, provided one is fulfilling their responsibilities and accountable for their actions. If a person is unwilling to take on those responsibilities and/or be held accountable for their actions, they should not be given such a high level of authority. I don't expect you to agree with me, most people don't. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AndyBoyd 0 #152 February 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Cops are under no obligation to put themselves in unnecessary danger of life or even injury for a pet. Disagree. I think we have seriously screwed up the ratio of authority to responsibility and accountability in our law enforcement organization, i.e. there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I understand that my opinion is likely too uncommon to even be considered part of a minority, but such is life. the police certainly are not required to put themselves in harms way to protect you. did you realize the SCOTUS said that the police have no obligation to protect you from harm? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html Quote 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 you can count on the police and emergency services to respond to your call (most of the time) but when is always the question. Be prepared to deal with whatever you have to deal with in the minutes before they get there (3-7min average response time to my neighborhood). You have accurately stated what the Supreme Court has said. How, then, do you explain the logo of the Chicago Police, which is on their squad cars? The logo is "We serve and protect." Is that just a cruel joke? Do they really mean, "We'll show up when we can, and start shooting if we're scared?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #153 February 10, 2010 Quote The purported context was to protect whomever had called 911 from harm, which you just said was not her responsibility. They attempt to protect from harm but an expectation can't be set they have to protect everyone all the time as it's not possible. In order to attempt to protect/assess the situation they have to get there first. Quote If a shot had gone awry and hit a family member on the porch, it would have been a "tragic accident." And if the officer chose not to respond because of a dog and a person was injured or killed there'd be even more outrage. Additionally once it got out that police won't enter areas with dogs, more criminals would get dogs.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #154 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere have been agencies sued because they did'nt and something was very wrong. Interesting - given the decision in Warren vs. DC, I'm surprised they even got on the docket. The issue here isn't about the welfare check, it's about the events after she got there. I was speaking to his statement of agencies being sued for non-protection post-Warren, not to the case in the OP. Fair enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #155 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteAny misdirection will work, right? Damn, you got me! I was trying to be slick but I could'nt get it by you............. .....look your shoe is untied................ Look, shiny keys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #156 February 11, 2010 Quote The purported context was to protect whomever had called 911 from harm, which you just said was not her responsibility. language can be very precise. I said officers no obligation to protect you. They are charged with that responsibility as part of their duties, but they are not constitutionally obligated to do so. Quote I have no problem with the discrete exercise of authority in high-stress situations, provided one is fulfilling their responsibilities and accountable for their actions. If a person is unwilling to take on those responsibilities and/or be held accountable for their actions, they should not be given such a high level of authority. I don't expect you to agree with me, most people don't. Blues, Dave I didn't say I didn't agree with you.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #157 February 11, 2010 Quote You have accurately stated what the Supreme Court has said. How, then, do you explain the logo of the Chicago Police, which is on their squad cars? The logo is "We serve and protect." Is that just a cruel joke? Do they really mean, "We'll show up when we can, and start shooting if we're scared?" because an officer's job responsibilities may differ from their constitutional obligations.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #158 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAny misdirection will work, right? Damn, you got me! I was trying to be slick but I could'nt get it by you............. .....look your shoe is untied................ Look, shiny keys. shiny!!! ooohhh... what were we talking about?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 7 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
AndyBoyd 0 #152 February 10, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote Cops are under no obligation to put themselves in unnecessary danger of life or even injury for a pet. Disagree. I think we have seriously screwed up the ratio of authority to responsibility and accountability in our law enforcement organization, i.e. there is too much of the former and not enough of the latter. I understand that my opinion is likely too uncommon to even be considered part of a minority, but such is life. the police certainly are not required to put themselves in harms way to protect you. did you realize the SCOTUS said that the police have no obligation to protect you from harm? http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html Quote 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 you can count on the police and emergency services to respond to your call (most of the time) but when is always the question. Be prepared to deal with whatever you have to deal with in the minutes before they get there (3-7min average response time to my neighborhood). You have accurately stated what the Supreme Court has said. How, then, do you explain the logo of the Chicago Police, which is on their squad cars? The logo is "We serve and protect." Is that just a cruel joke? Do they really mean, "We'll show up when we can, and start shooting if we're scared?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Bolas 5 #153 February 10, 2010 Quote The purported context was to protect whomever had called 911 from harm, which you just said was not her responsibility. They attempt to protect from harm but an expectation can't be set they have to protect everyone all the time as it's not possible. In order to attempt to protect/assess the situation they have to get there first. Quote If a shot had gone awry and hit a family member on the porch, it would have been a "tragic accident." And if the officer chose not to respond because of a dog and a person was injured or killed there'd be even more outrage. Additionally once it got out that police won't enter areas with dogs, more criminals would get dogs.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #154 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere have been agencies sued because they did'nt and something was very wrong. Interesting - given the decision in Warren vs. DC, I'm surprised they even got on the docket. The issue here isn't about the welfare check, it's about the events after she got there. I was speaking to his statement of agencies being sued for non-protection post-Warren, not to the case in the OP. Fair enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Lucky... 0 #155 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteAny misdirection will work, right? Damn, you got me! I was trying to be slick but I could'nt get it by you............. .....look your shoe is untied................ Look, shiny keys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #156 February 11, 2010 Quote The purported context was to protect whomever had called 911 from harm, which you just said was not her responsibility. language can be very precise. I said officers no obligation to protect you. They are charged with that responsibility as part of their duties, but they are not constitutionally obligated to do so. Quote I have no problem with the discrete exercise of authority in high-stress situations, provided one is fulfilling their responsibilities and accountable for their actions. If a person is unwilling to take on those responsibilities and/or be held accountable for their actions, they should not be given such a high level of authority. I don't expect you to agree with me, most people don't. Blues, Dave I didn't say I didn't agree with you.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #157 February 11, 2010 Quote You have accurately stated what the Supreme Court has said. How, then, do you explain the logo of the Chicago Police, which is on their squad cars? The logo is "We serve and protect." Is that just a cruel joke? Do they really mean, "We'll show up when we can, and start shooting if we're scared?" because an officer's job responsibilities may differ from their constitutional obligations.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rhaig 0 #158 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAny misdirection will work, right? Damn, you got me! I was trying to be slick but I could'nt get it by you............. .....look your shoe is untied................ Look, shiny keys. shiny!!! ooohhh... what were we talking about?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next Page 7 of 7 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Bolas 5 #153 February 10, 2010 Quote The purported context was to protect whomever had called 911 from harm, which you just said was not her responsibility. They attempt to protect from harm but an expectation can't be set they have to protect everyone all the time as it's not possible. In order to attempt to protect/assess the situation they have to get there first. Quote If a shot had gone awry and hit a family member on the porch, it would have been a "tragic accident." And if the officer chose not to respond because of a dog and a person was injured or killed there'd be even more outrage. Additionally once it got out that police won't enter areas with dogs, more criminals would get dogs.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #154 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteThere have been agencies sued because they did'nt and something was very wrong. Interesting - given the decision in Warren vs. DC, I'm surprised they even got on the docket. The issue here isn't about the welfare check, it's about the events after she got there. I was speaking to his statement of agencies being sued for non-protection post-Warren, not to the case in the OP. Fair enough. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #155 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteAny misdirection will work, right? Damn, you got me! I was trying to be slick but I could'nt get it by you............. .....look your shoe is untied................ Look, shiny keys. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #156 February 11, 2010 Quote The purported context was to protect whomever had called 911 from harm, which you just said was not her responsibility. language can be very precise. I said officers no obligation to protect you. They are charged with that responsibility as part of their duties, but they are not constitutionally obligated to do so. Quote I have no problem with the discrete exercise of authority in high-stress situations, provided one is fulfilling their responsibilities and accountable for their actions. If a person is unwilling to take on those responsibilities and/or be held accountable for their actions, they should not be given such a high level of authority. I don't expect you to agree with me, most people don't. Blues, Dave I didn't say I didn't agree with you.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #157 February 11, 2010 Quote You have accurately stated what the Supreme Court has said. How, then, do you explain the logo of the Chicago Police, which is on their squad cars? The logo is "We serve and protect." Is that just a cruel joke? Do they really mean, "We'll show up when we can, and start shooting if we're scared?" because an officer's job responsibilities may differ from their constitutional obligations.-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhaig 0 #158 February 11, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteAny misdirection will work, right? Damn, you got me! I was trying to be slick but I could'nt get it by you............. .....look your shoe is untied................ Look, shiny keys. shiny!!! ooohhh... what were we talking about?-- Rob Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
