Author Topic: TR  (Read 169 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
TR
« on: April 27, 2021, 05:42:26 PM »
Quote
Because employees are taught to give in and to or to give a criminal what they want. And if you have never been a cop or in the military. Don't preach to them or bitch to them on how they should do their jobs. You have never been in their shoes
Quote
Cops are not the good guys here.
No Duty To Protect
The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔
In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.
The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule 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.⛔
"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
⚠ A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.⛔
CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
⚠ We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.⛔
The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.
Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.
Stated in California Code 845:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔
Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
⚠ Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. ⛔
Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔
Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?
Quote
if you haven't been a cop don't criticize a cop. Because you have never been in there shoes
Quote
I live for comments like yours.
Cops are NOT required to help anybody. PERIOD.
Proven in that post with state statutes and supreme court rulings.
But you IGNORED the entire amount of such information presented. WHY?
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,695
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: TR
« Reply #1 on: April 27, 2021, 06:22:19 PM »
Quote
If someone has never been a police officer they should not try to tell a cop how to do their jobs.  Because you haven't been in their shoes
Quote
Let's try this discussion thing again.
Cops are not the good guys here.
No Duty To Protect
The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔
In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.
The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.
Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule 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.⛔
"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.
DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
⚠ A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.⛔
CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
⚠ We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.⛔
The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.
Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.
Stated in California Code 845:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔
Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
⚠ Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. ⛔
Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔
Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?
Natural Law Matters