Ah…I think I see what you are getting at, Airtruth. Do you feel that police have no accountability to anyone? Especially when they kill someone?
Here’s my take:
Was the shooting justifiable? I don’t know. The video doesn’t show me enough to determine what initiated shots being fired. Putting that aside for now, let’s move to the end.
It appears that the officers had pinned (or at least attempted to pin) the vehicle with theirs, but their was an opening in their circle. An officer on foot moved with his weapon drawn into that opening to close the gap. What happens next I can’t really say. I can’t tell if the officer jumped on the hood to avoid being hit by the vehicle or if he jumped on the hood prior to it accelerating. Either way, once he was on the hood and the vehicle was accelerating he had no other choice but to defend himself.
Whether it was wreckless or not for the officer to step in front of the vehicle is not the big question, because the thief does not have an inherent right to escape that the officer was infringing upon. If a thief jumps into my car and I (foolishly) stand between the vehicle and his escape route, it’s still murder if he runs me over and kills me. Even if I step in front of the vehicle after its already accelerated, he’s going to get at least manslaughter if he kills me. So if I have a weapon, I’ll be damned if I’m going to let the perp murder or manslaughter me, even if I put myself in harm’s way.
But let’s not forget that the man on that hood was a police officer. He not only has to protect his own life but that of the public as well. There may be more factors that motivated the officer to jump on that hood than meets the eye.
“Someone tries to kill you, you just kill them right back, you hear me?”–Firefly
Couple of quick points:
1)Police in the USA wear uniforms, badges and exposed weapons for a reason. There is no excuse for a violator to claim he did not know it was the Police. But guess what? They plead this in court regularly, claiming “fear”. The armed criminal always has the advantage carrying a weapon. This is nothing new, just often overlooked.
In the late 60’s-70’s, Cops were targeted for assasination because they were visible. Outfits like ETA, for example, still ambush (bushwack) uniformed Police as part of their doctrine. Think about how you would react if you did your daily business with a sign pinned to your back reading “Kick me Hard”…
2)There is no place in the USA (including Vermont) where you will not be arrested and prosecuted for shooting/using lethal force on someone simply stealing your vehicle. The District Attorney will have your hide on a high rack!. Now if the situation is an armed carjack, that’s a little different, but not by much. If you are outside your home or business carrying concealed without a permit, you can still go to jail, even if the shooting was justifiable.(In California, exposed carry is legal. Try walking around Los Angeles with a pistol on your hip and see what happens when LAPD shows up!)…
In short, most Americans are unclear on these self-defense laws, and foreigners are clueless on just how highly regulated legitimate firearms use is in the USA, falling for the leftist anti-gun/self-defense myths of “loose” gun laws in the USA. In many parts of the USA it is literally impossible to obtain a permit, even when it is required by law. Many jurisdictions simply break the law by ignoring or manipulating it
(Most anti-gun laws, BTW were based on keeping guns out of the hands of Blacks and other minorities. New York City’s “Sullivan Law”, for example, was originally written to keep Italians, who were then considered biologically inclined toward violent crime,disarmed. I have personally met people so ignorant, they think Americans can simply walk in a gun shop, buy a full automatic machine gun, and walk out with it! Wrong!). In our biased media climate, you only hear about criminal misuse of firearms and police shootings, rarely do you hear about justifiable civilian self-defense shootings unless they can be portrayed in a negative light.
This is no accident, but policy at most media outlets, and has been documented. You will see similar media exploitative bias toward other items that can be used for good or abused, like…Steroids…
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
toki123 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Seattle cop shoots 13-year-old
[i]Published on Monday, October 15, 2007.
Source: Seattle Times
A 13-year-old was taken to the hospital with leg wounds early this morning after a confrontation with a Seattle police officer during which the officer mistook a cellphone for a weapon.[/i]
http://www.blacklistednews.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=4516
Real simple proposition: if I think you’re pulling a weapon on me, I will shoot you. Not a thing wrong with that.
mike
no. no. NO.
Fuck man. Seriously. Are you an officer? I sure as hell hope not.
If you THINK someone is going to pull a weapon on you, you are willing to shoot them? People like you are truly dangerous to this society.
You need to spend some time reflecting on what human life means to you, and how easily you are willing to take it.
No, I’m a former Marine and I carry a pistol on my person daily as a citizen in the civilian world. I don’t magically run around in the world assuming that everyone in life is on the verge of pulling out a weapon and dropping me. However, if you are actively intruding into my world and demonstrating aggressiveness toward me and a willingness to do me violence, then if you pull what I think is a weapon, I’ll kill you.
I also know good and well what human life means to me. I have killed a man and I feel bad about it, even though he was a “bad guy”. That isn’t to say that I regret it, only that it saddens me to have to kill anyone. I hate killing anything. I had to do a mercy killing on a dog once and cried like a bitch afterwards. I ALMOST killed a guy during OEF in the Phillipines who was about to chuck a molotov at me, but he dropped it when I drew on him.
The realization that I was prepared to kill this man brought me to tears that night as I reflected on it. You sir, may call me callous and dangerous, but I find you to be the dangerous one if you were a cop or Marine. If you were willing to put your life and the lives of innocents around you at risk in an effort to protect a criminal, then I am blessed not to have you in my fire team or patrol car.
mike[/quote]
Sorry I stepped away from this thread for a couple days.
I think we may have both misinterpreted each other. When I see “think,” I read that as being unsure. I have no problem with defending yourself or others with lethal force, I am in line with your views on protecting yourself. But cops who shoot teenagers with cell phones “think” they are being drawn on, they don’t know. I really question in my mind how you shoot someone without actually seeing a weapon. By all means if someone is acting crazy and they reach in to their pocket, draw and site up, but until you see something come out of that pocket that can kill, don’t pull the trigger.
Your post just came off as “shoot first and figure it out later” to me, but I see now that was not your intention.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
rainjack wrote:
All we have to go on is the portions of the video we could watch.
I saw an attempt to ram and flee. You saw at attempt to avoid and flee.
As for the shooting - I don’t know, nor can anyone just from the video, what caused the shooting. Was the driver armed? Was the officer’s life in danger?
How do you know from a video how many shots are sufficient?
You are absolutely correct about what we saw in the video.
We can’t tell from the video. What I saw was the officer fire more than one shot at point blank range. That, to me, is excessive. One shot at that range would probably stop anyone, except Rasputin. Unloading your clip on someone is unnecessary.
[/quote]
There have been many instances where suspects have been shot one or more times with no immediate effect. ALL police officers are trained and conditioned to fire their weapons until the threat is terminated. There’s no way for that officer to know whether the suspect had a weapon in his vehicle or on his person.
The suspect, based on what the officer states, had already committed an aggravated assault which is a felony in most states. Do you really believe an officer would fire his weapon once and wait to see if it took effect? or even hesitate to give the suspect an opportunity to shoot back?
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
When a paramedic arrives to help you or your family, you never question how he or she is doing their job. Same thing when a fireman shows up to put out a fire…you don’t tell him (or her) how to do it. EVERYONE, however, seems to think they are capable of doing a police officer’s job, because they think it’s easy.
[/quote]
You don’t think people try and tell paramedics and firefighters how to do their jobs? It’s not just cops that have that problem…
[quote]Stelman wrote:
I’m a psychologist. And I’m not american, I’m european. Many guys here seem to have a fascination with guns. Before you say that a cop deserves to shot someone who tags or steals a car, first think why law is there in the first place. Who the law really serves. Alright, the kid stole a car.[/quote]
I don’t think the cops should shoot someone for tagging.
Since you live in Europe I’ll explain some of the ettiquette of American urban gang culture for you. Gangs use tags to claim their territory. Just like how certain animals will urinate on things in their territory to mark it. In gangland tagging over gang tags or tagging another gangs tag in a claimed area is a declaration of war. Gang memebers know what their gangs tag looks like and will assume that any other tag is from a rival gang.
That thirteen year old was going around the city tagging over tags. In the American inner city you can get shot doing that. That thirteen year old was doing a very risky thing. Then when the policeman confronted him with a gun he started making fast hand movements and reached in his pants and pulled an object out. That is asking to get shot. I bet that if the kid had merely run off the cop would not have shot him.
The parents should have taught him don’t go tagging over gang signs. And if the po-leese pull a gun on you and yell something like “freeze mother fucker, put your hands where I can see them” do what he says.
I am not saying either of those two deserved to get shot. What I am saying is that they both engaged in behaviour that they should have known better not to do. They engaged in actions that they knew could get them shot.
[quote]toki123 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
toki123 wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
lixy wrote:
Seattle cop shoots 13-year-old
[i]Published on Monday, October 15, 2007.
Source: Seattle Times
A 13-year-old was taken to the hospital with leg wounds early this morning after a confrontation with a Seattle police officer during which the officer mistook a cellphone for a weapon.[/i]
http://www.blacklistednews.com/iNP/view.asp?ID=4516
Real simple proposition: if I think you’re pulling a weapon on me, I will shoot you. Not a thing wrong with that.
mike
no. no. NO.
Fuck man. Seriously. Are you an officer? I sure as hell hope not.
If you THINK someone is going to pull a weapon on you, you are willing to shoot them? People like you are truly dangerous to this society.
You need to spend some time reflecting on what human life means to you, and how easily you are willing to take it.
No, I’m a former Marine and I carry a pistol on my person daily as a citizen in the civilian world. I don’t magically run around in the world assuming that everyone in life is on the verge of pulling out a weapon and dropping me. However, if you are actively intruding into my world and demonstrating aggressiveness toward me and a willingness to do me violence, then if you pull what I think is a weapon, I’ll kill you.
I also know good and well what human life means to me. I have killed a man and I feel bad about it, even though he was a “bad guy”. That isn’t to say that I regret it, only that it saddens me to have to kill anyone. I hate killing anything. I had to do a mercy killing on a dog once and cried like a bitch afterwards. I ALMOST killed a guy during OEF in the Phillipines who was about to chuck a molotov at me, but he dropped it when I drew on him.
The realization that I was prepared to kill this man brought me to tears that night as I reflected on it. You sir, may call me callous and dangerous, but I find you to be the dangerous one if you were a cop or Marine. If you were willing to put your life and the lives of innocents around you at risk in an effort to protect a criminal, then I am blessed not to have you in my fire team or patrol car.
mike
Sorry I stepped away from this thread for a couple days.
I think we may have both misinterpreted each other. When I see “think,” I read that as being unsure. I have no problem with defending yourself or others with lethal force, I am in line with your views on protecting yourself. But cops who shoot teenagers with cell phones “think” they are being drawn on, they don’t know. I really question in my mind how you shoot someone without actually seeing a weapon. By all means if someone is acting crazy and they reach in to their pocket, draw and site up, but until you see something come out of that pocket that can kill, don’t pull the trigger.
Your post just came off as “shoot first and figure it out later” to me, but I see now that was not your intention. [/quote]
You are not looking at the totality of the scenario. Officers have to assess a situation in a fraction of a second. The days have passed where officers would hesitate on what a suspect was pulling out of their clothing which would end up getting a police officer killed. The violence in todays society has changed the training and conditioning of police officers.
In this case both suspects took flight upon the officer’s presence. This action alone would have the officer believing some crime was committed. Both were ordered to raise their hands and one suspect complied. The other disobeyed a lawful police command and “acted very agitated.” He ignored several more commands to raise his hands by the officer.
He then threw off his jacket, lifted his T-shirt, reached into his pocket and pulled out a black object. All done while the officer had his weapon drawn. Based on the aforementioned actions any reasonable person would assume the suspect was pulling out a weapon and not a cell phone. Officers primary responsibilities extend beyond saving other lives…they also take great lengths to preserve their own.
Or do you believe the suspects actions were innocent? That would ultimately get a police officer killed. I have had many cases where juveniles have been armed with weapons. One was a very slight of build 11 year old who had a 9mm tucked in his waistband. His youth is not a hindrance for him to commit a violent act. Kids kill. Kids kill police officers.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Stelman wrote:
I’m a psychologist. And I’m not american, I’m european. Many guys here seem to have a fascination with guns. Before you say that a cop deserves to shot someone who tags or steals a car, first think why law is there in the first place. Who the law really serves. Alright, the kid stole a car.
I don’t think the cops should shoot someone for tagging.
[/quote]
We don’t need the cops to do that here. We have other gang members.
I hate taggers. My city looks like shit because of it. I do like graffiti art though but thats a big difference.
[quote]Chewie wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
It’s easy to say that right now, at a computer, relaxing in the office. But when you’re the guy on the hood of the car making a split second decision to use lethal force, I think we can understand how the adrenaline of the situation might make you pull the trigger a few more times to make sure.
And once the decision is made to pull use lethal force, I don’t see what differnce one bullet or four makes. It’s all performed with the same intent. Probably every major police force in the country has a story of a guy on PCP who eats 13 bullets to the torso and keeps on going.
Here’s what the video showed me.
- The driver swerved and ran from the cops. The officer said he would take him out.
- He kept running.
- The police officers were ramming into his car.
- The officer fired three rounds in the air at the car, apparently fleeing.
- The officer jumped on the hood and unloaded his clip into the windshield.
It seemed to escalate too quickly and for little reason.
I agree with the meth scenario and that there is no such thing as a routine stop. I saw an officer acting like he was blood-hungry in that video.
Why did he jump on the hood of the car in the first place?
The only crime I saw that he committed was running. Who knows, there may have been a lot more than shown on the video.
[/quote]
Just to clarify a few things:
-
It cannot be determined from viewing the video that the driver swerved or attempted to ram the police vehicle. When an officer states in a vehicle pursuit that he is going to “take him out” he is referring to the suspect’s vehicle utilizing a PIT maneuver.
-
Ramming a suspect’s vehicle is proper police protocol.
-
If the officer was firing at the tires to incapacitate the vehicle it would appear justifiable. If the officer was firing at the fleeing driver I would view this as a questionable action.
-
Many police departments have policies regarding placing yourself in danger or compromising your safety. An assessment cannot be made as to how/why the officer ended up on the hood of the vehicle.
All violent criminal actions escalate quickly. That is the nature of violence. Ask any officer how many cases they’ve worked where an encounter started off peaceful and ended up violent with injuries/death to a suspect or police officer.
You have to remember also that many criminals run because they have warrants out on them. This could be from misdemeanors to violent felonies.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
Chewie wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
It’s easy to say that right now, at a computer, relaxing in the office. But when you’re the guy on the hood of the car making a split second decision to use lethal force, I think we can understand how the adrenaline of the situation might make you pull the trigger a few more times to make sure.
And once the decision is made to pull use lethal force, I don’t see what differnce one bullet or four makes. It’s all performed with the same intent. Probably every major police force in the country has a story of a guy on PCP who eats 13 bullets to the torso and keeps on going.
Here’s what the video showed me.
- The driver swerved and ran from the cops. The officer said he would take him out.
- He kept running.
- The police officers were ramming into his car.
- The officer fired three rounds in the air at the car, apparently fleeing.
- The officer jumped on the hood and unloaded his clip into the windshield.
It seemed to escalate too quickly and for little reason.
I agree with the meth scenario and that there is no such thing as a routine stop. I saw an officer acting like he was blood-hungry in that video.
Why did he jump on the hood of the car in the first place?
The only crime I saw that he committed was running. Who knows, there may have been a lot more than shown on the video.
Just to clarify a few things:
-
It cannot be determined from viewing the video that the driver swerved or attempted to ram the police vehicle. When an officer states in a vehicle pursuit that he is going to “take him out” he is referring to the suspect’s vehicle utilizing a PIT maneuver.
-
Ramming a suspect’s vehicle is proper police protocol.
-
If the officer was firing at the tires to incapacitate the vehicle it would appear justifiable. If the officer was firing at the fleeing driver I would view this as a questionable action.
-
Many police departments have policies regarding placing yourself in danger or compromising your safety. An assessment cannot be made as to how/why the officer ended up on the hood of the vehicle.
All violent criminal actions escalate quickly. That is the nature of violence. Ask any officer how many cases they’ve worked where an encounter started off peaceful and ended up violent with injuries/death to a suspect or police officer.
You have to remember also that many criminals run because they have warrants out on them. This could be from misdemeanors to violent felonies.
[/quote]
What happened to number 2?
[quote]MaloVerde wrote:
blueknight wrote:
Chewie wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
It’s easy to say that right now, at a computer, relaxing in the office. But when you’re the guy on the hood of the car making a split second decision to use lethal force, I think we can understand how the adrenaline of the situation might make you pull the trigger a few more times to make sure.
And once the decision is made to pull use lethal force, I don’t see what differnce one bullet or four makes. It’s all performed with the same intent. Probably every major police force in the country has a story of a guy on PCP who eats 13 bullets to the torso and keeps on going.
Here’s what the video showed me.
- The driver swerved and ran from the cops. The officer said he would take him out.
- He kept running.
- The police officers were ramming into his car.
- The officer fired three rounds in the air at the car, apparently fleeing.
- The officer jumped on the hood and unloaded his clip into the windshield.
It seemed to escalate too quickly and for little reason.
I agree with the meth scenario and that there is no such thing as a routine stop. I saw an officer acting like he was blood-hungry in that video.
Why did he jump on the hood of the car in the first place?
The only crime I saw that he committed was running. Who knows, there may have been a lot more than shown on the video.
Just to clarify a few things:
-
It cannot be determined from viewing the video that the driver swerved or attempted to ram the police vehicle. When an officer states in a vehicle pursuit that he is going to “take him out” he is referring to the suspect’s vehicle utilizing a PIT maneuver.
-
Ramming a suspect’s vehicle is proper police protocol.
-
If the officer was firing at the tires to incapacitate the vehicle it would appear justifiable. If the officer was firing at the fleeing driver I would view this as a questionable action.
-
Many police departments have policies regarding placing yourself in danger or compromising your safety. An assessment cannot be made as to how/why the officer ended up on the hood of the vehicle.
All violent criminal actions escalate quickly. That is the nature of violence. Ask any officer how many cases they’ve worked where an encounter started off peaceful and ended up violent with injuries/death to a suspect or police officer.
You have to remember also that many criminals run because they have warrants out on them. This could be from misdemeanors to violent felonies.
What happened to number 2?
[/quote]
No clarification needed. He did indeed keep on running.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
Just to clarify a few things:
- It cannot be determined from viewing the video that the driver swerved or attempted to ram the police vehicle. When an officer states in a vehicle pursuit that he is going to “take him out” he is referring to the suspect’s vehicle utilizing a PIT maneuver.
[/quote]
My point exactly. I never saw an attempt to ram the officer. This was at the beginning of the video. It seemed like they were swatting at flies with sledgehammers.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
3. Ramming a suspect’s vehicle is proper police protocol.
[/quote]
It is. It also appeared that that was enough to detain the suspect. It may not have been. The way the video is edited makes it appear that officers were overreacting.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
4. If the officer was firing at the tires to incapacitate the vehicle it would appear justifiable. If the officer was firing at the fleeing driver I would view this as a questionable action.
[/quote]
It appeared that the officer was firing at a fleeing vehicle. The editing may have you believe that or it may be true.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
5. Many police departments have policies regarding placing yourself in danger or compromising your safety. An assessment cannot be made as to how/why the officer ended up on the hood of the vehicle.
[/quote]
No it cannot. It seems like very odd for an cfficer to end up on the hood of a car that is ‘trapped’ by other police cars.
[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Ah…I think I see what you are getting at, Airtruth. Do you feel that police have no accountability to anyone? Especially when they kill someone?[/quote]
Exactly. They may even have a little in the form of paid leave for a week or two, but thats borderline getting a vacation for murder.
Then it becomes about defending what they did versus admitting where they fucked up at so that the situation doesn’t happen again. A seargant will defend his racist, pompous, hollywood officer even though he is wrong just because the boyz in blue stick together. That may be great mancode but is horrible for the society.
[quote]blueknight wrote:
MaloVerde wrote:
blueknight wrote:
Chewie wrote:
Donut62 wrote:
It’s easy to say that right now, at a computer, relaxing in the office. But when you’re the guy on the hood of the car making a split second decision to use lethal force, I think we can understand how the adrenaline of the situation might make you pull the trigger a few more times to make sure.
And once the decision is made to pull use lethal force, I don’t see what differnce one bullet or four makes. It’s all performed with the same intent. Probably every major police force in the country has a story of a guy on PCP who eats 13 bullets to the torso and keeps on going.
Here’s what the video showed me.
- The driver swerved and ran from the cops. The officer said he would take him out.
- He kept running.
- The police officers were ramming into his car.
- The officer fired three rounds in the air at the car, apparently fleeing.
- The officer jumped on the hood and unloaded his clip into the windshield.
It seemed to escalate too quickly and for little reason.
I agree with the meth scenario and that there is no such thing as a routine stop. I saw an officer acting like he was blood-hungry in that video.
Why did he jump on the hood of the car in the first place?
The only crime I saw that he committed was running. Who knows, there may have been a lot more than shown on the video.
Just to clarify a few things:
-
It cannot be determined from viewing the video that the driver swerved or attempted to ram the police vehicle. When an officer states in a vehicle pursuit that he is going to “take him out” he is referring to the suspect’s vehicle utilizing a PIT maneuver.
-
Ramming a suspect’s vehicle is proper police protocol.
-
If the officer was firing at the tires to incapacitate the vehicle it would appear justifiable. If the officer was firing at the fleeing driver I would view this as a questionable action.
-
Many police departments have policies regarding placing yourself in danger or compromising your safety. An assessment cannot be made as to how/why the officer ended up on the hood of the vehicle.
All violent criminal actions escalate quickly. That is the nature of violence. Ask any officer how many cases they’ve worked where an encounter started off peaceful and ended up violent with injuries/death to a suspect or police officer.
You have to remember also that many criminals run because they have warrants out on them. This could be from misdemeanors to violent felonies.
What happened to number 2?
No clarification needed. He did indeed keep on running.
[/quote]
You haven’t explained to me how come there were 2 camera’s available at all times that the police were doing what they are supposed to do, but for a few seconds all of a sudden there is no video, then it comes back with the officer on the hood of a car on his knees aiming a gun at the suspect. You never mentioned of police officers are trained to do this after they ram a vehicle. It would seem like a dumb procedure, but a great way to get an excuse to shoot somebody.
[quote]Airtruth wrote:
You haven’t explained to me how come there were 2 camera’s available at all times that the police were doing what they are supposed to do, but for a few seconds all of a sudden there is no video, then it comes back with the officer on the hood of a car on his knees aiming a gun at the suspect. You never mentioned of police officers are trained to do this after they ram a vehicle. It would seem like a dumb procedure, but a great way to get an excuse to shoot somebody.
[/quote]
Maybe because he didn’t edit the video? Seriously, how the hell is he supposed to know.
The driver was putting civilians lives at risk by his driving, and then directly put an officer’s life at risk. Sorry, but in that situation it’s better that the crazy guy dies than the officer trying to stop him. Anyone who attempts to severely injure/kill an officer is going to get shot. That’s not such a hard concept to understand and I don’t see how people are defending this driver
[quote]JonP wrote:
Airtruth wrote:
You haven’t explained to me how come there were 2 camera’s available at all times that the police were doing what they are supposed to do, but for a few seconds all of a sudden there is no video, then it comes back with the officer on the hood of a car on his knees aiming a gun at the suspect. You never mentioned of police officers are trained to do this after they ram a vehicle. It would seem like a dumb procedure, but a great way to get an excuse to shoot somebody.
Maybe because he didn’t edit the video? Seriously, how the hell is he supposed to know.
The driver was putting civilians lives at risk by his driving, and then directly put an officer’s life at risk. Sorry, but in that situation it’s better that the crazy guy dies than the officer trying to stop him. Anyone who attempts to severely injure/kill an officer is going to get shot. That’s not such a hard concept to understand and I don’t see how people are defending this driver[/quote]
well if I’m at a shooting range, the officer can very well say he had an excuse to kill me because he jumped felt like he had the right to walk in front of the target. Since his life is now in danger because he decided to walk in front of my gun. Matter of fact all the idiot cops can walk on to the highway and start killing people because their lives are in danger since cars are coming at the 65 miles per hour.
That’s really dumb thinking, hey I can kill who I want just put myself in harms way first.
As far as you or him not knowing how the video was edited… great. You can defend everything else he does but when it comes to that… well he didn’t edit the tape… NO SHIT… He didn’t shoot the guy either, he sure has an opinion on that.
[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
Anyways, my point is, that when the right of self-defense is abridged, then you HAVE to rely upon the police for your protection.
[/quote]
Sadly the police have no general duty to protect individuals and as a result judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. The end result being that D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
Additionally, the seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.
[quote]CCFan wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
Anyways, my point is, that when the right of self-defense is abridged, then you HAVE to rely upon the police for your protection.
Sadly the police have no general duty to protect individuals and as a result judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing.
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. The end result being that D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
Additionally, the seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.[/quote]
I’m familiar with the case. This is part of why I’m extra outraged with each now gun law that passes. It’s a shitty situation, the gov’t is declawing us and making us MORE dependant upon them while at the same time pointing out that it isn’t their responsibility to protect us individually.
mike