You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

14
-7

[–] chirogonemd 14 points -7 points (+7|-14) ago 

Let's point out something important: FEDERAL COPS. As far as I'm concerned, federal cops are suffering from the same systemic swamp syndrome that the rest of the federal government does. The FBI is one of the centers of the fuckery. But using some twat feds to say cops at the local level (county/city), or even state boys, are all evil......just get fucked.

Understand that a cop is not a cop is not a cop. Things are a lot different at that level that they would be at the Vidor City level. In fact, the Vidor local dept praised the volunteer help pretty emphatically.

All of the rampant cop hate makes me sick. A lot of sorry, spoiled ass cunts who think they know better how to promote law and order in a nation. Let's see who you call next time you're in deep shit.

0
13

[–] alele-opathic 0 points 13 points (+13|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Let's see who you call next time you're in deep shit.

"When seconds count, the police are only minutes away". Learn to defend yourself. The only time police should be called is for their documentation skills (insurance reasons or for various legal reasons).

Moreover, they don't exist to protect you, nor have they any mandate to the effect (Warren v. District of Columbia - 2005). Just search that for more - your bubble will pop quickly.

You should never rely on the police for protection.

5
-3

[–] chirogonemd 5 points -3 points (+2|-5) ago  (edited ago)

Wrong use of the case law. That decision in essence asserted that it is not the lawful duty of a police force, or individual officer, to protect a citizen from all crime. This does not assert that it isn't an officer's duty to protect citizens at all. What it is saying is that it isn't a legal responsibility to the extent that someone could sue for damages if a cop could not protect them. The purpose of this ruling was a practical one. What it means is that a person cannot recover damages from a department in a civil suit for an officer's inability to prevent a crime or a protect a citizen from one. Think about that. If it were the case the someone could recover damages from this, every victim of crime in a region coud sue the police department and recover damages. Crime is relatively unpredictable by nature. This isn't Minority Report. Every police department in the country would be sued into the ground if every victim could sue them for dereliction of duty to protect them from a crime.

Consider the type of scenario that would warrant such a policy. It would be a police state. Every person would be under constant surveillance with officers deployed to apprehend anyone even remotely considered to be displaying behavior indicative of potential crime - without ever having committed one. Perfect safety destroys perfect liberty. As the level of safety increases, the level of liberties decrease. Living in a free society subjects us to the chaotic nature of individual choice, meaning in a free society a police officer cannot possibly protect an individual from crime as a tennet of their duty. Any cop who failed to do so would be subject for dismissal.

It is the duty of every police officer to be attentive to the job of public service and protection, to respond to calls promptly, and be proactive to stop crime, descalate and protect citizens with which they have formed a relationship in the legal sense. As an example, consider an officer responds to a domestic dispute call. If that officer arrives it is his duty to attempt to restrain the offending party and to protect the individual who made the call. It is his duty to do this within reason of his ability and subject to procedure. If the officer was shot in the leg and the perp proceeds to then batter the victim who made the call, it can't reasonably be argued that the officer was derelict of duty. He'd just been shot in the leg. Now, if said officer just ignored the call, or arrived and did nothing, or even encouraged damage to the victim, well now you have grounds.

As a further example, consider that the officer in the above situation carried out his duty perfectly well, but four houses down the street someone was shot outside of their home. Would this officer have ignored their duty because they weren't able to protect the gunshot victim four houses down? No reasonable person would say that. Warren v DoC prevents someone from legal remedy in that situation. You can't sue a cop or department for not being able to protect you.

An example of a situation where an officer does have the legal duty to protect a citizen, i.e. maintain their physical safety, would be if he/she placed a person in a potentially harmful situation. If an officer impounded someone's vehicle and left them stranded on the side of the road and that person was harmed, they would be legally responsible. If an officer allows an obviously intoxicated person to harm themselves or others by neglect, they can be legally responsible. Note the difference between this idea, and the idea that a cop could be responsible to protect a person from crime. The latter is simply not possible, and would again result in bankrupt agencies across the country.

Standards for efficiency and effectiveness in law enforcement agencies are regulated by the federal and local governments that sponsor the police department. And they are heavy with procedure. There is some accountabilty built into the structure of departments themselves. Local sheriffs are elected positions. Meaning that every sheriff has a major interest in public satisfaction with the job of police, and if they're interested in maintaining it, they lead and administrate their departments accordingly. You won't have a job as sherriff for long if your officers are not interested in protecting the public. Again, this boils down to the fact there are bad cops out there. Like in any human institution anywhere, there are bad/lazy/negligent people. The good outnumber the bad, but when a good cop does a good job, its not as newsworthy as a bad cop doing a bad job. If a cop prevents a crime, it will be lucky to have a sentence devoted to it on a local news station. When a cop does a bad job, it may be national news. The moonlighting effect.

7
2

[–] Neinlife 7 points 2 points (+9|-7) ago 

fuck off pig, every bit of hate they get, they earned

6
-4

[–] chirogonemd 6 points -4 points (+2|-6) ago 

Wrong.

Black and white thinking like this is one of the biggest red flags for low intelligence. Things are more complex.

Until policing is performed by robots, you cannot ignore the human element. Nor should we want to get rid of it. It comes with the tradeoff that some bad cops slide through, but that human element is the only thing that causes the empathy shared by the good cops out there.

There are some bad cops. There are examples of "bad" in literally every human endeavor/institution. Ever. There are bad lawyers, bad judges, bad politicians, bad teachers and school principals, bad doctors, etc. Because there was one bad doctor, are all doctors bad? This type of black and white thinking is fucking destructive, not to mention so inaccurate.

There are also fantastic cops. They do outnumber the bad cops. Truly. If you have 3 kids and one of those kids kicked the neighbors' dog, do you punish all three children? There are myriad reasons why and how bad cops come to be where they are and do what they do, and most of those reasons aren't as simple as, "Well its a good ole boys club god dammit and they should all hang from a rope!".

One thing that makes this all much, much more complex is that in most scenarios where people may recognize the "bad egg", they often don't have the understanding of the details, the complexities of the nature of that work and that particular situation. We see this happen all the time with doctors. A surgeon loses a patient. Everybody suddenly becomes a medical expert: "He should have done this." "This shouldn't have happened."

What they forget is that biological sciences, and especially medicine, is still greatly a pioneer land. We know some things. What we don't know is still far greater. Medicine is carried on by humans and all the minute complexities of what happened in that scenario are never made relevant in the rhetoric that goes on in the days after. People WANT things to be black and white because it makes their world simpler. It reduces how scary it is to realize that that doctor may have literally done the best anybody could do and STILL couldn't contain the chaos. People want to feel that something obvious was done wrong and could have been controlled, because WE ALWAYS WANT TO BELIEVE THERE IS CONTROL IS EVERY SITUATION. We always have it figured out.

Policing is no different. The situations are high stress. A myriad of minutia that is relevant at the moment but is ignored in the coming back and forth and media stories. Decisions being made by a fallable human being in a context most will never understand, but feel the need to understand because they want to mitigate their own fear and have a sense of illusory control. A head has to roll. And people feel totally calm letting that be the officer's, without ever fully understanding exactly the job they demand of that officer, and the blatant double-standards they have when its their own ass who needs help.