Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

May be a stupid question but....

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wiz11
    replied
    ...Yeahhhh..... adeckard, the excerpt from the IC code in the beginning is what is correct. If you can find it buried deep in the legal debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • adeckard
    replied
    Yeah, about that list of exceptions..........

    Leave a comment:


  • inspectorsmiley
    replied


    Perhaps some spanking is in order

    Leave a comment:


  • SW Indiana
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Actually, i'm done proving you wrong. I'm not sure what you're trying to pose as here, but it's failing miserably.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    What the Court has held is that the Police have a duty to preserve the peace but not a duty to protect any specific individual.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    This refers to a general duty to provide police protection, which I acknowledged the Police to not have. Members of the public do not, on the grounds that the police should have protected them, have a right to bring action against the government every time someone victimizes them. I was referring to a specific duty that you have to exercise due diligence to preserve the peace in situations in which you are present and able to intervene against impeaceable conduct.
    Wrong again, there was a case, the exact name of which eludes me, but it was somebody against the city of Atlanta, where it was held that an officer has no duty to act to prevent a crime from happening.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Originally posted by PtlCop
    Originally posted by ME
    That's not what the USSC said. Although the Police don't have a general duty to preserve public safety that is applicable in every situation, in many specific situations at which you are present, you may have a duty to act to keep the peace.
    From Warren v. District of Columbia, just one of MANY HUNDREDS of cases where it has been affirmed that the police have no duty to protect any citizen...

    "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."
    This refers to a general duty to provide police protection, which I acknowledged the Police to not have. Members of the public do not, on the grounds that the police should have protected them, have a right to bring action against the government every time someone victimizes them. I was referring to a specific duty that you have to exercise due diligence to preserve the peace in situations in which you are present and able to intervene against impeaceable conduct.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
    Thread Over. You lose. Go back to pretending to be a lawyer, or whatever it is you're pretending to be this week.
    You're not the arbiter of when a thread is over. That's up to the moderators and the membership at large. I'm not pretending to be anything.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    That's not what the USSC said. Although the Police don't have a general duty to preserve public safety that is applicable in every situation, in many specific situations at which you are present, you may have a duty to act to keep the peace.
    From Warren v. District of Columbia, just one of MANY HUNDREDS of cases where it has been affirmed that the police have no duty to protect any citizen...

    "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."

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
    No ****, the intimidation law comes into play there. It's an actual law, not some fantasy you've made up and continue to back even though numerous professional police officers have told you how wrong you are.
    I didn't make anything up here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Monty Ealerman
    replied
    Originally posted by PtlCop View Post
    And no, we can't. THE USSS has specifically said that a Police Officer has no duty to protect any citizen. If I hear a threat and do nothing, I can not be held responsible for it, period.
    That's not what the USSC said. Although the Police don't have a general duty to preserve public safety that is applicable in every situation, in many specific situations at which you are present, you may have a duty to act to keep the peace.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Thread Over. You lose. Go back to pretending to be a lawyer, or whatever it is you're pretending to be this week.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    You not only have the authority; you have the duty. For example, if you encounter a person who in your presence credibly and noncontingently threatens to injure another person, you don't have to wait for the injury to occur before you lock him up, and if you don't intervene and the threatened injury subsequently occurs, you can be found to have been negligent in the matter. Police Officers have broad peacekeeping authority both under the common law and by statute.
    Disagree.
    Thanks for your friendly advice.
    And no, we can't. THE USSS has specifically said that a Police Officer has no duty to protect any citizen. If I hear a threat and do nothing, I can not be held responsible for it, period.

    Leave a comment:


  • PtlCop
    replied
    Originally posted by Monty Ealerman View Post
    You not only have the authority; you have the duty. For example, if you encounter a person who in your presence credibly and noncontingently threatens to injure another person, you don't have to wait for the injury to occur before you lock him up, and if you don't intervene and the threatened injury subsequently occurs, you can be found to have been negligent in the matter. Police Officers have broad peacekeeping authority both under the common law and by statute.
    Disagree.
    Thanks for your friendly advice.
    No ****, the intimidation law comes into play there. It's an actual law, not some fantasy you've made up and continue to back even though numerous professional police officers have told you how wrong you are.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 3889 users online. 248 members and 3641 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X