Shocking video of an attack on a female NYPD officer (law, legal)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
... but there is a point to be made that perhaps that female officer should find another line of work. Her behavior was unprofessional and she is not to be trusted insinuating herself into a dangerous situation when a civilian may be involved.
Her back was to her assailant. By the time she realized what had happened, her partner and the civilian male had taken him down.
You know about me how? Something must’ve hit a nerve. You sound so bitter. Why are Canadians so nosy about American affairs? You don’t see me go to Montreal threads to talk smack do you?
If you visit the U.S. and get beat by someone, hopefully that female cop won’t be able to help you either so that should make you happy.
Something must have hit a nerve alright. Very funny, since maybe half of the posters in the Montreal threads are American as far as I can tell, and I welcome that. What does my being Canadian have to do with the right to express a comment on any topic?
On the other hand, you lack judgement about how this event went down.
You can laugh all you want at that cop, but I can detect the "all talk" in you with more certainty from your second response.
In the age of video capture, from CCTV to bodycam to cellphone, we are bound to see stuff that doesn’t align with the movie hero bravado we are used to. But one is the real stuff and the other is baloney.
the courts have stated over and over the police have no duty to protect the public .
they are considered to be an investigative unit ….
they only protect society at large and do not have to protect anyone individually
While you provide the ground truth as courts have laid out over the years, it's important to note that these rulings refer to a constitutional duty (or lack thereof) to protect individuals vice the public/society at large.
But there is zero prohibition on governments imposing statutory duties on police officers to protect even individuals, which is often seen when an individual is in police custody. I recall that Al Sharpton sued the NYPD for failure to protect him individually. The City ultimately settled out of Court for a couple of hundred dollars. And while the City said that they believed the NYPD behaved correctly, there did not have confidence that a jury would see things the same way.
Something must have hit a nerve alright. Very funny, since maybe half of the posters in the Montreal threads are American as far as I can tell, and I welcome that. What does my being Canadian have to do with the right to express a comment on any topic?
On the other hand, you lack judgement about how this event went down.
You can laugh all you want at that cop, but I can detect the "all talk" in you with more certainty from your second response.
In the age of video capture, from CCTV to bodycam to cellphone, we are bound to see stuff that doesn’t align with the movie hero bravado we are used to. But one is the real stuff and the other is baloney.
You have the right to express comment on any topic but it is silly to think you know what you are talking about when it comes to very local matters like this for example.
Canada is not like the U.S. in terms of crime and violence. You do not see or experience what locals here see and hear everyday and no, getting the filtered MSM version is not the same or your once every five years visit either. It is therefore preposterous for outsiders like yourself to be so arrogant to mock locals as if they know better than them.
What’s even sillier is you can “detect” anything from people’s posts. You simply do not know what I look like. You don’t even know my race, my size, my age, my personality, my mental make up, not even whether I am a man or woman. And to say that you know someone based on anonymous online posts just shows how dumb that is. It’s either that or you were so bitter that you thought that was a way to insult me (not that it bothers me because if you did see me in person, you would not be saying that, trust me).
A police officer standing up to an attacker is not being bravado. It is their job. We don’t hire police officers to run away from a perpetrator. They are hired to run to and stop them. You are so way off in your idea of what law enforcement is that you think any opinion differing from yours is so wild but in reality you are the one that is not normal. Just read the comments on that youtube video to see which of us most normal people agree with.
Last edited by antinimby; 04-22-2023 at 12:48 AM..
The motto, "To Protect and Serve," first coined by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s, has been widely copied by police departments everywhere. But what, exactly, is a police officer's legal obligation to protect people? Must they risk their lives in dangerous situations like the one in Uvalde?
The answer is no.
In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.
Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.”
That is not answering my question. You say “society at large” but what exactly is included in that? If people are not part of society at large, what is? Buildings, cars, highways? Is that what the police is protecting?
it means they have no duty to protect anyone person or persons .
they are an investigative unit and protect ALL OF US by removing bad guys by solving crimes and making sure laws are obeyed….
that is different then trying to physically protect you personally or risking their own life to protect yours from an immediate threat
You are just playing word games now. A law says you can’t physically harm another person (and we know this is a law because if I were to walk up to you and bash your head in with a bat, I would be charged), so if they are “making sure laws are obeyed” shouldn’t they then be making sure that if a person is harming another, then that person doing the harming be made to obey that law? Isn’t that the same thing as protecting the person being harmed from the person doing the harming?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
