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.
If you're still alive. Remember the Daniel Shavers shooting in Arizona a little while back. The cops had the guy, who was unarmed, covered with AR 15s and had the situation under control. Yet, they had the guy crawl around on the floor on his belly while they barked out a string of confusing and contradictory commands until finally Shavers made a move, trying to pull up his trousers apparently, that they could interpret as "making a move consistent with reaching for a firearm" at which point one cop unloaded on him. No due process for Daniel Shavers. Just a homicidal cop satisfying his urge to kill.
That was an execution on camera. Of an unarmed white man.
If that didn't open people's eyes to militarized cops, nothing will.
If you're still alive. Remember the Daniel Shavers shooting in Arizona a little while back? The cops had the guy, who was unarmed, covered with AR 15s and had the situation under control. Yet, they had the guy crawl around on the floor on his belly while they barked out a string of confusing and contradictory commands until finally Shavers made a move, trying to pull up his trousers apparently, that they could interpret as "making a move consistent with reaching for a firearm" at which point one cop unloaded on him. No due process for Daniel Shavers. Just a homicidal cop satisfying his urge to kill.
And you think non-compliance would have changed that outcome?
People think they are above the law, and they pay a big price for it.
Not if they're in uniform, apparently...
Quote:
The law is clear, you must comply with police orders. If those orders were improper or illegal, you will have a chance for due process after the situation is over to assert your rights.
If those orders were clear, and if you're still breathing.
The fact that being a police officer is not among the 10 deadliest jobs does not make it a safe job or mean that it is not hard work. I stand by what I wrote, though I can appreciate that you feel different.
You can't have a monopoly on force and be expected to be completely disciplined in discretion. Not only that...it has a tendency to bring the worst out of you.
And, like many before you, you are WRONG in your interpretation of those cases.
Firstly, in Warren v. District of Columbia (which, by the way, is NOT a Supreme Court case, but rather a case of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals), all the court held there was that the police did not owe a specific duty to protect citizens based on the public duty doctrine. But the court made clear that such a duty was owed to the public at large; i.e. individual members of the public could not sustain a lawsuit under the circumstances of that case. Still, its important to note that the public duty doctrine is not a constitutional doctrine, but rather a doctrine established under common law that can be modified/eliminated/replaced by legislation.
As for the Gonzales case, all the Supreme Court held was that the police could not be sued under USC Section 1983 (the federal law that implements much of the 14th Amendment) for failure to enforce a restraining order because a restraining order is not a property right protected by the 14th Amendment.
Still, and those two cases aside (and noting that they do not stand for what you claim), there is nothing preventing cities/states to explicitly enhance/specify/adopt/etc. the duties owed by police officer to protect citizens. For instance, Al Sharpton has sued the NYPD before for failing to protect him as he was prepping for a march and was assaulted (the suit was settled): https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/09/n...-stabbing.html
Now, I write this not to say that people should rely on the cops to protect them. Indeed, the cops are often minutes away when seconds matter. But that in no way takes away from the amazing work that the police do in this country day in and day out.
I was mistaken about Warren being a SCOTUS case. But I will agree to disagree with you on the interpretations.
If we are being forced--via taxation--to pay for their salaries/pensions/benefits/etc. then we as taxpayers have the right to treat them as our employees, which they are. If they fail in their duty as employees, then we as employers have the right to terminate their employment.
The larger point that seems to escape people is that cops, being part of the government, have a monopoly on force--without the consent of the governed. I never consented to paying for cops or having cops arrest people for possession of a substance the government doesn't approve of.
I will also disagree with you about the so-called "amazing" work that cops do day in and day out. Nowadays cops are simply revenue collectors, whether it being traffic enforcement or busting people for victimless crimes. They very rarely prevent any real crimes.
Most non-criminals and people without criminals in their families don’t really care what happens to criminals.
You appear to have ended up in the wrong country. That's regrettable.
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.
