Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Thanks. I've read that top one before actually, I think it might have been an OT topic.
The second one just... uh...
Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.
The third one I have posted a video for earlier in the thread.
It's pretty incredulous that these are the rulings and that these people can call themselves Police Officers still. The second one angered me the most. It's basically a legalese justification of why it's not the fault of the Police that the children got murdered. This kind of thing makes me think that you guys are probably right to want to hold on to your guns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 20:11:45
of course, Britain is the same. You can't sue the King unless the King wishes to be sued. Thats where the concept came from.
Of course Spanish law was "shut up peasant and dig for gold!"
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Medium of Death wrote: Thanks. I've read that top one before actually, I think it might have been an OT topic.
The second one just... uh...
Respondent filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that petitioner violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause when its police officers, acting pursuant to official policy or custom, failed to respond to her repeated reports over several hours that her estranged husband had taken their three children in violation of her restraining order against him. Ultimately, the husband murdered the children.
The third one I have posted a video for earlier in the thread.
It's pretty incredulous that these are the rulings and that these people can call themselves Police Officers still. The second one angered me the most. It's basically a legalese justification of why it's not the fault of the Police that the children got murdered. This kind of thing makes me think that you guys are probably right to want to hold on to your guns.
Heh... I enjoyed that. (disclaimer, I only have a SKB shotgun in my house)
There's also a practical matter... the US is frick'n huge...
The second one angered me the most. It's basically a legalese justification of why it's not the fault of the Police that the children got murdered
The reason the second one failed is because the argument was complete bonkers, from calling a protection order 'property' and then using that to say the police violated the due process clause which doesn't have anything at all to do with protecting property anyway (and one of the justices argued something about police discretion or some such).
And it's not the police's fault legally, which is why these cases all turn out the same.Lacking a special duty to jump in and do something at the drop of a hat isn't the same thing as not having any duty at all.
It kind of does actually. Again they have NO DUTY TO YOU.
As long as they are not violating your constitutional rights they can eat cheetoes and watch you get curb stomped. They'd likely be fired due to the outcry (ok maybe not in NYC or Chicago) but they have no legal duty to you.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The second one angered me the most. It's basically a legalese justification of why it's not the fault of the Police that the children got murdered
The reason the second one failed is because the argument was complete bonkers, from calling a protection order 'property' and then using that to say the police violated the due process clause which doesn't have anything at all to do with protecting property anyway (and one of the justices argued something about police discretion or some such).
And it's not the police's fault legally, which is why these cases all turn out the same.Lacking a special duty to jump in and do something at the drop of a hat isn't the same thing as not having any duty at all.
I got confused by the legalese and just assumed.
Still, I wonder what they were doing that kept them from going and intervening/getting the kids back?
Still, I wonder what they were doing that kept them from going and intervening/getting the kids back?
Funcationaly cases like that are the worst possible outcome of the 'gray zone.; Think about it. How many terrible things happen, not due to negligence by the police, but simple mistakes/bad decisions? You can't have the police being sued every time they don't immediately resolve a problem. The country would collapse from all the suits and no one wanting to be a police officer anymore. Its the same as laws against suing the government. If the government had to defend against every petty legal challenge the US would have stopped existing during the Antebellum period (not to mention how many people would just sue Bush Junior, Obama so on so forth).
ok maybe not in NYC or Chicago
Funny thing actually, apparently Chicago is now in the same train as New York and LA. Police officers can't wait to get out of those departments fast enough (NYPD actually actively sabotages its officer's attempts to get hired elsewhere). Even the cops don't like those departments XD
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 20:31:35
I would too. Any time you lose the support of the populace its not a good place to be.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 20:31:30
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
As much as we'd like to believe it, the police aren't bound by Asimov's three laws.
Its a crappy situation. But these offices are overworked as it is. And as plenty of others have said, have 'no duty' to protect you.
Maybe it would have been addressed had the complaint been written in English. I'm sure there are more English speaking officers than Spanish speaking ones in the NYPD, so the chance it would go up would certainly increase.
Maybe there should be some nonprofit translators people should be able to bring in? I'm not convinced that onus should really be on the police dept.
When people say the police had 'no duty' to protect this women and her kids from an abusive husband and father, do they mean they had no legal obligation? Because, whilst that doesn't at all surprise me given the stuff you hear about the policing and legal systems in the western world, I don't understand why that would absolve them of any responsibility for their failure to investigate multiple allegations of domestic violence which resulted in three deaths, two of which were children. This is something that could have been prevented had they taken action.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/20 21:00:13
iproxtaco wrote: When people say the police had 'no duty' to protect this women and her kids from an abusive husband and father, do they mean they had no legal obligation? Because, whilst that doesn't at all surprise me given the stuff you hear about the policing and legal systems in the western world, I don't understand why that would absolve them of any responsibility for their failure to investigate multiple allegations of domestic violence which resulted in three deaths, two of which were children. This is something that could have been prevented had they taken action.
Legal obligation.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
iproxtaco wrote: When people say the police had 'no duty' to protect this women and her kids from an abusive husband and father, do they mean they had no legal obligation? Because, whilst that doesn't at all surprise me given the stuff you hear about the policing and legal systems in the western world, I don't understand why that would absolve them of any responsibility for their failure to investigate multiple allegations of domestic violence which resulted in three deaths, two of which were children. This is something that could have been prevented had they taken action.
'
And I'll play the devil's advocate here:
This could have happened much more expeditiously had it been filed in English and not had to be translated first.
Again, I don't know if that onus should even be on the NYPD.
Raise your hand if you like Paper work?
Im sorry, but the police, especially one that is as over worked and from what i hear under paid things can fall through the cracks, especially those which require extra work from the officers. This is an unfortunate situation, but it is not the deparments fault
I don't know if they're 'blameless,' but like you said, there are tons of incidents that have to fall through the cracks in such an overburdened PD. Especially when they have to take an extra step to do so.
It makes me wonder why the "non-english speaking advocacy group" leading the lawsuit doesn't provide more outreach to ensure that these people are able to get their statements translated more quickly.
Make it known who you are. Provide translators. Done.
Medium of Death wrote: This kind of thing makes me think that you guys are probably right to want to hold on to your guns.
And NYPD is one of the best case scenarios in the country, response time wise! For a critical call, the cops will be there in 4 and a half minutes.
Where I live, it's reliably taken the county sheriff 30-40 minutes to arrive. It's even worse in places like Detroit. The fact that help can take a very long time to arrive, coupled with the fact that legally, they can sit on the hood of their car sipping coffee and watch you get stabbed to death , is indeed a strong motivator for an armed populace.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/02/20 21:48:14
lord_blackfang wrote: Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote: The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
I think the reason we get it skewed over here (UK and probably Europe) is because we genuinely don't hear about the finer details. We just get the snippet of somebody saying something along the lines of "we need guns because the Constitution say so" which seems like an archaic principal until you take in to account the other factors at work.
Medium of Death wrote: I think the reason we get it skewed over here (UK and probably Europe) is because we genuinely don't hear about the finer details. We just get the snippet of somebody saying something along the lines of "we need guns because the Constitution say so" which seems like an archaic principal until you take in to account the other factors at work.
Here's one example...
Detroit Home Invaders Attempt to Batter Down Door of Citizen Armed with an Assault Gun:
Detroit— Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a citizen who criticized his pro-gun stance by reiterating his opinion that “good citizens” who legally carry firearms could help deter violent crime.
Craig made national news earlier this month after he told The Detroit News he’d changed his mind about the gun issue, and came to the conclusion that armed citizens could dissuade criminals from attacking them — a rarity among urban police chiefs, who generally don’t publicly support citizens’ right to carry firearms.
Detroit resident Sandra Hines on Thursday challenged Craig’s stance during a Detroit Board of Police Commissioners meeting, and asked why he supported citizens arming themselves.
“It could lead to vigilantism,” Hines said. “We already have the open-carry law here, and we have the stand-your-ground law. We don't need anybody encouraging citizens (to carry guns).”
Craig responded: “I did, in fact, say that good Americans, good Detroiters, if responsible, could get CPLs (carrying pistol licenses), and that it could — emphasis on the word ‘could’ — be a deterrent to violent crime. I said that because of my experience in four cities, having seen good Americans and good Detroiters that have CCWs (carrying concealed weapons permits), and what effect it has had on deterring violent crime.
“In fact, there’s been research ... by the Department of Justice and some scholars that armed citizens, good citizens, can have a deterring effect on violent crime,” he said. “While I sit here with lots of optimism and encouragement that crime is declining, we still have incident after incident where individuals like elderly people get dragged out of their cars at gunpoint.
“There was a study done comparing the U.S. to Great Britain that suggested that home invasions, while people were in the house, were less likely in the United States than in Great Britain. And the reason why is because the suspects know there’s a greater likelihood that people in America are more likely to have guns inside their homes. So they tend to wait until the home is vacant to commit the home invasion.
“In England, suspects, because of the restrictive gun laws, 50 percent of the home invasions are committed while the people are in their homes.
“Most telling, there was research done by felons who were incarcerated, and what they said is that they’re more fearful of armed citizens than they are of police officers. In fact, what I’ve seen in Detroit that’s very different than other places where I’ve lived, is that the suspects here wear body armor. There’s a fear that a good citizen may respond with a firearm.
“In addition to body armor, in some instances here in Detroit, suspects have directed citizens to disrobe ... because they’re trying to determine whether the citizen is armed.”
Craig stressed that he doesn’t support vigilantism.
“This is not often talked about: responsibility,” he said. “I do not condone vigilantism. I don’t support individuals arming themselves and doing the work of police officers. Police officers are trained to enforce the law. I think you put people at risk when you have people that are out playing police. I do see that a concealed weapon is an opportunity for self-protection only; not to go out and enforce the law.”
After Thursday’s meeting, Police Commissioner Lisa Carter and her husband, Tyrone Carter — both former police officers — said they agreed with Craig.
“There are a lot of seniors in Detroit who are victims,” Tyrone Carter said. “It’s not vigilantism for people to protect themselves.”
Added Lisa Carter: “That’s all we’re talking about: The right for people to be able to protect themselves.”
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/21 03:26:39
Grey Templar wrote: I'm gonna go with the gun, dogs are smelly and don't last as long.
Yes, but the Gun wont cuddle with you in the middle of the night. Unless you are into the sorta thing
That is what a cat is for.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Are we sure that they were still together? The story says 'ex-husband' once, and otherwise seems to refer to them as husband and wife. But it does talk about him coming to the house at odd hours, assaulting her and then leaving, so it's possible he didn't actually live there, but just came by to terrorise her every so often. It also mentions his threat to take the kids, something that makes no sense if they were still together.
It doesn't sound like a series of escalating domestic incidents, but a seperation that was spiralling out of control.
Either way, the police really should have been able to recognise intervention was needed, and in basically losing this woman's complaints in the system, they've failed her and her children badly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: And it's not the police's fault legally, which is why these cases all turn out the same.Lacking a special duty to jump in and do something at the drop of a hat isn't the same thing as not having any duty at all.
Is there legally a difference? Like if a guy was getting murdered, and there was a cop watching it happen and he didn't intervene because he couldn't find a place to put his coffee where he was sure it wouldn't spill, could the spouse's victim sue and win?
I mean, I understand there's a huge area of subjectivity and courts would be unwilling to find against the police because it's open the floodgates, but is there actually a point that you could point to and say 'the police would be held liable for failing to act on that person's behalf', such as my example above?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/02/21 08:22:19
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Medium of Death wrote: I think the reason we get it skewed over here (UK and probably Europe) is because we genuinely don't hear about the finer details. We just get the snippet of somebody saying something along the lines of "we need guns because the Constitution say so" which seems like an archaic principal until you take in to account the other factors at work.
Here's one example...
Detroit Home Invaders Attempt to Batter Down Door of Citizen Armed with an Assault Gun:
Detroit— Police Chief James Craig responded Thursday to a citizen who criticized his pro-gun stance by reiterating his opinion that “good citizens” who legally carry firearms could help deter violent crime.
Craig made national news earlier this month after he told The Detroit News he’d changed his mind about the gun issue, and came to the conclusion that armed citizens could dissuade criminals from attacking them — a rarity among urban police chiefs, who generally don’t publicly support citizens’ right to carry firearms.
Detroit resident Sandra Hines on Thursday challenged Craig’s stance during a Detroit Board of Police Commissioners meeting, and asked why he supported citizens arming themselves.
“It could lead to vigilantism,” Hines said. “We already have the open-carry law here, and we have the stand-your-ground law. We don't need anybody encouraging citizens (to carry guns).”
Craig responded: “I did, in fact, say that good Americans, good Detroiters, if responsible, could get CPLs (carrying pistol licenses), and that it could — emphasis on the word ‘could’ — be a deterrent to violent crime. I said that because of my experience in four cities, having seen good Americans and good Detroiters that have CCWs (carrying concealed weapons permits), and what effect it has had on deterring violent crime.
“In fact, there’s been research ... by the Department of Justice and some scholars that armed citizens, good citizens, can have a deterring effect on violent crime,” he said. “While I sit here with lots of optimism and encouragement that crime is declining, we still have incident after incident where individuals like elderly people get dragged out of their cars at gunpoint.
“There was a study done comparing the U.S. to Great Britain that suggested that home invasions, while people were in the house, were less likely in the United States than in Great Britain. And the reason why is because the suspects know there’s a greater likelihood that people in America are more likely to have guns inside their homes. So they tend to wait until the home is vacant to commit the home invasion.
“In England, suspects, because of the restrictive gun laws, 50 percent of the home invasions are committed while the people are in their homes.
“Most telling, there was research done by felons who were incarcerated, and what they said is that they’re more fearful of armed citizens than they are of police officers. In fact, what I’ve seen in Detroit that’s very different than other places where I’ve lived, is that the suspects here wear body armor. There’s a fear that a good citizen may respond with a firearm.
“In addition to body armor, in some instances here in Detroit, suspects have directed citizens to disrobe ... because they’re trying to determine whether the citizen is armed.”
Craig stressed that he doesn’t support vigilantism.
“This is not often talked about: responsibility,” he said. “I do not condone vigilantism. I don’t support individuals arming themselves and doing the work of police officers. Police officers are trained to enforce the law. I think you put people at risk when you have people that are out playing police. I do see that a concealed weapon is an opportunity for self-protection only; not to go out and enforce the law.”
After Thursday’s meeting, Police Commissioner Lisa Carter and her husband, Tyrone Carter — both former police officers — said they agreed with Craig.
“There are a lot of seniors in Detroit who are victims,” Tyrone Carter said. “It’s not vigilantism for people to protect themselves.”
Added Lisa Carter: “That’s all we’re talking about: The right for people to be able to protect themselves.”
kronk wrote: Sad situation. Someone's head should roll for this gross neglect.
Protect yourself from jerks. Pick one:
I believe there have been a few studies showing that untrained dogs generally will not protect their owners nearly as much as their owners thought they would, especially so against familiar individuals.
Are we sure that they were still together? The story says 'ex-husband' once, and otherwise seems to refer to them as husband and wife. But it does talk about him coming to the house at odd hours, assaulting her and then leaving, so it's possible he didn't actually live there, but just came by to terrorise her every so often. It also mentions his threat to take the kids, something that makes no sense if they were still together.
It doesn't sound like a series of escalating domestic incidents, but a seperation that was spiralling out of control.
Thats a fair point. Good note there.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
5000pts 
6000pts 
3000pts
