Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Ad hominem attack. Logical fallacy.
You could have just refuted post #9. But, didn't.
You still have the opportunity.
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
An officer's duty to care for and protect people
- Thread starter PALO
- Start date
Ad hominem attack. Logical fallacy.
You could have just refuted post #9. But, didn't.
You still have the opportunity.
Fuller Malarkey
Regular Member
You let children play with your gun, and taser?
Encourage newcomers to a firearms forum to shoot at cops.
Lets kids play with duty belt items like firearm, taser, pepper spray, vanity mirror
I'm hearing "As far as I know, I'm the only one professional enough in this room......." again.....
Primus
Regular Member
Citzen I apologize for the appearance of that post. It was solely directed towards full of s***. Not to you in anyway.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Primus
Regular Member
Citzen, not sure how you want me to refute this or respond to it? What "strawman argument"? He was stating that only looking at the case taht everyone cites, you leave everything else that sets a precedence as to why police have to help. I even cited my own Rules and Regs of my Department that spell out in clear language we have to assist OFF duty as well as ON duty. Want more do you want me to say?
And PS, you do realize the case everyone cites was simply about the "victim" wanting money from the PD. Oh, and they DID RESPOND to her call. They weren't able to locate the guy.... So basically they ruled and stated that to keep guys/girls from suing every time a purse gets stolen and we don't catch the guy.
Primus
Regular Member
Can you explain how you got that I LET anyone play with anything from bolded statement?
You know what they say about making assumptions.... makes you look like an a**.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
You do know the bar for civil litigation is set much lower than criminal don't you? IOW if the courts rule that there is no civil mandate, there is NO mandate. Seems to have gone whooooosh over your head.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
(I misunderstood the breadth of Primus' apology in post #23. Deleted my post here that was based on that misunderstanding.)
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro, who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to perform oral sex on him and Morse raped her.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.
Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 3." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Appellants' claims[edit]
Appellants' claims of negligence included:
the dispatcher's failure to forward the 0623 call with the proper degree of urgency;
the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside;
the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the call received at 0642 hours.
Decision[edit]
By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
The cops showed up!! wtf. 4 of them actually. One knocked on the door while the rest checked the back out and it looked secure so they left thinking it was a prank call seeing as how the caller NEVER said "hey police we are here help her!". They just watched them leave and never flagged them down. Oh and the second call.......NEVER DISPATCHED.
You guys use this case as an example? C'mon.... Again, this case was ruled this way so that they wouldnt get sued. If you look at the "appelants claims of negligence" 2 were the dispatchers. Nothing to do with the police on the street.
Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.
Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 3." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.
Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.
Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.
Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Appellants' claims[edit]
Appellants' claims of negligence included:
the dispatcher's failure to forward the 0623 call with the proper degree of urgency;
the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside;
the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the call received at 0642 hours.
Decision[edit]
By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
The cops showed up!! wtf. 4 of them actually. One knocked on the door while the rest checked the back out and it looked secure so they left thinking it was a prank call seeing as how the caller NEVER said "hey police we are here help her!". They just watched them leave and never flagged them down. Oh and the second call.......NEVER DISPATCHED.
You guys use this case as an example? C'mon.... Again, this case was ruled this way so that they wouldnt get sued. If you look at the "appelants claims of negligence" 2 were the dispatchers. Nothing to do with the police on the street.
Primus
Regular Member
This is gonna come across as a sideways compliment, but I guess in a way it is:
My estimation of you just went up several notches. NOT because of the apology, but because of the very adroit way in sidestepping the issue.
Well played, sir. Cicero and Cato would be looking with admiration on the rhetorical manuver. Totally disarming.
I yield the win to a most excellent manuver.
(And, lest anybody get too carried away with admiration, I would point out that while the quoted post is quite gracious and extremely adroit, its still full of sh**. Mainly because post # was totally deliberate. It was totally directed at me, even thought the apology says it wasn't. But, having been out-played, or at least being manuvered into a position where I'd have to be extremely ungracious to continue the argument, I will retire from the field.
Seriously? It really wasn't towards you. Here's a little investigation skills for you.... BOTH OF OUR POSTS are marked the SAME TIME. So how can I read your post, type mine, then post it at the SAME TIME yours? Full of s*** post was a full 3 minutes prior.
There was no maneuver or sidestepping anything. You can keep any compliment you may had had if it was for the wrong reasons. Either complement me for being man enough and apologizing for a mistake (on your part for assuming), or don't and move on. Don't assume more things, then show "admiration" for games i'm not playing.
Primus
Regular Member
If you deleted your post after realizing I wasn't BSing you then, this post is null and void we are back to being good.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
What is it with you guys that cannot understand a court ruling? They did not rule on the issue of the police showing up or not. They ruled that the police were not liable even though there was negligence on their part. See bold and underlined above!
Do I need to change the color also for you to understand?
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
The very specific part your missing is "UNLESS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP EXISTS". So again, if a guy breaks in your house and steals your TV , you can't sue me for not being there and preventing it or sue me for not finding him.
WalkingWolf
Regular Member
Ohhh Jesus effin Christ, the ruling is clear. A victim could not sue you, you could not be held criminally responsible. The only thing that could happen is losing your job, but in this day and age is highly unlikely.
There is no mandate in case law for police to protect the public, criminally or civilly. A person would be fool to rely on the police for their safety!
JoeSparky
Centurion
And I for one am not saying that there aren't PEACEOFFICER's out there that operate on principles of honesty and integrity and the various State and Federal Constitutions. But, I will not be giving up essential liberty for security. I will take the responsibility to protect myself and my family at MY DUTY. Help is welcomed in this, but I'll NOT BE WAITING TO TAKE ESSENTIAL ACTION PENDING the arrival of someone in a Uniform who I don't know while the BG has his way!
color of law
Accomplished Advocate
Responsible officers who understand what their duty entails, understands that that duty includes "community care taking" functions. Responsible officers do not use the "community care taking" function as a tool to discover RAS.
Where I live our officers understand their duty is to the community, not the administration.
Where I live our officers understand their duty is to the community, not the administration.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
This bit is for new or inexperienced readers. A strawman argument is when a writer puts words in somebody else's mouth or invents something and attributes it to another, and then argues against it. The reason it is treated as a fallacy is because he's not presenting arguments against what was said--he's arguing against his own creation.
A plain reading of my post (#3 above) easily understands the strawman. I made it plain that nobody or almost nobody since the beginning of the forum cites no-duty cases to disclaim heroism by cops. The OPer says they do--that's his strawman, his invented argument that he falsely attributes to others, against which he goes on to argue. As I said in post #3, in every single post that I can recall the poster was citing a no-duty case to refute the claim, assertion, or underlying premise by another that cops had a duty to protect. That is to say, in every instance, the first thing that happened was some cop or cop-supporter/apologist made a post on the forum that cops had a duty to protect. And, then, only after such statement, did other members pull their cites to no-duty cases. And, then only to refute the assertion that cops had a duty. Never, not once, was a no-duty case used to prove a lack of heroism by some cops. While I admit I haven't read every post on the forum, thus there may be some cases where such a post did occur, the incidence is going to be vanishingly small because I do read the threads about cops.
Regarding your statement that your department requires you to assist: fallacious argument. You show me in writing that your department holds it your duty to protect individual others with no other caveats, and I'll show you an illegal order or a lie.
I know of no state law or constitution that requires heroism from police. I know of no state law or constitution that requires police risk life and limb to protect individual others. I haven't read them all, but I'm betting that if any cop coulda cited such a statute or constitutional provision, he would have by now. Either on this forum or in the media. So, I say no such law or constitutional provision exists.
And, even if a department holds that cop has a duty to protect individual others in all situations with no caveats even unto heroism, such is an illegal order and lie. First, I'm betting there is no state law or constitutional provision requiring such, so, any department asserting a duty-to-protect-individuals is making a policy for which it has no statutory authority to make. Second, nobody, not even the ratifiers of a constitution or a legislature, has the legitimate authority to require another human being to heroically risk his life to protect individual others.
The subject motive of the plaintiff that your relate would be far, far less important than the legal theory underpinning the decision--as given by the judges themselves. So, nice try at diversion.
Now, care to go back and refute post #3, or do you plan on more evasions and logical fallacies?
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Too long; still read every word. Still Bovine Excrement of the purest quality.
So - - -
Show Me an Agency that says there is a duty to protect an individual
Show Me a State Constitution that says an officer has a duty to protect an individual
Show Me a Court case
Show me a Department Oath
Show me a manual
a procedure...
... anything that shows you aren't just trying to blow smoke up everyone's collective alimentary canal.
So - - -
Show Me an Agency that says there is a duty to protect an individual
Show Me a State Constitution that says an officer has a duty to protect an individual
Show Me a Court case
Show me a Department Oath
Show me a manual
a procedure...
... anything that shows you aren't just trying to blow smoke up everyone's collective alimentary canal.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I realized that, too, and corrected that post. But, only after you'd copied it in preparation to reply.
So, its my turn to apologize. I do. Too late, I realized it was directed at a post that was interposed between mine and yours.
You gotta admit, though. It was a very nice concession on my part, even if mistaken. And, you blew it by not "accepting" it with reservations. You totally gave away your weakness in tactics--failure to recognize a winning opportunity to look great if not awesome. Heh, heh, heh. Like I said earlier, I'm looking forward to your stay here.
Last edited:
Primus
Regular Member
Good we are straight then.
As far as the other arguments. I stated in my first response that is even give you the fact that there is case law that says police will not be held liable for not "helping". I made that clear and stated that even if I gave it to you..... it doesn't change what is actually done in real life
Listen right now I'm conceding and GIVING you the fact that by here is case law that says that. I've said it numerous times in other threads. I'll say bit again there is NO constitutional obligation. Quote that away.
But also please quote my whole post about how we still go to work everyday and put ourselves in sh****y spots because we FEEL we have an obligation. I already said it. I don't need a statute saying go to the gun call I will.
Somehow it gets interpreted "no duty means they won't". That's utter bs. As I've kept saying. The real deal is that guys still go and help. Period.
For those that want documentation I already posted my department rwgs that require me to go to EVERY call they send me to and to assist every crime in my presence whether on duty or off duty. In fact I'm pretty sure that's what ended the last thread.
So again.... your right no constitution all requirement and case law says we won't be held criminal responsible. I agree. But does that mean no "duty"?
Sorry maybe I'm an a** and I take my job very serious. I take that duty very seriously. So serious I don't need you to reaffirm it for me. I know and enjoy my job. Period.
I'm done trying to convince you otherwise. You want proof? Turn the news on. The next time you hear about a cop saving someone or getting shot or helping someone you can sit back and say "look another guy who doesn't have a obligation according to case law but did it anyways."
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
No. I won't quote your statement because that's not what the OP is arguing. His entire justification for this thread is a strawman argument.
Nobody is arguing that some cops aren't heroic. Nobody is arguing that some cops don't go into ***tty situations because they feel a personal obligation to help.
What is happening is the OPer is falsely arguing that no-duty cases are cited to "disclaim or deny" heroism by cops, when in fact those cases are cited to refute assertions of a duty to protect individually, not disclaim heroism by some cops.
By saying, "somehow it gets interpreted 'no duty means they won't'" you're literally repeating the OPer's strawman.
But, thank you for the (third?) opportunity to explain the OPer's strawman.