Are you a police officer

[LEO 229]

imported post

Many people have already speculated whyI OC....

It has been said it makes up for my small .... Forget it!! :lol:

 

[HankT]

imported post

WhiteFeather wrote:

...I find a little politeness goes a long way. When someone asks the "question." I respond with a no. Followed by I am protecting myself, my rights and the rights of those abroad. I keep information on me to hand out if someone seems interested and just try my best to educate the populace.

Seems simple enough. I think you've got the best approach.

Demonstrably better than Mark's method.

 

[longwatch]

imported post

Come on HankT 3 times in one thread is enough stop beating up on him.
You keep bringing it up and its bound to get repeated.

 

[HankT]

imported post

longwatch wrote:

You keep bringing it up and its bound to get repeated.

LW, you are assuming it ever happened in the first place....

Survey says:

http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum6/5360.html

it probably didn't.

 

[GI1911]

imported post

 

[HankT]

imported post

GI1911 wrote:

feel bad that some people still in this day and age have to group people together and judge. I for one am thankful for the work that the honest leo do on a day to day basis, one that I don't think I could do myself. Thank you.

Hmmm, only your 2nd post and already you are defending LEOs, eh? We'll have to keep our eyes on this one, guys.



[align=left]

[/align]
Nah, just kidding ya. Welcome to the forum GI1911.

 

[nauss]

imported post

UTOC-45-44 wrote:

expvideo wrote:

LEO 229 wrote:

nauss wrote:

Lets all just break down and be one of the "gods amongst men"

I really want to make $29,000 a year and deal with scum all the time.

To give reverence to a cop is disgusting. I don't want them nor have

I EVER called them. I carry and that is ALL the help I need.

Please allow me to take this time to thank you for your kind words.

I like being able to help others and answer questions to permit them to be safe and use the law to their advantage. It is fortunate that I do not really deal with just the scum of society. I talk to everyday citizens and victims of crime too.

I protect and defend those that are not capable of doing it themselves due to age, handicap, mental deficiency, or injury.

I arrest the scum that break into homes and cars,rape, rob, assault, andkill others.

It is good to know that good people like you are out there that do not want us and do not call us. This gives me more time to help those truly in need.

I hope that you will have the resources and expertise to conduct your own investigations if you and your family areever avictim of any crime. Your gun can only do just so much.

If this is true, thank you. I wish some of the cops out here could take a lesson from you, because it's become pretty clear that the majority of them are not interested in helping people. We need more police officers that feel the way you do about helping people. I'm not saying that none of them have the right attitude; I'm saying that there are enough (however few) that don't. Thank you for setting a good example. I hope more people will follow it.

Well..., LEO's are only an Auxiliary General Deterrent...,

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

"It is, therefore, a fact of law and of practical necessity that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection must be recognized for what it is: only an auxiliary general deterrent. "

...,and serve the Public in General and are under NOCONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION/DUTY to serve you as an individual Per the Supreme Court, and therefore does not feel OBLIGATED to be NICE.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1432132/posts

[size=+1]Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone[/size]
]http://www.nytimes.com/auth/login?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html&OP=4b5cde51Q2F)(K_)Q7EQ3DTl7Q3DQ3Dq3)3gg1)gF)3Q27)PQ3DQ26Q5EqQ5ETl)3Q27lTQ3DqQ3Blm9qYQ26]New York Times ^[/url] | June 28, 2005 | Linda Greenhouse

Posted on 06/28/2005 1:46:17 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday, overturning a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado... police d not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm...The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.frfrogspad.com/fantasy.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.users.fast.net/~behanna/kasler.html

"Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate’s screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: “For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.”

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.’s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that 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.”[4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect.[5] "

"The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services[6]"



Per ALL these and MANY, MANY articles agrees with that LEO's does NOT have to play nice and ALL your $$$ goes to Expensive Donuts.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=194128&Disp=6&Trace=on

"Title: CALIFORNIA DREAMING:ÂPolice have no obligation to protect any individual from harm
Source: http://www.outlawslegal.com/
URL Source: [url]http://www.outlawslegal.com/G00/G07.htm[/url]
Published: Jul 16, 2007
Author: OUTLAWS LEGAL
Post Date: 2007-07-16 16:20:16 by Freedom_Rider
Ping List: *California*
8 Comments

CALIFORNIA DREAMING Police have no obligation to protect any individual from harm
"Do you believe that law enforcement officers have a duty to protect you from harm?" Ask yourself that question, and, your answer is . . . . ?
That is a question I have frequently asked. The overwhelming majority of answers have been affirmative; ranging from "Yes." to "That's what they are paid to do!" The next logical question is "How can we be certain we know the correct answer?"
The correct answer is found in appellate court decisions. The following summaries of a few appellate court decisions will provide some insight into this area of the law. These example cases are from California - but understand that the police are not responsible for your individual safety in any state. "

"

Its hard to believe - but there are numerous court cases, all of which show that " the Police have no obligation to protect any individual person from harm "
Here are some examples:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989) 489 US 189
Bower v. DeVito (1982) 686 F.2d 616
Calgorides v. Mobile (1985) 475 So.2d 560
Warren v. District of Columbia (1983) 444 A.2d 1
Morgan v. District of Columbia (1983) 469 A.2d 1306
Sapp v. Tallahassee (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert.denied 354 So.2d 985
Keane v. Chicago (1968) 98 Ill.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321
Jamison v. Chicago (1977) 48 Ill.3d 567
Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville 272 N.E. 2d 871
Silver v. Minneapolis (1969)) 170 N.W.2d 206
Wuetrich v. Delia (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929
Chapman v. Philadelphia (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 753
Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937
Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority (1982) 55 N.Y.2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141
Who does have a duty to protect a person from harm? Parents have a duty to protect their children, but other than that, the short answer is no one has that duty.
The ultimate responsibility for your protection is self protection, and you should take care to undertake that responsibility if you value your life and that of your loved ones. "

Thank you very much. Well put!!! :what:

 

[nauss]

imported post

LEO 229 wrote:

nauss wrote:

Lets all just break down and be one of the "gods amongst men"

I really want to make $29,000 a year and deal with scum all the time.

To give reverence to a cop is disgusting. I don't want them nor have

I EVER called them. I carry and that is ALL the help I need.

Please allow me to take this time to thank you for your kind words.

I like being able to help others and answer questions to permit them to be safe and use the law to their advantage. It is fortunate that I do not really deal with just the scum of society. I talk to everyday citizens and victims of crime too.

I protect and defend those that are not capable of doing it themselves due to age, handicap, mental deficiency, or injury.

I arrest the scum that break into homes and cars,rape, rob, assault, andkill others.

It is good to know that good people like you are out there that do not want us and do not call us. This gives me more time to help those truly in need.

I hope that you will have the resources and expertise to conduct your own investigations if you and your family areever avictim of any crime. Your gun can only do just so much.

LEO 229,



I must appologize for my harsh comments. I can fuel my boldness on my personal experiences with local police. When one makes such bold comments they tend to burn the ears of all readers. You just might be afailthful servant to the public and I may seem like a real jerk. Just maybe so I am sorry.



THAT SAID......I still cling to my ideas of needing police very, very little. Since the United States Supreme Court has set down that an individual's protection by police is NOT guranteed.....logic states that their use is limited.Ask any LEO and you will get almost identical answers regarding firearms, the public and usage. LEO just don't like non-LEO to carry. Why? "It just makes our jobs more difficult."

Really? How so?

"To protect and serve....when we want to" should be the motto. I'm sorry but this is the MAJORITY of LEO approach to life.

I have LE in my immediate family and they both quit their jobs because of the corruption and lawlessness in their departments. So please do not pass judgement on me for stating what nearly everyone else is thinking. I just write down what I think.

As far as investigating....ha. My sister, ex-Assistant Disctrict Attorney General, had her house broken into and prints were left. The dectectives did NOTHING and never processed the prints and she was the rank of GENERAL in the next county's LE!!!!

I've met VERY few good LE and their jobs ARE NOT to protect so please do not pass on this garbage tothis recipient of that same"protection" and "service".

Good for you if you are a nice guy. That is what you should be. So don't expect us to praise you for being a "good cop" because that is an oximoron. All cops are expected to be good (they take an oath.....remember) and to suggest otherwise proves my point.:celebrate:celebrate:celebrate