Should We Do What They Tell Us?

[MJS]

"To Protect and To Serve" is just the motto of the LAPD. Adam-12 and Dragnet got it national recognition. It has absolutely no legal content whatsoever. It means as much as most corporate mottoes.

The simple answer is that yes, the cop could drive on by. There is a long series of court cases. They are unanimous in their conclusions. Combine the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity with the bedrock principle that the police are there to investigate crimes and act on warrants, not protect any individual citizen absent some sort of personal services contract. The law is very clear. They have no legal obligation to protect you. They may choose to or they may not. And when they do not no law is broken and a lawsuit against them will fail. It really is as simple as that.

There was a case here not too many years ago. Three police officers watched someone get knifed to death. They did not get involved. They took notes and arrested the suspect later. The lawsuit was quickly thrown out on precisely the grounds outlined above. By taking notes and investigating the crime after the fact they had discharged their legal obligation.

Here are a few things I found for some PD's here in CT.

New Britian Police Dept.

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]

Our Mission

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]It is the mission of the New Britain Police Department to provide quality policing services that emphasize fairness, integrity, and professionalism, to protect lives and property and by using the community policing philosophy, to enhance the quality of life in our neighborhoods by partnering with citizens.[/FONT]

Code Of Ethics


New Haven Police Dept.

Letters

04/11/07
from Teresa D. Davidson

I want to commend one of your fine police officers, Officer Steve McMorris, Badge #224. I live on Oliver Road and for two days they have been repairing our street.
Today, I had to do some grocery shopping. When I returned, I had to park on the opposite side of the street. I carried two packages to the corner, the officer took them from me so I could go back to the car for the other two. I returned and the officer took my two packages and walked me back to my home.
I have very high regards for the police. I had two uncles, John Doyle and Peter Quinn, plus a cousin John Doyle, who were cops many years ago . . .
Please extend my sincere thanks to your officer . . . Keep up the good work.


03/19/07
from Mary K. Weigand

I would like to send a hearty commendation to your department for the generosity of Officer William Barone who stopped, as he drove by, to shovel my front steps for me. You probably know already what a credit he is to the department and to the City.



01/04/07
from Carol Cyr
It’s not very often that we see good deeds being done and it’s even less often that people write you a letter about it. Yesterday I witnessed a very kind act by one of your female officers; she was driving car #85 on 1/03/07.
I was driving towards the train station at around 4:00 and suddenly, without any obvious reason, the two lanes of traffic stopped. I looked ahead and saw car #85 stopped with the lights going. She got out of her car and helped a man in a wheelchair cross the busy street. She even got him onto the sidewalk and turned him in the right direction before waving goodbye to him. This brought tears to my eyes, it was such a simple and kind act but one that we rarely see today.
Please find out who this officer is and tell her thank you from me and let her know that she is appreciated and making a difference in our city.


I'm not sure of the PDs where you live, but as you can see from what I linked, there is obviously a big difference. Seems to me that there is a big focus on protecting the public and community police/service. Additionally, there have been many times when police officers in the city in which I work, have come across active fights in progress and have stopped.

Mike

 

[SKB]

If officers stood around and watched a guy get stabbed then the situation is more about what the officers are made of then what they are supposed to do! If you ask around you'll find a lot departments want counslers with guns and not COPS. When I was a kid the cops would smack us upside the head if we were being dumb! Now days they want to know how someone feels about the situation first.

Your right Tellner everyone is responsable for their own protection to start with. The police can not be every where all the time. And just like any other group of people police departments are made up of all types of people. But you can't say all the police are for is to stand there and find out what happen after the fact. Some thing like a school shooting or almost any situation is more complicated then most people realize. You can't just run in guns blazing to ever situation!!

 

[BrandiJo]

I think the plice are still good and still deserve our respect and trust. Yesterday i had a flat tire in 40 mins from my destanation and 30 from my home. I was stuck my tire iron is damn near impossibly to use... (a whole 6 inches of levrage) and a state trooper pulled behind me, put on my spare and then excorted me to the nearest gas station and tire repair shop to get my tires fixed ( i had one blow out and one severly dmged) Did he have to stop? nope, i had help on the way, did he have to be nice and calm me down and reassure me that it would be ok, did he have to drive behind me going 40 mph to insure that i got to saftey, no, but he did and he made me feel alot better about being stuck and alone and with one unuseable tire and one tire that shouldnt be used.
​

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

That's a cool cop, Hell that's a cool person period.
In Va, we have State Troopers who's primary job is to help motorist, one helped me year ago, when my truck broke down and it was 10 degrees outside.

 

[BrandiJo]

lol oh ya cant forget middle of summer in Nebraska i think it was somewhere around 90 degrees out

 

[jks9199]

That's a cool cop, Hell that's a cool person period.
In Va, we have State Troopers who's primary job is to help motorist, one helped me year ago, when my truck broke down and it was 10 degrees outside.

To clarify -- VA State Police Motorist Assistance Aides are not Troopers; they're non-sworn personnel who provide a number of services to people who have trouble in a few portions of the state (where traffic congestion is the worst). By doing so, they get motorists who are suffering from minor mechanical problems back on the road -- or they at least reduce the chance of the breakdown or crash causing more traffic problems.

And, for what it's worth, Troopers in VA are NOT merely "highway patrol ticket writers." They have full law enforcement authority state-wide, and are often the primary police response in many parts of the state where the locals are overburnened, or just shut down after a certain hour.

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

I did not know that, I assumed (bad) that they were by the fact that they have a firearms.

That be a pretty cool job and a good way to serve.

I remember New York State Troopers were the only LEO's in certian ares as well, but I was a child then. I remeber my step dad and I went to a Trooper Barricks to report a break in at his shop.

 

[MJS]

The State Police in CT are allowed to take their cars home with them. They can be used for personal use as well. Part of that privilege means that technically they're on duty even when they're not offically working. So, if an off duty CSP Trooper comes across an accident, disabled motor vehicle, erratic operation, etc., they have to stop.

 

[jdinca]

An interesting and lively discusssion! I can't add much as our laws and perception of police officers is perhaps different from yours. I'm thinking that your very senior police officers/officials are political appointees?

The view that the police forces are public servants which you pay for to protect citizens and deal with crime doesn't come across very much either in these posts or articles we see from the States at all.

We are told not to tackle criminals, the few cases where a non police officer has, that person has been killed or badly injured. It makes total sense to leave crime to those we pay to deal with it as they are also the ones trained for the job.

We had a high profile case a while back where tow lads broke into a man's house and he shot them, one died. Much was made of the 'defending an Englishman's castle' stuff and saying the home owner shouldn't have been prosecuted and sent to prison. On closer investigation, which of course the media didn't bother with, it turned out that the home owner had several illegal weapons, had threatend to kill his own brother as well as other neighbours and had shot one of the burglars in the back as he was leaving the house. He was prosecuted for manslaughter because he had not at any time been in danger of his life nor was he threatened, he had exceeded what was deemed reasonable force. Police spokesmen pointed out that every other case where a burglar had been injured or even killed by the householder in this country had not been prosecuted as investigation.

The law in this country allows reasonable force to be used both by the population to defend themselves and by the police to arrest and detain a suspect. The advice not to 'have a go' is wise and is usually adhered to with good reason.

I'm constantly baffled at the protection some criminals get. You break into another persons home and you get what you deserve. If you are just a burglar and have no intention of hurting anybody, too bad. What are you doing in their home in the first place and why should you be afforded ANY legal protection in that situation whatsoever? You broke the law, entered their home with intention to do harm, even if it was just by stealing their belongings and you'd paid the price. Guess you shouldn't have done that in the first place.

If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that your life is now forfeit if you come up against an armed homeowner and he chooses to take it. Yes, that's harsh but it's not the homeowner who set up the situation, it's the criminal. Remember the line from the Baretta theme song? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Well, the "time" may very well be an immediately imposed death sentence.

 

[BrandiJo]

We have a moterist assist thing as well, but lol they whernt there when i needed them i got a real life sworn in highway patrol guy who at first i thought was going to ticket me for sitting on the side of the interstate
​

 

[jks9199]

We have a moterist assist thing as well, but lol they whernt there when i needed them i got a real life sworn in highway patrol guy who at first i thought was going to ticket me for sitting on the side of the interstate
​

I've changed more than one tire to help someone, when other demands on my time let me. But the idea of the civilian, unarmed motorist assistance units is that they can do that sort of thing, freeing up cops for "real police work" that civilians can't do, and to keep traffic moving... Many of the motorist assistance aides also have appropriate experience with auto mechanics to provide real assistance in a breakdown.

 

[BrandiJo]

yeah, they are great i see them all the time on the interstate

 

[Tez3]

I'm constantly baffled at the protection some criminals get. You break into another persons home and you get what you deserve. If you are just a burglar and have no intention of hurting anybody, too bad. What are you doing in their home in the first place and why should you be afforded ANY legal protection in that situation whatsoever? You broke the law, entered their home with intention to do harm, even if it was just by stealing their belongings and you'd paid the price. Guess you shouldn't have done that in the first place.

If you choose to break into someones home, you should be well aware that your life is now forfeit if you come up against an armed homeowner and he chooses to take it. Yes, that's harsh but it's not the homeowner who set up the situation, it's the criminal. Remember the line from the Baretta theme song? "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time". Well, the "time" may very well be an immediately imposed death sentence.

I'm sorry but we don't think like that. We abolished the death sentence a long time ago. Breaking into a house does not make your life forfeit. the law is in place to punish the burglar, you cannot take the law into your own hands because then you become as bad as the lawbreaker. In this country you are allowed to use 'reasonable' force to defend yourself and your property. Killing someone was not reasonable force in that case, he shot a boy in the back and killed him. The boys shouldn't have been there but they don't deserve to die for that. The householder is not judge, jury and executioner.We have laws that are over a thousand years old, tried and tested by time. Life has to be sacrosanct, yes even a lawbreakers life.
If you end up killing someone in defence of your life and/or loved ones, the police and courts will still investigate. This is to deter people killing each other under the guise of it being self defence. Taking a life even a burglars life should be a matter of grave concern not a 'hey whatever' and a shrug of the shoulders.I find that quite appallingly callous.Yes I would find it so if I were burgled too.

 

[jdinca]

I'm sorry but we don't think like that. We abolished the death sentence a long time ago. Breaking into a house does not make your life forfeit. the law is in place to punish the burglar, you cannot take the law into your own hands because then you become as bad as the lawbreaker. In this country you are allowed to use 'reasonable' force to defend yourself and your property. Killing someone was not reasonable force in that case, he shot a boy in the back and killed him. The boys shouldn't have been there but they don't deserve to die for that. The householder is not judge, jury and executioner.We have laws that are over a thousand years old, tried and tested by time. Life has to be sacrosanct, yes even a lawbreakers life.
If you end up killing someone in defence of your life and/or loved ones, the police and courts will still investigate. This is to deter people killing each other under the guise of it being self defence. Taking a life even a burglars life should be a matter of grave concern not a 'hey whatever' and a shrug of the shoulders.I find that quite appallingly callous.Yes I would find it so if I were burgled too.

I'm not sure where you get the opinion that I'm saying "hey, whatever". We're talking about devastating consequences for the shooter, as well as the criminal who set up the situation in the first place. The bottom line is, had his home not been violated with malicious intent, the criminals life would have never been in jeopardy and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Once you choose to break into someones home, you should know very well that the consequence could be you losing your life. I prefer not to have to wait until a weapon is pulled on me and have to "outdraw" the bad guy. We're not talking on the street here, we're talking about the sanctity of somebodies home. It probably wasn't necessary to pull the trigger in this case but I have much less sympathy for the criminal who was shot than I do the victim who's home was violated. I prefer to put the rights of the victim ahead of the rights of the dirtbag who chose to break and enter. If he didn't want to risk his life, he shouldn't have done the crime in the first place.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I begin with the assumption that the right of self-defense exists. There exist many in the world who do not. This entry is not for them.
Also let us cast aside affiliations of this or that political party on the issue and merely look at the issue itself as that is all that interests me and all that is relevant to this entry.
It's very easy to understand my beliefs about this issue once I have explained them to you:

The first point of my central belief system is centered on the premise that every human being has rights. You may, if you wish, say that they come from a god, or from nature, or from written law, as suits your preference, but the underlying premise is that they are THERE, irrespective of their form.

The second point is that whatever the number of rights one possesses, they all stem from the right to EXIST, and to try to preserve that existence. This is simple brain-dead logic; one can neither possess nor exercise ANY rights if one does not exist.
Now , the last time I tried explaining this to someone who was less interested in hearing my view as in ridiculing it, this is the point at which I had this incredibly intelligent person interrupt me with"Yeah, well y'know what? Y'know what?....."
He waited for me to say "what". I thought that was cute....ly retarded.
"Yeah, y'know what? But you just said everybody had the right to exist, so if you shoot 'em that's hypocrisy, so you're just as bad, yeah, so there".
So I will answer that here as well:
No.
It is not "Just as bad, yeah, so there."
Self-defense is NOT the moral equivalent of homicide.
The person defending themselves from death or grievous bodily harm has not made the same decision as the person who has already demonstrated the ability, opportunity and intent to kill him/her.

The concept that both these people should be held to the same standard should be self-evident in its sheer ludicrousness.

How does my belief system tie into this? It ties into this because when a person decides to make an unjustified attempt to remove another person's right to exist( in plain English this is called assaulting or murdering them), that person has chosen to arrogate to themselves a right that they do not possess, and in so doing sacrifices their right to exist that the innocent person who has done NO wrong, and deserves to live, may live.

So no, I see absolutely no sane reason why the criminal has any right, or need, to receive sympathy or even the remotest consideration at that point. This person chose their actions, and thus their potential, and deserved, fate, with both eyes open and should be 100% subject to the whim of Fate if they've burned up enough karma that their number's up that day for doing so. You made your grave, now lie in it. Since they made the conscious choice that they did not wish to be useful citizens in life let them serve a useful purpose with their death.( "Hey! You other aspiring crooks! I tried that and look what happened to ME!")

And before anyone even starts in on the cowboy fantasy ********--This is nothing to do with "wanting to be judge and jury" or "taking the law into one's own hands" or "Needing to prove one's manhood", wherever the **** THAT came from.

This is strictly, and only, about experiencing a threat or reasonably perceived threat to the right to exist, and stopping it from occurring, so that no more innocent lives are harmed--just as clinically and emotionally detached as a surgeon removing a cancerous tumor(the two are, in my view circumstantially identical)--A human cannot break the Human Contract in any worse way than this, and this action must be stopped.

If you can do it by running, mission accomplished, if you are one of the top one-tenth-of-one-percent who are smart enough to try "just restraining" an armed attacker, stupid enough to try it, and lucky enough to survive, good--stupid, but good. If it means using whatever armed or unarmed means you must to push his "off-switch" and be done with it, too bad so sad. As unfortunate as that would be, it is in my estimation far, far worse to show such extreme disrespect for the sanctity of (innocent) life by allowing it to be STOLEN( and that's what it is).

This I think is what differentiates US/UK thought on the matter--The overview Tez gave of how home invaders are looked at would fall under the old Americanism of "Giving a sucker an even break", so to speak.

That being said, an earlier poster was 100% correct that blindly obeying any "party line" is equally as undesirable as blindly DISobeying it. If you are not there to see the situation develop, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE SITUATION.

Bear in mind most LEOs responding to a call are in EXACTLY that boat--they don't and at this point can't, care why someone is like they are or who had a ****ed up childhood, they just know either someone's hurt or there's a body on the floor. You getting in their way while they need to get a handle on things is also Not Cool in ther same way not defending yourself is Not Cool.

 

[SKB]

Good post Andy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Darth F.Takeda]

Great post Brother Rant!

 

[Tez3]

I believe it's pointless for me to post anymore on this thread as we have widely differing views and you are unable to understand mine as is made clear by your deciding what my views are. It hasn't the slightest bit to do with give a sucker an even break at all. It's more in the mould of how can killing people 'legally' put over the message that killing people is wrong?

We have no more sympathy for lawbreakers than you do, we just don't believe killing people makes things any better.

I will only point out that the case I was talking about the householder had illegal shotguns, shot someone in the back without checking first if it was a burglar or his brother who he had already threatened to kill.The police had previously been called out to the house. The plain fact was he wanted to kill someone. The burglar did not deserve to be the one killed, he deserved to be tried and sentenced to a prison sentence with hope of reform not for his sake but for ours because that's what makes us better than the criminals. Okay he will probably carry on his life of crime but we did the right thing. That's what makes us civilised.

Keep your wild west frontier mentality of retribution, we will keep to Socrates ..
"At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst."

We may not be perfect but we must at least strive to have higher feelings than holding life so cheap.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I guess the wires are crossed on both ends( ah, the joy of a text only medium). I was speaking to the thread in general and it is my error if if that wasn't clear, if I came across as "deciding what your views were", that's my bad and I do apologize.

But it's the same thing from your post: "Retribution" is nothing to do with my post. I won't lie to you and deny that anyone over here feels as you describe, but again, speaking for myself, and knowing there are others like me, this is simply about removing the cancer before it can spread any more, ASAP.

Now, if someone had had some crime commited upon them or had lost someone to an act of violence, and went after them *after* the fact, *That* would be retribution, and while understandable, that would be wrong. I am talking about "clear and present danger".

The specific shooting case you describe would also not be a successful self defense claim over here, believe it or not.( Whoever it was broke and ran, in which case there is no more attack).From what you describe he also violated Rule Number Four that even the most basic idiot should know about firearms( Identify your target and what is beyond it before you shoot). If it came across that I condoned this particular person's actions, that is also not the case, although I will shed no tears for those shot, either. You play chicken long enough, you fry.

I would caution against "We" will do this and "you" can keep that" sort off statements though--I was speaking only for myself and do not claim to represent my country, and that can set a discussion down a very polarized path, and the viewpoints are starkly enough contrasted as it is.

I do agree with you that , at this point, I don't expect agreement, but it doesn't have to turn into a fight.

 

[Tez3]

Firstly I can argue from a 'we' point of view as this country chose to abolish the death penalty.

You also maybe cannot unless you have lived in the UK understand what it is to live in a country where thankfully guns are still a rare thing. The police are still not routinely armed and for the public to have handguns in their house is something unheard of. Shotguns used for hunting or clay pigeon shooting are licensed by the police and must be kept in secure cabinets. A good deal of the country outside the big cities are still able to leave their doors unlocked. Gun crime is creeping in sadly, we seem to be importing a gun culture from America but not on the scale seen there.

Secondly, no human being has the right to kill another human being, to believe you do leads to the madness and evil of the Nazis and their ilk.
Yes we kill for various reasons, self defence, fear, retaliation,by accident, by war etc but we must be very clear about these reasons many of which are justified but do not give us a right to kill. Someone may attack me or my family and I kill them in self defence, I should be able to explain my reasons for killing this person so that it will be deemed justified and unavoidable.There is no right to kill though sadly that may have been the correct action to take. The right to do something in law and the correct thing to do are two different concepts.

Is there a right to defend yourself? Absolutely, but again you can't approach it as your right to kill even though your actions may lead to a death. Everyone must be accountable in law or else you will have anarchy. I don't dispute your right to bear arms but I do dispute your right to kill.