|
Post by Arthur Dayne on Nov 12, 2020 22:40:45 GMT
If anyone has been following the looting and "Seattle CHAZ" videos and stories this year in the US then there's a consistent theme in all of them: The Cops will not come right away if at all when there's so many looters and trouble makers around. They won't help you until after the crowd mostly clears then you can tell your story surrounded by the remains of your small business or home.
The other thing also, do not engage the crowd and keep the doors locked. Anything that happens to you will be dismissed by the media or drowned out by the crowd so your side of the story will be difficult to get across, even if you are in the right. If they break down the doors and invade well, now you have social consent to defend yourself all you want.
|
|
Zen_Hydra
Moderator
Born with a heart full of neutrality
Posts: 2,632
|
Post by Zen_Hydra on Nov 12, 2020 23:25:08 GMT
If anyone has been following the looting and "Seattle CHAZ" videos and stories this year in the US then there's a consistent theme in all of them: The Cops will not come right away if at all when there's so many looters and trouble makers around. They won't help you until after the crowd mostly clears then you can tell your story surrounded by the remains of your small business or home. The other thing also, do not engage the crowd and keep the doors locked. Anything that happens to you will be dismissed by the media or drowned out by the crowd so your side of the story will be difficult to get across, even if you are in the right. If they break down the doors and invade well, now you have social consent to defend yourself all you want. This is a warning: Things have veered into a political direction. Reign it in, dial it back, and speak to the thread topic.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Nov 13, 2020 2:12:39 GMT
...there's a consistent theme in all of them: The Cops will not come right away if at all when there's so many looters and trouble makers around. They won't help you until after the crowd mostly clears then you can tell your story surrounded by the remains of your small business or home. The other thing also, do not engage the crowd and keep the doors locked. Anything that happens to you will be dismissed by the media or drowned out by the crowd so your side of the story will be difficult to get across, even if you are in the right. If they break down the doors and invade well, now you have social consent to defend yourself all you want. - You should never rely on the police...I know here in California the police have no legal obligation to protect you and can not be held responsible for failing to. In general, the police are involved in the aftermath; clean up, taking reports and investigating only after the crime has occurred and you are a victim. - You should never engage a crowd if it can be avoided, just as you should never engage anyone intent on crime unless it cant be avoided. If it cant be avoided, be prepared. - There is no doubt that reality of public safety has changed for the worse if you are a law abiding citizen in my opinion, hence the thread: how have you prepared if at all? I firmly believe; It is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six!
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 13, 2020 11:57:01 GMT
In the US the Supreme Court says the police have no obligation to protect you from crime. Their responsibility is to respond to and investigate crimes.
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur. Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.” DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 13, 2020 12:16:33 GMT
This is Sparta!
I didn't know that, really cool. (or didn't I just get the joke?) In Germany that's the primary duty of the police, helping crime investigation is second. That's imposed as the general duty by our states' law.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Nov 13, 2020 14:19:48 GMT
This is Sparta! I didn't know that, really cool. (or didn't I just get the joke?) In Germany that's the primary duty of the police, helping crime investigation is second. That's imposed as the general duty by our states' law. I guess that is a good thing given the limitations on ownership of firearms/weapons and therefore self defense in your country. So when someone is killed or severely injured and the police were not there to prevent it, you can take them to court and hold them accountable?
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 13, 2020 15:38:41 GMT
If they aren't there they can't do anything of course, and they can't be everywhere everytime. But it's their duty to keep the public save. If they see a dangerous situation and don't do anything they have big problems up to a lawsuit. Of course it's a bit more complicated but that's the principle.
|
|
|
Post by Jordan Williams on Nov 13, 2020 18:57:10 GMT
If they aren't there they can't do anything of course, and they can't be everywhere everytime. But it's their duty to keep the public save. If they see a dangerous situation and don't do anything they have big problems up to a lawsuit. Of course it's a bit more complicated but that's the principle. So there would definitely be massive lawsuits for say, the Munich Chief of Police told officers to stand down if there was an incidence of violence or destruction of property?
|
|
|
Post by Sir Thorfinn on Nov 13, 2020 19:14:04 GMT
I used to live in CA. I've been IN all 3 major quakes. Yes, I get it.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 13, 2020 19:25:15 GMT
If they aren't there they can't do anything of course, and they can't be everywhere everytime. But it's their duty to keep the public save. If they see a dangerous situation and don't do anything they have big problems up to a lawsuit. Of course it's a bit more complicated but that's the principle. So there would definitely be massive lawsuits for say, the Munich Chief of Police told officers to stand down if there was an incidence of violence or destruction of property? The victims would start lawsuits against the State of Bavaria then (police is state organisation). There can be exceptions in certain situations to de-escalate but in principle it's the police's duty to protect the people.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Nov 13, 2020 19:27:26 GMT
So there would definitely be massive lawsuits for say, the Munich Chief of Police told officers to stand down if there was an incidence of violence or destruction of property? The victims would start lawsuits against the State of Bavaria then (police is state organisation). There can be exceptions in certain situations to de-escalate but in principle it's the police's duty to protect the people. That is almost impossible to do here in the US / California unless you can prove malicious/criminal intent.
|
|
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Nov 13, 2020 19:30:50 GMT
Derelict violation of the duty is sufficient here.
|
|
|
Post by Adventurer'sBlade on Nov 14, 2020 1:27:34 GMT
There is a very big difference between the police having an intent and mission to protect the public and actual legal liability if they fail to prevent an individual citizen from being injured. I would be very surprised if you could cite specific German case law showing the police held liable for failing to prevent a specific crime. That said, there are circumstances in the U.S. where police are liable if they fail to act, such as mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence and drunk driving. An interesting example of this is the School Resource Officer who failed to react appropriately to the Parkland high school shooting. He is being charged for failing to protect the students. Neither the police nor the public love a coward. abcnews.go.com/US/decision-charge-parkland-school-resource-officer-scot-peterson/story?id=63502722
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 14, 2020 2:07:12 GMT
Did you not read my previous post? The SCOTUS ruled that he can't be held liable for failure to protect. They can charge him with whatever they want, but the law says he committed no crime. He can be sued in civil court for damages, but nothing criminal.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Nov 14, 2020 2:39:20 GMT
There is a very big difference between the police having an intent and mission to protect the public and actual legal liability if they fail to prevent an individual citizen from being injured. I would be very surprised if you could cite specific German case law showing the police held liable for failing to prevent a specific crime. That said, there are circumstances in the U.S. where police are liable if they fail to act, such as mandatory arrest laws for domestic violence and drunk driving. An interesting example of this is the School Resource Officer who failed to react appropriately to the Parkland high school shooting. He is being charged for failing to protect the students. Neither the police nor the public love a coward. abcnews.go.com/US/decision-charge-parkland-school-resource-officer-scot-peterson/story?id=63502722 The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Did you not read my previous post? The SCOTUS ruled that he can't be held liable for failure to protect. They can charge him with whatever they want, but the law says he committed no crime. He can be sued in civil court for damages, but nothing criminal. www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Nov 14, 2020 4:43:39 GMT
The SCOTUS rulings regarding police duty to act were civil damages suits. SCOTUS did not rule that the US Constitution prohibited charging, convicting, or sentencing a police officer under criminal statutes, federal or state. Scot Peterson, the SRO charged in Broward County, FL, is not facing a civil suit. Neither is he charged with violating the US Constitution nor the Florida Constitution. To summarize, he is charged with Neglect of a Child (multiple counts), Culpable Negligence (multiple counts), and Perjury under the Florida criminal code. Mr. Peterson made the same arguments as implied in this forum thread in his Motion to Dismiss. The Motion was, imo, facially insufficient pursuant to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, as the Motion failed to assert any facts under oath. Indeed, the Motion was filed without any affidavit. Regardless, rather than merely moving to strike the pleading or simply traversing, the State responded in substance. The State’s Response outlines its legal reasoning with regard to the legal matters asserted in this thread. No ruling has been filed, nor a hearing yet been set for the Motion and Response. Imo, the Motion will be dismissed as facially insufficient. Its purpose was, I would speculate, to make argument to the court of public opinion rather than the Seventeenth Circuit. Maybe worth a read. Your opinion and prognostication may be different than mine. Edit: Looks like links to case information are not persistent. Here’s the Clerk’s site. You’ll have to do a case search for Scot Peterson. www.browardclerk.org/
|
|
|
Post by pellius on Nov 14, 2020 4:50:23 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 14, 2020 13:14:59 GMT
Unfortunately you just don’t have any protection anymore. And what I mean is the state is just not going to protect anyone anymore and technically speaking they can do this, “law enforcement” officers have no obligation to protect anyone, but they do to report crime and stop crime in progress. Since we cannot get political I can’t say anything more, but I do know some of the “behind the scenes” stuff and it’s not pretty.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Newport on Nov 14, 2020 16:22:23 GMT
Unfortunately you just don’t have any protection anymore. And what I mean is the state is just not going to protect anyone anymore and technically speaking they can do this, “law enforcement” officers have no obligation to protect anyone, but they do to report crime and stop crime in progress. Since we cannot get political I can’t say anything more, but I do know some of the “behind the scenes” stuff and it’s not pretty. What we are experiencing is the beginning of the deconstruction of civil and ordered society...to accommodate a vocal minority in a time when virtue signaling has become social and political currency. It will get a lot worse, and probably not in my lifetime, before citizens will either come to their senses or let it all break down into anarchy, hence preparedness threads like this one in forums around the country. Be prepared because there is a much stronger chance that in the future you will have to be. Preparedness goes well beyond firearms and physical self defense. It is a state of mind. You will need to be prepared in all facets of your life, especially financial because financial strength means access to a much wider array of preparation options.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Nov 14, 2020 18:28:54 GMT
Lawyers make a living finding loopholes on the law, so nobody can predict how a case will be settled in court.
I will say that charging the security guard with child neglect will probably not stick because other adults at the school also did nothing, and that includes the state itself for not upgrading the security system and procedures at the school itself.
The law is a messy thing, but it remains true that the police have no obligation to protect you from being a victim of crime.
|
|