the riots and violence

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

Unfortunately the links are legit in supporting the claim that the police do not have a duty to protect any individual until, generally speaking, they are in custody and unable to protect themselves.

Boardman, #1 the above is no revelation and has been "the law" for decades .... and it also includes any property in the arrestee's possession (which also means pets because pets are considered "property" at least in Texas). But ...

.. that's not what SoldierBoy originally posted!

I quoted what he originally posted. Like so many bloggers and bullshitters ... he modified what he posted ...

... the legal concept was not applicable to the Atlanta situation and may have marginal application to Floyd depending on what ALL of the FACTS reveal.

Then, it's always helpful, to revisit the original thread topic! "riots and violence"

[tbone2u]

I totally get what everyone is saying and I understand it.
I just would have done it differently and the hell with the other consequences. My thought is simple. The life of a kid is more valuable to be than my own. Doesn't matter the color or race. I say this because I am older and have lived a good life. My way of thinking may not be the same as others and that's ok.

Chicago update for this last weekend:
47 shot
16 dead
3 kids killed....the youngest 20 months old.

Policing won't fix this problem.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Boardman, #1 the above is no revelation and has been "the law" for decades .... and it also includes any property in the arrestee's possession (which also means pets because pets are considered "property" at least in Texas). But ...

.. that's not what SoldierBoy originally posted!

I quoted what he originally posted. Like so many bloggers and bullshitters ... he modified what he posted ...

... the legal concept was not applicable to the Atlanta situation and may have marginal application to Floyd depending on what ALL of the FACTS reveal.

Then, it's always helpful, to revisit the original thread topic! "riots and violence"

Of course it's not a revelation and I happen to think soldier boy is a complete idiot. I don't know anything else about the guy and don't really care.

Whether he intentionally distorted what he said or made a mistake didn't change the fact that his point was fundamentally true. The cops have no duty to protect an individual.

What ensued was what appeared to me to be an attempt to discredit him(which is fine, he deserves all the discredit he gets) but in turn it discredited a legitimate point. It got off on a tangent as most longer lasting threads do. Someone says something questionable then someone else questions it and there you have your tangent about who is right and who is wrong. The original topic is forgotten and the conversation devolves into a debate or worse. We've both been around long enough to see how that always works.
I wasn't defending him I was simply defending the point so that no one read what was being said and misinterpreted it. My public service is complete for the week.

[VitaMan]

Detroit police SUV plows through protester crowd trying to escape.
Rear window was busted open. Protestors getting on top of SUV.


It's sad, but protester behavior like that should get what they deserve.

[VitaMan]

Chicago may be the most unusual metropolitan city in the USA in terms of demographics, immigration, and history of violence. A lot of poor people from the south migrated there for work, and never cared about the city. With the industries there a lot of people have little formal education.

[tbone2u]

There are lots of cities in the US with people from other countries, walks of life, poor, uneducated, etc......that's not an excuse.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

Whether he intentionally distorted what he said or made a mistake didn't change the fact that his point was fundamentally true.

With all due respect his point was fundamentally flawed .... as he chose the words. What he originally posted is simply not the same as his following statement and the case law suggested in the article.

I won't argue the point with you. I don't have to. It's patently a different statement and was not made in the article he cited.

Originally Posted by boardman

The cops have no duty to protect an individual.

And as this statement you made goes it is incorrect.

The original arresting officer of Floyd, who was the tall Black officer and assisted Floyd in sitting down on the sidewalk with his back to the wall, had a continuing duty to PROTECT FLOYD once Floyd was in his custody, which Floyd was throughout the ordeal until his death.

The same goes for Rodney King, who was originally in the CUSTODY of a female California State Trooper, who released King (unhandcuffed him) to the guys who beat him. Nothing happened to her (unless she was quietly reprimanded). She was not fired or charged with any offense of which I am aware.

We are discussing a positive, mandatory LEGAL duty to protect someone NOT IN CUSTODY.

It has absolutely nothing to do with an officer "giving his life" as SoldierBoy stated.

[Russ38]

Originally Posted by tbone2u

Chicago update for this last weekend:
47 shot
16 dead
3 kids killed....the youngest 20 months old.

Policing won't fix this problem.

Yes sir....another weekend bloodbath as expected (typical Chicago block party, right?)....I thinck NYC is trying to catch up though.....Shouldn’t BLM be protesting?.....Oh yeah forgot, they’ve already been bought and sold.....

[VitaMan]

For what reason then do you continue to post crime statistics about Chicago, if there is nothing unique about it ?

[winn dixie]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

For what reason then do you continue to post crime statistics about Chicago, if there is nothing unique about it ?

Irony for the "woke" people!

[tbone2u]

I post it because its disturbing.
It's a waste of life the media and black community just seem to turn away from it and I think that's wrong.
A white cop....right or wrongly kills a black man and the BLM people go nuts. Riots and destruction.
No one gives a shit about the people in Chicago that die every week.
They should.

[p73777]

No interest in politics
But what is the point of causing chaos?
Don’t people hate the chaos?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by p73777

No interest in politics
But what is the point of causing chaos?
Don’t people hate the chaos?

An election year!

It's not about killing, because if it were all of these hoodlums would converge on Chicago with the peaceful protestors and fill the streets in the killing fields of Chicago to stop the killing there. The cops aren't the problem there.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

With all due respect his point was fundamentally flawed .... as he chose the words. What he originally posted is simply not the same as his following statement and the case law suggested in the article.

I won't argue the point with you. I don't have to. It's patently a different statement and was not made in the article he cited.



And as this statement you made goes it is incorrect.

The original arresting officer of Floyd, who was the tall Black officer and assisted Floyd in sitting down on the sidewalk with his back to the wall, had a continuing duty to PROTECT FLOYD once Floyd was in his custody, which Floyd was throughout the ordeal until his death.

The same goes for Rodney King, who was originally in the CUSTODY of a female California State Trooper, who released King (unhandcuffed him) to the guys who beat him. Nothing happened to her (unless she was quietly reprimanded). She was not fired or charged with any offense of which I am aware.

We are discussing a positive, mandatory LEGAL duty to protect someone NOT IN CUSTODY.

It has absolutely nothing to do with an officer "giving his life" as SoldierBoy stated.

You continue to cherry pick for some perceived flaw rather than understanding we agree on the point. You simply have to prove yourself right and to do that everyone else has to be wrong.

Originally Posted by boardman

I don't disagree with you. Tbone. I like to think I would have done something at that school too.

I'm just pointing out that a police officer has no duty to protect anyone unless he has them in custody. Everyone needs to understand that and take the steps they are comfortable taking in order to ensure their own safety rather than relying on police who doesn't actually have that duty. That includes arming themselves with knowledge of the law and their rights and responsibilities as well as having hardware and knowing how to use it if they choose.

Now more than ever when police are under a microscope who can blame them for not intervening in many situations? Again, I'm not saying it's right or honorable but when they have these court decisions on their side they have a choice to make. Intervene and risk becoming the goat for doing the "right thing" or stay out of it and go home at night.

I said exactly the same thing a few posts earlier. ^^^^^There it is in BOLD. Of course they have a duty to protect once in custody. Would you like me to again post the opinion of William Renquist that says as much.

You did the same thing to soldier boy or at least that's the way I perceived it. He made the same statement that the police have no duty to protect. Somewhere along the line you cherry picked a word or phrase to make his statement appear wrong when his point was correct.
Once you're done nit picking a statement to make your own self look like the smartest person in the room you revert to "back on topic" What a tool. You always have been.

[VitaMan]

Advertisers will no longer use the word "whitening" in their ads.
Aunt Jemima is cooked.
Indians want Mt. Rushmore returned to its original shape.