333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
 |
« Reply #925 on: June 04, 2012, 10:32:43 AM » |
|
LI cops demoted for being Republicans?!
nypost.com ^ | 6/3/12 | KATHIANNE BONIELLO
Posted on Monday, June 04, 2012 1:14:19 PM by Justaham
Six Long Island cops claim their commissioner is putting politics before the badge.
The Long Beach crime fighters say they’ve been targeted by the seaside town’s Democratic machine for supporting GOP candidates in local elections last year.
Long Beach Police Commissioner Michael Tangney, a longtime Democrat, demoted the cops, cut their overtime, switched them to midnight tours and even filed false internal charges against them for “political payback,” the veteran officers claim in a $39 million lawsuit.
“It’s just the way politics work in this town,” Tangney allegedly told one of the officers while demoting him.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Same bs goes on where i live. Cops have mostly become shills for the democrats due to them refusing to curtail the crazy pensions and benes that are causing millions to flee NYS
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #926 on: June 06, 2012, 06:16:58 PM » |
|
Armed EPA Agents Visit Asheville Man by ALAN CARUBA June 6, 2012 Sometimes a small incident says volumes about a large government agency. In this case, it's the Environmental Protection Agency. Around 1:45 PM on May 23, Ashville, North Carolina resident Larry Keller was in the midst of an international call which he had to cut short in order to answer his front door. He found two armed agents of the EPA who were accompanied by an Ashville Police officer. According to a May 24 news story in the Ashville Tribune, a weekly newspaper to which I am a contributing columnist, the agents had blocked his and his neighbor's driveways with their cars. They had driven all the way from Raleigh to confront him. What had he done? The unannounced visit had been occasioned by news that Dr. Al Armendariz, a regional EPA administrator whose 2010 lecture had been videotaped and been released by the office of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) on April 25th. In the lecture, Dr. Amendariz had said that the agency's "general philosophy" was to "crucify" oil and gas producers. He compared the agency's "philosophy of enforcement" to the way, as a Wall Street Journal editorial reported, "Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. "They'd go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them, And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years. The point is to ‘make examples' of alleged lawbreakers." The case in point had been Range Resources, a driller who had been exonerated of charges of water pollution as the result of fracking. As the Wall Street Journal noted, the reference to executions "raise(d) questions not only about" not only Dr. Arnendariz's comments "but the EPA's larger impartiality and judgment." Keller, who describes himself as "a bit of a political activist" had emailed the EPA Director of External Affairs, Dr. David Gray, saying "Hello Mr. Gray. Do you have Mr. Armendariz's contact information so we can say hello?" That was enough to dispatch two armed agents to his front door. He was told by one agent that ".my choice of words in the email could be interpreted in many ways." They did not identify themselves, but asked if he had ever been arrested. He responded swiftly that he had not. When he asked for a copy of his email, they refused to provide it because "the case was still under investigation." His wife arrived home and the agents did not want a witness so "They left in a big hurry." The Ashville Tribune by Catherine Hunter quoted Keller who described their attitude as "accusatory" reporting that he compared "their tactics to those of Nazi Germany SS methods." Keller contacted the agent's supervisor, Michael Hill, and was told that the incident with Dr. Armendariz "had prompted so many emails and calls that authorities in Washington, DC ordered an investigation." Keller's email inquiry to contact Dr. Armendariz was treated as a threat when it clearly was not. Since when is trying to contact an EPA administrator a crime? "I want the world to know," said Keller, "the government is reaching into the privacy of our homes and computers. I've never been so offended by the power of government in my life." Do we really want an EPA that uses such tactics against a citizen who has merely indicated an interest in contacting one of their administrators to comment on what he had said during a lecture? Do we really want an EPA whose working "philosophy" regarding the oil and gas industry is to "crucify" it in order to regulate it and, as we know, is trying to thwart drilling, as well as to end the coal industry that provides an energy resource that produces one half of all the electricity in the nation? It is, as noted, just one small incident, but it reflects the way the EPA functions in a presumably free society. Over the years I have read of many incidents in which the EPA has asserted powers to impede the most innocent actions of citizens and it is long past the time when this agency is reined in by Congress. The only option at this point is to rid the nation of the Obama administration, crack down on the EPA, and rid us of the threat it poses in its efforts to deny entire industries from providing the energy the nation requires and attacks our agricultural and ranching communities for practices that reflect its normal operation. As they used to advertise horror films, "Be afraid. Be very afraid." An EPA that operates on the basis of intimidating its chosen enemies and that seeks to intimidate citizens inquiring about it, is reason enough to be afraid. © Alan Caruba, 2012 http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/armed-epa-agents-visit-asheville-man?f=must_readsFUBO!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #927 on: June 06, 2012, 07:02:59 PM » |
|
Skip to comments.
Send In The Drones: Obama Spies On America
IBD Editorials ^ | June 6, 2012
Posted on June 6, 2012 9:46:59 PM EDT by raptor22
Privacy: News the EPA is conducting surveillance on farmers goes against our grain. Freedom means freedom of movement and the presumption of innocence. How can we have it if every move is monitored by government?
Nebraska's congressional delegation sent a justifiably angry letter to Administrator Lisa Jackson last week complaining that her Environmental Protection Agency had exceeded its legislative and constitutional authority by conducting drone surveillance flights over Nebraska and Iowa farms looking for violations of the Clean Water Act.
"They are just way on the outer limits of any authority they've been granted," said Nebraska GOP Sen. Mike Johanns, an opinion the bureaucrats rejected Friday in responding to the letter. The EPA argues that the courts, including the Supreme Court, have already authorized aerial surveillance, such as taking aerial photographs of a chemical manufacturing facility.
"Farmers and ranchers in Nebraska pride themselves in the stewardship of our state's natural resources," says the letter signed by Republican Reps. Adrian Smith, Jeff Fortenberry and Lee Terry, as well as Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson and Johanns.
"As you might imagine, this practice has resulted in privacy concerns among our constituents and raises several questions."
Smith, co-chairman of the Modern Agriculture Caucus and the Congressional Rural Caucus, said Tuesday the operations in many cases are near homes so "landowners deserve legitimate justification given the sensitivity of the information gathered by the flyovers."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
blacken700
|
|
« Reply #928 on: June 06, 2012, 07:11:19 PM » |
|
120 post today,lets go you can break your record  |
|
|
|
|
avxo
Getbig IV
Gender: 
Posts: 2050
New Avatar. Same Guy.
|
|
« Reply #929 on: June 06, 2012, 07:26:14 PM » |
|
Send In The Drones: Obama Spies On America
If true, I wonder if they had FAA clearance to conduct such flights. I suspect they don't, because the FAA hasn't granted permission for drone flights over the continental United States in civilian airspace, as far as I can tell. So they would have had to fly pretty low, and even then it might be questionable. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #930 on: June 08, 2012, 03:44:29 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #931 on: June 11, 2012, 08:23:02 PM » |
|
Senator opens inquiry into EPA’s armed visit to NC man’s home
Daily Caller ^ | 6-11-12 | Caroline May
Posted on June 11, 2012 11:00:11 PM EDT by STARWISE
An Asheville, N.C. man has enlisted the aid of North Carolina Republican Sen. Richard Burr to investigate a visit he received from two armed Environmental Protection Agency officials and a local police officer.
Burr has been in touch with the man and started an inquiry into the incident with EPA.
According to the Ashville Citizen-Times, Larry Keller claims the EPA targeted him after he sent an email on April 27 to former EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz, who resigned on April 30 over comments he made comparing the administration’s enforcement policy to Roman crucifixions. (RELATED: Complete coverage of the Al Armendariz scandal)
The letter to an EPA external affairs director read simply, “Do you have Mr. Armendariz’s contact information so we can say hello? – Regards- Larry Keller.”
“I wanted to know why someone in his position would say what he did. I wanted to question his reasoning and principles. It’s all about freedom of speech,” Keller told The Carolina Journal.
The agents visited Keller on May 2, two days after Armendariz resigned.
Keller is not convinced the matter is over, and he wants a full explanation. But the Journal reported that Patrick Sullivan, the EPA’s assistant inspector general, does not believe there was “any unprofessional behavior” by Office of Inspector General personnel, and that Keller “answered the questions and the suspicious nature of the email was resolved.”
Fox News Channel reported that the EPA has invited Keller to come to Washington. The Asheville man, however, is unwilling until he has a full understanding of what the EPA wants to discuss.
“The charter of the EPA is to protect the environment and public, not to act as a quasi federal police department,” Keller told Fox News on Saturday.
In late April on the Senate floor, Oklahoma Republican Sen. James Inhofe highlighted video of Armendariz, then the Region 6 Administrator, explaining EPA’s heavy-handed approach to enforcement. That video brought about Armendariz’s resignation just days later.
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said,” Armendariz said in the video footage.
“It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they’d crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #932 on: June 30, 2012, 12:38:26 PM » |
|
Police: 'Threat matrix' dictated SWAT team response at Powell Avenue home
By John Martin, Mark Wilson
Posted June 22, 2012 at 8:30 a.m., updated June 22, 2012 at 7:44 p.m.
EVANSVILLE — Stephanie Milan, 18, was relaxing in her family’s living room Thursday watching the Food Network when a heavily armed squad of Evansville police officers arrived on the front porch.
Dressed in full protective gear, police broke the storm door of the home at 616 East Powell Ave. — the Milans’ front door was already open on the hot summer day. They also broke a front window. They tossed a flashbang stun grenade into the living room that made a deafening blast. A short distance away, a local television crew’s cameras were rolling. The police had invited the station to videotape the forced entry of the residence.Stephanie Milan said she managed to remain calm because she knew her family hadn’t done anything wrong. Still, she was stunned and confused.
After speaking to Milan and her grandmother, Louise, police determined those inside the house had nothing to do with their investigation.
Police were executing a search warrant for computer equipment, which they said was used to make anonymous and specific online threats against police and their families on the website topix.com.
“The front door was open. It’s not like anyone was in there hiding,” said Ira Milan, Stephanie's grandfather and owner of the property for many years. “To bring a whole SWAT team seems a little excessive.”
Ira Milan said the perpetrator of the threats likely used Stephanie’s Internet service connection from an outside location, which led police to the East Powell Avenue address.
But Police Chief Billy Bolin said, “We have no way of being able to tell that,” and the concerning Internet posts “definitely come back to that address.”
“I think it was a show of force that they are not going to tolerate this,” said Ira Milan, “But what about the residents and what they have to tolerate?”
After noting he has lived there for 30 years, Milan said, “No one has ever been arrested at my house.”
Bolin said Friday that department records indicated relatives associated with the address had criminal histories.
Mayor Lloyd Winnecke said Friday he spoke to Bolin about the incident and was satisfied that police were justified in forcibly entering the home.
“They had what they thought were very specific threats against police officers, their families and the communities,” Winnecke said.
He said police told him that the Milans’ storm door and window were being repaired at city expense.
Workers were at the Milan home on Friday repairing the storm door and broken window. Carpet inside the house was stained with black residue from the flashbang grenade.
Ira Milan said police offered to pay for the damage. Laptops and a cellphone belonging to Stephanie Milan — a May graduate of Signature School who will attend the University of Southern Indiana this fall and major in radiology — were seized in the raid and remained in police possession on Friday.
Bolin said the SWAT team used its standard “knock and announce” procedure of knocking on the wall and repeating the words “police search warrant” three times before entering.
The police chief said the procedure doesn’t require officers to wait for a response.
“It’s designed to distract,” he said.
The decision to use force
Police used what they called a law enforcement threat matrix to determine the proper response to information in the posts. One post mentioned explosives, and another specifically named Bolin and referenced the area where he lives. But no other officers’ names or addresses were identified.
Sgt. Jason Cullum, a police department spokesman, said one person had posted that he possessed explosives, and that “Evansville is going to feel the pain.” That threat, Cullum said, played a major role in dictating the police response.
Cullum said the conversation at topix.com which concerned officers began under a blog headline.
“It said, ‘EPD leak: Officers’ addresses given out,’ or something along those lines. There were some generalized comments about people not liking the police, and that didn’t really concern us,” Cullum said, but then the threats became more specific and suggested officers’ families could be at risk.
Time stamps on the postings indicated that they were made Wednesday evening. Cullum defended the department’s action.
“We brought them out and talked to them,” Cullum said of the Milans. “They were released at the scene. Investigators felt they were not involved in the posting.
“This is a little more difficult that a traditional crime scene, because we’re dealing with the Internet. They definitely weren’t expecting (a SWAT team at the door). The reason we did that is the threats were specific enough, and the potential for danger was there.
“This is a big deal to us,” Cullum said. “This may be just somebody who was online just talking stupid. What I would suggest to anybody who visits websites like that is that their comments can be taken literally.”
The search warrant
Police were executing a search warrant approved by a judge. Such warrants are routinely filed in the Vanderburgh County Clerks Office, but officials in the clerks office said Friday afternoon they had no record of a warrant served on that address.
When asked by the Courier & Press for access to the document that allowed them to force entry to the home, Bolin refused. He said it might contain information that would compromise their investigation. However, he said the document didn’t contain names of any suspects.
“We have an idea in our mind who it is, but we don’t have evidence yet,” Bolin said.
Vanderburgh County Prosecutor Nick Hermann also refused to release the warrant.
The Courier & Press filed Freedom of Information requests Friday afternoon seeking the document from the police department, clerk’s office and prosecutor’s office.
© 2012 Evansville Courier & Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Obama is going to have the IRS swat teams doing this to make sure people sign up for ThugCare
|
|
|
|
|
avxo
Getbig IV
Gender:
Posts: 2050
New Avatar. Same Guy.
|
|
« Reply #933 on: June 30, 2012, 01:38:37 PM » |
|
Dressed in full protective gear, police broke the storm door of the home at 616 East Powell Ave. — the Milans’ front door was already open on the hot summer day. They also broke a front window. They tossed a flashbang stun grenade into the living room that made a deafening blast. A short distance away, a local television crew’s cameras were rolling. The police had invited the station to videotape the forced entry of the residence.Stephanie Milan said she managed to remain calm because she knew her family hadn’t done anything wrong. Still, she was stunned and confused. Wow... Also, the police took these threats so seriously that they invited a TV crew to record the forced entry?  Police were executing a search warrant approved by a judge. Such warrants are routinely filed in the Vanderburgh County Clerks Office, but officials in the clerks office said Friday afternoon they had no record of a warrant served on that address.
When asked by the Courier & Press for access to the document that allowed them to force entry to the home, Bolin refused. He said it might contain information that would compromise their investigation. However, he said the document didn’t contain names of any suspects. I'm sorry... aren't police required by law to serve the warrant and leave a copy of it with the person? Here's to hoping the family sues the department and the officers who participated in the raid. Obama is going to have the IRS swat teams doing this to make sure people sign up for ThugCare |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #934 on: November 14, 2012, 08:17:38 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agnostic007
|
|
« Reply #935 on: November 14, 2012, 08:26:37 AM » |
|
Not that I would do it, but having been there done that .. as Chris Rock would say... I don't condone it.. but I understand it. If the cops do nothing, and Joe Citizen gets hurt, they get sued. If they stop him, they get sued. LIkely he had tunnel vision and didn't hear the cops instructions to stop. Can't really see any benefit in an officer sneaking up and tazing without trying to get him to stop voluntarily. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #936 on: November 14, 2012, 08:27:39 AM » |
|
Not that I would do it, but having been there done that .. as Chris Rock would say... I don't condone it.. but I understand it. If the cops do nothing, and Joe Citizen gets hurt, they get sued. If they stop him, they get sued. LIkely he had tunnel vision and didn't hear the cops instructions to stop. Can't really see any benefit in an officer sneaking up and tazing without trying to get him to stop voluntarily.
Police have no affirmative duty to help a citizen and can't be sued for not stopping someone from hurting themselves. You know that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Agnostic007
|
|
« Reply #937 on: November 14, 2012, 08:29:32 AM » |
|
Police have no affirmative duty to help a citizen and can't be sued for not stopping someone from hurting themselves. You know that.
I don't agree with your statement at all. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #938 on: November 14, 2012, 08:32:18 AM » |
|
I don't agree with your statement at all.
Really/ You didnt learn that in the Academy? Its well settled law that the police have no affirmative duty to help a citzen in need. They have a public duty in general, but that does not apply to a citizen in distress. |
|
|
|
|
|
Agnostic007
|
|
« Reply #939 on: November 14, 2012, 08:38:03 AM » |
|
Really/ You didnt learn that in the Academy?
Its well settled law that the police have no affirmative duty to help a citzen in need. They have a public duty in general, but that does not apply to a citizen in distress.
No..apparently the instructors weren't aware of that. We were taught we have a duty to act. In fact, we have policies in place that discipline officers who fail to act in particular situations. YOU should know cops get sued for a variety to things. This guy sued because he was tased. He will likely lose if it goes to court, however the city will likely settle. He would probably sue if he got hurt, though he would likely lose if it went to court. Doesn't mean the officers would not be punished because they failed to control a scene. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #940 on: November 14, 2012, 08:45:39 AM » |
|
No..apparently the instructors weren't aware of that. We were taught we have a duty to act. In fact, we have policies in place that discipline officers who fail to act in particular situations. YOU should know cops get sued for a variety to things. This guy sued because he was tased. He will likely lose if it goes to court, however the city will likely settle. He would probably sue if he got hurt, though he would likely lose if it went to court. Doesn't mean the officers would not be punished because they failed to control a scene.
Here you go - its Supreme Court precedent. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html |
|
|
|
|
|
tu_holmes
|
|
« Reply #941 on: November 14, 2012, 08:48:33 AM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #942 on: November 14, 2012, 08:50:42 AM » |
|
How he did not know this is pathetic. Most cops I know are clueless when it comes to crim pro or just don't care. Most learn a few things that are basic basic stuff you learn the first week in law school but rarely go beyond that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Agnostic007
|
|
« Reply #943 on: November 14, 2012, 08:53:40 AM » |
|
No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions
By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado
Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.
Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.
Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law.
Special Relationship
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the government to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law."2 In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors."3 Generally, the Due Process Clause does not provide an affirmative right to government aid, "even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual."4
Those pronouncements came in a case where the Court held that there was no substantive due process violation by caseworkers when a child, formerly in department of social services custody, was returned to and later beaten by his father. Caseworkers had received complaints about the father and may have known that the child was in danger. In analyzing the facts, the Court noted that there was no special relationship between Social Services and the child, as the latter was not in its custody. The Court further noted that the state had not created the danger or done anything to place the child in more danger.5 The harm to the child was inflicted not by the state but by the child's father. "The most that can be said of the state functionaries in this case is that they stood by and did nothing when suspicious circumstances dictated a more active role for them."6
When considering whether law enforcement has a duty to protect, first ask if a special relationship exists. If a suspect is taken into custody by law enforcement, a duty to protect -be it at the scene, during transport, or at the jail-exists.7 The majority of courts require a person to be in physical custody of police before that person has a special relationship with police. However, the Sixth Circuit held that police had a duty to protect a woman where she was effectively in custody when she was threatened with arrest and placed involuntarily in her boyfriend's car.8 The Ninth Circuit held that the government created a special relationship with a noncitizen by paroling him into federal custody as a government witness.9 One federal district court has held a special relationship between the state and a confidential informant existed, and thus there was a duty to protect.10
Courts have rejected the existence of a special relationship in the following situations: between a county and an ex-wife when the sheriff failed to serve her ex-husband with an order of protection;11 between police and a girlfriend when police made a promise to her that her boyfriend would be kept in jail overnight;12 and between a man and police, who went to his home to place him on a mental health hold and then waited downstairs while the man (who was not in the officer's physical custody) went upstairs to get "something" and jumped out a window, thereby killing himself.13
State-Created Danger
Even if there is no special relationship between a person and police, a duty to protect may still exist if the person has been harmed by a third party and can prove the state-created danger theory. This theory has been litigated in a variety of contexts, including those involving motorists and passengers, government and citizen undercovers, rescues by third parties and prevention of rescues, failure to arrest, and failure to serve orders.
Most circuit courts analyze the issue of whether the state-created danger theory is applicable by examining if officers left the individual in a situation that was more dangerous than the one in which they found him, by creating a previously nonexisting danger or increasing the danger. For example, an intoxicated bar patron, who was ejected by police late at night into subfreezing temperatures wearing only jeans and a T-shirt, and was prevented from returning to the bar or driving his truck, made a failure-to-protect claim.14 As the Sixth Circuit said, "The question is not whether the victim was safe during the state action, but whether he was safer before the state action than he was after it."15
At least three circuits have set forth specific tests to determine if a state-created danger exception exists. The Third Circuit requires the plaintiff to show that (1) the harm ultimately caused was foreseeable and fairly direct, (2) the state actor willfully disregarded plaintiff's safety, (3) there existed some relationship between the state and the plaintiff, and (4) the state actors used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for the third party's crime to occur.16
|
|
|
|
|
|
Agnostic007
|
|
« Reply #944 on: November 14, 2012, 08:54:23 AM » |
|
How he did not know this is pathetic. Most cops I know are clueless when it comes to crim pro or just don't care. Most learn a few things that are basic basic stuff you learn the first week in law school but rarely go beyond that.
apparently you weren't aware of the two exceptions.. pathetic |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #945 on: November 14, 2012, 08:58:23 AM » |
|
apparently you weren't aware of the two exceptions.. pathetic
How does that apply to the story I posted. It doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
Agnostic007
|
|
« Reply #946 on: November 14, 2012, 09:07:10 AM » |
|
How does that apply to the story I posted. It doesn't.
They had told him to stop once. He will argue the special relationship exception because they limited his movement. He will argue when the police arrived they took control of the scene and should not have allowed him to get close enough to a raging fire to spray it with a garden hose. So while I've addressed your Supreme Court "No Duty" aspect, lets move on to the "right thing to do" aspect. Do you think the cops hated this guy? Were waiting for a chance to pop him and when he placed himself in danger (which in turn places the officers and firemen in danger when they have to go pull his ass out of the fire) they saw it as a chance to try out their fancy taser? How about this possibility. This was likely this guys first fire experience. Probably not the officers first one. As you know, since you are the expert, the first thing of importance is the preservation of life. Property comes second. you can replace property. People have been killed fighting house fires with garden hoses. Turns out..garden hoses are woefully inadequate. Again, I doubt I would taser the guy, but.. me and my partner would have made sure he stayed a safe distance away from the fire. 1. Because we don't want anyone getting seriously hurt and 2. because if they DO get hurt, we will be held responsible. We'll likely survive the lawsuit, but administratively , it can be your job. |
|
|
|
|
|
tu_holmes
|
|
« Reply #947 on: November 14, 2012, 09:08:42 AM » |
|
They had told him to stop once. He will argue the special relationship exception because they limited his movement. He will argue when the police arrived they took control of the scene and should not have allowed him to get close enough to a raging fire to spray it with a garden hose. So while I've addressed your Supreme Court "No Duty" aspect, lets move on to the "right thing to do" aspect. Do you think the cops hated this guy? Were waiting for a chance to pop him and when he placed himself in danger (which in turn places the officers and firemen in danger when they have to go pull his ass out of the fire) they saw it as a chance to try out their fancy taser? How about this possibility. This was likely this guys first fire experience. Probably not the officers first one. As you know, since you are the expert, the first thing of importance is the preservation of life. Property comes second. you can replace property. People have been killed fighting house fires with garden hoses. Turns out..garden hoses are woefully inadequate. Again, I doubt I would taser the guy, but.. me and my partner would have made sure he stayed a safe distance away from the fire. 1. Because we don't want anyone getting seriously hurt and 2. because if they DO get hurt, we will be held responsible. We'll likely survive the lawsuit, but administratively , it can be your job.
If you don't get let go for tasing people to death, I highly doubt you will be let go for not doing something. |
|
|
|
|
333386
Competitors
Getbig V
Posts: I am a geek!!
FUBO!
|
|
« Reply #948 on: November 14, 2012, 09:09:59 AM » |
|
They had told him to stop once. He will argue the special relationship exception because they limited his movement. He will argue when the police arrived they took control of the scene and should not have allowed him to get close enough to a raging fire to spray it with a garden hose. So while I've addressed your Supreme Court "No Duty" aspect, lets move on to the "right thing to do" aspect. Do you think the cops hated this guy? Were waiting for a chance to pop him and when he placed himself in danger (which in turn places the officers and firemen in danger when they have to go pull his ass out of the fire) they saw it as a chance to try out their fancy taser? How about this possibility. This was likely this guys first fire experience. Probably not the officers first one. As you know, since you are the expert, the first thing of importance is the preservation of life. Property comes second. you can replace property. People have been killed fighting house fires with garden hoses. Turns out..garden hoses are woefully inadequate. Again, I doubt I would taser the guy, but.. me and my partner would have made sure he stayed a safe distance away from the fire. 1. Because we don't want anyone getting seriously hurt and 2. because if they DO get hurt, we will be held responsible. We'll likely survive the lawsuit, but administratively , it can be your job.
The guy was on his own property trying to protect it since the fire department was not there. The cops were doing nothing. A citizen can't try to protect his own property any more just because some stupid cop tells him not to and then gets tazed? F the police. |
|
|
|
|
|
Agnostic007
|
|
« Reply #949 on: November 14, 2012, 09:11:54 AM » |
|
The guy was on his own property trying to protect it since the fire department was not there. The cops were doing nothing. A citizen can't try to protect his own property any more just because some stupid cop tells him not to and then gets tazed?
F the police.
yeah, you're right |
|
|
|
|
|
