" to serve and protect"... whom?

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 4:36 pm

Ever notice how federal,state and local government employee's are protected by bullet-proof glass, thick metal doors, surveillance equipment and security.. That's assuming you get to see the person you're dealing with. Often times they're just a voice on the phone with an attached "employee identification number" and some generic circa 1800's name like, John Smith or Betty Taylor.
It certainly makes me wonder who our government is interested in protecting, theirselves or the citizens. The police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect the individual citizen regardless of what the lettering on the patrol cars say. The departments duty is to protect society as a whole by deterrence and by systematically patrolling, detecting and apprehending criminals ***after the occurrence of crimes***. The department or its officers have no duty to protect the average citizen, only society as a whole.

What's more?! A citizen doesn't even have any leverage enforcing the mis-leading 'to serve and protect' if the department decides for whatever reason that they don't want to take a call, no matter how much of an emergency it is they're not obligated to take it and there's nothing the individual can do.
California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee may be sued for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals."

So, why are government employee's offered all of this protection at the expense of the taxpayers but the people that are sworn to 'serve and protect' have no legal obligation to protect us..
Is the life of a government employee more valuable than the citizens it's protecting?

"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens ..." Article 1, Section 7(b), California State Constitution.

It's clear that the government is only interested in protecting itself.(C/P) What corruption does the government perceive to have done to the people, to justify (in their minds) the need for this degree of heightened protection?(C/P) Do we not deserve equal protection?

B-

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:00 pm

Hrm ... what do you want, a personal govt. issue bodyguard? I think law enforcement's mere presence goes a long way in protecting us ... just imagine if there were no cops. Every time I've needed a cop, they've been there for me. I feel safe in my town which has a good bunch of people keeping an eye on things. If I go out of town, I call them and they'll drive by my house to check it out periodically while I'm gone. I don't know what else they can really do in a free society. Their main job may be responding "after the occurance of crime" ... but unless we invent "Minority Report" technology that enables pre-crime apprehension or there's Big Brother-like surveillance everywhere we go, the cops can only do so much. Obviously, the denser the population in an area, the harder their job is going to be.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:32 pm

index_html wrote:Hrm ... what do you want, a personal govt. issue bodyguard?

If I go out of town, I call them and they'll drive by my house to check it out periodically while I'm gone.

How ironic is that?

I feel safe in my town which has a good bunch of people keeping an eye on things.

That's sort of my point. We're obligated to protect ourselves and each other.

SSC BlueFlames · Post by **SSC BlueFlames** » Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:37 pm

You would prefer the Thought Police, FP?

I can see where the current system of arresting criminals after they've committed a crime can seem flawed, but there's a lot of problems with trying to institute a system where people get arrested before committing a crime.....like knowing if the person will actually commit a crime. What the current law enforcement system is meant to do is both prevent criminals from becoming repeat offenders and act as a deterrence for people thinking of committing a crime. Sure, I've got a few people I'd like to see dead, but spending the rest of my life in a prison cell for hastening the process is too high a price for me to accept.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 2:58 am

Ziiing! Must have gone over your head.

Palzon · Post by **Palzon** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 4:55 pm

I feel this is an issue that can't be fairly dealt with when speaking so generally. I am curious to know what experience prompted this post. it would be far easier to address your concern if the specifics were known.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:38 pm

TB would tell you Barry's a hippie

pipsqueak10 · Post by **pipsqueak10** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:24 pm

[quote]The police have absolutely no legal obligation to protect the individual citizen regardless of what the lettering on the patrol cars say.[\quote]

I dont know of any police officer who would not protect a citizen who was in some sort of danger. I also would like to know what happened to you that would prompt such a post.

[quote]Neither a public entity or a public employee may be sued for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.[\quote]

Duh, crimes happen sometimes. Kinda seems a little silly to suggest that anyone would be able to sue a police officer for failing to preventing a crime.

Fusion pimp · Post by **Fusion pimp** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:07 pm

I feel this is an issue that can't be fairly dealt with when speaking so generally. I am curious to know what experience prompted this post. it would be far easier to address your concern if the specifics were known.

I'm not willing to share specifics and my post doesn't require specifics to fairly deal with it.

However, I'll come clean. I have a difficult time with equal protection under the law when the people who are most protected create laws that are not equal. Firearm owners have been consistantly thought of as potential criminals by those who make, interpet and enforce the laws. In the same sense, those who are on the front lines of this thinking are often times the same ones who take advantage of their situations to protect themselves (ie: CCW's for Feinstein, etc - armed body guards for Rosie)

Firearm control *is* happening and the end result will be that the average citizen will have nowhere to turn for protection, forcing them to become a criminal.

I was being vague in an attempt to steer clear of the firearm debate.

I think it's important for the people who are totally against firearms to fully understand the slippery slope a total ban will create. You would be surprised at how many people actually believe that the police are there and obligated to protect them. Proactive..

I also think it's important for the anti-firearm people who are only against taking the unnecessary weapons to realize that their magnanimous support for the strong higher-ups will eventually lead to no legal opportunity for individual protection. The higher-ups have proven time and time again that they can't be trusted to stop(on both sides), they never do. They use fear and bogus statistics to convince the masses that only a primative people need the tools for self protection, while their heavily armed body gaurds stand by in case someone gets out of line so they can use their 'good guns' against your 'bad guns'. Hypocrisy...

I was sincerely hoping that someone would be able to read between the lines and I wouldn't have to start another anti-firearm thread.

Was I too vague in my initial post?
Sorry.

B-

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:46 pm

Ideally, you shouldn't be able to tell the difference between the government and the citizens. I believe those laws that you cited are there to prevent lawsuits for cases in which the police physically couldn't come help you. I am sure in New York on 9/11, the police didn't investigate many robberies. They couldn't be expected to do so.

They have no obligation to protect me, but they are still more then likely to come if I call. If I truly didn't believe that they would come, I would probably become a gun owner. The government employees are citizens arenâ??t they? The police live in my neighborhood.

I guess I kind of feel like I am in Palzon's position. Itâ??s hard to argue against this without the details of what is specifically being referred too.

I feel its like arguing that we are all responsible for being able to perform cardiac surgery because we can't be guaranteed that an ER doctor will perform on us should we need him.

I simply believe that he will if I show up in need, and the police will more then likely come if I need them.

If you don't believe so, start studying and buy a gun. This is a personal decision that everyone has to make.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:20 am

They have no obligation to protect me, but they are still more then likely to come if I call. If I truly didn't believe that they would come, I would probably become a gun owner. The government employees are citizens arenâ??t they? The police live in my neighborhood.

I simply believe that he will if I show up in need, and the police will more then likely come if I need them.

Yes Goob, the will police will show up....eventually. Providing you can make a phone call in the first place. How many people do you suppose were "protected" by calling the calling the police during a life or death encounter in their own home? I suspect the percentage is pretty low. In such instances it is incumbent upon you to have the tools neccessary to protect you and your family.
The law protects police agancies as Fusion Pimp points out because to do otherwise would require a cop accompanying every citizen in this country. Do the math and figure out the the tax costs.

Gooberman · Post by **Gooberman** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 4:08 pm

Woodchip, if someone wants to kill me and I don't know that, then they will. If someone wants to kill you then they will. They have the element of surprise and when you are talking about a point and click weapon, surprise is the deciding factor.

Real life isn't like the action movies where the assailant misses the first three shots as you run in doors for your weapon, grab it, load it, and take him down in one shot. Alot of gun owners I know keep them in safes. Kindly ask your murderer to be patient why you input the combination.

No, if someone wants you dead, then you are going to die because they have surprise. A gun wont protect you from someone that wants to kill you; unless you go around firing into every bush and around every corner.

If they have a gun then they will win as I am simply not willing to spend my life in a degree of paranoia where I would carry it on me at all times. I know men who do, that is their decision. This is where it breaks down into a matter of opinion for me.

If my assailent doesn't have a gun, then the chances are I wouldn't need one as I tend to be a fairly large man.

Are there statistics where on occasion a man saves his own life, yes. There are also a ★■◆● load of statistics that indicate that the gun will more likely be used on a family member.

Everyman has to ask himself which one of these uncommon occurences does he find more horrid?

It is a trade off. To each his own. I strongly believe that you should have the right to make this decision, as is why I support gun ownership. However I personally still disagree with it.

I will admit to being a hypocrite here. I enjoy shooting riffles at my friends house, but will never own one.

What can guns do? They can stop unarmed assailants. However this does me little good because my bleeding heart liberalness believes that it is never justified to shoot someone that is merely trying to take your positions. Arrest them, convict them, put them in jail, yes.

But I personally would never take a life for an object.

I said probably because I am not sure. I do trust the police. However life for me would be significantly different if I did not, if we were living in a state of anarchy, so I can't then say for sure.

I am sorry if this responce is more incohearent then my average posts, I am late for class.

index_html · Post by **index_html** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 5:08 pm

Was I too vague in my initial post?

If your point is that we have the right to arm ourselves and defend ourselves because there's no reasonable expectation that the cops will be there at the moment they're needed, then yes, I think you were too vague ... I didn't think that's what you were initially saying.

Phoenix Red · Post by **Phoenix Red** » Mon Mar 22, 2004 7:13 pm

you forget how petty people are. A cruel-to-be-kind, useful, necceccary but widely hated institution such as the police would be neck deep in frivolous complaints that got out of hand without some shielding legislation.

You also neglect to note that your quotes apply to individuals on both sides of the fence. In essence, sue the department, not the individual cop. That's also necceccary, or endless "he gave me a speeding ticket when I was 3km (or mile) over the limit because he was feeling grumpy" lawsuits would crush officers who are trying to do what they're paid for.

They need their protection to do their job, protecting you. There's no way around asswipes clogging up the system other than stopping them outright. You can still get your complaints and issues resolved, but it is INTENTIONALLY impersonal so that things don't grind to a halt.