| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 10:31:24 AM |
| Object: |
Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death. This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
.
|
|
| User: "Ian Braidwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 12:03:10 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be?
If he just guns someone down, then he or she would be. However, in the
line of duty it may be found that there was good reason for the
shooting. Here in the UK, an unarmed man was shot dead while carrying a
table leg, which the officers had interpreted as a gun. The lesson is:
if a police officer shouts: "Armed police!" You drop whatever you're
carrying and put your hands up.
Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street
They don't abduct people, they take into custody people suspected of a
crime or a proven danger to the public.
and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense?
Not every country has the right to self defense and every criminal will
claim they were acting in self defense when they were acting out of
greed/hate etc.
Most people simply aren't competent to protect themselves, for the
simple reason that they tend to over-react or panic and shoot innocent
bystanders. Also, the self defense route means that the people who are
most at risk have the least protection.
Why are most cops domestic batterers?
Have you established that at least 51% of police officers assault their
husbands/wives? If not, then your use of the word most is misleading.
I'm quite willing to believe that a higher percentage of police
officers do batter their wives than the rest of the population; it is
after all a stressful job and one with a 'macho' image. However, you do
not correct an injustice with casual libel.
Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture?
Cops don't steal through asset forfeiture, because they don't keep the
assets for themselves.
For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
It sounds to me that you don't just have a problem with accountability,
but poor training. As was suggested in the article, the officers should
have segregated the husband, perhaps by accompanying him to their car
and making him wait there until the woman had left.
The dead woman won't benefit from any compensation a court may award,
so the priority is to stop such deaths, not punish them.
(-: Ian :-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. Zarkov" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 03:54:16 PM |
|
|
"Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote...
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be?
If he just guns someone down, then he or she would be. However, in the
line of duty it may be found that there was good reason for the
shooting. Here in the UK, an unarmed man was shot dead while carrying a
table leg, which the officers had interpreted as a gun. The lesson is:
if a police officer shouts: "Armed police!" You drop whatever you're
carrying and put your hands up.
In the U.S. the police routinely shoot people for trivial reasons. William
J. Whitfield (shot dead in a New York supermarket by police who said they
mistook the keys he was carrying for a gun), Amadou Diallo (killed in a hail
of 41 bullets for acting "suspicious" on his own doorstep), Patrick
Dorismond (killed after saying no to an attempted entrapment by an
undercover cop), Alberto Sepulveda (an 11-year-old shot in the back), Anibal
Carrasquillo (shot for turning to face the police officer in "a gun
stance."), Dwain Lee (shot 4 times in the back), 63-year-old grandfather
Mario Paz (shot twice in the back in a typical botched drug raid of a wrong
address), Yong Xin Huang...were all completely innocent persons killed by
police.
Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street
They don't abduct people, they take into custody people suspected of a
crime or a proven danger to the public.
They routinrly make up any excuse to that effect.
.....
Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture?
Cops don't steal through asset forfeiture, because they don't keep the
assets for themselves.
Forfeiture assets routinely go to the police department(s) that seized them.
That's the reason they raided the house of Donald Scott, a 61-year-old
wealthy California recluse. There was no good evidence that he was involved
in drugs, but that big an asset would be worth seizing. They killed Scott
in the unnecessary Gestapo-like raid. No drugs of any kind were found. See
the details in
THE DRUG WAR'S HIDDEN ECONOMIC AGENDA, The Nation, March 9, 1998,
in which you will find similar cases--
"A number of aggrieved and hapless citizens converged on Washington ... to
recite their misfortunes at the hands of the government's drug police. All
had had their property taken by police, then were let go and never
prosecuted. All were innocent of wrongdoing."
"A pilot told of how the government destroyed his air charter business: The
Drug Enforcement Administration seized his airplane when a drug dealer
chartered it; $85,000 in legal fees later, the pilot filed for bankruptcy
and became a truck driver. A landscaper testified that while on a purchasing
trip, he had been stripped of $9,000 by an airport drug interdiction unit,
then sent home without a receipt, on grounds that only drug dealers carry so
much cash. Legislators also heard the tale of Mary Miller (a pseudonym), a
75-year-old grandmother dispossessed of her home for the sins of her
fugitive, drug-dealing son."
"Owners who want to contest seizures must put up a bond, hire a lawyer and
rebut the presumption of guilt with proof that the property is untainted by
criminal activity. There is no constitutional requirement that the owner
knew of any illegal activities, and forfeiture may occur even if the owner
is charged and acquitted. In other words, if you are either related to a
drug dealer or mistaken for one, you may find yourself legally dispossessed
of your property without effective recourse."
"Unfortunately, there are numerous other examples of police agencies
targeting assets with no regard for the rights, safety or even lives of the
suspects. In one federal civil rights judgment against an Oakland,
California, drug task force, we read an officer's admission that his unit
operated "more or less like a wolfpack," driving up in police vehicles and
taking "anything and everything we saw on the street corner." In Louisiana,
police illegally stopped and searched massive numbers of drivers, seizing
money that was then diverted to police department ski trips and other
unauthorized uses. In Los Angeles, a Sheriff's Department employee revealed
that deputies routinely planted drugs and falsified police reports to
establish probable cause for cash seizures. Recent investigations in
Florida, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Boston and Washington State have exposed
similar lawlessness by police in search of forfeitable cash."
And see:
Mike Gray, _Drug Crazy_ New York: Random House, 1998
"80% of the people from whom assets are seized are never even charged with a
crime. They just lose their possessions.
Lawmen in Volusia county, Florida, started using forfeiture laws as a toll
gate on I-95. A special sheriff's drug squad began stopping Miami-bound
drivers for traffic violations, then conducting searches. If more than a
hundred dollars in cash, it was assumed to be drug money...Since fighting to
get the money back in court could cost as much as ten grand, few people
bothered to try. When public outrage began to attract attention, the
Orlando Sentinel discovered that the deputies had resorted to
plea-bargaining, offering to take only part of the money if the travelers
promised not to complain.
(Henry Hyde, Forfeiting Our Property Rights, Washington, DC: Cato Institute,
1995; Jeff Brazil and Steve Barry, "Tainted Cash or Easy Money, Orlando
Sentinel, June 14-17, 1992)"
and
and Newark Star Ledger 11/10/02--
"There have been numerous cases in which prosecutors have come under fire
for their use of forfeiture funds. Nicholas Bissel, the disgraced Somerset
County prosecutor who killed himself in a Nevada motel room, used the money
to buy health club memberships for his staff.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James H. Hood" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 08:27:53 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:1107000190.855807.222680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Cops don't steal through asset forfeiture, because they don't keep the
assets for themselves.
Don't be too sure of that. All too often the assets seized are vehicles,
which become departmental property. When those vehicles are issued to the
officers to use when off-duty as well, they are personally benefitting.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 07:39:00 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be?
If he just guns someone down, then he or she would be. However, in the
line of duty it may be found that there was good reason for the
shooting. Here in the UK, an unarmed man was shot dead while carrying a
table leg, which the officers had interpreted as a gun. The lesson is:
if a police officer shouts: "Armed police!" You drop whatever you're
carrying and put your hands up.
In Modesto, CA, a "drug warrior" cop "accidentally" shot and killed a 12
year-old boy who was lying face down in his own bedroom during a police
drug raid. The cop got time off with pay and grief counseling.
No drugs were found.
Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street
They don't abduct people, they take into custody people suspected of a
crime or a proven danger to the public.
They "abduct into custody" anyone they want to, sometimes on the most
spurious of charges. It's then up to the "abductees" to prove their
innocence with the judge the next day.
For example, I just watched an episode of "Cops", taped in Des Moines,
Iowa. In it, two men got into a bar fight outside on the bar's patio
over an insult done to one man's girl on the dance floor. The cops
arrived after the fight was over. They then threw both men into jail
for being drunk in public, although one man begged them not to, as he
would lose his job the next day.
Now I really don't care who was at fault, or what the law was. One man
was pretty bloody, while the other had had some of his hair pulled out.
Both men became persona non grata at that bar. I'd say in a real
world, the cops should have figured they were punished enough and let
them go.
and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense?
Not every country has the right to self defense and every criminal will
claim they were acting in self defense when they were acting out of
greed/hate etc.
Most people simply aren't competent to protect themselves, for the
simple reason that they tend to over-react or panic and shoot innocent
bystanders. Also, the self defense route means that the people who are
most at risk have the least protection.
That's why we here in the U.S. should teach gun handling and gun safety
in our schools; something we no longer do.
Why are most cops domestic batterers?
Have you established that at least 51% of police officers assault their
husbands/wives? If not, then your use of the word most is misleading.
I'm quite willing to believe that a higher percentage of police
officers do batter their wives than the rest of the population; it is
after all a stressful job and one with a 'macho' image. However, you do
not correct an injustice with casual libel.
My nurse wife, who used to work in the Emergency Room, tells me that
cops, as a group, are the most frequent domestic batterers. It's
because when the wife calls for help, guess who shows up? HIS buddies!
Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture?
Cops don't steal through asset forfeiture, because they don't keep the
assets for themselves.
It IS stolen because there is no civil trial before it is confiscated.
The police department gets part of it, while the civil government gets
the other part.
Once a car, a bank account, or a house is stolen from you, there is
little you can do to get it back, even if you are innocent of the
original charge.
For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
It sounds to me that you don't just have a problem with accountability,
but poor training. As was suggested in the article, the officers should
have segregated the husband, perhaps by accompanying him to their car
and making him wait there until the woman had left.
The dead woman won't benefit from any compensation a court may award,
so the priority is to stop such deaths, not punish them.
How nice. Here in Chattanooga, TN, some cops chased a speeding pickup
truck with two men in it. The men pulled over in a convenience store
parking lot and peaceably surrendered, where the cops promptly beat the
***** out of both of them. Unfortunately for the cops, the action was
recorded on the store's outdoor video camera.
So now both men have sued the PD for multi-million dollars. And guess
what? One of the cops ALREADY had another law suit pending against him
for the very same problem during a previous arrest!
Shall we now discuss training officers that beating the non-violent is a
no - no and slap their hands as a punishment when they do it?
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 08:41:30 PM |
|
|
Ian Braidwood wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be?
If he just guns someone down, then he or she would be. However, in
the
line of duty it may be found that there was good reason for the
shooting. Here in the UK, an unarmed man was shot dead while carrying
a
table leg, which the officers had interpreted as a gun. The lesson
is:
if a police officer shouts: "Armed police!" You drop whatever you're
carrying and put your hands up.
I don't know how UK cops operate, but American police don't usually do
that. They are known for shooting first and asking questions later.
Even when they put their hands in the air.
Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street
They don't abduct people, they take into custody people suspected of
a
crime or a proven danger to the public.
Abduction by another name. Nothing else.
and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense?
Not every country has the right to self defense and every criminal
will
claim they were acting in self defense when they were acting out of
greed/hate etc.
Define criminal. And don't go on about how a guy who takes heroin in
his own home and passes out is such a danger to society. He isn't.
He'll be arrested for a political crime, though. Meanwhile, the cop
who pepper sprays handcuffed people for the sheer pleasure of it will
never be charged and in fact, called an "upstanding" citizen.
Most people simply aren't competent to protect themselves, for the
simple reason that they tend to over-react or panic and shoot
innocent
bystanders. Also, the self defense route means that the people who
are
most at risk have the least protection.
That's pure nonsense. Cops are more likely to kill innocent bystanders
than gun owners are. That's statistical fact. Furthermore, you seem
not to understand what an armed society means: it means people would be
*less* likely to victimize others if they knew there was a serious
possibility of armed resistance. Not only do the stats bear this out,
it's explained by one logical conclusion: people don't steal or attack
others when they know there's a significant risk of dying. You don't
see muggers targeting cops, do you? No, they'll target the old lady
down the street walking with a cane. Even if she couldn't use the
pistol, a bystander could and would save her life.
Why are most cops domestic batterers?
Have you established that at least 51% of police officers assault
their
husbands/wives? If not, then your use of the word most is misleading.
I'm quite willing to believe that a higher percentage of police
officers do batter their wives than the rest of the population; it is
after all a stressful job and one with a 'macho' image. However, you
do
not correct an injustice with casual libel.
No libel there. Cops are known for battering their spouses. Often,
they are the worst offenders. I also don't buy into the "stressful"
thing. The vast majority of the time, they're never in danger and they
know it. They're safer than the common citizen because few people will
attack them. And a stressful life is no excuse for a *private* citizen
who commits a violent act. A buddy of mine came home from A-stan.
Actually saw combat. Got drunk one night, beat his girlfriend, and was
arrested. Did the cops care if his job was stressful? Nope.
Why do cops steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture?
Cops don't steal through asset forfeiture, because they don't keep
the
assets for themselves.
Garbage. That statement might fly in the UK, but it doesn't work on
this side of the pond.
http://reason.com/bi/bi-forf.shtml
http://www.fear.org/
http://www.aclu.org/DrugPolicy/DrugPolicylist.cfm?c=76
Asset forfeiture is nothing more than legalized theft. The State does
it, but it doesn't mean it isn't theft.
For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act
like
it:
It sounds to me that you don't just have a problem with
accountability,
but poor training. As was suggested in the article, the officers
should
have segregated the husband, perhaps by accompanying him to their car
and making him wait there until the woman had left.
The dead woman won't benefit from any compensation a court may award,
so the priority is to stop such deaths, not punish them.
Except that the police agencies always argue that their job is not to
protect us when these things happen. Punishment is probably the only
thing that can get the point across. Speak to them in the only
language cops understand: force. Yet how high the squeal when the law
is against them. It'd be high comedy if they weren't so criminal.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morton Davis" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 11:31:33 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107031290.212007.36730@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Ian Braidwood wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be?
If he just guns someone down, then he or she would be. However, in
the
line of duty it may be found that there was good reason for the
shooting. Here in the UK, an unarmed man was shot dead while carrying
a
table leg, which the officers had interpreted as a gun. The lesson
is:
if a police officer shouts: "Armed police!" You drop whatever you're
carrying and put your hands up.
I don't know how UK cops operate, but American police don't usually do
that. They are known for shooting first and asking questions later.
Even when they put their hands in the air.
The fellow in England did not even have that table leg with him when he was
shot dead by police - WITHOUT WARNING. The table leg was ;eft in the pub -
in the box in which he had been carrying it.
-*MORT*-
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
30 Jan 2005 07:05:25 PM |
|
|
Are there any cops or former cops in this posting chain? Probably the
best ones are aware of the aggression they are paid to perpetrate, and
endeavor to minimize it. But as a government system--on steroids with
the drug and alcohol laws--it is hopelessly slovenly and evil.
Question is, how do we unravel the system and get rid of all these
government goons? Reinstall, "protectors of life, liberty, and
property."
Truman West
www.reasontofreedom.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
31 Jan 2005 02:33:41 PM |
|
|
tN.O-S.P_A*Mwest@reasontofreedom.com wrote:
Are there any cops or former cops in this posting chain? Probably
the
best ones are aware of the aggression they are paid to perpetrate,
and
endeavor to minimize it. But as a government system--on steroids
with
the drug and alcohol laws--it is hopelessly slovenly and evil.
Government has and always will be evil. Basically, a government's
violence is "law" whereas an individual's is "crime."
Question is, how do we unravel the system and get rid of all these
government goons? Reinstall, "protectors of life, liberty, and
property."
Best thing to do is educate the people and hope to start a mass
movement which bankrupts the system. Start off with lobbying against
any raises in police budgets (they get too much as it is) and then
proceed to cut their budgets from there. Of course, some of the
organizers would be jailed or sent to mental institutions (because the
government isn't against using violence to maintain power even if the
majority disagree).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John A. Stovall" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 12:06:44 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 04:03:10 -0800, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
snipped
Most people simply aren't competent to protect themselves, for the
simple reason that they tend to over-react or panic and shoot innocent
bystanders. Also, the self defense route means that the people who are
most at risk have the least protection.
Oh, then explain why armed citizens in the U.S. are five times less
likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the police.
*******************************************************
"Every man, woman, and responsible child has a natural,
fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and
Constitutional right (within the limits of the Non-Aggression
Principle) to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any
weapon -- handgun, shotgun, rifle, machinegun, anything
-- anytime, anywhere, without asking anyone's permission."
The Atlanta Declaration
-- L. Neil Smith
http://www.lneilsmith.com/
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 08:25:45 PM |
|
|
John A. Stovall wrote:
On 29 Jan 2005 04:03:10 -0800, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net>
wrote:
snipped
Most people simply aren't competent to protect themselves, for the
simple reason that they tend to over-react or panic and shoot
innocent
bystanders. Also, the self defense route means that the people who
are
most at risk have the least protection.
Oh, then explain why armed citizens in the U.S. are five times less
likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the police.
Exactly, but don't let facts get in the way of gun control advocates.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/edmonds/edmonds16.html
Gun Toters Are Safer Than Cops
by Brad Edmonds
In a recent article, I said: "Choose any state you want that issues
concealed-carry permits and you'll find that civilians with
concealed-carry permits are less often accused of violent crimes than
are the POLICE in that state." Gun-owning readers asked me for
documentary support for that claim, since it was dramatic and
little-known. I didn't have my sources at hand that day, but I
promised I would provide them. The number of reader responses and the
nature of the information persuaded me, however, that everyone should
see this.
First, the bottom line: Are permit holders less often accused of
violent crimes than the police (suggesting strongly that they less
often commit violent crimes)? Answer: Direct comparisons aren't
possible without personally examining records in city halls around the
country, but given the data available, the answer is not only yes, but
golly yes.
I found many sources on the web, some listed at the end of this
article, but one suffices regarding permit holders: A synopsis of
testimony before a House committee by John Lott in 1999 (I couldn't
find the transcript), where Dr. Lott provided startling information.
For those few of you who don't already know, Lott wrote More Guns,
Less Crime, for which he analyzed all (!) the data in the United
States, using primarily FBI resources.
What Lott had to say: In all of the 29 states that issue
concealed-carry permits except Vermont and Idaho (they have no
restrictions), the rate of loss of permits because of crimes committed
ranges from 0.001 to 0.01 percent. I should add that from Lott's
figures, the range is a little broader, from almost 0.1 percent to a
perfect 0.0. The apparent worst case, Arizona, suffered 0.0943 percent
(50 in 53,000) of its gun owners doing something to lose their permits.
These somethings range from murder to forgetting to remove a gun before
going into a nightclub, so the numbers include revocations unrelated to
violence. In many of the cases around the country, the charges leading
to revocation are later dropped.
In North Carolina, no carry permits have been revoked. I remember
seeing that the number of permits was 40,000 over the years 1995-1999,
but whatever the true number is, 40,000 is conservative: My county (one
of 67) in Alabama issues over 2000 per year according to the nice lady
who processes them, and extrapolating makes 10,000 new permits per year
a ludicrously conservative estimate for my state. But forty-thousand,
schmorty-thousand: Zero for however many tens of thousands is
spectacular. In South Carolina, only one permit had been revoked from
1989 to 1999, and the charge in that case was later dropped.
My claim gets stronger. It would be helpful to have numbers of
preexisting permits combined with new permits issued, though much of
Lott's data are for new permits only; data limited to convictions or
adjusted for charges later dropped; and reference to only violent
crimes. The requisite (years of) research would show even lower numbers
than Lott has found, except where the numbers are already zero.
What of the police? The same web searches that found abundant sources
relating to civilian behavior turned up no statistics for police
behavior. I proceeded to the University of Michigan "Statistical
Resources on the Web" site, Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Federal
Justice Statistics Resource Center, the National Archive of Criminal
Justice Data, and the FBI. None of these sources seemed to provide
information about criminal charges against policemen. You'd have to
examine local records around the country.
But it is sound to conclude that permit holders are accused of violent
crimes less than the police. It is utterly implausible that police
approach, much less surpass, the levels shown by civilian gun toters
(remember North Carolina, mentioned above, at zero; Virginia showed no
violent crimes by any permit holders; Nevada and Kentucky seem about
the same). Further, there are many websites (here's one) posting
documented incidents of police brutality, which means violence. With
the low numbers we have, it doesn't take many bad cops to tip the
scale: The LAPD by its own admission perpetrates more violent crimes
than do permit holders in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia
combined (see the report by a distinguished Southern Cal professor).
It would be great if policemen were equal to the example of civilian
toters. But my point was not that policemen are badguys. The vast
majority of cops are decent folk. (Whether they have too much legal
authority and too little legal responsibility is another topic.) My
intention was to support the notion that owning guns can make people
less violent, as can earning a black belt. The data I've shown
aren't scientific proof of this, as correlation doesn't prove
causation, but Dr. Lott has longitudinal analyses in his book that help
provide evidence even for causation.
Gun-toting gun owners are safe. It is readily apparent they are safer
than policemen, who themselves are generally quite reliable. I say
again, "I'll keep mine, thanks," and add, "You keep yours, too."
Additional resources:
More great John Lott testimony, at another Congressional event.
Guncite's page; many informative links.
The NRA: statistics, legislation, and other topics.
April 9, 2001
Brad Edmonds, Doctor of Musical Arts, is a banker in Alabama.
Copyright =A9 2001 LewRockwell.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 05:30:04 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:06:44 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Oh, then explain why armed citizens in the U.S. are five times less
likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the police.
False statistic. Police are far, far more likely to bein a situation
where they are using firearms in an uncontrolled area. It's like
saying that NASCAR drivers are more likely to drive over the national
speed limit.
I'm a shooter, and own firearms. I haven't shot anywhere but a firing
range for almost ten years.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 06:00:09 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:orhnv09afia5ocpbfmg09p2qguoobr12au@4ax.com...
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:06:44 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Oh, then explain why armed citizens in the U.S. are five times less
likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the police.
False statistic.
No, it is very much a true statistic.
Police are far, far more likely to bein a situation
where they are using firearms in an uncontrolled area.
Sure, and there are FAR, FAR more of us. I suspect that would tend to
average out any disparities.
Anyway, the issue isn't how many times people get into such
situations....but the deadly result to innocent bystanders.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AH#49 writes" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 05:42:36 PM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:06:44 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Oh, then explain why armed citizens in the U.S. are five times less
likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the police.
False statistic. Police are far, far more likely to bein a situation
where they are using firearms in an uncontrolled area. It's like
saying that NASCAR drivers are more likely to drive over the national
speed limit.
The stat is really not all that false.
I truly believe he is talking about _rates_ per capita.
I'm a shooter, and own firearms. I haven't shot anywhere but a firing
range for almost ten years.
And I hope you never DO have to shoot at or into another human being.
But regarding the guestion asked in the subject header?
The answer is basically "no!"
That's not their job.
That's only a slogan printed on some squad cars to make idiots feel
better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 08:59:55 PM |
|
|
AH#49 writes wrote:
Douglas Berry wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:06:44 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Oh, then explain why armed citizens in the U.S. are five times
less
likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the police.
False statistic. Police are far, far more likely to bein a
situation
where they are using firearms in an uncontrolled area. It's like
saying that NASCAR drivers are more likely to drive over the
national
speed limit.
The stat is really not all that false.
I truly believe he is talking about _rates_ per capita.
I'm a shooter, and own firearms. I haven't shot anywhere but a
firing
range for almost ten years.
And I hope you never DO have to shoot at or into another human being.
But regarding the guestion asked in the subject header?
The answer is basically "no!"
That's not their job.
That's only a slogan printed on some squad cars to make idiots feel
better.
Yup.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John A. Stovall" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 10:15:08 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 17:30:04 GMT, Douglas Berry
<penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:06:44 GMT, John A. Stovall
<johnastovall@earthlink.net> drained his beer, leaned back in the
alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly proclaimed the following
Oh, then explain why armed citizens in the U.S. are five times less
likely to shoot an innocent bystander than the police.
False statistic. Police are far, far more likely to bein a situation
where they are using firearms in an uncontrolled area. It's like
saying that NASCAR drivers are more likely to drive over the national
speed limit.
Care to prove It? The Statistic stands.
I'm a shooter, and own firearms. I haven't shot anywhere but a firing
range for almost ten years.
So, some people don't and when they do use a firearms they are less
likely to shot a bystander or the wrong person
***************************************************************
"Americans have plenty of everything and the best of nothing."
John C. Keats
American Writer
1924-2000
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Clarke" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 01:21:09 PM |
|
|
On 29 Jan 2005 04:03:10 -0800, "Ian Braidwood" <diri.gini@virgin.net> wrote:
<1107000190.855807.222680@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
Not every country has the right to self defense and every criminal will
claim they were acting in self defense when they were acting out of
greed/hate etc.
True, but you should state it as "Some countries criminalize the natural right
to self-defense". For those who subscribe to the notion that government power
arises from the consent of the governed, two corollaries are self-evident: all
power originates with the people, and rights never cease to be rights.
(change Arabic number to Roman numeral to email)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 05:48:08 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops
steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban
Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy
and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children
if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police
that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car
with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed
his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to
protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death.
This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of
the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the
deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded
the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that
if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should
require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we
will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
I think you are in a very small minority. Did you post th=ADis topic to
start a diatribe on libertarianism? I would bet that most atheists
=ADwant a=20
society governed by laws and policed by civil servants.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bama Brian" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 07:09:48 PM |
|
|
FreeThink wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops
steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban
Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy
and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children
if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police
that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car
with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed
his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to
protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death.
This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of
the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the
deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded
the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that
if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should
require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we
will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright © 2004 LewRockwell.com
I think you are in a very small minority. Did you post this topic to
start a diatribe on libertarianism? I would bet that most atheists
want a
society governed by laws and policed by civil servants.
I'm agnostic, myself. I would like some laws, and some method to
enforce them; but I DON'T want so damn many cops at county, city, state,
and federal running around loose in my territory interpreting what are
literally thousands of laws. There are now so many laws everywhere that
it is virtually impossible not to break one.
In fact, I'm a lawbreaker even as I type - one of my two license plate
lights is out on my pickup truck! I can get pulled over and get a
citation for it. My nurse wife was a true scofflaw; she had
prescription drugs that she carried in her car in unmarked bottles.
According to the drug laws, she could have lost her car if she got
caught! (She stopped doing that when I pointed it out.)
Let's cut back on the number of laws. Let's pass a law that if a law is
not enforced for one year, it automatically becomes null and void.
Let's legalize marijuana, like Canada did for personal use, and start
clearing the prisons out of the non-violent drug users.
Let's get the government out of medicine altogether.
And then let's work on the size of the police departments. For example,
local governments can pass a law that if a police officer is convicted
of a felony, or of abusing citizens, that police department loses that
one position forever. I can guarantee that the Chief would start
working really hard to ensure that all officers obey the law!
--
Cheers,
Bama Brian
Libertarian
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 09:26:57 PM |
|
|
Bama Brian wrote:
And then let's work on the size of the police departments. For
example,
local governments can pass a law that if a police officer is
convicted
of a felony, or of abusing citizens, that police department loses
that
one position forever. I can guarantee that the Chief would start
working really hard to ensure that all officers obey the law!
I'll even propose another thing for you: have all police brutality and
harassment lawsuit's money be drawn from the police department's
pension fund. As it is, the taxpayer usually pays it while the police
suffer no financial loss. Take it out of their pension and I guarantee
that not only will they individually become more responsible, they'd be
more likely to punish renegade cops. Attack them where is really
hurts: their pocketbook.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scout" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
29 Jan 2005 11:50:55 PM |
|
|
<buttpirate@fadmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107034017.875180.119440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Bama Brian wrote:
And then let's work on the size of the police departments. For
example,
local governments can pass a law that if a police officer is
convicted
of a felony, or of abusing citizens, that police department loses
that
one position forever. I can guarantee that the Chief would start
working really hard to ensure that all officers obey the law!
I'll even propose another thing for you: have all police brutality and
harassment lawsuit's money be drawn from the police department's
pension fund. As it is, the taxpayer usually pays it while the police
suffer no financial loss. Take it out of their pension and I guarantee
that not only will they individually become more responsible, they'd be
more likely to punish renegade cops. Attack them where is really
hurts: their pocketbook.
Hmmmm..... I like it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
28 Jan 2005 08:45:08 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops
steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban
Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy
and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her children
if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police
that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end -
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car
with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed
his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to
protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan, the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death.
This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector. In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of
the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the
deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded
the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that
if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should
require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we
will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
Maybe it could have been handled better; but I don't know. I wasn't
there. Were you?
There are many cops in this country. They are often put in difficult
positions. If they manhandle someone in his own home, they get sued. If
they don't, they get sued. They have spouses and neighbors throwing
accusations back and forth at each other, while dogs are barking and
little kids are screaming and older kids are running into the house to
get ...what? A gun? Cousin Bubba? The TV reporters?
The most dangerous common situation for a cop is a domestic
disturbance. Often the cops will get a neighbor's report of a fight,
show up at the door to see the wife bleeding and hysterical. When they
start handcuffing the man, the woman will get a gun and shoot one of
them. They are learning how to handle these situations, but lawsuits,
news-induced mass hysteria, and armchair quarterbacking don't help.
And yeah, the job attracts rowdies; sometimes bullies. We could maybe
weed more of them out than we do if we had more money, and attract cops
with more education. You wouldn't complain about more tax dollars going
to the local justice department, would you? These guys get shot at,
insulted, and abused by the people they risk their lives to protect.
What do you propose?
Every man for himself?
Stay on their case, for sure. Don't let them get away with fascist
bullying. But do you really think they are all psychological and
political clones? And expecting them to handle volatile and dangerous
cases with no mistakes made, ever, is unrealistic. As unrealistic as
thinking that everything will turn out OK as long as the cops make no
mistakes...
Kermit
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Do police officers serve and protect the public? |
28 Jan 2005 10:14:24 PM |
|
|
wrote:
buttpirate@fadmail.com wrote:
Why is it that a cop who kills an unarmed man is not charged with
murder like the rest of us would be? Why are cops allowed to
abduct
people off the street and it's a crime to use your right to
self-defense? Why are most cops domestic batterers? Why do cops
steal
so much of our money through asset forfeiture? For people who sell
themselves as "serving" and "protecting" us, they sure don't act
like
it:
http://brownwatch.squarespace.com/police-brutality-archives/
http://www.fear.org/
Could it be that the cops have nothing to do with protecting
average
citizens? Probably so.
------------------------------------------
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/peters3.html
To Serve and Protect - Itself
by John M. Peters
On November 18, 2001, a woman was shot to death in her suburban
Detroit
home by her distraught husband. He then turned the gun on himself
and
died instantly.
Unfortunately, this scenario is played out all too often across the
nation. If these were the only facts, you might shrug with empathy
and
ask yourself why this merits your consideration. This case was
different.
In this case, the police were present - not following the
murder/suicide - but before and during it.
Following threats by her husband to her life and the lives of her
children, the woman went directly to the local police. She informed
them that she was in fear for her life and the lives of her
children
if
she tried to move out of the marital home. She informed the police
that
her husband had a gun, had threatened her and her children that
day,
and that she wanted to move out of the home. The police computer
confirmed a personal protection order had been issued by the court
against the husband.
The police agreed to accompany the woman to her home and remain
there
while she removed her personal belongings and her children. Two
officers accompanied her to her home and remained inside to the end
-
the end of her life and her husband's.
Despite encountering the husband, and having been apprised of all
the
facts which led them to accompany the woman to her home, the police
never questioned the husband, segregated him from his wife or even
bothered to search him for a gun. They hung around and watched as
the
husband followed his wife back and forth from the home to her car
with
her personal belongings.
As the police spoke with others in the house, the husband followed
his
wife into her bedroom, closed the door and shot her. He then shot
himself. This was exactly what the wife had asked the police to
protect
her from, and what they had agreed to do.
If these police officers had been private security officers
instead,
they and their employer would be held accountable in a court of law
under breach of contract or negligence theories. Alas, they are
government employees. The result is that they are not accountable
for
their malfeasance or her death. This is what separates the private
sector from government.
Another government branch - the courts - has decided that police
are not legally responsible for such gross failures. In Michigan,
the
state's highest court has decided that individual police officers
may
not be sued unless they are the only cause of the injury or death.
This
special treatment is not available to those in the private sector.
In
every case involving private individuals or companies, negligence
is
assessed on the basis of each party's percentage of fault. Yet
another branch of government - the Michigan legislature - passed a
statute which grants absolute immunity to any municipality, thereby
barring any claim against the officers' employer. No such privilege
is available to private sector employers.
Faced with these obstructions, the deceased woman's estate pursued
a
claim against the officers' employer in federal court alleging that
she was deprived of her life without due process of law. On June 9,
2004 a federal judge dismissed the estate's case. The basis for the
dismissal was that, "a State's failure to protect an individual
against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of
the
Due Process Clause." Coming from the U.S. Supreme Court, this is
the
law in every state. This outrage is compounded by the government's
simultaneous efforts to prevent citizens from taking any steps to
protect themselves, and punishing them when they do.
How do you explain this state of affairs to the family of the
deceased?
It was not easy. I was the attorney left with the task.
Writers such as Steven Greenhut and Paul Craig Roberts have sounded
the
alarm on this growing trend of law enforcement's lack of
accountability, but the truth is that most citizens actually
believe
that the police are under some legal duty to come to your aid.
In oral arguments before the federal court, I closed by noting that
if
this is the state of the law in this country the courts should
require
that all police vehicles be posted with a warning label which
reads:
Caution: We are not required to protect you. Then, I explained, we
will
at least know the truth, and be able to take steps to protect
ourselves.
The next time you read the phrase To Serve and Protect on a police
vehicle, remember that this is government's motto about itself, not
you.
June 24, 2004
John M. Peters [send him mail] is a practicing attorney in
Michigan.
Copyright =A9 2004 LewRockwell.com
Maybe it could have been handled better; but I don't know. I wasn't
there. Were you?
Were you there for all during all the murders done in this country?
What an *idiotic* statement you made. If a private citizen is charged
with murder, he's presumed guilty and everyone's ready to "lock him up
and throw away the key." A cop does it, and everyone bends over
backwards.
If we're to believe the propaganda about them (that they're really
"good" people who uphold the law), then we wouldn't see so many of them
abusing their power, now would we? Fact of the matter is this: most
cops are losers who have to feel important by beating and controlling
other people. It takes an especially insecure person to willingly take
on a job whose sole purpose is to use violence against one's fellow
man.
There are many cops in this country. They are often put in difficult
positions. If they manhandle someone in his own home, they get sued.
If
they don't, they get sued. They have spouses and neighbors throwing
accusations back and forth at each other, while dogs are barking and
little kids are screaming and older kids are running into the house
to
get ...what? A gun? Cousin Bubba? The TV reporters?
Pure nonsense. Cops deal with life like the rest of us. If I was to
kill a man, I certainly couldn't use that excuse. The judge would say
"Son, you should have controlled yourself." A cop gets a free pass
because we're lied to that they face "dangerous" situations. Maybe
once in a while (like your average citizen), but oftentimes it is the
cops who outnumber and brutalize men and women in handcuffs. All in
"self defense" of course.
The most dangerous common situation for a cop is a domestic
disturbance. Often the cops will get a neighbor's report of a fight,
show up at the door to see the wife bleeding and hysterical. When
they
start handcuffing the man, the woman will get a gun and shoot one of
them. They are learning how to handle these situations, but lawsuits,
news-induced mass hysteria, and armchair quarterbacking don't help.
Who asked the State to interfere in family life in the first place? If
a woman kills a cop attacking her husband, I say good for her. Her
family member was being assaulted by thugs. Some women like getting
beaten. How else can you explain them living with abusers for so many
years even after domestic violence has become such an issue?
And yeah, the job attracts rowdies; sometimes bullies. We could maybe
weed more of them out than we do if we had more money, and attract
cops
with | | |
