Synaptic Sparks

Police

Definition

n. pl. police
1. (used with a pl. verb)
a. A body of government employees trained in methods of law enforcement and crime prevention and detection and authorized to maintain the peace, safety, and order of the community.
b. A body of persons with a similar organization and function: campus police. Also called police force.
 The Free Dictionary 

These dictionary points are good starting points for deeper examination of what the police are because there is more to the points then meets the eye (or mind) at first glance.


Law Enforcement Officers

As the dictionary definition claims, the people called police are trained in law enforcement. This is why they are also called Law Enforcement Officers and are members of the police force.

The main tool that those called police will use to enforce law is extortion. Do what the cop tells you to do, when he tells you to do it, or the cop will hurt you.

The cop's extortion starts when the cop is made aware that you refuse to obey the politician's opinions. These opinions are called the law. You can navigate to the page on law via the TOC link.

When the cop is made aware that you didn't obey the politician it is then the cop's job to put you in a cage. This is called being arrested.

If you resist the commands of those called police they will use escalating levels of violence against you until you comply or are dead. This is called the The Use of Force Continuum.


Force Continuum

Or more accurately the Use of Violence Continuum.

The Use-of-Force Continuum

Most law enforcement agencies have policies that guide their use of force. These policies describe a escalating series of actions an officer may take to resolve a situation. This continuum generally has many levels, and officers are instructed to respond with a level of force appropriate to the situation at hand, acknowledging that the officer may move from one part of the continuum to another in a matter of seconds.

  • Officer Presence — No force is used. Considered the best way to resolve a situation.
    • The mere presence of a law enforcement officer works to deter crime or diffuse a situation.
    • Officers' attitudes are professional and nonthreatening.
  • Verbalization — Force is not-physical.
    • Officers issue calm, nonthreatening commands, such as "Let me see your identification and registration."
    • Officers may increase their volume and shorten commands in an attempt to gain compliance. Short commands might include "Stop," or "Don't move."
  • Empty-Hand Control — Officers use bodily force to gain control of a situation.
    • Soft technique. Officers use grabs, holds and joint locks to restrain an individual.
    • Hard technique. Officers use punches and kicks to restrain an individual.
  • Less-Lethal Methods — Officers use less-lethal technologies to gain control of a situation.
    • Blunt impact. Officers may use a baton or projectile to immobilize a combative person.
    • Chemical. Officers may use chemical sprays or projectiles embedded with chemicals to restrain an individual (e.g., pepper spray).
    • Conducted Energy Devices (CEDs). Officers may use CEDs to immobilize an individual. CEDs discharge a high-voltage, low-amperage jolt of electricity at a distance.
  • Lethal Force — Officers use lethal weapons to gain control of a situation. Should only be used if a suspect poses a serious threat to the officer or another individual.
    • Officers use deadly weapons such as firearms to stop an individual's actions.
 National Institute of Justice (dot) gov 
 Walter Scott posed a serious threat to Officer Michael Slager by running away. 

No Duty To Protect

The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.

South v. Maryland

Pottle is a person who asked Sheriff South for protection. The Sheriff did not provide the protection. The original lower court case was a suit for damages done to Pottle because the Sheriff did not provide specifically requested assistance and protection.
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)

Where, in an action upon a sheriff's bond, the declaration did not charge the sheriff with a breach of his duty in the execution of any writ or process in which the real plaintiff was personally interested, but with a neglect or refusal to preserve the public peace, in consequence of which the plaintiff suffered great wrong and injury from the unlawful violence of a mob, the declaration did not set forth a sufficient cause of action against the sheriff and his sureties.
[...]
The breach alleged is, in substance,
"that while Pottle was engaged about his lawful business, certain evil-disposed persons came about him, hindered and prevented him, threatened his life, with force of arms demanded of him a large sum of money, and imprisoned and detained him for the space of four days, and until he paid them the sum of $2,500 for his enlargement."

That South, the sheriff, being present, the plaintiff, Pottle, applied to him for protection and requested him to keep the peace of the State of Maryland, he, the said sheriff, having power and authority so to do. That the sheriff neglected and refused to protect and defend the plaintiff and to keep the peace, wherefore, it is charged, "the sheriff did not well and truly execute and perform the duties required of him by the laws of said state," and thereby the said writing obligatory became forfeited and action accrued to the plaintiff.
[...]
The declaration in the case before us is clearly not within the principles of these decisions. It alleges no special individual right, privileges, or franchise in the plaintiff from the enjoyment of which he has been restrained or hindered by the malicious act of the sheriff, nor does it charge him with any misfeasance or nonfeasance in his ministerial capacity in the execution of any process in which the plaintiff was concerned. Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.
Justia

In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.

The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. (Available at the Justia link.) The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.

Warren v. District of Columbia

Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. There was no police assistance or protection given.

When the criminals found out that there were two more women in the house they then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to one of the criminals' apartment. For fourteen hours three women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of two rapists.

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)

Appellants Carolyn Warren, Miriam Douglas, and Joan Taliaferro in No. 79-6, and appellant Wilfred Nichol in No. 79-394 sued the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department for negligent failure to provide adequate police services. The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
[...]
After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.
[...]
In either case, it is easy to condemn the failings of the police. However, the desire for condemnation cannot satisfy the need for a special relationship out of which a duty to specific persons arises. In neither of these cases has a relationship been alleged beyond that found in general police responses to crimes. Civil liability fails as a matter of law.
[...]
The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.
Justia

"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.

DeShaney v. Winnebago

The father beat a 4-year-old so severely that he fell into a life-threatening coma. Emergency brain surgery revealed a series of hemorrhages caused by traumatic injuries to the head inflicted over a long period of time.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989):

A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.
Justia

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

The mother called the police when her children were noticed missing from the yard outside the home. After police were notified that the father had the daughters without permission contrary to a court order of reasonable notice to the mother the children were found inside the cab of the father's pickup truck dead, murdered by the father. 

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)

We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.
Justia

The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.

Statutory Law

California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.
Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:

Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals.
Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:

Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.

Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?

Given this new information, why do the criminals called government want to control gun ownership?

And the criminals called government will use any excuse to take your guns away from you.

 Internet search for "Police confiscating guns in New Orleans" 


Police Funding

The dictionary definition states that the people called the police are 'government' employees.

I will point out that these 'government' employees are paid by the 'government' out of 'government' funds.

Where do these 'government' funds come from? From you of course. These funds are collected from you under Threat, Duress, and Coercion. Whether by so called taxation or by so called traffic fines, extortion in either case, you are forced to pay for the very same police who have no duty to protect you.

Get a speeding or parking ticket, go to court, and you will be faced by a criminal called a judge, a criminal called a prosecutor, and a criminal called a police officer. Why do I list them all as criminals? Because they all belong to the same crime syndicate. The are all paid by the 'government' out of 'government' funds. When their collusion finds you guilty, you fine goes into their treasure chest funding further criminal actions against the populace.

The judge is the biggest criminal because if you challenge getting a fair trial when the judge, the prosecutor, and the cop work for the entity called 'government', the judge will tell you that there is no conflict of interest.


Personality Traits

Would you want the job of window washer in a big city, if you are afraid of heights?

Window washers hanging on a rope.

What type of personality do you think would want a job where you can order people around, point guns at them if they don't obey your commands, and kill them if they decide they're not going to go gently into a cage?


Smarts Discrimination

Court rules, It's okay to discriminate based on too much intelligence.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

No. 99-9188
Robert Jordan, Plaintiff,
-vs-
City of New London and Keith Harrigan, Defendants.

Plaintiff alleges a violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Connecticut constitutions stemming from Defendants’ hiring practice. Plaintiff was denied a job opportunity because he had scored higher than average on a written examination used to screen applicants and, as a result, was deemed overqualified for the position.
[...]
On March 16, 1996, Plaintiff took a written test for the position of entry level police officer given by the Law Enforcement Council of Connecticut, Inc.[...]

In the fall of 1996, Plaintiff learned that New London was hiring police officers. He requested an interview with Keith Harrigan, the Assistant City Manager in charge of personnel. Id. at P 10, 11. Mr. Harrigan informed Plaintiff that he was ineligible because he scored too high on the written test.

 For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is granted.
 Complete case text at AELE 

2000 U.S. App. Lexis 22195 (Unpublished)
With thanks to AELE for having the court case online.

No Good Cops

With a tip o' the hat to Robert Higgs for the concept.

A cop's job is to enforce the laws. All the laws. Even the laws that the cops know are wrong, unfair, immoral, and / or victimize those being governed.

Therefore, there are no good cops.

There have been assertions made by police supporters that it's only a few bad cops. If that is the case, then why are the supposedly good cops doing nothing while one of their own brutalizes people who are no threat to the cops?

 Police Brutality Videos as found on DuckDuckGo.