JR

[Dale Eastman]

Wow, and I thought I had already seen the dumbest post on the internet. Guess I was wrong, since this is it.

It's funny, despite the multiple speeding tickets I've got over the years, I've never been threatened with any sort of harm by police, and that's while I was carrying a concealed firearm. "How is that?" you ask. Because I'm respectful, and do as they say.

If you're a piece of garbage criminal... I guess you should've thought twice about breaking the law, and 3 times about not listening to the cop.

Cops are not the good guys here.

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, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔

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. 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 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ 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.⛔

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

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.⛔

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.⛔

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?

I don't recall ever saying I thought the police force exists to protect me. I've never felt threatened by the police because any altercation with them over been respectful because I know for any reason they could make my life miserable all in an attempt to assure they go home to their family safe every night.

Do you want me to quote your words where you presented yourself as "Pro" police?

I'll entertain the thought that I misunderstood your words. If so, we can hash that out.

If not, I'm going to pound on the provable fact that the police, because they are part of "government" are nothing but criminals.

I AM "pro police". But by all means in your eternal, infinite, all knowing wisdom PLEASE quote my words that said I expect the police to "protect me". You're nothing more than a pathetic liberal troll.

Well good afternoon to you too.

I live for discussions with people smarter than me. I even copy and paste them to my website, anonymizing the person owning that brain superior to mine. This is a publicly available archive of my discussions with those indoctrinated minds.

You just admitted to being "pro police", so your words indicating that by implication of no longer of any account.

With that highly developed, superior brain of yours, I just don't understand why you are conflating my offer to quote your implied "pro police" words with a somewhat rhetorical question.

But since that one sentence of several triggered you, I am tempted to ask you what you think the job of police actually is. I won't ask because I know how super-intelligent people are thinking of so many things at once, A mere mortal like myself would distract you gods from where you need to focus.

Remember, I said if I did not misinterpret your implied claim of being pro police, I'm going to pound on the provable fact that the police, because they are part of "government" are nothing but criminals.

So where, exactly, do you imagine police get the alleged authority to extort people into compliance?

[Dale Eastman]

So where, exactly, do you imagine police get the alleged authority to extort people into compliance?