DB

[Dale Eastman]

In 1829, Sir Robert Peel established the London Metropolitan Police Force. He became known as the “Father of Modern Policing,” and his commissioners established a list of policing principles that remain as crucial and urgent today as they were two centuries ago. They contain three core ideas and nine principles.

9 Policing Principles

To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

To recognize always that the power of the police to fulfill their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.

To recognize always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing cooperation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.

To recognize always that the extent to which the cooperation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.

To seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.

To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public cooperation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.

To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that the public are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

To recognize always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.

To recognize always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

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?

The prisons are full of very bad people Dale - I didn't put them there - the police did - I don't keep them there - prison officers do - I give credit where it is due Dale - I don't have the strength, skill or courage to do what the police and prison officers do - things would be a lot worse without the police and prison officers - I am grateful for their service.

If I had to assume, based on what you wrote, I would assume you only read the first sentence in my post.

I said the cops are not the good guys here. You, in essence, replied "yes they are."

You claim the prisons are full of very bad people.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Who defined bad, by what authority.
Maybe my memory is in error. Wasn't Australia a prison colony of the British Empire?

I can't speak to or about Down Under specifically.

Here in the States, where I'm posting from, The cops have no duty to protect. They are called LEO's; Law Enforcement Officers. If people are arrested (kidnapped) and then are incarcerated (put in rape cages), this is done because the cops enforce elected politician's opinions under threat of death.

And here in the States, many are there for doing Malum Prohibitum victimless crimes. That would be alleged crimes that harm no other person.

Tell me please, where does the money come from that pays for the cops?

Yes - I am saying the police are the good guys - I understand that we cannot sue the police if we fall victim to criminals - as far as the laws - and - who determines who is bad and who goes to gaol - in a democracy - the people must take responsibility for the actions of the people they elect - our representatives would not be in a position to make bad laws if we didn't put them in parliament - your arguments are non sequiturs Dale - the police don't have a vicarious liability - apparently they have qualified immunity - the laws are not perfect - but - who arrests the bad guys and puts them in gaol? - the police do - the immunity and the bad laws don't prevent the police from putting a lot of bad people in gaol - it is a fact - it doesn't matter what you or I think - we cannot alter the facts.

➽ it doesn't matter what you or I think - we cannot alter the facts

That is correct. I agree.

The fact of an indoctrinated, inculcated belief would be a fact. The belief itself, however, is not necessarily a fact.

You opined your beliefs of which only a small portion gets through my bullshit filter as actually being facts.

I would have written and replied more topically regarding the specifics of much of what you wrote, But...

This question is still on the table:
Tell me please, where does the money come from that pays for the cops?

[Dale Eastman]

Essentially the wages of the police come from taxation

Thank you.

Is payment of taxes voluntary, or are there penalties for refusing to pay taxes?

[Dale Eastman]

Taxation is compulsory - now ask yourself this - do police men and women protect the community for the meagre salary offered? Or are they motivated by honour, vocation, duty and patriotism?

➽ do police men and women protect the community for the meagre salary offered? Or are they motivated by honour, vocation, duty and patriotism?

You are asking me to speak to the motivations of other humans. This is something I can not do. Neither can you... Unless you are a cop... And then, ONLY in your case.

This does not preclude me from thinking about possible motivations. For instance, somebody who is afraid of heights is not really going to be motivated to hang off the side of a tall building in a big city to wash windows. Now if the job is ordering people around, pointing a gun at them if the don't comply, and shooting them if they really are set on refusing to obey... You tell me, What kind of personality would be motivated to join such an organization that doles out violence.

➽ Taxation is compulsory

Thank you.

In other words, taxation is give us your money or we will hurt you.

That's EXTORTION in my lexicon.

Just in case you missed the connection...

Police are paid using extorted funds.

[Dale Eastman]

We drive on roads paid for by taxation - the sewers are paid for by taxation - public hospitals, public schools, so why are the police bad but drivers, teachers and sanitation workers are not bad?

Your response had absolutely nothing to do with what it followed.
Because I am quite used to this type of behavior, I have coined the term "D⁵"
D⁵ - Distract, deflect, divert, disrupt, and/or derail.

Why are drivers, teachers, and sanitation workers not bad?

Because drivers, teachers, and sanitation workers are not the violence wielding enforcers of the organized crime syndicate called government.

➽ Yes - I am saying the police are the good guys

You might as well say the enforcers for the Mafia are the good guys also.

And since this discussion his happening under JPFO, You might as well say the enforcers that loaded the trains to Auschwitz are the good guys also.

All that evil was done by "Law Enforcers" enforcing laws.