[sparkscoffee] Re: Dial 911 and Die!
- From: Sblumen123@xxxxxxx
- To: sparkscoffee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 15:08:50 -0500 (EST)
RR
I thought you said on the LA riots the police were paid to
protect us and didn't? Preventing, chasing, stopping, even
killing a criminal is normal for all policemen? Whats all the
nit picking BS below?
Comrade B
In a message dated 2/3/2013 11:38:53 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
ristad@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Most Americans believe that their local police have a duty in Law to
protect them against criminals. They are wrong. Some of them are dead wrong.
And
some of those who are dead wrong are dead because they have been duped by
ignorant or dishonest politicians or police chiefs, who promise protection
that they cannot give and have no legal duty to give. Some of these
officials know they have no legal duty to protect the average person, and yet
still support disarming law abiding people, the better "to protect" them from
criminals! Front line police officers sometimes are verbally abused by
victims of criminals who wrongly believe that police officers have a duty to
protect the law abiding. These good citizens blame the police officer for not
doing a job for which he/she has never been responsible: protecting the
average person against criminals.
State and city governments - rather than the Federal authorities - are
responsible for local law enforcement. So, only occasionally have Federal
Courts ruled on the matter of police protection.
However, in 1856 the U.S. Supreme Court declared that local law
enforcement had no duty to protect a particular person, but only a general
duty to
enforce the laws. [South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed., 433
(856)]. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives you no right
to
police protection.
In 1982, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that:.. there is
no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being
murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect
its
residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or, we suppose, any other provision of
the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it
tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal
government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as
maintaining law and order." [Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, 7th
Circuit, 686F.2d 616 (1982). See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471
F.Supp. 1262 (E.D.Pa. 1979)].
http://www.ecclesia.org/truth/911.html
-RR
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the
government take care of him, better take a closer look at the American Indian."
-
Henry Ford
Other related posts:
