Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
>
> > Jim Choate wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wrong. The police are here to enforce laws and arrest people. They have
> > > > no legal obligation to protect. It'd be nice if it really were that way,
> > > > but it isn't.
> > >
> > > Wrong, police are here to serve and protect. They protect by enforcing
> > > laws. They serve by following the tenets of a democratic government as
> > > outlined in our Constitution.
> > >
> >
> > No lesser than the Supreme Court says you are wrong. I don't have the
> > decision details on me, but the Supreme decided (about 5 or so years ago)
> > that police were not required by law to provide individual protection.
> >
> > Thus the need for custom individual protection. ;-)
>
> That's a bullshit interpretation. But let's address your
> interpretation....
>
> The police are not there for your PERSONAL protection. They are not your
> body guard. That does not mean they are not there to protect individuals
> through the enforcement of the law.
>
> The logic, if not the application, by the SC is sound. It is to protect
> individuals from suing the police simply because they're never around when
> you need one.
>
> Not the same assertion that you make at all.
>
> A crappy strawman.
Apparently we have different definitions of 'protection' running
around here. Active vs. passive protection I suppose in your
world.
I actually agree with the SC on the decision though. The police are
basically a cleanup crew. How can we expect them to come to your
aid and save your life if you call 911? I certainly wouldn't.
I highly question your definition of protection when cleanup and
enforcement somehow leads to protection. Maybe in some vague "1984"
sense. The cops would literally have to be seen to be everywhere
at once for the perps to be deterred.
In that sense protection would be a contract with the 'people' in
a collective sense, much the way the right of the 'people' to
keep and bear arms is seen by some as collective.
I don't believe in collective contracts. If I didn't sign it,
its not valid.
Jim
