The legal standard for the use of deadly force by law enforcement

[richard_daily]

Do you remember earlier this year when you and I went through a similar exchange, and I called you every vile name that has ever been uttered in any nation's merchant marines?

Now do you understand my contempt for willful ignorance?

You have since done a masterful job at overcoming yours. But do you see, now? Do you get it?

I don't think I ever realized what an arrogant fuckwad you are.

Maybe you're just getting old, and it's slipping through the seams.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That's nice.

Show me where any of those cases support your claim that the police have a duty to protect.

You can't, and you won't.

Of course I won't. Because NONE of those cases were dealing with the legal scope of that particular issue. They were dealing with the very issue you kept denying they were dealing with -- the nearly universally absent right of an individual citizen to file civil suit against state and local governments for the financial recovery of "damages" for personal and property "loss" suffered at the hands of police officers in the NEGLIGENT performance of their professional duties.

Those "professional duties," as I explained to you before, exist primarily in contract law between the state and municipal government employers and the individual police officer as employee. THAT is where the "duty to protect" is specifically defined and enforced as a matter of law. Contract law is a form of civil law and is no less "legal" than criminal law.

The employer defines the "duty to protect," and it is to the employer where that "duty" is most directly and LEGALLY owed. But to deny its practical existance and obligation to the proxy/beneficiary -- the general public -- is just.....well, really stupid.

If the officer fails in that duty as defined by his employer, he faces discipline up to and including termination. If his failure is so outrageous as to run afoul of criminal sanctions against assault and murder, he could go to jail. Notwithstanding the many statutory provisions prescribing the proper use of force that have appeared to hold police immune from such prosecutions, they have occurred.

So, to recap:

1. A police office has a direct, legal contractual "duty" (aka "contractual "liability") to perform professional job tasks as defined and assigned by his employer, among which are "protecting" the general public from the commission of criminal acts.

2. A police officer also has "criminal liability" based on existing federal, state and local criminal statutes consistent with other equally binding statutes stipulating the scope of his allowable use of force.

3. Neither of the above two facts are construed in such a way as to produce a LEGAL contractual "duty" or "liability" under civil law that would allow a citizen to sue an individual police officer for the negligent performance of his (unarguably and appropriately named) "professional duties."

This is the substance of what I have been screaming at you and Eternal Fantasies for the last four days. It is precisely what ALL of the cases you cited stand for.

I don't think I ever realized what an arrogant fuckwad you are.

Maybe you're just getting old, and it's slipping through the seams.

Oh, no. It's not "slipping through the seams." It is directly aimed at those people whose own arrogance is compounded and exacerbated by provable ignorance about a subject I happen to know something about.

I don't get into these arguments with physicists because I don't know anything about physics.

I didn't argue with my neurosurgeon about the specific diagnosis and proper course of treatment during my recent surgery because I don't know anything about neurosurgery.

And I sure as shit would not argue with you about how to troubleshoot the fault in an electrical circuit, change out an automobile transmission, pilot a commercial aircraft or whatever it is you actually know something about. THAT would be not MERELY arrogant, but inexplicably rude and dumbfuckingly arrogant.

And when the courtesy is not returned to me in kind, I become an overtly irritable and hostile "fuckwad." It happens every time.

And it happens here a lot, especially with regards to the law.

 

[richard_daily]

Of course I won't. Because NONE of those cases were dealing with the legal scope of that particular issue. They were dealing with the very issue you kept denying they were dealing with -- the nearly universally absent right of an individual citizen to file civil suit against state and local governments for the financial recovery of "damages" for personal and property "loss" suffered at the hands of police officers in the NEGLIGENT performance of their professional duties.

Those "professional duties," as I explained to you before, exist primarily in contract law between the state and municipal government employers and the individual police officer as employee. THAT is where the "duty to protect" is specifically defined and enforced as a matter of law. Contract law is a form of civil law and is no less "legal" than criminal law.

The employer defines the "duty to protect," and it is to the employer where that "duty" is most directly and LEGALLY owed. But to deny its practical existance and obligation to the proxy/beneficiary -- the general public -- is just.....well, really stupid.

If the officer fails in that duty as defined by his employer, he faces discipline up to and including termination. If his failure is so outrageous as to run afoul of criminal sanctions against assault and murder, he could go to jail. Notwithstanding the many statutory provisions prescribing the proper use of force that have appeared to hold police immune from such prosecutions, they have occurred.

So, to recap:

1. A police office has a direct, legal contractual "duty" (aka "contractual "liability") to perform professional job tasks as defined and assigned by his employer, among which are "protecting" the general public from the commission of criminal acts.

2. A police officer also has "criminal liability" based on existing federal, state and local criminal statutes consistent with other equally binding statutes stipulating the scope of his allowable use of force.

3. Neither of the above two facts are construed in such a way as to produce a LEGAL contractual "duty" or "liability" under civil law that would allow a citizen to sue an individual police officer for the negligent performance of his (unarguably and appropriately named) "professional duties."

This is the substance of what I have been screaming at you and Eternal Fantasies for the last four days. It is precisely what ALL of the cases you cited stand for.

So, to make it concise, you can't show in the cases listed where there is a legal duty for a police officer to protect the public, because there is no legal duty for a police officer to protect the public.

As I showed in the previously posted link, an officer failed to protect 23 times in two days before she was dismissed.

Not exactly high standards.

Oh, no. It's not "slipping through the seams." It is directly aimed at those people whose own arrogance is compounded and exacerbated by provable ignorance about a subject I happen to know something about.

I don't get into these arguments with physicists because I don't know anything about physics.

I didn't argue with my neurosurgeon about the specific diagnosis and proper course of treatment during my recent surgery because I don't know anything about neurosurgery.

And I sure as shit would not argue with you about how to troubleshoot the fault in an electrical circuit, change out an automobile transmission, pilot a commercial aircraft or whatever it is you actually know something about. THAT would be not MERELY arrogant, but inexplicably rude and dumbfuckingly arrogant.

And when the courtesy is not returned to me in kind, I become an overtly irritable and hostile "fuckwad." It happens every time.

And it happens here a lot, especially with regards to the law.

Do you actually win cases with this arrogant attitude? Just curious.

 

[Rightguide]

Do you remember earlier this year when you and I went through a similar exchange, and I called you every vile name that has ever been uttered in any nation's merchant marines?

Now do you understand my contempt for willful ignorance?

You have since done a masterful job at overcoming yours. But do you see, now? Do you get it?

Let me put it this way. I've always been aware of my own shortcomings. though at times that awareness is sometimes in the background you did a credible job of illuminating a few of those and bringing them to the forefront. Will that do?

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So, to make it concise, you can't show in the cases listed where there is a legal duty for a police officer to protect the public, because there is no legal duty for a police officer to protect the public.

As I showed in the previously posted link, an officer failed to protect 23 times in two days before she was dismissed.

Not exactly high standards.






Do you actually win cases with this arrogant attitude? Just curious.

Nice haircut.

 

[richard_daily]

Nice haircut.

You refuse to accept that the police don't have a legal duty to protect. "Why" you hold those positions isn't my place to guess, and I couldn't care less as to what your motivations are.

You can hide behind your personal opinion and whatever else you want, but you know that's the case, and that's why you haven't been able to show anything to the contrary.

 

[Que]

You refuse to acknowledge that in each and every time they are only talking about the lack of responsibility to stop a specific act by a specific criminal at a specific time.

 

[richard_daily]

You refuse to acknowledge that in each and every time they are only talking about the lack of responsibility to stop a specific act by a specific criminal at a specific time.

Wut???

 

[Que]

Wut???

Exactly.

 

[richard_daily]

Exactly.

This is 'merica, speak english.

 

[Que]

Not being able to sue someone for underperforming their duty does not negate the fact that they are tasked to try and are empowered and shielded specifically to make such performance possible, even if not REQUIRED under penalty of tort.

 

[richard_daily]

Not being able to sue someone for underperforming their duty does not negate the fact that they are tasked to try and are empowered and shielded specifically to make such performance possible, even if not REQUIRED under penalty of tort.

That's a little better.

There is no law that forces an officer to perform said duty. All that there is would be a contract of employment.

I have shown an example (and there are plenty more) of cops failing to perform their duty, and the worst that can happen, is that they can be fired.

A cop can murder, and the worst that is likely to happen, is that they are fired.

You and Col. Hogan might be ok with that. I am not.

 

[Que]

How can an officer "fail to do his duty," if (as you insist) they have no responsibilities?

 

[Que]

You keep using the term murder for acts other than : "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human without justification or valid excuse, especially the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought." -Wikki

 

[Que]

Blacks: http://thelawdictionary.org/murder/

 

[Colonel Hogan]

How can an officer "fail to do his duty," if (as you insist) they have no responsibilities?

I'm convinced he's trolling. He keeps issuing the same "challenge" every time we specifically answer it.

He cites a stream of court cases that deny an actionable "civil duty to protect" and then denies that those very cases are civil cases seeking to recover damages based on liability for failure to perform.

I mean, if you're so stupid as to not be able to tell from the first few paragraphs of a court opinion whether or not it is a civil or criminal case, how do you determine right of way at a traffic intersection based on the changing sequence of colored lights?

He's all yours if you wish to continue this charade.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'm convinced he's trolling. He keeps issuing the same "challenge" every time we specifically answer it.

He cites a stream of court cases that deny an actionable "civil duty to protect" and then denies that those very cases are civil cases seeking to recover damages based on liability for failure to perform.

I mean, if you're so stupid as to not be able to tell from the first few paragraphs of a court opinion whether or not it is a civil or criminal case, how do you determine right of way at a traffic intersection based on the changing sequence of colored lights?

He's all yours if you wish to continue this charade.

I wouldn't be so sure, you're talking to someone who seriously thinks the Soviet Union was a capitalistic RWCJ.

And that when the government murders it's no different than when civilians do it.

But it's TOTALLY different when the government uses threat of violence to take money and property from people....THAT is somehow different.

 

[richard_daily]

I'm convinced he's trolling. He keeps issuing the same "challenge" every time we specifically answer it.

He cites a stream of court cases that deny an actionable "civil duty to protect" and then denies that those very cases are civil cases seeking to recover damages based on liability for failure to perform.

I mean, if you're so stupid as to not be able to tell from the first few paragraphs of a court opinion whether or not it is a civil or criminal case, how do you determine right of way at a traffic intersection based on the changing sequence of colored lights?

He's all yours if you wish to continue this charade.

Nah, that's not what I claimed. I said that those cases show that there is no legal duty for a police officer to protect you. That's what I've said from the start of this thread. You have kept on trying to move the goal posts, and then you're getting your panties in a bunch when I call you on it.

I can only imagine that a judge has thrown most of your cases out, since you clearly don't pay attention to what people are saying, you invent in your head what you want them to say instead. Then you throw a hissy fit, and stomp off when they don't declare you the king of shit mountain.

This sort of stuff may work with really low iq dudes like que and vetteman. BB seems to be on board with it to.

They seem like your types. I'm sure you guys will have a great circle jerk together.

 

[coachdb18]

We’ve argued this one before. Bottom line, the police have no constitutional responsibility to protect the individual citizen, their only duty is to protect ‘the law’. You have to protect yourself. Case was Warren vs District of Columbia.

 

[Sean]

Bottom line, the police have no constitutional responsibility to protect the individual citizen, their only duty is to protect ‘the law’.

Um, no.

 

[EternalFantasies]

So latest tally:

Subject has been changed.

I have been ignored by the OP. I wish the OP himself, would do some "Masterful job" at outdoing himself.

The only one properly identifying the underlying -possibly unwittingly - intentions of the OP, is freaking stupid Sean. beurk.



So, when you boys come back to the subject, kindly find my initial reply, and how nothing was accomplished in here.

 

[Que]

Nah, that's not what I claimed. I said that those cases show that there is no legal duty for a police officer to protect you. That's what I've said from the start of this thread. You have kept on trying to move the goal posts, and then you're getting your panties in a bunch when I call you on it.

I can only imagine that a judge has thrown most of your cases out, since you clearly don't pay attention to what people are saying, you invent in your head what you want them to say instead. Then you throw a hissy fit, and stomp off when they don't declare you the king of shit mountain.

This sort of stuff may work with really low iq dudes like que and vetteman. BB seems to be on board with it to.

They seem like your types. I'm sure you guys will have a great circle jerk together.

Nothing says iWin like pulling out the worst of all possible insults, allegations of homosexual tendencies.

 

[Rightguide]

Nothing says iWin like pulling out the worst of all possible insults, allegations of homosexual tendencies.

Or the dumbest clown on the block calling everyone else stupid.

 

[Que]

Or the dumbest clown on the block calling everyone else stupid.

He just called Colonel Hogan arrogant without any apparent appreciation for the irony of his arrogant misuse of the term.

 

[EternalFantasies]

Btw guys.. Dick EveryDay and the Coach there are right.

Sorry