100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: tragic, dont get lost in the south | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Conrad_73
on
Sun 03/02/14 03:32 AM
|
|
It looks to me like the dead man's widow failed to properly take care of an Alzheimer's patient. Apparently, the man belonged in a facility dedicated to taking care of Alzheimer's patients. Such a facility would have someone on duty and awake 24/7. So, why wasn't the dead man put in such a facility? If he had been in such a facility, had wandered away and then been killed, you'd bet that his widow would sue the facility for negligence. that's true they are PAID for a certain level of care, unlike family members who have no gain from their care but still no less a tragedy that someone would leave the comfort and security INSIDE their home to go OUTSIDE and end up shooting a lost senior citizen,,,,,, In this particular case, if the Alzheimer's patient did not break into the home, then the shooter could have waited for the police to arrive instead of going outside. How can the shooting be in self defense if the shooter could have stayed inside? Simple, protection of property and the police owe no duty to protect.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held police do not have a duty to provide police services to individuals, even if a dispatcher promises help to be on the way, except when police develop a special duty to particular individuals.... http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone By LINDA GREENHOUSE Published: June 28, 2005 WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation............. http://gunssavelives.net/blog/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/ SUPREME COURT RULING: Police Have No Duty To Protect The General Public January 28 2013 by Dan Cannon People who don’t understand taking responsibility for your own safety often ask me why I wouldn’t just call the police to stop a crime instead of drawing a gun. Well for one, a great police response time would be 1-2 minutes, but most crimes take place in a matter of seconds. Two, police have no duty to protect me, or you. Based on the headline of this article you might think this is an important new ruling, but it’s not. The court has kept this stance for over 30 years. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country. It is the job of police officers to investigate crimes and arrest criminals. We are on our own for protection. While we are quite sure most police officers will help someone in need when required, just remember the next time you feel you might need protection that police officers have no duty to provide that to you. Sources: - Warren v. District of Columbia - Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (NY Times) No Duty to protect the Individual,but hellbent to disarm the People! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So very true, but their role has changed from to serve and protect for the general public to serve and collect from the general public.
The whole concept of police in times past has been as Conservator of the Peace: "An officer of the government authorized by law to act in such a manner that will preserve and maintain the order and safety of the community and the general public." But now they only act as "revenue" agents for the state. As revenue agents, someone must always go to jail to insure profit for the "police" state. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Surmar
on
Sun 03/02/14 12:41 PM
|
|
Did the guy not think that the old man, was confused for a reason? Or does logic and common sense not play a part in real life anymore? That guy should be charged with murder? Plain and simple, he shot an old man in cold blood! Shooting someone once is enough? Four times though? That's an execution, from a trigger happy ex-soldier, that's what that is and there's no excuse for that! Police are trained to keep on shooting "UNTIL" the suspect is down; even after being shot a number of times, someone can still be a threat. Police Officers have been killed by people they've shot a number of times which is the reason why Police stopped using revolvers and now use Semi-Automatic Pistols that may hold as many as 19 Rounds with one in the chamber. police also carry tasers to take people 'down', because shooting isn't the only option and I think there are plenty of trigger happy police officers who shouldn't be on the streets with guns too,,, I'm sure that there are trigger happy police officers as well; mostly in states and/or cities that have rather strict gun laws; Police are trained to reach for their gun first, then, if appropriate for a "Less Lethal" Option. It takes training to go for the taser, or another weapon as one is dealing with the OODA Loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act; back to Observe) during a crisis; and you will always fall back onto the level of training that you've mastered during a crisis. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As I understand it, there was a locked door between the old man and the shooter, and nothing indicates that the old man was able to get through the door. So, was it necessary for the shooter to unlock the door and pass through it? Actually yes it was, please try reading the replies instead of just repeating the question over and over and over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
getting lost in the south can cost you your life..
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/28/shawn-tyson-guilty-murder-british-tourists |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
getting lost in the south can cost you your life.. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/28/shawn-tyson-guilty-murder-british-tourists And to consider that Sarasota is one of the nicest cities in that part of Florida. |
|
|
|
|
