TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › when people going to wake up.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

when people going to wake up.

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 
the police do not have to protect you.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331073,00.html

and for more.


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

http://trumbullnet.proboards91.com/i...ead=1200405165
post #2 of 19
There has got to be a lot more to the first story. They don't just tell you that you can't call anymore without good reason. Now whether that was that she was calling without there being an actual crime committed, or if she kept pestering them to do something that they had already said they couldn't do, or something else that wasn't right.

But you're 100% right, Bruce. The police respond to crimes after the fact, to remove proven dangerous elements from society while gathering evidence to ensure they they are right and the courts can work. They are not there to prevent crimes, or to protect you before a crime happens. That's not their job.
post #3 of 19
Thread Starter 
yea, i am sure there is more to the story. But what is there is a once scared girl who felt that the police where suposed to help her.

that what happens when people buy into Underlying thinking about gun control this one belief. “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is is wrong.
post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
They are not there to prevent crimes, or to protect you before a crime happens. That's not their job.
So where does the "To Protect and Serve" come into play? I thought that was a part of the swearing in?

Maybe law enforcement should change that to: "To React and Serve."
post #5 of 19
This is an eye-opener to me.
post #6 of 19
I actually don't blame the police at all. The article says she called numerous times and refused to ever press charges so I'm sure the officers got tired of wasting their time. It's the old story about crying wolf too many times - you get eaten in the end.
post #7 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
So where does the "To Protect and Serve" come into play? I thought that was a part of the swearing in?

Maybe law enforcement should change that to: "To React and Serve."
its false markting, kinda like one size fits all
post #8 of 19
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I actually don't blame the police at all. The article says she called numerous times and refused to ever press charges so I'm sure the officers got tired of wasting their time. It's the old story about crying wolf too many times - you get eaten in the end.
more like they told her until he does something, there is nothing we can do for you.
post #9 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
more like they told her until he does something, there is nothing we can do for you.
Who knows of course since we weren't there, but if I were an officer and kept getting called to the same place numerous time and the person calling refused to press charges against the person bothering them, I'd get to a point that I wouldn't bother responding either. It's also likely they told her that unless she's willing to press charges (onus on her as well), that there was nothing they could do.

Police have enough BS to deal with without running to the same domestics all the time.
post #10 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
They are not there to prevent crimes, or to protect you before a crime happens. That's not their job.
In the cases citing where police failed to act upon a restraining order, they are not doing their job as the restraining order instructs law enforcment to arrest any one violating that order. And that IS their job - if they don't like dealing with DV issues, well, they aren't drafted into the police force and they need to rethink their attitude.
post #11 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I actually don't blame the police at all. The article says she called numerous times and refused to ever press charges so I'm sure the officers got tired of wasting their time. It's the old story about crying wolf too many times - you get eaten in the end.
I understand that Battered Woman's Syndrome can cause these kinds of situations (it happens in child abuse cases too - I know because our end of the public defender contract covers alleged spousal/child abusers, sex crimes, capital punishment crimes, so I'm seeing alot of the bad side of humanity these days ) which is why in California and other states, law enforcement does the prosecuting with or without the victim's consent. And, yup, we sure get alot of victims who call us because they want to file non-prosecution requests - it is so sad how brainwashed and injured (emotionally) that these women are.
Another eye opener - public employees and entities are exempt from tort actions. EXCEPT for Domestic Violence cases, in some states, as the State of Illinois' Appellate court has ruled:
http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinion...ml/1032651.htm
post #12 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by GingersMom View Post
So where does the "To Protect and Serve" come into play? I thought that was a part of the swearing in?

Maybe law enforcement should change that to: "To React and Serve."
Quote:
Originally Posted by katie=^..^= View Post
This is an eye-opener to me.
Disagree with it and dislike it all you want, but the police cannot prevent crimes except as much as their mere presence and the threat of prosecution deters crime. They cannot arrest someone because they or someone else thinks they may commit a crime in the future. This isn't Minority Report. Their job does not include guarding every member of the public, but to respond to crimes as they happen, gather evidence, and get the bad guys off the street. They remove the known criminal element as much as possible from society; that is how they "Protect" the public.

Quote:
Originally Posted by catsknowme View Post
In the cases citing where police failed to act upon a restraining order, they are not doing their job as the restraining order instructs law enforcment to arrest any one violating that order. And that IS their job - if they don't like dealing with DV issues, well, they aren't drafted into the police force and they need to rethink their attitude.
Did you read the links in the first post? The Supreme Court disagrees with you regarding responsibility concerning restraining orders. (Not sure I agree with that Ruling, but it is what they said. I don't know if they Ruled that way to simply remove the possibility of lawsuits or what, but it sure makes the whole idea of a restraining order obsolete if the police are not obligated to enforce it. )

The police are not there to protect an individual. They are there to protect the public at large. They are there to serve the public at large, not cater to an individual. It sounds to me like the girl wanted personal protection from the police when things got out of hand. Obviously from the short article there's no way of knowing what the police actually told her. But if he was threatening her with a firearm, they don't need her permission to prosecute. And they would have responded, I'm pretty darn sure.
post #13 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by valanhb View Post
The police are not there to protect an individual. They are there to protect the public at large. They are there to serve the public at large, not cater to an individual. It sounds to me like the girl wanted personal protection from the police when things got out of hand. Obviously from the short article there's no way of knowing what the police actually told her. But if he was threatening her with a firearm, they don't need her permission to prosecute. And they would have responded, I'm pretty darn sure.
Quite right. Not perfect by any means, but that's how it is. Kentucky has done an end run around that restriction though. Several years ago there were revisions made to Domestic Violence Laws in the Commonwealth. If the police are called to a domestic situation, somebody goes to jail....period. That is any domestic relations, including teenage girlfriend/boyfriend.
post #14 of 19
Hopefully this may spur Florida into adopting the policy of pressing charges with or without the complaintant's cooperation. I've heard that many victims won't press charges for fear of retaliation, but if it's the State then she (or he) can save face. And hopefully if/when they're convicted and in jail, it gives the survivor a chance to STAY a survivor and get out and break clean from their abuser.

But if the laws don't reflect that, then the cops' hands are tied.
post #15 of 19
For those states that don't require charges to be pressed for someone to be arrested/charged how does that compare to other states?

I'm curious to find out if the emotionally and battered women would be calling less since they could still suffer repercussion if the guy is arrested.
post #16 of 19
Thread Starter 
I guess i just dont know these things, But i thought all the states had Domestic Violence Laws where if the cops show up, Some one goes to jail.
post #17 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
I guess i just dont know these things, But i thought all the states had Domestic Violence Laws where if the cops show up, Some one goes to jail.
In Ohio someone does, and the victim doesn't have to be the one to call. I'd like to thank whom ever came up with this law because it saved my SIL life. The first time the police called it was because my ex-BIL hit her in the driveway in front of some city workers. The second time is because a neighbor saw bruises around her neck. My ex-BIL is now serving two years in prison because of this. She was too scared to call.

EDIT: Also, every single call from jail is recored. So when he called her from JAIL and threatened her life he got an extra charge for intimidating a witness. I like to refer to that one as the special sauce of the domestic violence case.
post #18 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by lookingglass View Post
In Ohio someone does, and the victim doesn't have to be the one to call
In Ohio, someone goes to jail for domestic violence if there is PHYSICAL violence. If it is just a heated verbal dispute, no one gets arrested unless the shouting continues while the police are there, or if they have to return again for the same verbal dispute, then they can be arrested for disorderly conduct.
post #19 of 19
In London its policy to arrest everyone at a heated domestic dispute and stick them in the cells overnight to cool off. It stops people getting so worked up they stab someone.
People don't have to press charges in cases of domestic violence either, same as Ohio,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › when people going to wake up.