The Myth of Police Protection

[heavenlyboy34]

Very interesting and worthy post, OP.

 

[CCTelander]

Can we get some links to that OP story please.

I first read about the case back in the mid-1980s while doing legal research on 2nd Amendment issues. It's common knowledge among 2nd Amendment and gun rights advocates, and the story can be found on just about every pro-gun site on the web.

Here's the Wikipedia enrty on it:

here

And here's the actual case from gunrightsalert.com:

here

Hope this helps.

EDIT: Fixed links.

 

[CCTelander]

Very interesting and worthy post, OP.

Thanks.

Ain't government just grand? On the one hand they do everything they can get away with to make it more difficult to flat impossible for individuals to defend themselves, while on the other they're simultaneously denying any responsibility to provide protection.

Who but government types would create such a flat out evil state of affairs? And then label it "justice." Puh-lease.

 

[CCTelander]

bump

 

[Thesemindz]

bump

 

[CCTelander]

I can't believe that this thread has gotten so little attention, especially considering how much attention the police abuse threads usually get.

 

[libertyjam]

old news

 

[CCTelander]

old news

Glad to see that you're well informed on the issue. But keep in mind that there are likely others who are not.

 

[InterestedParticipant]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

Do you recall where this story was originally posted?

I ask because one of their goals are to break-up our local police forces by reducing trust between police and the community, reducing the competency of police, dumb-down police training, under-fund police departments, and to highlight stories like this in the media.

So, while this is clearly an egregious act and total incompetence by the police, and a telling decision by the courts, I'm still left wondering if there is more to understand here.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

"Necessary tyranny" is organized crime. Organized crime is nothing more than good and bad men working together to exploit the masses. That is why we need to hold the Civil-Purpose of the people above the legal precedence of tyranny, the self evident and unalienable Truth above the stark reality we perceive with our five senses, and the natural law declared by our Founding Fathers above even the supreme law of the land.
This means not using our government as much as possible. We need to shut as much of it down as possible. The government needs to go back to doing what it use to do best -- picking up the garbage.

Amen to that!

 

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

The people's Civil Purpose supercedes legal precedence

So what are you supposed to do, if a cop pulls you over and asks if you've been drinking and you havn't? Do you say that I will not answer your question?

The "Truth" cannot be destroyed. Whoever falls by the wayside in their quest for it will be healed by the hand of the Almighty while those in contempt of it are in danger of standing in judgement.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

I see a lot of threads regarding police and their actions lately, so I thought this information might explain a few things. At the very least, it's good to know.

This is excerpted from one of my previous posts.

What amazing, totally outrageous, absolute rubbish this is.

How on earth do we the citizens allow these people to get away with being paid to protect us, yet they are not required to protect us??

I had no idea the laws in this country had reached this level of insanity. How *sweet* a deal this is for the ethically deficient.

This is something we could have fought, on a local level. Were we just not aware? Why didn't we object??

Anybody know?

 

[CCTelander]

What amazing, totally outrageous, absolute rubbish this is.

How on earth do we the citizens allow these people to get away with being paid to protect us, yet they are not required to protect us??

I had no idea the laws in this country had reached this level of insanity. How *sweet* a deal this is for the ethically deficient.

This is something we could have fought, on a local level. Were we just not aware? Why didn't we object??

Anybody know?

The legal doctrine of "sovereign" or qualified immunity has actually existed for hundreds of years. It came down to us from English common law.

If you think about it, there's no realistic way the "authorities" CAN be responsible for protecting our "rights," unless there's literally a cop for every individual.

Sovereign immunity does indeed suck. But the real question here, to me, is: If they aren't responsible for protecting our rights and, in reality simply couldn't even if they were to accept such a responsibility, then what do we need them for?

 

[InterestedParticipant]

The legal doctrine of "sovereign" or qualified immunity has actually existed for hundreds of years. It came down to us from English common law.

If you think about it, there's no realistic way the "authorities" CAN be responsible for protecting our "rights," unless there's literally a cop for every individual.

Sovereign immunity does indeed suck. But the real question here, to me, is: If they aren't responsible for protecting our rights and, in reality simply couldn't even if they were to accept such a responsibility, then what do we need them for?

We don't

 

[CCTelander]

We don't

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Police are above the law, or they are the law, as they are the agents of the ruling class. They scarcely protect citizens because they have no incentives to. They get paid one way or another as their relationship with citizens obviously is not voluntary, and their departments have no competition. Would you feel the need to go off and fight real crime under such conditions? No its dangerous, you would be more content to do miscellaneous shit like racking up ticket income from people who commit victimless crimes, like your superiors want you to do. You of course couldn't rock any boats, but you can easily get by just fine as a douche who provides little to no services.

And since the state has a monopoly on law/legislation, in the event of conflict between the state's agents and citizens, it will of course rule in the favor of its agents (even though they might have been the aggressors). A lot of cops get their rocks off pushing people around, we've all witnessed the "jackboot" psychology as Alex Jones would say. Just as democracy attracts the best liars and people with the least amount of moral scruples to become legislators, I imagine the same can apply to the legislation enforcers. Though of course this is a generalization and there are rare exceptions, the ingredients are all there to produce what can only laughably be called "service and protection" at a high and involuntary rate.

The only thing tugging them along is the need for at least the guise of providing a service, and the slow nagging of the political process. But there is an awful lot of propaganda surrounding the "boys in blue", and people can't imagine things being any other way to begin with.

 

[fisharmor]

If you haven't read about Deshaney v. Winnebago County, you probably should.
The decision is actually a consistent libertarian position.
Yes, it sucks profoundly that there is a 30 year old somewhere who has been in a home for the mentally retarded since age 4 simply because his father beat him, and yes, it sucks profoundly that it could have been prevented.
However, you can't be all for government intervention and libertarian at the same time.
What we need to remember most of all from that case is that the father only did 2 years in jail as a result.
That is the injustice of this case, not that the government didn't prevent it.

As already pointed out, the police can't prevent crime - they can only respond to it. I agree in theory with having a team of responders. Like the rest of you, I disagree sharply with the idea of having a team of prowlers.

Both cops and criminals are going to go for the easy targets. It's human nature, and it's simple economics. And the solution is also economic: increase the number of hard targets to reduce crime, and, since we can't reduce the number of easy targets for cops, we need to reduce the number of cops. Preferably to zero.

 

[ScoutsHonor]

The legal doctrine of "sovereign" or qualified immunity has actually existed for hundreds of years. It came down to us from English common law.

Slavery existed for hundreds of years too--that didn't stop us from doing away with it. This is totally immoral and irrational, and cannot be justified by "tradition."

If you think about it, there's no realistic way the "authorities" CAN be responsible for protecting our "rights," unless there's literally a cop for every individual.

Of course they can; they can be required by their contracts to respond to calls for help, as this is their job and their duty. If they do any less, they must be fired for negligence and incompetence, and perhaps be *sueable.*

Sovereign immunity does indeed suck. But the real question here, to me, is: If they aren't responsible for protecting our rights and, in reality simply couldn't even if they were to accept such a responsibility, then what do we need them for?

Same answer as IP's - we don't. But we DO need protective services. I wonder what the "AnCaps" recommend....

The (very obvious) point is, if they DO NOTHING, (1) they should not be getting paid, since this isn't Alice in Wonderland, last time I looked. And secondly, we the people do rightfully need protection of our persons and property assured to us, and these PARASITES stand as an obstruction to our ever having this rightful service, because they pretend to BE that service. But because they aren't, we are essentially left naked.

NOT a smart deal for the American people, to put it mildly!

 

[ScoutsHonor]

police are above the law, or they are the law, as they are the agents of the ruling class. They scarcely protect citizens because they have no incentives to. They get paid one way or another as their relationship with citizens obviously is not voluntary, and their departments have no competition. Would you feel the need to go off and fight real crime under such conditions? No its dangerous, you would be more content to do miscellaneous shit like racking up ticket income from people who commit victimless crimes, like your superiors want you to do. You of course couldn't rock any boats, but you can easily get by just fine as a douche who provides little to no services.

And since the state has a monopoly on law/legislation, in the event of conflict between the state's agents and citizens, it will of course rule in the favor of its agents (even though they might have been the aggressors). A lot of cops get their rocks off pushing people around, we've all witnessed the "jackboot" psychology as alex jones would say. Just as democracy attracts the best liars and people with the least amount of moral scruples to become legislators, i imagine the same can apply to the legislation enforcers. Though of course this is a generalization and there are rare exceptions, the ingredients are all there to produce what can only laughably be called "service and protection" at a high and involuntary rate.

The only thing tugging them along is the need for at least the guise of providing a service, and the slow nagging of the political process. But there is an awful lot of propaganda surrounding the "boys in blue", and people can't imagine things being any other way to begin with.

+100

 

[CCTelander]

Slavery existed for hundreds of years too--that didn't stop us from doing away with it. This is totally immoral and irrational, and cannot be justified by "tradition."

My appologies. I was probably a bit unclear in my response. I wasn't in any way defending sovereign or qualified immunity.

My first 2 comments were mainly in response to this part of your original post:

I had no idea the laws in this country had reached this level of insanity. How *sweet* a deal this is for the ethically deficient.

This is something we could have fought, on a local level. Were we just not aware? Why didn't we object??

It seemed to me that you were asking something along the lines of: "What, were WE asleep at the wheel here?" "How could we have let this happen?" etc.

My comments were meant to point out that WE didn't let anything happen. The legal doctrine of sovereign immunity has been "the law of the land" right from the beginning. It was foisted on us hundreds of years before anyone here was even born. The courts have consistently upheld it, at all levels, in every jurisdiction ever since.

Of course they can; they can be required by their contracts to respond to calls for help, as this is their job and their duty. If they do any less, they must be fired for negligence and incompetence, and perhaps be *sueable.*

If there's going to be government (I support a stateless society but that's another conversation), then EVERY person holding a position of power, no matter how innocuous or menial needs to be held 100% accountable for everything they do in that position. No immunity whatsoever under any circumstances.

Sadly, attempting to eliminate, or even cut back sovereign immunity is likely to be an even tougher battle than most other "reforms" would be. It cuts at the very roots, the foundations of government and those in power are NOT likely to allow anything to be done about it.

Furthermore, they really can't protect our "rights" to any significant degree, even if they wanted to. As an example:

About ten years ago I was mugged about half a block from my house. Six guys jumped me, beat the shit out of me and stole some money. It happened on a fairly busy street, although it was late at night.

There was no opportunity to even call for help, let alone time for said "help" to arrive. Couldn't even call the cops until I got back home, long after everything was over. They came out, took a report, including a statement by an eye witness, and that was it. Never found the guys, probably never even looked.

Even if the police WERE required to actually "protect" my "rights," what exactly could they have done? They weren't there, on the scene when the crime actually happened. Unless I had a cop going around with me everywhere I go, they usually won't be.

As the saying goes, "When seconds count the police (or even private protection agencies for that matter) are only MINUTES away."

With MANY crimes, perhaps even MOST, this is the case. Ultimately the responsibility for the defense of our "rights" rests squarely with us, 100%. WE'RE the ones who are there, on the scene, when the infringements actually happen. We're the only ones that can really do anything, except in rare cases, at that point.

Same answer as IP's - we don't. But we DO need protective services. I wonder what the "AnCaps" recommend....

Sure, we do need some kind of protection agencies. Somebody needs to investigate and find the perpetrators so we can seek restitution. But definitely NOT an organization granted a monopoly on the service, and with absolutely no incentives to actually do the right thing when the time comes.

The (very obvious) point is, if they DO NOTHING, (1) they should not be getting paid, since this isn't Alice in Wonderland, last time I looked. And secondly, we the people do rightfully need protection of our persons and property assured to us, and these PARASITES stand as an obstruction to our ever having this rightful service, because they pretend to BE that service. But because they aren't, we are essentially left naked.

Can't argue with you. They're pretty much useless as is. But even if the situation were otherwise, the responsibility for our own defense would still fall, most of the time, on us.

NOT a smart deal for the American people, to put it mildly!

One of MANY losuy deals the people get screwed with.