Field Expedient Weapons & Monkey Stomping!

[NousDefionsDoc]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...o_wews/2334207

That's what I'm talking about! Fookin' perv!

[Roguish Lawyer]

LMAO

The girl's aunt admitted to sexually assaulting Russo with a tree branch, police said.

The incident was caught on tape.

Meanwhile, police said that citizens should not take matters into their own hands

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
LMAO

I disagree.

Since the police have no requirement to protect me, I think people have to do what they have to.

If I were sitting on the jury, I would not vote to convict any of them.

Now let's talk about my favorite legal topic,

JURY NULLIFICATION!!

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
I disagree.

I am laughing at the pervert, not at the people who got him.

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by The Reaper
Now let's talk about my favorite legal topic,

JURY NULLIFICATION!!

Not here. How about in general discussions?

Since this incident happened just north of my AO, TR why do you think we don't have an obligation to protect you?

[Bravo1-3]

It appears that the Assaulter and Assaultee are are ex spouses.

Maybe there was a bit more to it than meets the eye.

Fuck him, serves him right if its true.

I totally agree, he deserved it and probably more. But none the less, we have to do our job, go through the motions, make the right statements and just be "politically correct" now days. This, however, doesn't mean that I cannot drag my feet when doing the investigation and really crawl if I have to make an arrest. The fact remains though if nothing happens to these evil "vigilantes" then N. Royalton will have their department investigated by the FBI, ACLU, and the other liberal }_)(*%@%^&* bottom feeding degenerates going after them. You want to give these people medals of appreciation for their courage but not today or anytime in the near future. Now, in the public's eye(s), is the police department the "bad" guys or will they be known as just doing their job if they have to make arrests?

[The Reaper]

Originally posted by MAB32
Since this incident happened just north of my AO, TR why do you think we don't have an obligation to protect you?

Suits against law enforcement agencies across this country have determined that law enforcement has no obligation to protect any citizens (except for those in their custody), and exist to provide public services and investigate criminal acts.

"Case Histories

Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).

Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.]

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989). Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)

About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990) Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship'' existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship'' to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.

A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship'' can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

In this specific case, I think that you have to do your job, and the DA's office is responsible for bringing charges or not.

TR

Yes, I know these things happen. That is the reason why I have no problem with the public being armed as long as they attend a good reputable shooting school. Any LEO here or anywhere else that tells you that they can and will protect you is a bold face liar, period! With an average of 3-4 minute response time as a national average you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to do whatever it takes to defend the pride.

[Bravo1-3]

Originally posted by MAB32
With an average of 3-4 minute response time as a national average you owe it to yourself and your loved ones to do whatever it takes to defend the pride.

As much as I support our Sheriffs Department, even at full throttle they can't get here that fast, which is something of a shame since I don't exactly live in the sticks.

There's actually a more precident setting case from the late 1800's or early 1900's in which the US Supreme Court basically ruled that the purpose of law enforcement is not to protect the individual, but rather the community. I'll look up the name / citation when I get a chance on Monday or Tuesday, but it is the key piece of precident law cited in defending police departments against negligence charges of this nature.

Not saying that there isn't legislation or court decisions about whether I am obligated to protect you or not, I just haven't heard of any in Ohio yet and we never recieved that memo to stop doing our job. When you take an oath in Ohio to be LEO, you swear to uphold the Constitution of this wonderful country, the laws of the state of Ohio, and to protect and serve the community in which your jurisdictional powers lay. I will protect you if I can get there fast enough or if we are both lucky and I am right there, but at least in my department the elected official is more worried about his cars getting banged up then he is saving our little corner of the world. I have said this before in other places and I will say it again here for the record:

"I cannot always be there when the crap hits the fan for you, therefore, please, I beg of you, get a firearm, become qualified to use it and practice, practice, and practice, and if the moment of truth arrives do not hesitate to use it. I have absolutely no problem coming to your house reading you your rights and in the same breath telling you to shut up until your lawyer arrives! Again any LEO out there that tells you to your face that he is the only person who should be able to own and carry a weapon should be considered literally armed and very dangerous to the public. He is on his own little ego trip and needs his sidearm to show you that he is in charge!"

[Jgood]

I think he got off lucky had it been my daughter . i think i would have shot him to death.(AZ is a big state maybe they wouldnt find the body)

[NousDefionsDoc]

Vigilante justice has been growing in LATAM for some time now.

I once watched the results of an entire town turn out to thwart the kidnapping of a local elderly woman who was benefactor to the school and owned most of the local businesses, including the gas station (social center).

First indication was several young physically fit men running through the bush like striped-assed gazelles. Me and partner couldn't figure out what was going on until we saw the townspeople come over the hill. They were carrying flashlights - looked like a mob scene from a movie. Very funny to watch.

Most of it comes in economically depressed areas where there is little or no police presence. But I have also seen individual cases among the more well to do.

Another good example of vigilantisim was the case with Mr. Richard "I am Satan" Rameriz in S. California when he made the mistake of committing a crime in front of eveybody. He is very lucky that the police arrived before they killed him.