originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: boohoo
Enjoy your mental gymnastics.
Read the oath that local law enforcement takes upon swearing in. The one that most of them adhere to on a daily basis.
But I know that's not nearly as fun as misinterpreting and misconstruing legal decisions to support your narrative.
Great, everyone make note, Shamrock-Shake has had pleasant experiences with law enforcement and/or is in law enforcement. However, my experience with
LEO's is different and has been legally defended successfully, in court, against their infringements. The "culture of LEO's" taught me not to trust
them and anyone who does is REALLY asking for BIG trouble. Civilians should view the police no differently than police typically view the general
public, with suspicion.
I am educating people to "think first" about the motivations of LEO's, BEFORE interacting with them or contacting them. Which is a prudent course of
action for ANYONE whom is not on LEO payrolls. YOU on the other hand, are telling civilians, "not to worry about it" because LEO's swore an "oath"
and that the media's portrayal of police is simply and exaggeration. People are free to choose which narrative they believe and it seems to me the
majority of those under 40, that are not in or affiliated with law enforcement, are in my camp, not yours. Deal with the reality, police made their
bed and now must lay in it.
Here is an example of a sleepy county in Oregon, that is 92% white, with 56% of the population over 45 years of age, yet still VOTED TO DEFUND ITS
POLICE DEPARTMENT because they got sick of receiving unjust traffic tickets:
Defunding government is a sensible voter solution to reining in local government By Dave
Think about that for a minute, if LEO's can't hold the trust of small communities with these kinds of demographics, what chance do they stand anywhere
else? Not much. This should be a VERY CLEAR message that LEO's, in general, have lost the trust of the public.
Also, based on your comment that "dissenting narratives" against police are mere "mental gymnastics", thank you for again, for demonstrating that
Contemporary LEO's are in place to do the following, ESPECIALLY #6,
1. Protect themselves.
2. Maximize their total compensation.
3. Act as a source of revenue generation for the department currently employing them, the union they belong to and the local governments authorizing
4. Protecting the commercial interests of national corporations (with PAC's lobbying on the behalf of the big corporations)
5. Protecting the private property and political interests of large, influential, land owners, residing within their jurisdiction, that contribute and
participate in local politics.
6. Controlling dissenting narratives that would interfere with 1-5.
As for your comment about the "Oath" that LEO's typically take, lets use the LAPD oath for example, which seems to be MOSTLY concerned with swearing
to not overthrow the government:
"And I do further swear (or affirm) that I do not advocate, nor am I a member of any party or organization, political or other- wise, that now
advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means; that within
the five years immediately preceding the taking of this oath (or affirmation) I have not been a member of any party or organization, political or
other-wise, that advocated the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful
means. I will not advocate nor become (name of office) a member of any party or organization, political or otherwise, that advocates the overthrow of
the Government of the United States or of the State of California by force or violence or other unlawful means."
Here is another sample Oath, that focuses on "Peace with the Communities" within the "Sovereign Country and State":
I SWEAR,, THAT - I WILL WELL AND TRULY SERVE - OUR SOVEREIGN COUNTRY AND STATE - AS A POLICE OFFICER WITHOUT FAVOR OR AFFECTION - MALICE OR
ILL-WILL - UNTIL I AM LEGALLY DISCHARGED, THAT I WILL SEE AND CAUSE OUR COMMUNITY’S PEACE TO BE KEPT AND PRESERVED - AND THAT - I WILL PREVENT TO
THE BEST OF MY POWER - ALL OFFENSES AGAINST THAT PEACE - AND THAT - WHILE I CONTINUE TO BE A POLICE OFFICER
So exactly how, do these above noted sample Oaths, keep officers from "picking and choosing" when they attempt to "save someone from death or injury"
due to having no LEGAL obligation to act? Other than of course, having the LEGAL obligation to keep "Peace with the Communities" within the
"Sovereign Country and State" and also swearing to not overthrow the government.
Also, as Shamrock-Shake mentioned, Bowers v. DeVito established that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental
liability, BUT in another case, South v. Maryland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but
only a general duty to enforce the laws (as shown in the two above example Oath's). These ruling essentially give LEO's the freedom to "pick and
choose" who lives and who dies. Read the Warren v. D.C case, WHICH IS CLEARLY an instance of police "picking and choosing", despite being told
EXACTLY where the burglary is occurring.
edit on 10-7-2015 by boohoo because: (no reason given)