Reports of multiple officers down in Baton Rouge - CONFIRMED

a reply to: odzeandennz

This is what I believe she is referring to and she is correct.

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 that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

originally posted by: Rosinitiate
a reply to: marg6043

Are you arguing just to argue? How many times has there been mass killing of LEO's back to back and the curtails of "peaceful" protests?
.

once. last week

a reply to: neo96

Magpul makes a 25 rounder.

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: odzeandennz

This is what I believe she is referring to and she is correct.

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 that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

of course. an obscure provision from 1981 which was probably put in place for a specific reason and because of probably regulation driven as opposed to actual citizen's lives not being an officer's job..

makes sense.

im sure this is what all new aspiring police officers everywhere go by before they join the academy.

I can see these police shootings & race carded situations being the stepping-stones for the Strong Cities network to get their UN troops operating in major US cities across the country.

originally posted by: uninspired

originally posted by: neo96
Fox is reporting an 'AR-10'.

Anyone confirm that ?

Also from the earlier reports the AR-10 doesn't hold 30 rounds.

Due to the larger caliber size.

I think the most common is 20rnds...however you can get 50rnd mags for sure, possibly bigger.

They actually make 100-round twin-drum mags for the AR-10.

a reply to: onequestion

The question not often enough asked is "Protect and Serve Who or What from What??.".

Codes can't be harmed, how is it a crime is supposedly committed without a damaged party?.

Don't ask those type of questions, just scurry around and keep too busy to ponder such things....

Revenge killings will not solve anything.

And that's what this is-revenge killing begets another; the populace could bet their life savings on the odds of a retaliatory attack. Police are also a minority and most perform their duties well. To target all for the crimes of a few makes those few rogues who support BLM no better than ISIS.

Not all cops are bad and not all black people are bad; it's just the few bad sheep that are creating tension and both the police and the BLM should implore people to ask questions first.

a reply to: Domo1

Yeah, they don't have to get cats out of trees anymore. Oh, nvm. That was the fire department.

CNN reporter/guest just said "we don't know why this happened."

Um, seriously CNN? Do they really think we are that dense?? Why won't they report the reasons our police are now being hunted down?

What a sick, sad world we live in. And it is only getting worse.

originally posted by: Thecakeisalie
Revenge killings will not solve anything.

And that's what this is-revenge killing begets another; the populace could bet their life savings on the odds of a retaliatory attack.

Police are also a minority and most perform their duties well. To target all for the crimes of a few makes those few rogues who support BLM no better than ISIS.

if this is revenge killing, then i suspect the toll is going to rise... unfortunately.

sad its come to this...

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
...Addis police... called in FBI. The two are being questioned at state police HQ.

The local police should fight any loss of control of their own investigation. Funny how the Feds always push themselves into these things. Next stop: lone gunman it is!

originally posted by: Domo1
a reply to: odzeandennz

This is what I believe she is referring to and she is correct.

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 that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

To put this to rest: the quoted case law was enacted to prevent people from being able to sue their local police agency for not preventing a home invasion, carjacking, robbery, etc.

To be blunt: were it not for this ruling, the only way law enforcement agencies could keep from being sued for not PREVENTING a crime would be to park somebody on your couch 24/7, and to act as your personal body guard any time a person left their home.

So no, police can't be held civilly liable for not preventing somebody from stealing your TV. That does not equate to there not being a duty to the public at large to enforce laws and make arrests, ergo protecting the public.

Media just put out the narrative that this was organized by the sovereign citizens movement

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
...Addis police... called in FBI. The two are being questioned at state police HQ.

The local police should fight any loss of control of their own investigation. Funny how the Feds always push themselves into these things. Next stop: lone gunman it is!

Local agencies don't have the resources that state and federal agencies have.

Having the FBI conduct an interview is not the same as letting the FBI take over.

originally posted by: starviego

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
...Addis police... called in FBI. The two are being questioned at state police HQ.

The local police should fight any loss of control of their own investigation. Funny how the Feds always push themselves into these things. Next stop: lone gunman it is!

Isn't there a rule regarding federal intervention in local and state cases? I think there is, have no clue as to whether the rule has been circumvented though.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
That does not equate to there not being a duty to the public at large to enforce laws and make arrests, ergo protecting the public.

Isn't that what I said.

There job is to enforce laws and make arrests?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Shamrock6
That does not equate to there not being a duty to the public at large to enforce laws and make arrests, ergo protecting the public.

Isn't that what I said.

There job is to enforce laws and make arrests?

And by extension protect the public?

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
a reply to: onequestion

The question not often enough asked is "Protect and Serve Who or What from What??.".

Codes can't be harmed, how is it a crime is supposedly committed without a damaged party?.

Don't ask those type of questions, just scurry around and keep too busy to ponder such things....

Your sovereign citizen freeman on the land approach to law doesn't actually work. But for just three easy installments of $29.99 we all can learn how to argue and lose in court, right?

Man overboard!