Posted by BrianNZ on October 18, 2009, 9:48 pm
J. Clarke wrote:
> BrianNZ wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal failing
>>>>>>>> to pull over for the police that caused the crash....they were
>>>>>>>> just doing their job.
>>>>>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death of
>>>>>>> an innocent bystander?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SQ
>>>>>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>>>>> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts the
>>>>> maneuver and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would not
>>>>> have if the cop had not done it then the blame lies with the cop.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the
>>>>> responsibility to exercise judgment and does not excuse them when
>>>>> they failed to properly do so.
>>>>>
>>>> The cop has a responsibility to catch criminals. As soon as the
>>>> blue'n' reds go on and you fail to stop, everything that happens
>>>> from that moment on is your responsibility.
>>> So if a cop decides to blow up a building to catch a kid who stole a
>>> penny candy, it's the kid's fault?
>>
>>
>> Now thats a bit of a stretch from a cop carrying out a PIT manouvre
>> on a stolen car. :)
>
> Not at all. If it's OK for police to willfully endanger the public by
> running a car off the road in such a manner that it endangers pedestrians,
> then why is it not OK for them to just blow up a building?
It is the criminal who has 'willfully endangered' the pedestrians by not
stopping for the police in the first place.
The cops will blow apart buildings if they think it's necessary, doors,
walls smashed down during drug/anti-terrorist raids.
Does the name WACO ring any bells?
>
>>> Maybe in New Zealand the police are above the law and bear no
>>> responsbility for any actions taken in the attempt to capture a
>>> criminal, but in the United States the police are answerable to the
>>> law the same as anybody else and "we caught the criminal" does not
>>> excuse their leaving a trail of carnage.
>>>
>>> When the police start thinking that their duty is "to catch
>>> criminals" and not "to protect society" then the society they serve
>>> is in trouble.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I know, no buildings in NZ have been blown up to catch a
>> crim.
>
> So you're draw the line there?
>
Common sense drew that line before you typed it.
>> But the police have shot dead a person when they missed who
>> they were aiming at.....no charges laid against the police.
>
> In the US the victim's survivors would be sueing the officer and the
> department and very likely would collect substantial damages. And if the
> cop was not tried or terminated he'd very likely be driving a desk for the
> rest of his career.
>
Here it goes down as a tragic mistake....carry on....nothing to see
here.....
>>>> Would you prefer the cops let the criminal carry on at speed and
>>>> just hope he doesn't kill an innocent person along the way....and
>>>> be free to do the same again because he knows the cops will back
>>>> off?
>>> Yeah, far, far better to make him crash into a crowd and remove all
>>> doubt.
>>>
>> ....the same crowd he may have crashed into while fleeing? (even
>> though the chase was called off)
>
> Why would he run off the road absent a cop crashing his car into him?
>
Because he's speeding in a stolen car, on drugs, pissed off his face?
(Well, it is 'what if' land. :) ). You never know what might happen
when criminals have free reign..........
Posted by J. Clarke on October 18, 2009, 10:21 pm
BrianNZ wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>>>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal
>>>>>>>>> failing to pull over for the police that caused the
>>>>>>>>> crash....they were just doing their job.
>>>>>>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death
>>>>>>>> of an innocent bystander?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SQ
>>>>>>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>>>>>> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts
>>>>>> the maneuver and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would
>>>>>> not have if the cop had not done it then the blame lies with the
>>>>>> cop.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the
>>>>>> responsibility to exercise judgment and does not excuse them when
>>>>>> they failed to properly do so.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The cop has a responsibility to catch criminals. As soon as the
>>>>> blue'n' reds go on and you fail to stop, everything that happens
>>>>> from that moment on is your responsibility.
>>>> So if a cop decides to blow up a building to catch a kid who stole
>>>> a penny candy, it's the kid's fault?
>>>
>>>
>>> Now thats a bit of a stretch from a cop carrying out a PIT manouvre
>>> on a stolen car. :)
>>
>> Not at all. If it's OK for police to willfully endanger the public
>> by running a car off the road in such a manner that it endangers
>> pedestrians, then why is it not OK for them to just blow up a
>> building?
>>
> It is the criminal who has 'willfully endangered' the pedestrians by
> not stopping for the police in the first place.
> The cops will blow apart buildings if they think it's necessary,
> doors, walls smashed down during drug/anti-terrorist raids.
> Does the name WACO ring any bells?
Yes, it does, and it's the kind of clusterfuck that happens when police
behave as you suggest they should behave. They did the same thing at Ruby
Ridge only they failed to kill their victim, and he did sucessfully sue
them.
>>>> Maybe in New Zealand the police are above the law and bear no
>>>> responsbility for any actions taken in the attempt to capture a
>>>> criminal, but in the United States the police are answerable to the
>>>> law the same as anybody else and "we caught the criminal" does not
>>>> excuse their leaving a trail of carnage.
>>>>
>>>> When the police start thinking that their duty is "to catch
>>>> criminals" and not "to protect society" then the society they serve
>>>> is in trouble.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As far as I know, no buildings in NZ have been blown up to catch a
>>> crim.
>>
>> So you're draw the line there?
>>
> Common sense drew that line before you typed it.
I see, so the restriction on police behavior is _your_ notion of "common
sense"?
>>> But the police have shot dead a person when they missed who
>>> they were aiming at.....no charges laid against the police.
>>
>> In the US the victim's survivors would be sueing the officer and the
>> department and very likely would collect substantial damages. And
>> if the cop was not tried or terminated he'd very likely be driving a
>> desk for the rest of his career.
>>
> Here it goes down as a tragic mistake....carry on....nothing to see
> here.....
Well, you see, we believe that police should be held to a higher standard
than that, perhaps, because, being an armed society, we as a group know full
well that there is _no_ excuse for discharging a firearm without knowing
what is in the line of fire.
>>>>> Would you prefer the cops let the criminal carry on at speed and
>>>>> just hope he doesn't kill an innocent person along the way....and
>>>>> be free to do the same again because he knows the cops will back
>>>>> off?
>>>> Yeah, far, far better to make him crash into a crowd and remove all
>>>> doubt.
>>>>
>>> ....the same crowd he may have crashed into while fleeing? (even
>>> though the chase was called off)
>>
>> Why would he run off the road absent a cop crashing his car into him?
>>
> Because he's speeding in a stolen car, on drugs, pissed off his face?
> (Well, it is 'what if' land. :) ). You never know what might happen
> when criminals have free reign..........
So the alternatives are that the cops make criminals crash into crowds or
criminals have "free rein"?
Posted by Twibil on October 19, 2009, 2:12 pm
> So the alternatives are that the cops make criminals crash into crowds or
> criminals have "free rein"?
I don't always agree with your posts, but you just called that one
perfectly. We have a local DA who tries to use that same sophomoric
debating tactic whenever anyone points out that he's spending half-
again his alloted budget every year.
Says he, from atop his extremely high horse, "Well, which criminals do
you want me to let go free then?" as if that were the only possible
alternative to his actions.
A peace officer's primary job should be to protect the public, not to
just blindly enforce the law at all costs. After all: the laws were
enacted to protect the public in the first place!
Posted by dizzy on October 19, 2009, 8:27 am
BrianNZ wrote:
>Common sense drew that line before you typed it.
God damn, you are a brain-dead fscktarded asshole.
Just amazing.
Posted by BrianNZ on October 19, 2009, 3:13 pm
dizzy wrote:
> BrianNZ wrote:
>
>> Common sense drew that line before you typed it.
>
> God damn, you are a brain-dead fscktarded asshole.
>
> Just amazing.
>
Always happy to amaze......The dizzier you are the easier it is.
XML Sitemap
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal failing
>>>>>>>> to pull over for the police that caused the crash....they were
>>>>>>>> just doing their job.
>>>>>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death of
>>>>>>> an innocent bystander?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SQ
>>>>>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>>>>> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts the
>>>>> maneuver and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would not
>>>>> have if the cop had not done it then the blame lies with the cop.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the
>>>>> responsibility to exercise judgment and does not excuse them when
>>>>> they failed to properly do so.
>>>>>
>>>> The cop has a responsibility to catch criminals. As soon as the
>>>> blue'n' reds go on and you fail to stop, everything that happens
>>>> from that moment on is your responsibility.
>>> So if a cop decides to blow up a building to catch a kid who stole a
>>> penny candy, it's the kid's fault?
>>
>>
>> Now thats a bit of a stretch from a cop carrying out a PIT manouvre
>> on a stolen car. :)
>
> Not at all. If it's OK for police to willfully endanger the public by
> running a car off the road in such a manner that it endangers pedestrians,
> then why is it not OK for them to just blow up a building?