Hiring . . .

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
61

[quote]Sloth wrote:
As for the cop/fire fighter quip. You missed my point. A cop had better show up and risk his life attempting to save my ass from an armed man. I pay taxes for that service. I don’t need to run out and join the police force, to demand police assistance.[/quote]

Actually, courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981),(when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community). In other words, despite the fact that you pay taxes, the police owe no duty to serve you.

62

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As for the cop/fire fighter quip. You missed my point. A cop had better show up and risk his life attempting to save my ass from an armed man. I pay taxes for that service. I don’t need to run out and join the police force, to demand police assistance.

Actually, courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981),(when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community). In other words, despite the fact that you pay taxes, the police owe no duty to serve you.

[/quote]

I didn’t say I’d expect a full time police bodyguard…I assumed you’d understand that I’d expect a police officer to show up if I called 9-11 and complained I was being held up. Not an officer posted at my door 24/7.

63

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
A small price to pay for the privelige of living in a civilised environment. The only alternative would be to live the free life of the gatherer hunter.
They didn’t pay taxes and lived to the ripe old age of 35 or something.

And you jump right into some hunter-gatherer, primitive-anarchist scenario. Hunterer gatherers don’t set up a national defense. Nor, do they establish courts to mediate disputes. Do you wish to argue points being made? Or, will you construct our posistions for us?

Exactly, that’s why they didn’t pay taxes.
Thanks for making my point.[/quote]

What?

64

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As for the cop/fire fighter quip. You missed my point. A cop had better show up and risk his life attempting to save my ass from an armed man. I pay taxes for that service. I don’t need to run out and join the police force, to demand police assistance.

Actually, courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981),(when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community). In other words, despite the fact that you pay taxes, the police owe no duty to serve you.

I didn’t say I’d expect a full time police bodyguard…I assumed you’d understand that I’d expect a police officer to show up if I called 9-11 and complained I was being held up. Not an officer posted at my door 24/7.[/quote]

I know what you meant. Seriously, they don’t even have to show up. While this is a Washington D.C. case, it states the general rule quite well.

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

65

Force, initiated by government against those who are endangering no one, is unacceptable. Taxes are simply extortion. It therefore follows that until and unless we can devise a means of funding government wihout resort to force, we will have violent societies, wars, and on and on.

Imagine our standards of living if we did not have to fund violence! Wow!

66

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Every one of Kerry’s people is a WASP. Shocking!!!
[/quote]

HeadHunter-

Not all of Kerry’s peeps are wasps. In Fact, Kerry is not a WASP.

White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

Kerry happens to be a fine, upstanding Catholic.

Secondly- I wasn’t old enough to vote at the time, but I would have voted for bush over gore, jsut because he had Colin Powell for his secretary of state. When bush fired Colin, or when Colin resigned, ( Its kind of hard to tell, Colin said he would stand by the president as long as he would have him, so apparently the president didn’t want him any longer), but when Colin Powell left, so did any shred of respect I had for bush. Colin Powell is an awesome person, and in my humble opinion, Colin Powell is one of the best cabinet members he could have picked. Before Colin’s foray into politics, I beleive he could have easily been elected president. (Colin). I don’t beleive they even would have bothered holding elections, I think if Mr. Powell would have said he wanted the job, they would have handed him keys to the oval office that day. Now Mr. Powell’s record is a bit tainted, not by his own actions, but because of his association with the bush adminstration.

67

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Loose Tool wrote:
Sloth wrote:
As for the cop/fire fighter quip. You missed my point. A cop had better show up and risk his life attempting to save my ass from an armed man. I pay taxes for that service. I don’t need to run out and join the police force, to demand police assistance.

Actually, courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals, only the public in general. Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981),(when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community). In other words, despite the fact that you pay taxes, the police owe no duty to serve you.

I didn’t say I’d expect a full time police bodyguard…I assumed you’d understand that I’d expect a police officer to show up if I called 9-11 and complained I was being held up. Not an officer posted at my door 24/7.

I know what you meant. Seriously, they don’t even have to show up. While this is a Washington D.C. case, it states the general rule quite well.

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

[/quote]

The Clinton Crime Bill allows individuals to sue police departments for failure to protect. This came about because of domestic violence incidents where women would not leave batterer’s, and call the police several times a week. The cops got tired of showing up, because she wouldn’t leave. This also came about because of cops failing to enforce orders of protection filed by battered women against men.

68

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:

The Clinton Crime Bill allows individuals to sue police departments for failure to protect. This came about because of domestic violence incidents where women would not leave batterer’s, and call the police several times a week. The cops got tired of showing up, because she wouldn’t leave. This also came about because of cops failing to enforce orders of protection filed by battered women against men. [/quote]

When was the Clinton Crime Bill? It didn’t seem to help Mrs. Gonzales. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband).

69

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:

The Clinton Crime Bill allows individuals to sue police departments for failure to protect. This came about because of domestic violence incidents where women would not leave batterer’s, and call the police several times a week. The cops got tired of showing up, because she wouldn’t leave. This also came about because of cops failing to enforce orders of protection filed by battered women against men.

When was the Clinton Crime Bill? It didn’t seem to help Mrs. Gonzales. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband).

[/quote]

Restraining orders are civil. Orders of protection are criminal. if it was an order of protection, police can be sued. If its a civil matter, we can’t really do much.

70

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:
When was the Clinton Crime Bill? It didn’t seem to help Mrs. Gonzales. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband).

Restraining orders are civil. Orders of protection are criminal. if it was an order of protection, police can be sued. If its a civil matter, we can’t really do much.[/quote]

Now I’m puzzled. We are way off topic, but since you are the OP … On the back of the Gonzales restraining order were the following words,

"WARNING: A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME.

. . . A VIOLATION WILL ALSO CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT. YOU MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT NOTICE IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS ORDER."

The preprinted text on the back of the form also included a “NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS,” which read in part:

“YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST, OR, IF AN ARREST WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SEEK A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE RESTRAINED PERSON WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION AMOUNTING TO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER.”

So you’re saying that police are powerless to enforce a restraining order?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf

71

[quote]Loose Tool wrote:
BarneyFife wrote:
When was the Clinton Crime Bill? It didn’t seem to help Mrs. Gonzales. Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) (case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the court ruled, 7-2, that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband).

Restraining orders are civil. Orders of protection are criminal. if it was an order of protection, police can be sued. If its a civil matter, we can’t really do much.

Now I’m puzzled. We are way off topic, but since you are the OP … On the back of the Gonzales restraining order were the following words,

"WARNING: A KNOWING VIOLATION OF A RESTRAINING ORDER IS A CRIME.

. . . A VIOLATION WILL ALSO CONSTITUTE CONTEMPT OF COURT. YOU MAY BE ARRESTED WITHOUT NOTICE IF A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS ORDER."

The preprinted text on the back of the form also included a “NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS,” which read in part:

“YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST, OR, IF AN ARREST WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SEEK A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE RESTRAINED PERSON WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION AMOUNTING TO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER.”

So you’re saying that police are powerless to enforce a restraining order?

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/27jun20051200/www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/04-278.pdf[/quote]

I speak on Kansas Law only. In kansas, police powers concerning restraining orders are limited, but police powers concerning orders of protection are vast. I am sorry, I have overstretched my knowledge, and I can’t speak for the laws of other states.

72

[quote]BarneyFife wrote:

I speak on Kansas Law only. In kansas, police powers concerning restraining orders are limited, but police powers concerning orders of protection are vast. I am sorry, I have overstretched my knowledge, and I can’t speak for the laws of other states.[/quote]

To be fair, she sued the police under federal law, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, for violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause.

73

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Force, initiated by government against those who are endangering no one, is unacceptable. Taxes are simply extortion. It therefore follows that until and unless we can devise a means of funding government wihout resort to force, we will have violent societies, wars, and on and on.

Imagine our standards of living if we did not have to fund violence! Wow![/quote]

Taxes are a small price to pay for the privelige of living in a civilised environment. The only alternative would be to live the free life of the gatherer hunter.
They didn’t pay taxes and lived to the ripe old age of 35 or something.

74

[quote]Sloth wrote:
…
Basically, it’s an idiotic expectation that those with an opinion on present military actions must support the draft. Or, have been in the military.[/quote]

So do you think it’s a silly coincidence that those who insisted on invading Iraq weren’t so tough when they had the chance to put their own life on the line?

And that the guys who did have the balls to put their life on the line, like Powell, weren’t so eager to invade?

75

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Sloth wrote:
…
Basically, it’s an idiotic expectation that those with an opinion on present military actions must support the draft. Or, have been in the military.

So do you think it’s a silly coincidence that those who insisted on invading Iraq weren’t so tough when they had the chance to put their own life on the line?

And that the guys who did have the balls to put their life on the line, like Powell, weren’t so eager to invade?[/quote]

There are plenty, who support the war, in Iraq fighting. Shall we play a game of dueling troop quotes, those for and against? Your argument makes zero sense. It’s like calling those that complain of Iraqi civilian deaths, by American troop actions, cowards for not helping to chase the troops out. Hey, if you feel like innocent civilians are being killed, don’t you have a duty to go help protect them? They’re both stupid arguements.

76

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Force, initiated by government against those who are endangering no one, is unacceptable. Taxes are simply extortion. It therefore follows that until and unless we can devise a means of funding government wihout resort to force, we will have violent societies, wars, and on and on.

Imagine our standards of living if we did not have to fund violence! Wow![/quote]

If you look at any advanced industrialized nation in the world every single one of their economies is state supported. Meaning that a huge amount of money is funneled into corporations from the tax payers - most of it straight through the pentagon in the case of the U.S… Without this funding our economy would collapse over night. Why you ask? Because America couldn’t compete with any other nation that subsidizes their industries. Almost every major (Boeing, IBM, steel industry, agriculture, etc.) industry is heavily subsidized by the U.S. government. This isn’t controversial or a ‘Liberal’ conspiracy but basic economics 101.

77

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
jason1122 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

See, here’s ‘the rub’ in your argument Jason (and I AM NOT flaming you in any way): There will always be someone who says, “Well, what if I don’t WANT to serve voluntarily? What if I don’t CARE about the poor or homeless in any way?” Eventually, the society begins to apply brute force to obtain ‘cooperation’. It becomes too much of a temptation. Thus, we come to accept more and more coersion. That’s how it has worked with taxes and regulations over the past 100 years or so.

[/quote]

If that was true you would see this already happening in Israel where mandatory service is standard practice. In fact the 18 year old “Ms. Israel” was recently granted a waiver from carrying her rifle while marching because it was bruising her leg and preventing her from modeling.

However, your argument theoretically could apply here in the U.S. if you make the case that American youth are more than likely to reject any forced servitude.

78

[quote]snipeout wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Any man who dodged the draft should be proud. Conscription is slavery. The state does not own me, or you. I don’t care what the personal intent of the person was, or their personal courage. Again, the government does not own us, and has no right to force a free man into military service.

Technically by this line of thinking why does the governement have the right to pass laws against stealing or anything else. Why do people always think that since they pay taxes they are entitled to everything. Those soldiers that are funded by YOUR taxes also pay taxes.[/quote]

I thought combat troops (and all troops in dangerous situations) ot their pay tax-free.

This is not a joke or a snipe (no pun intended): I am sincerely wondering.

79

[quote]harris447 wrote:
snipeout wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Any man who dodged the draft should be proud. Conscription is slavery. The state does not own me, or you. I don’t care what the personal intent of the person was, or their personal courage. Again, the government does not own us, and has no right to force a free man into military service.

Technically by this line of thinking why does the governement have the right to pass laws against stealing or anything else. Why do people always think that since they pay taxes they are entitled to everything. Those soldiers that are funded by YOUR taxes also pay taxes.

I thought combat troops (and all troops in dangerous situations) ot their pay tax-free.

This is not a joke or a snipe (no pun intended): I am sincerely wondering.[/quote]

It’s only tax free up to a certain amount per year. It’s also only fed tax free, you still get taxed by your state, FICA and medicare. Those same soldiers that are tax free in a combat zone do pay taxes when they are not deployed.