Lovelle Mixon: Oakland Police Shooter Kills 4 Cops

[Heracles 417]

Yep. The litter box is getting pretty smelly...I think BY has an intestinal parasite.

Dude your liberal yank ####### doesn't work with me. Save it for your buddies and clowns like Private Azz.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation

[natty bumppo 297]

First 2 officers killed were on motorcycles, making a traffic stop. The second two(SWAT) were trying to get to the criminal in an apartment - not an easy place to approach.

So sad.

Absolutely.

...., now having 4 less police officers to protect and serve.

Police are to "protect"? Does this mean they are liable should somebody not be "protected" from a crime?

Well in that case would the cop be proven to have been sitting on his ####### while the crime was in commission? Doubt it brother Natty. Most cops I know aren't like that.

Who cares what the cop was doing at the time of a crime. The LEO could have been taking the daily constitutional ... and thereby been busy elsewhere.

A fact of law and of practical necessity is that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection is what it is ... only an auxiliary general deterrent. Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing. (note there are a very few exceptions to this and "special case" needs to be proven)

Start with:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

there are more cases available for reference.

Specific for CA

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."

Feel free to update the above information ....

[Peikko 1,575]

Perhaps BY should go in there with his sawed-off...

It's like arguing with a rock.

Your the one who has a fit when someone doesn't bow down to your conversational level. Remember, your buddy Alex+R used to pull the same #######. Where the second you didn't discuss what she wanted or the angle she wanted to discuss, she threw out the insults.

Which in this case you are clearly blaming the weapon (high power riffle) rather than the perpetrator. Another reason you spit the dummy is because your hypocrisy is caught out. Like you are pro legalizing drugs and are against the old prohibition but are for restricting guns. I'm guessing in your brain this is not moronic..

No one is blaming the weapon rather than the criminal. Why can't you see what is clearly written?

[Heracles 417]

No one is blaming the weapon rather than the criminal. Why can't you see what is clearly written?

Yeah I must have missed that amongst you teaming up with Hal to antagonize. Which you don't do of course, right Cleo?

A feel the you are just whining response will be posted soon. Well after you guys are done insulting of course. Apparently there is no better way to prove your are correct than insulting someone. The second you call them an idiot, etc it's checkmate.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps you need to calm down BY.

[Peikko 1,575]

First 2 officers killed were on motorcycles, making a traffic stop. The second two(SWAT) were trying to get to the criminal in an apartment - not an easy place to approach.

So sad.

Absolutely.

...., now having 4 less police officers to protect and serve.

Police are to "protect"? Does this mean they are liable should somebody not be "protected" from a crime?

Well in that case would the cop be proven to have been sitting on his ####### while the crime was in commission? Doubt it brother Natty. Most cops I know aren't like that.

Who cares what the cop was doing at the time of a crime. The LEO could have been taking the daily constitutional ... and thereby been busy elsewhere.

A fact of law and of practical necessity is that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection is what it is ... only an auxiliary general deterrent. Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing. (note there are a very few exceptions to this and "special case" needs to be proven)

Start with:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

there are more cases available for reference.

Specific for CA

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."

Feel free to update the above information ....

Quite rightly there are provisions in place so that people can't 'blame' the police for every and any action by criminal elements, that's just common sense. However, I am failing to see what that has to do with anything relating to this incident.

[Peikko 1,575]

No one is blaming the weapon rather than the criminal. Why can't you see what is clearly written?

Yeah I must have missed that amongst you teaming up with Hal to antagonize. Which you don't do of course, right Cleo?

A feel the you are just whining response will be posted soon. Well after you guys are done insulting of course. Apparently there is no better way to prove your are correct than insulting someone. The second you call them an idiot, etc it's checkmate.

As VW would say, I am not responsible for that which you find antagonistic. Do not blame me for your anger issues.

Clearly BY, we were having a little fun, nothing subversive about it. You can of course make it out to be so much more than what it was, that's up to you entirely.

[Heracles 417]

Perhaps you need to calm down BY.

You would have to get angry to calm down. Now considering you guys have pulled the same moves (insults) before, a good 100 times now, the outcome of a thread is a given. So no reason to get angry. Those known as the group's responses can be predicted like clock work.

Like Steven 'for example', he'll create a thread and accuse republicans of XYZ. Now unless you answer him directly back on XYZ, he will refuse to answer and throw our the anecdotal / tangent / insults. So how do you have a discussion with someone who wants black and white answers to a biased topic of their choice. Which may or may not be true. Someone who has the same thought process and bias as Michael Moore who will talk about Canada's health care but not touch on the fact that in Canada you cannot sue your health provider for frivolous things. Then when you try bring this up, it's a case of going on a tangent or off topic.

In person with people like that we either knock each other out or don't talk with one another period.

[HAL 9000 96]

First 2 officers killed were on motorcycles, making a traffic stop. The second two(SWAT) were trying to get to the criminal in an apartment - not an easy place to approach.

So sad.

Absolutely.

...., now having 4 less police officers to protect and serve.

Police are to "protect"? Does this mean they are liable should somebody not be "protected" from a crime?

Well in that case would the cop be proven to have been sitting on his ####### while the crime was in commission? Doubt it brother Natty. Most cops I know aren't like that.

Who cares what the cop was doing at the time of a crime. The LEO could have been taking the daily constitutional ... and thereby been busy elsewhere.

A fact of law and of practical necessity is that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection is what it is ... only an auxiliary general deterrent. Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing. (note there are a very few exceptions to this and "special case" needs to be proven)

Start with:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

there are more cases available for reference.

Specific for CA

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."

Feel free to update the above information ....

I think you're tagging another topic altogether.

FWIW- I do not think liability is an issue in common law enforcement activity. That is nitpicking and ironically we agree on the basic premise. Usually, liability is not something taken against the police in terms of legal/civil action in order to recover civilian loss (usually material) as a result of law enforcement activity. Civil government, on the other hand, frequently has to pay out in many cases when it is proven that police negligence (negligence is the key word) is at fault. Then whatever civil authority oversees the poilce deals with the police negligence administratively.

I think you should start a campaign for removing the 'To Protect and Serve' decals from police vehicles.

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, those 'group' responses again. Yeah, 'we' are all out to try to get you BY. 'We' are circling in our wagons ready for the 'kill'

You are entertaining BY, I like it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps you need to calm down BY.

You would have to get angry to calm down. Now considering you guys have pulled the same moves (insults) before, a good 100 times now, the outcome of a thread is a given. So no reason to get angry. Those known as the group's responses can be predicted like clock work.

Like Steven 'for example', he'll create a thread and accuse republicans of XYZ. Now unless you answer him directly back on XYZ, he will refuse to answer and throw our the anecdotal / tangent / insults. So how do you have a discussion with someone who wants black and white answers to a biased topic of their choice. Which may or may not be true. Someone who has the same thought process and bias as Michael Moore who will talk about Canada's health care but not touch on the fact that in Canada you cannot sue your health provider for frivolous things. Then when you try bring this up, it's a case of going on a tangent or off topic.

In person with people like that we either knock each other out or don't talk with one another period.

Do you have any idea what you sound like?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

FWIW- I do not think liability is an issue in common law enforcement activity. That is nitpicking and ironically we agree on the basic premise. Usually, liability is not something taken against the police in terms of legal/civil action in order to recover civilian loss (usually material) as a result of law enforcement activity. Civil government, on the other hand, frequently has to pay out in many cases when it is proven that police negligence (negligence is the key word) is at fault. Then whatever civil authority oversees the poilce deals with the police negligence administratively.

I think you should start a campaign for removing the 'To Protect and Serve' decals from police vehicles.

To be replaced with: "Everyone for themselves"

I almost typed "every man" but that wouldn't fly with political correctness

[HAL 9000 96]

First 2 officers killed were on motorcycles, making a traffic stop. The second two(SWAT) were trying to get to the criminal in an apartment - not an easy place to approach.

So sad.

Absolutely.

...., now having 4 less police officers to protect and serve.

Police are to "protect"? Does this mean they are liable should somebody not be "protected" from a crime?

Well in that case would the cop be proven to have been sitting on his ####### while the crime was in commission? Doubt it brother Natty. Most cops I know aren't like that.

Who cares what the cop was doing at the time of a crime. The LEO could have been taking the daily constitutional ... and thereby been busy elsewhere.

A fact of law and of practical necessity is that individuals are responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Police protection is what it is ... only an auxiliary general deterrent. Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing. (note there are a very few exceptions to this and "special case" needs to be proven)

Start with:

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.

there are more cases available for reference.

Specific for CA

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."

Feel free to update the above information ....

Quite rightly there are provisions in place so that people can't 'blame' the police for every and any action by criminal elements, that's just common sense. However, I am failing to see what that has to do with anything relating to this incident.

The legal precedent Natty's mentioning has more to do with there not really being a legal obligation to protect individuals in the community from incidental damage. Nevertheless, it is quite common sense that the police force makes an ethical and departmental oath to do exactly as such within the context of protecting and upholding civil law. All of it.

[HAL 9000 96]

FWIW- I do not think liability is an issue in common law enforcement activity. That is nitpicking and ironically we agree on the basic premise. Usually, liability is not something taken against the police in terms of legal/civil action in order to recover civilian loss (usually material) as a result of law enforcement activity. Civil government, on the other hand, frequently has to pay out in many cases when it is proven that police negligence (negligence is the key word) is at fault. Then whatever civil authority oversees the poilce deals with the police negligence administratively.

I think you should start a campaign for removing the 'To Protect and Serve' decals from police vehicles.

To be replaced with: "Everyone for themselves"

I almost typed "every man" but that wouldn't fly with political correctness

There indeed lies a major problem with interpreting the Second Amendment of the Constitution as an invitation for US society to be a Western shootout between civilians and criminals and/or civilians and the government they feel is always looking to take their guns.

Nothing could be further from reality in cases exemplified by this instance of one criminal murdering 4 police officers doing their duty to get a criminal off the streets.

[Heracles 417]

As VW would say, I am not responsible for that which you find antagonistic. Do not blame me for your anger issues.

Clearly BY, we were having a little fun, nothing subversive about it. You can of course make it out to be so much more than what it was, that's up to you entirely.

Yes because you guys pull the same ####### on her. As you do with others.

I don't have a problem with people having fun or even a joke at my expense but there is a place and time for it. Obviously this thread is discussing serious issues in our society and is not about poking cheap shots at one another.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions as you are your own. The issue here is that certain people with certain beliefs always have a problem accepting opinions that are contrary that that of their own. When it came close to election time you guys even pulled the same ####### with Gary out of all people. Which shows anyone who stands up and punches back gets a big bulls eyes painted on them. Obviously to some a differing opinion is a green light to antagonize, insult and so on rather than a discussion. This has been the theme of OT VJ for years now. The fact is more lefties do it than those on the right. at least on epats we all have the chance to throw punches equally without someone being suspended.

As I said earlier, I don't care how Steven talks to his liberal yank buddies but spare me with the #######. You don't see me hurling insults to the 95% of his posts and opinions I don't agree with and think are utterly moronic. I can't attack Private azz as he has no stance on anything.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation