Lovelle Mixon: Oakland Police Shooter Kills 4 Cops

[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 ....

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.

someone earlier appeared to have a doubt about the topic ... so I simply put some hard data on the table.

On a side note ... It's been a long time since I've seen the P&S words on a police vehicle. Maybe it's just the parts of the country I've lived in and visited. Usually the information is "Police", "Sheriff", "State Police", "Municipal Police", "Emergency 911", etc. To post the words P&S should be considered false advertising ...

Now vehicles with P&S used in hollywood ... that's a different story ...

Edited March 23, 2009 by Natty Bumppo

[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.

someone earlier appeared to have a doubt about the topic ... so I simply put some hard data on the table.

On a side note ... It's been a long time since I've seen the P&S words on a police vehicle. Maybe it's just the parts of the country I've lived in and visited. Usually the information is "Police", "Sheriff", "State Police", "Municipal Police", "Emergency 911", etc. To post the words P&S should be considered false advertising ...

Now vehicles with P&S used in hollywood ... that's a different story ...

Agreed.

That side note is very true. You do see less and less of it.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

nm

Edited March 23, 2009 by Mister Fancypants

[Peikko 1,575]

BY, for heaven's sake, please address whatever issues you have to individuals rather than trying to address some 'group' mentality. There is no answer to your post because we each as individuals post in individual threads with our own agenda's and ideas. This notion that there is a 'group' attacking you is seriously paranoid. It only exists in your head.

There are a number of 'joking' posts in this thread, and a number of serious posts. Why do you find it hard to distinguish between the two?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

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.

And yet you've personally insulted me throughout this thread - calling me Private Azz and a dickhead on several occasions. I could care less really - those kind of juvenile insults go over my head.

But I wonder how you justify it.

[Heracles 417]

And yet you've personally insulted me throughout this thread - calling me Private Azz and a dickhead on several occasions. I could care less really - those kind of juvenile insults go over my head.

But I wonder how you justify it.

Huge difference. When I say it, it's a joke. Whereas insults coming from you guys are personal. Now I could get personal back which I have done on a few occasions and utterly annihilated the person but we know that leads to being suspended.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

And yet you've personally insulted me throughout this thread - calling me Private Azz and a dickhead on several occasions. I could care less really - those kind of juvenile insults go over my head.

But I wonder how you justify it.

Huge difference. When I say it, it's a joke. Whereas insults coming from you guys are personal. Now I could get personal back which I have done on a few occasions and utterly annihilated the person but we know that leads to being suspended.

Calling someone a dickhead is a joke?

Where I come from - its a pretty direct personal insult.

I don't think that comment about someone's "bowl cut Inca family" was interpreted as a joke either.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Private Pike

[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 ....

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.

The two cases mentioned were not "incidental damage" ... that is if "incidental" is to mean

1) being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence

2) minor occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

the police were notified of the "problem" and did not react within a "reasonable" time ... or should it be written hours (14+) and/or days after notification.

[fozzie 41]

I cant beleive this thread still has life in it. After trawling through 12 pages of diatribe I have concluded that you all have far too much time on your hands ($110 ph or not). You have all stated and restated your points again and again without convincing those on the other side.

I have been enjoying the petty insults flying back and forth though. There have been a lot of contradictory statements on both sides.

[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.

The two cases mentioned were not "incidental damage" ... that is if "incidental" is to mean

1) being likely to ensue as a chance or minor consequence

2) minor occurring merely by chance or without intention or calculation

the police were notified of the "problem" and did not react within a "reasonable" time ... or should it be written hours (14+) and/or days after notification.

I see. I will have to research those cases in question to render judgment or you could paraphrase their specifics as to how they support your points. Perhaps they have something that suggests police inaction due to there being other reasons not to react in a timely manner? Jurisdiction? Things like that?

Because if it isn't incidental, then it is intentional. And I do know of cases where cities, like I stated previously- ARE indeed responsible for the proper action of their police force... particularly when the police themselves are the causes of certain damages.

[Heracles 417]

Calling someone a dickhead is a joke?

Where I come from - its a pretty direct personal insult.

I don't think that comment about someone's "bowl cut Inca family" was interpreted as a joke either.

No that wasn't a joke. That was a case of if someone wants to go under the belt, I am more than happy to throw the punches back.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Calling someone a dickhead is a joke?

Where I come from - its a pretty direct personal insult.

I don't think that comment about someone's "bowl cut Inca family" was interpreted as a joke either.

No that wasn't a joke. That was a case of if someone wants to go under the belt, I am more than happy to throw the punches back.

Make up your mind BY - first it's a joke, then it isn't

[Heracles 417]

Calling someone a dickhead is a joke?

Where I come from - its a pretty direct personal insult.

I don't think that comment about someone's "bowl cut Inca family" was interpreted as a joke either.

No that wasn't a joke. That was a case of if someone wants to go under the belt, I am more than happy to throw the punches back.

Make up your mind BY - first it's a joke, then it isn't

You missed the following:

Now I could get personal back which I have done on a few occasions and utterly annihilated the person but we know that leads to being suspended.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Calling someone a dickhead is a joke?

Where I come from - its a pretty direct personal insult.

I don't think that comment about someone's "bowl cut Inca family" was interpreted as a joke either.

No that wasn't a joke. That was a case of if someone wants to go under the belt, I am more than happy to throw the punches back.

Make up your mind BY - first it's a joke, then it isn't

You missed the following:

Now I could get personal back which I have done on a few occasions and utterly annihilated the person but we know that leads to being suspended.

I didn't miss it BY - the construction of what you wrote foregrounds the part where you said it's a joke when you do it.

[Heracles 417]

I didn't miss it BY - the construction of what you wrote foregrounds the part where you said it's a joke when you do it.

It's a joke until someone gets extremely personal. Then all bets are off. What is funny is that these same people and their buddies who cause the trouble, are first to run to the mods when they are offended back.

Edited March 23, 2009 by Constellation