Police: Heroes or Villains?

[Rakhalia]

Are you using an anecdote to dismiss all the innocent people that have been harmed by police?

Oh, I'm just wondering. If so many people have been harmed, why not me, or anyone I know personally?

my guess? an immense amount of bubbled social privilege and/or sheer luck

[El Lazaro]

Are you using an anecdote to dismiss all the innocent people that have been harmed by police?

Oh, I'm just wondering. If so many people have been harmed, why not me, or anyone I know personally?

If cancer is real, then why haven’t I gotten it? More libtard lies smh.

[American Legionaries]

Are you using an anecdote to dismiss all the innocent people that have been harmed by police?

Oh, I'm just wondering. If so many people have been harmed, why not me, or anyone I know personally?

Nobody I know personally has ever been helped by the police.

[Necroghastia]

I've only met a few Chinese people, so obviously there's not a lot of them.

Good grief.

[El Lazaro]

I've only met a few Chinese people, so obviously there's not a lot of them.

Good grief.

The Earth doesn’t look round from where I’m standing, so…

[Hispida]

Cops have an unfortunate tendency to brutalize other civilians, at times to the point of death. Honestly, they're so trigger happy, I'd consider their presence at the scene of a break in to be a greater risk to the home owner than anything.

Then why, with my many interactions with cops, have I never been harmed, mentally, or physically?

Lord, give me the patience

[Ulajhan]

You know I have never seen drugs before...

[Floofybit]

If someone robs the bank, do you expect them to just get away with it?

[Floofybit]

Yes they are. They both try to save you and serve you.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-h ... -yet-again

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law.

First of all, it's quite interesting how this came from such a... Liberal left wing source...

Second of all, you don't know the job of the police. They catch crime. They protect you from crime, not harm. That's what paramedics are for. Police catch the criminals

Third, if someone is speeding, crashes into you, and drives off, who but the police for is supposed to catch them?

[Floofybit]

Oh, I'm just wondering. If so many people have been harmed, why not me, or anyone I know personally?

Nobody I know personally has ever been helped by the police.

I find this funny, how I said something obviously one-sided, and bring out, "no one has helped me so they better not exist." I wanted to see how you react, and you just do it back, proving that you are acting as a hypocrite

[Ifreann]

If someone robs the bank, do you expect them to just get away with it?

Yes.

[Floofybit]

If someone robs the bank, do you expect them to just get away with it?

Yes.

Are you for real? You swear your not joking?

[Dumb Ideologies]

If someone robs the bank, do you expect them to just get away with it?

Yes.

Furthermore, the rest of us should join in.

[Ifreann]

Yes.

Are you for real? You swear your not joking?

As long as no one gets hurt, who cares?

[Floofybit]

Yes.

Furthermore, the rest of us should join in.

Ah yes, the money everyone worked hard for is now mine because "hahaha, quote unquote peaceful protest, police scawy so imma commit cwime, that'll show them!" No, that is a sick, twisted, evil, selfish ideology

[Spirit of Hope]

If someone robs the bank, do you expect them to just get away with it?

First robbing a bank is probably a sign of other issues, why don't we address those issues instead of just giving the police more money and power?

Second I can believe the current system is deeply flawed while also agreeing that some form of law enforcement needs to exist.

https://mises.org/power-market/police-h ... -yet-again

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law.

First of all, it's quite interesting how this came from such a... Liberal left wing source...

Second of all, you don't know the job of the police. They catch crime. They protect you from crime, not harm. That's what paramedics are for. Police catch the criminals

Third, if someone is speeding, crashes into you, and drives off, who but the police for is supposed to catch them?

The police have no duty to protect you from crime.

As to the last, maybe a better police system? One that isn't corrupt?

[Floofybit]

Are you for real? You swear your not joking?

As long as no one gets hurt, who cares?

What about people who are in debt, that need the money, go back and the bank says, "sorry, some idiots robbed it." Now that person lost their money, can't buy food, will go hungry and likely die, because you wanted to be "woke" or some crap

[Ifreann]

Furthermore, the rest of us should join in.

Ah yes, the money everyone worked hard for is now mine because "hahaha, quote unquote peaceful protest, police scawy so imma commit cwime, that'll show them!" No, that is a sick, twisted, evil, selfish ideology

A bank's customers don't lose their money when the bank is robbed.

[Floofybit]

If someone robs the bank, do you expect them to just get away with it?

First robbing a bank is probably a sign of other issues, why don't we address those issues instead of just giving the police more money and power?

Second I can believe the current system is deeply flawed while also agreeing that some form of law enforcement needs to exist.

First of all, it's quite interesting how this came from such a... Liberal left wing source...

Second of all, you don't know the job of the police. They catch crime. They protect you from crime, not harm. That's what paramedics are for. Police catch the criminals

Third, if someone is speeding, crashes into you, and drives off, who but the police for is supposed to catch them?

The police have no duty to protect you from crime.

As to the last, maybe a better police system? One that isn't corrupt?

Depending on the doctrine, they have to help or not?

The doctrine states,
"A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.
Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters."

Seems a bit to me like you have to rescue people in danger

[Ifreann]

As long as no one gets hurt, who cares?

What about people who are in debt, that need the money, go back and the bank says, "sorry, some idiots robbed it." Now that person lost their money, can't buy food, will go hungry and likely die, because you wanted to be "woke" or some crap

Do you not understand how banks work? If I have $5,000 in my bank account and then someone robs $5,000 from my local bank, I still have $5,000 in my account. That specific branch will probably close for a few days, but I won't lose any money. I can still make a withdrawal from an ATM. I can still use online bank transfers. I can still write cheques. I can still use my debit card. I can go to a different branch to do any in-person banking I need to do. Only the bank loses money.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Furthermore, the rest of us should join in.

Ah yes, the money everyone worked hard for is now mine because "hahaha, quote unquote peaceful protest, police scawy so imma commit cwime, that'll show them!" No, that is a sick, twisted, evil, selfish ideology

I hereby promise that this plan-scheme will only impact the 90% of money with ties to usury, landlordism, capitalist business ownership, market speculation, and inheritance. All money that has proportionate ties to amount of work will be entirely safe.

I hope you find this suitably reassuring.

[Charode]

i don't know what to say so fuck it imma put the lyrics to toxicity by system of a down

Conversion, software version 7.0
Looking at life through the eyes of a tire hub
Eating seeds as a pastime activity
The toxicity of our city, our city
You, what do you own the world?
How do you own disorder? Disorder
Now somewhere between the sacred silence
Sacred silence and sleep
Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Disorder, disorder, disorder
More wood for their fires, loud neighbors
Flashlight reveries caught in the headlights of a truck
Eating seeds as a pastime activity
The toxicity of our city, of our city
You, what do you own the world?
How do you own disorder? Disorder
Now somewhere between the sacred silence
Sacred silence and sleep
Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep
Disorder, disorder, disorder
You, what do you own the world?
How do you own disorder?
Now somewhere between the sacred silence
Sacred silence and sleep
Somewhere, between the sacred silence and sleep
Disorder, disorder, disorder
When I became the sun
I shone life into the man's hearts
When I became the sun
I shone life into the man's hearts

[Ifreann]

First robbing a bank is probably a sign of other issues, why don't we address those issues instead of just giving the police more money and power?

Second I can believe the current system is deeply flawed while also agreeing that some form of law enforcement needs to exist.



The police have no duty to protect you from crime.

As to the last, maybe a better police system? One that isn't corrupt?

Depending on the doctrine, they have to help or not?

The doctrine states,
"A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.
Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters."

Seems a bit to me like you have to rescue people in danger

The police would have a duty to rescue people from a hazardous situation created by the police themselves. They do not have a duty to protect you from hazardous situations created by a criminal.

[Floofybit]

Ah yes, the money everyone worked hard for is now mine because "hahaha, quote unquote peaceful protest, police scawy so imma commit cwime, that'll show them!" No, that is a sick, twisted, evil, selfish ideology

I hereby promise that this plan-scheme will only impact the 90% of money with ties to usury, landlordism, capitalist business ownership, market speculation, and inheritance. All money that has proportionate ties to amount of work will be entirely safe.

I hope you find this suitably reassuring.

So you stealing for capitalist business ownership?! So you're stealing from local businesses who are barely scraping by. Where are you gonna get groceries or food, or basic necessities as they are all capitalist ownership

[Spirit of Hope]

What about people who are in debt, that need the money, go back and the bank says, "sorry, some idiots robbed it." Now that person lost their money, can't buy food, will go hungry and likely die, because you wanted to be "woke" or some crap

Do you not understand how banks work? If I have $5,000 in my bank account and then someone robs $5,000 from my local bank, I still have $5,000 in my account. That specific branch will probably close for a few days, but I won't lose any money. I can still make a withdrawal from an ATM. I can still use online bank transfers. I can still write cheques. I can still use my debit card. I can go to a different branch to do any in-person banking I need to do. Only the bank loses money.

Even if the bank fails, the first $250,000 a person has in it is insured by the federal government.

First robbing a bank is probably a sign of other issues, why don't we address those issues instead of just giving the police more money and power?

Second I can believe the current system is deeply flawed while also agreeing that some form of law enforcement needs to exist.



The police have no duty to protect you from crime.

As to the last, maybe a better police system? One that isn't corrupt?

Depending on the doctrine, they have to help or not?

The doctrine states,
"A duty to rescue arises where a person creates a hazardous situation. If another person then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation, the creator of the hazard – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril.
Such a duty may also arise where a "special relationship" exists. For example:
Parents have a duty to rescue their minor children. This duty also applies to those acting in loco parentis, such as schools or babysitters."

Seems a bit to me like you have to rescue people in danger

This specific case is about women who called the police about a home intruder, the police didn't respond in the correct manner, and the women were consequently raped. The women the sued the police, and the Supreme Court ruled the women didn't have a right to sue.

"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists"

The police have no duty to protect you from a crime.