Narcotized

Full Member
7+ Year Member
May 10, 2009
1,255
3
Status (Visible)
Maybe she will stop playing doctor now, and do what she does best, being a biased crappy news pig.

"I didn't see a bandade. There was no bandade. If his head was injured why wasn't there a bandade."

ht_george_zimmerman_head_dm_120419_ssh.jpg
 
Last edited:

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
Narc,
When did this pic hit and is it verified by ABC?
D712
 
About the Ads

PMPMD

4G MD
15+ Year Member
Oct 16, 2001
1,431
27
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Narc,
When did this pic hit and is it verified by ABC?
D712

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way...hoto-shows-george-zimmerman-had-bloodied-head

This new picture was not obtained from law enforcement and the network did not name the person who gave them the photograph. They report the person heard the fight between Zimmerman and Martin and took the photo shortly after the shooting. The metadata contained in the photograph shows it was taken in the vicinity of the shooting and only three minutes after the shooting took place.
 

periopdoc

Cardiac Anesthesiologist
10+ Year Member
Sep 8, 2008
2,316
485
Kalispell, Montana
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
If the prosecution knew of this photo prior to indictment then I would think that the case is pretty much over. What are the rules on omitting exculpatory evidence from an arrest affidavit? Perhaps that was the plan all along. Bowing to public pressure, the DA SA files charges she knows are false knowing they will be thrown out prior to a hearing? That affidavit had to be the most weak case I can imagine for 2nd degree murder.

It still boggles my mind how so many people, educated in examining evidence, were and still are so willing to suspend skepticism and convict Zimmerman based on the partial and biased evidence we have seen in the press.

- pod
 
Last edited:

periopdoc

Cardiac Anesthesiologist
10+ Year Member
Sep 8, 2008
2,316
485
Kalispell, Montana
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
This is sounding more and more like Duke Lacrosse all over again. Wasn't the DA in that case disbarred for failing to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence? Of course this is Florida and not NC we are talking about. Maybe the restrictions against prosecutorial misconduct are different.

- pod
 

AirBubble

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2008
28
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I will preface my statement by admitting that I was not present during the altercation and I don't have all of the details. Yet even after my review of the released photo I have a difficult time understanding how someone could pick a fight, get their butt kicked, then shoot an unarmed person in self defense. Things were handled differently where I was raised, but that was a different time.
 

fakin' the funk

Full Member
15+ Year Member
Aug 23, 2004
2,883
856
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Let's not rush to judgment about how everyone who rushed to judgment before was wrong...

We still don't know what happened. If the photo's real, it certainly doesn't support a "Zimmerman crept up on Martin and capped him" story but any other story that involves a scuffle between the two is still viable.

I still think that "unarmed person gets shot because the shooter's was defending his life" doesn't have face validity unless the unarmed person is The Hulk.
 
About the Ads

PinchandBurn

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 26, 2010
1,886
54
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
wow...that picture is everywhere now. It definitely debunks a lot of what people were thinking before.
 

Nooblet

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Aug 1, 2007
346
3
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
how do they show who was screaming? seems kind of hard
 

loveoforganic

-Account Deactivated-
10+ Year Member
Jan 30, 2009
4,218
13
Status (Visible)
Exif data is alterable, by the way. At any rate, I'm still going to wait and see what happens
 

periopdoc

Cardiac Anesthesiologist
10+ Year Member
Sep 8, 2008
2,316
485
Kalispell, Montana
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I I have a difficult time understanding how someone could pick a fight...

When will the Treyvonites give it up and let the justice system do its job? Now you know that Zimmerman was picking a fight?



Interesting article from Talking Points Memo (a liberal blog/ news site that I doubt many here read) Far From Routine: Prosecutors Hit With Series Of Surprises At George Zimmerman Hearing

The attorney wanted to know what evidence (State Attorney's Office Investigator) Gilbreath had to prove that Zimmerman was the one who initiated the confrontation. The investigator revealed he didn’t have any evidence that hadn’t already been made public.

Man it just gets worse and worse for the prosecution. Just how badly can the bungle such a big case?


- pod
 

AirBubble

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2008
28
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
When will the Treyvonites give it up and let the justice system do its job?

The way Zimmerman allowed the justice system to do ITS job?

Now you know that Zimmerman was picking a fight...

The police instructed Zimmerman to leave the kid alone and allow them to do their job. Instead, he followed him and confronted him. And he was armed. I consider that picking a fight or looking for trouble. There is a reason why Neighborhood Crime Watch volunteers are instructed to call the police and refrain from intervention. If Zimmerman had done this, Trayvon would be alive today. Everything else is irrelevant to me.
 

yappy

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 11, 2008
3,357
837
Status (Visible)
  1. Pre-Health (Field Undecided)
I tend to agree with Airbubbles. I dont know what happened but I wish Zimmerman had stayed in his car and the police responded quickly.
 
Last edited:

loveoforganic

-Account Deactivated-
10+ Year Member
Jan 30, 2009
4,218
13
Status (Visible)
The way Zimmerman allowed the justice system to do ITS job?



The police instructed Zimmerman to leave the kid alone and allow them to do their job. Instead, he followed him and confronted him. And he was armed. I consider that picking a fight or looking for trouble. There is a reason why Neighborhood Crime Watch volunteers are instructed to call the police and refrain from intervention. If Zimmerman had done this, Trayvon would be alive today. Everything else is irrelevant to me.

That isn't a case of 2nd degree murder though, it's a case of stupid
 

i want out

Member
10+ Year Member
Jul 12, 2006
382
3
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I tend to agree with Airbubbles. I dont know what happened but I wish Zimmerman had stayed in his car and the police responded quickly.

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke

The purpose of a police force is not to prevent crime, their only purpose is to apprehend and investigate AFTER one occurs.

The responsibility for your safety rests on your shoulders.
 

Bertelman

Maverick!
Feb 12, 2006
4,190
14
Had a Cooch
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke

The purpose of a police force is not to prevent crime, their only purpose is to apprehend and investigate AFTER one occurs.

The responsibility for your safety rests on your shoulders.

Using your quote, exactly which side represents the evil in this case- Trayvon or Zimmerman?
 
About the Ads

periopdoc

Cardiac Anesthesiologist
10+ Year Member
Sep 8, 2008
2,316
485
Kalispell, Montana
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The way Zimmerman allowed the justice system to do ITS job?

That is a very disingenuous statement. Are you saying that because you believe that Z went outside the justice system that somehow justifies us doing the same? Maybe we should just lynch him.

I don't know whether or not Z was outside the bounds of justice. That is for the justice system to determine, and I am happy to wait and let them do just that. Apparently, you are not and have already determined he is guilty. Great day for American justice.


The police instructed Zimmerman to leave the kid alone and allow them to do their job.

For the umpteenth time, NO THEY DID NOT. That statement is false on 2 fronts. A police OPERATOR (not "the police") with no legal authority to instruct Z to do anything said, "WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT." Any 2-year-old knows that is different from "do not do that."

Interestingly enough, if you listen to the tapes, it appears that Z did exactly what the operator said. ~15 seconds after Z exits the vehicle, the operator states "we don't need you to do that" Z says "ok." You can hear the background noise of Z moving before the operator said that and within 10 seconds of Z acknowledging the statement the sound of Z moving stops and Z states again, "he ran." He may in fact have done exactly what the operator said.



Instead, he followed him and confronted him.

The evidence that we have seen so far (in the public sphere) is equivocal on whether or not Z or TM initiated the confrontation. In fact we do not know what happened between the time that the operator disconnected and the assault occurred. If it had been 911 they would have kept him on the line until the police arrived (at least that's how I was trained when I was a 911 operator). That leaves a black hole in the public data. Did Z reinitiate a pursuit of TM or did TM jump Z while returning to his car. That is what we need the justice system to determine. Perhaps they have evidence one way or the other, but if they do, they should have included it on the writ of arrest.



There is a reason why Neighborhood Crime Watch volunteers are instructed to call the police and refrain from intervention. If Zimmerman had done this, Trayvon would be alive today. Everything else is irrelevant to me.

and the evidence is consistent with Z doing exactly that. Trying to keep an eye (from a distance) on a subject until the police arrived to investigate. As Z stated during the phone call, he was concerned that suspects had previously gotten away prior to the police arriving. He wanted to be able to positively identify the suspect when police arrived. Exactly what a neighborhood watch should do.

As for the innocent, scared TM who was running away in a non-confrontational manner, well earlier in the tapes Z states "he is coming towards me now... he has his hand in his waistband." So there is at least some evidence of potentially aggressive behavior being exhibited by TM.

Let the justice system do its job.

- pod
 

BLADEMDA

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Apr 22, 2007
20,104
6,293
Southeast
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician

pgg

Laugh at me, will they?
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Dec 15, 2005
13,565
13,681
Home again
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)

Sorry Genius,

I thought the Turing test dealt with "computer/rote" thinking. But then again maybe I should have looked it up on Wiki because, after all, I want to be well-versed in everything that bounces around in that PGG mind of yours.

Clearly, I was wrong about the Turing test, in thinking PASSING would show thoughtless behavior, when I meant FAILING would show thoughtless behavior. I should probably go push myself off a tall building for getting this backwards.

OR

I should ask you about something you're not as familiar with as me, then, when you respond incorrectly, SIGH to a bunch of strangers on an internet forum.

D712

ETA: next time, save the dictionary links, (aside from the Turing Test). Unless they're from a medical dictionary.

Signed,
The One of Us That Earns Benjamins For Writing, Slim
 
Last edited:

AirBubble

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2008
28
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
That is a very disingenuous statement. Are you saying that because you believe that Z went outside the justice system that somehow justifies us doing the same? Maybe we should just lynch him.

I found it ironic that you would suggest that Z should find sanctuary in the same justice system that was never extended to TM. Nothing more. I will ignore the overt racial overtones with your suggestion of lynching.

For the umpteenth time, NO THEY DID NOT. That statement is false on 2 fronts. A police OPERATOR (not "the police") with no legal authority to instruct Z to do anything said, "WE DON'T NEED YOU TO DO THAT." Any 2-year-old knows that is different from "do not do that."

The police operator used the pronoun "WE". Not "THEY". Not "I". I won't presume that every 2-year-old understands the subtleties inferred by the word selection used by the operator.

Unless TM pulled Z out of his vehicle and assaulted him, my point remains the same. Z should've stayed in his vehicle and left the kid alone. Had he done that, this tragedy would have been avoided.
 

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
I'm just amused that the one of us who writes for a living is so consistently careless with words. ;)

Keep trying to push m'buttons Doc. You're showing us all the real, special PGG.

Writers write. Others who cannot, pick on writers on the world wide web. It's a difficult task, but you can consider yourself up there with Siskel and Ebert. And you know how much respect the industry has for critics. ;)

The truth of the fact is, I type very quickly on SDN and you are SOOO not worth a grammar or spellcheck. That is, until you pay me to write the world's most yawn-inducing screenplay, "The Pgg Story." At that point, I'll be happy to spell check on your behalf.

:love:

D712
 
About the Ads
Nov 24, 2002
22,286
7,943
SCREW IT!
Keep trying to push m'buttons Doc. You're showing us all the real, special PGG.

Writers write. Others who cannot, pick on writers on the world wide web. It's a difficult task, but you can consider yourself up there with Siskel and Ebert. And you know how much respect the industry has for critics. ;)

The truth of the fact is, I type very quickly on SDN and you are SOOO not worth a grammar or spellcheck. That is, until you pay me to write the world's most yawn-inducing screenplay, "The Pgg Story." At that point, I'll be happy to spell check on your behalf.

:love:

D712

If you are being sarcastic, I don't see it. This sounds totally butthurt.

I type quickly myself, but I don't make value judgments on whether someone is "worth" appropriate grammar and spelling.

Then again, to be blandly objective, you have said time and again that you are a writer for TV - yet there is no proof of that, at all. I would say that a majority of the frequent posters on the anesthesia forum could be independently identified - easily - by their real names, and, yet, that does not dissuade them from posting.

I guess the main tenet is that, if someone was a professional writer, another might expect that the first's writing would be technically as good as, or better than, others on the same forum.
 

Bertelman

Maverick!
Feb 12, 2006
4,190
14
Had a Cooch
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Keep trying to push m'buttons Doc. You're showing us all the real, special PGG.

Writers write. Others who cannot, pick on writers on the world wide web. It's a difficult task, but you can consider yourself up there with Siskel and Ebert. And you know how much respect the industry has for critics. ;)

The truth of the fact is, I type very quickly on SDN and you are SOOO not worth a grammar or spellcheck. That is, until you pay me to write the world's most yawn-inducing screenplay, "The Pgg Story." At that point, I'll be happy to spell check on your behalf.

:love:

D712

He didn't bag you on grammar or spelling. He called you on the definition of a word. You've done as much to other people, so you've got no defense.

And if you want people to stop attacking you, myself included, you can stop being so antagonistic. Someone corrects you on a definition, doesn't really matter which source they cite. You can:

1) let it go and the whole thing dies,
2) admit you were wrong and maybe gain some respect,
3) or you can defend yourself by attacking, and expect an attack right back, at which point you are as guilty as the person that has offended you

If pgg is SOOO not worth a spellcheck, he isn't really worth a response from you, either.
 

AirBubble

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2008
28
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
You really have a liberal ax to grind. I read no racial overtones in the lynching comment. I'm willing to bet you heavily are against carry permits, stand your ground, or anything else remotely non-liberal. It's evident in your constant bias and misrepresentation.

I, we, they, who cares. It was an operator. It was not a direct order. If you have to lie to make your point, then you have no point worth making. Saying Trayvon would be alive if Z followed that is irelevant. If Joe Blow wasn't out buying weed he wouldnt have run over the kid that jumped in front of his car. That doesn't make him guilty of murder. He is still only guilty of buying weed.

Let it play out and see if he is guilty or not. Your continuous misrepresentations and unfounded assumptions says you won't.

As I stated in post #11, I was not present during the altercation. I do not have all of the details.

Do you know for a fact that the police operator was not a sworn officer of the law? Some officers start their careers working as part time officers and communication operators. You are making the "unfounded assumption", unless you have evidence to the contrary, that the operator was not an officer.

If I were to call the police and ask for assistance, I don't believe that I would ask the operator if they were a sworn officer of the law. Would you disregard their advice if you knew that they were a trained and likely certified representative of the department - but not an officer?

To be clear, I don't know if Z is guilty of murder. But he should be held accountable for his actions.

"Liberal"? I thought responsibility and accountability for ones actions were conservative ideals.
 

loveoforganic

-Account Deactivated-
10+ Year Member
Jan 30, 2009
4,218
13
Status (Visible)
Keep trying to push m'buttons Doc. You're showing us all the real, special PGG.

Writers write. Others who cannot, pick on writers on the world wide web. It's a difficult task, but you can consider yourself up there with Siskel and Ebert. And you know how much respect the industry has for critics. ;)

The truth of the fact is, I type very quickly on SDN and you are SOOO not worth a grammar or spellcheck. That is, until you pay me to write the world's most yawn-inducing screenplay, "The Pgg Story." At that point, I'll be happy to spell check on your behalf.

:love:

D712

Real Housewives of SDN Anesthesia
 

Law2Doc

5K+ Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
Dec 20, 2004
30,876
10,044
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
... I have a difficult time understanding how someone could pick a fight, get their butt kicked, then shoot an unarmed person in self defense....

this. You have a hothead with a loaded gun running around in the name of neighborhood watch looking for trouble. This wasn't a guy minding his own business. Bad things were destined to happen. The "who hit who first " argument is kind of moot -- once this loose cannon was out there somebody was going to be foolish enough to take his bait. The kid wasn't smart enough to realize he brought his fists to a gunfight.
 

hoyden

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Oct 6, 2004
869
2
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
The way Zimmerman allowed the justice system to do ITS job?



The police instructed Zimmerman to leave the kid alone and allow them to do their job. Instead, he followed him and confronted him. And he was armed. I consider that picking a fight or looking for trouble. There is a reason why Neighborhood Crime Watch volunteers are instructed to call the police and refrain from intervention. If Zimmerman had done this, Trayvon would be alive today. Everything else is irrelevant to me.


How do you know he confronted him and then a fight ensued? Maybe Zimmerman turned around and was going to his car and it was Treyvon who confronted Zimmerman?
Or you were there and are a witness to what really happened?
 

baller71457

Full Member
Feb 6, 2011
39
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Medical Student
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
― Edmund Burke

The purpose of a police force is not to prevent crime, their only purpose is to apprehend and investigate AFTER one occurs.

The responsibility for your safety rests on your shoulders.

So "protect" and serve has nothing to do with prevention?
 

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
And if you want people to stop attacking you, myself included, you can stop being so antagonistic. Someone corrects you on a definition, doesn't really matter which source they cite. You can:
1) let it go and the whole thing dies,
2) admit you were wrong and maybe gain some respect,
3) or you can defend yourself by attacking, and expect an attack right back, at which point you are as guilty as the person that has offended you

Bert,

1) And you can sit there and play internet God.
2) And you can sit there and play internet God.
3) And you can...um...sit...there, yeah, it's what you do: play internet God.

I'm sorry, can you tell me how you REALLY feel? :laugh::laugh: So you admit to "attacking me." Can I send that to the mods?

Actually, Bert, PGG was antagonistic before I replied, Slim. Definitions, Eyeroll, Sigh. (i'd call telling someone to look up sentient after they used it properly with a dictionary link antagonistic.) Sigh.

I love how much thought you put into ME.

I've gotten so many private messages from amazing docs telling me to ignore the likes of you and PGG, and all the others who WAIT for me to respond in kind, then pounce. To keep doing what I'm doing and not get brought down by you guys...

So, be well.

As for PGG, I'm gonna say this once: he flies the flag of the US Navy on his banner there. He should hold himself to a higher standard of a US Serviceman (and I mean that sincerely) than come ATTACKING me left and right. And then, Bert, for you to do what you do best: jump in from behind the bushes like the schoolyard bully you clearly are.

Anyway, aside from the initial OP topic of Zimm and Martin, this is the last I'll say regarding PGG. And you for that manner.

Grammar and spelling? We in the biz don't worry too much about grammar, it's more about style.

Done with PGG. (in deference to the mods around here who have their eyes on me). I could not care less what PGG thinks of my writing. I value the opinions of writers the way you value the opinions of Anesthesiologists when doing your jobs. Others are a faaaaaaaaar second. But thanks. Truth sucks, I know.

D712
 
Last edited:

periopdoc

Cardiac Anesthesiologist
10+ Year Member
Sep 8, 2008
2,316
485
Kalispell, Montana
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
You still don't get it.

I found it ironic that you would suggest that Z should find sanctuary in the same justice system that was never extended to TM. Nothing more. I will ignore the overt racial overtones with your suggestion of lynching.

and I find it deplorable that an educated individual like you would deny to any person the "sanctuary of justice" from the mob seeking extrajudicial remedy, especially while at the same time you are criticizing a man because you believe that is exactly what he did. Double standard much?

I await some sort of proof from you that GZ acted outside of the law thereby denying TM justice.

No racial overtones intended so please don't place them there for me.



The police operator used the pronoun "WE". Not "THEY". Not "I". I won't presume that every 2-year-old understands the subtleties inferred by the word selection used by the operator.

You conveniently miss the entire point by focusing on irrelevant grammar. The issue with the statement "we do not need you to do that" has nothing to do with the use of we, I, they etc, and everything to do with the fact that the statement is not a command, or instruction. If I tell my son that I do not need him to do something, he is not being disobedient when he does that. If I tell him do not do that, but he does, he is being disobedient. Of course even if it was an instruction, the operator's words do not have the power of law behind them.

Do you know for a fact that the police operator was not a sworn officer of the law? ... You are making the "unfounded assumption", unless you have evidence to the contrary, that the operator was not an officer.

And this is a straw man argument. Whether the operator was a sworn officer or not is irrelevant. At the time that the statement was made, the operator was not acting in an official capacity as a sworn officer. When you call the police, there is no expectation that the operator is an officer.

Unless TM pulled Z out of his vehicle and assaulted him, my point remains the same.

So you finally admit that in fact there is a shred of doubt in your mind that the MSM, Al Sharpton interpretation of the facts could in fact be incorrect. You do realize that, given the facts that the public now has in hand, this scenario could be exactly what happened do you not? Or have you adopted the only, very narrow, interpretation of the evidence, ignoring at least two other good interpretations, that would have had to occur for GZ to be guilty of murder, and in doing so pre-convicted him?

- pod
 

pgg

Laugh at me, will they?
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Dec 15, 2005
13,565
13,681
Home again
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
So "protect" and serve has nothing to do with prevention?

Actually, no.

And no:

By a 4-3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists.

The police have neither a legal duty nor responsibility to protect / prevent crime.

Unfortunately, i want out has it right. Police are there to investigate crime and help bring the guilty to justice. Prevention is optional - though of course most LEOs would do their best to stop a crime in progress, if they happened to be there.
 

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
PeriopDoc,

Do you know when the trial begins, I think I missed the date announcement?

D712
 

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
Actually, no.

And no:



The police have neither a legal duty nor responsibility to protect / prevent crime.

Unfortunately, i want out has it right. Police are there to investigate crime and help bring the guilty to justice. Prevention is optional - though of course most LEOs would do their best to stop a crime in progress, if they happened to be there.

Fair points PGG, but I'm going to have to take your word for this or look up the details. Do you have factual data aside from your quote?
They MAY not have legal duty, but they absolutely have RESPONSIBILTY to protect and prevent.

Police officers are also Peace Officers (at least most of them, I can think of one Federal Agency that is at least, I'm sure most are.) Here are a few examples of prevention/protection that are part of Police Officers' mandate. Do you agree with this, or just feel that these are not legally obligated?

Also, are you saying that Police Officers have no legal obligation to prevent a crime when they KNOW one is happening or imminent? Do you find this as a matter of investigation or prevention/protection?

As both peace officers and police officers, they offer

1) Crime prevention patrols (local cops). This is part of their mandate.
Here's a grab from the NYS SWAT website:

"The New York State Police is a full service police agency, providing essential police services on a statewide basis. Through the Uniformed Force and Bureau of Criminal Investigation, the Division of New York State Police maintains regular preventive patrols, assists motorists and other members of the public, conducts criminal and non-criminal investigations, and provides emergency and disaster services."

2) Hostage rescue. Would you find this an act of investigation or protection?

3) With good samaritan laws in certain states, do you think a police officer in that state is not legally obligated to protect someone?

4) Citizen education. This is vast, wide-reaching modality of many local and other agencies. Is this investigation, prevention or protection to you?

5) And this is big picture, and not, maybe, what you are going for here, but over all, police officers protect through their actions at large. When an officer arrests a drunk who has threatened to harm someone

6) Secret Service is special, they have a protective force, as do other agencies. Colombian hookers aside.

The fact that, on the books, police are not required to protect the citizenry is moot. How could a fraction of the population be legally required to do so, thus, the law surely allows them the ability not to protect every citizen. But in many circumstances, like an active crime in their presence, I'm certain I can find law that requires their actions to prevent a crime (and thus protect a victim). Everything they do, in essence, is to protect us: arrest the bad guys, put away the really bad guys, slow down people who are driving 140MPH, protect our G leaders, cuff drunken dopes, LAPD puts it the best:

ScreenShot2012-04-21at80752PM.png


But to be sure, law makers have made their role investigative on the books, citizens, ultimately must be responsible for their own safety. Everyone knows who to call when they need "help"...

D712
 
Last edited:

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
Again, I'm not sure if you mean LEOs aren't REQUIRED to protect, or if it's not a large part of their mandate, or if they do it but aren't required by law?

D712


Our Priorities
The FBI focuses on threats that challenge the foundations of American society or involve dangers too large or complex for any local or state authority to handle alone. In executing the following priorities, we will produce and use intelligence to protect the nation from threats and to bring to justice those who violate the law.

1. Protect the United States from terrorist attack
2. Protect the United States against foreign intelligence operations and espionage
3. Protect the United States against cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes
4. Combat public corruption at all levels
5. Protect civil rights
6. Combat transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises
7. Combat major white-collar crime
8. Combat significant violent crime
9. Support federal, state, local and international partners
10. Upgrade technology to successfully perform the FBI’s mission
 

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
International Association of Chiefs of Police Law Enforcement Code of Ethics
AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.
 

AirBubble

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Feb 10, 2008
28
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I find it deplorable that an educated individual like you would deny to any person the "sanctuary of justice" from the mob seeking extrajudicial remedy, especially while at the same time you are criticizing a man because you believe that is exactly what he did. Double standard much?

There is no double standard. Z did not give the justice department the opportunity to do their job. You previously stated "...When will the Treyvonites give it up and let the justice system do its job?" I found irony in that statement. However, I believe that Z deserves a fair trial. I am not a proponent of vigilante justice. "Extrajudicial remedy" is always the wrong answer.
 

doctor712

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Nov 14, 2008
1,870
2
Status (Visible)
Actually, no.

And no:



The police have neither a legal duty nor responsibility to protect / prevent crime.

Unfortunately, i want out has it right. Police are there to investigate crime and help bring the guilty to justice. Prevention is optional - though of course most LEOs would do their best to stop a crime in progress, if they happened to be there.


Read the NY Times article, and this is really what Scalia was saying in regard to Protection...this is what the case comes to:

"Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

I think you misinterpreted the court's findings, Pgg. (However, PRIOR Supreme Court findings have stated one's safety comes down to you and you alone, ultimately.) But this finding isn't saying that. Ultimately safety relies to the person, but the police do have certain obligations to protect and prevent ESPECIALLY when a crime is being committed. This by no means states that the police have no obligation to protect. What Scalia was saying is that even with an arrest requirement, police can use discretion. Anything more than that, is up for great debate. I'm curious about the entire case, I may pull up the file and read it. What Scalia never said is police do not have a responsibility to protect or prevent during a crime...

D712
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 9 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.