On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Jim Burnes wrote:
> Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong. The police are here to enforce laws and arrest people. They have
> > > no legal obligation to protect. It'd be nice if it really were that way,
> > > but it isn't.
> >
> > Wrong, police are here to serve and protect. They protect by enforcing
> > laws. They serve by following the tenets of a democratic government as
> > outlined in our Constitution.
> >
>
> No lesser than the Supreme Court says you are wrong. I don't have the
> decision details on me, but the Supreme decided (about 5 or so years ago)
> that police were not required by law to provide individual protection.
>
> Thus the need for custom individual protection. ;-)
That's a bullshit interpretation. But let's address your
interpretation....
The police are not there for your PERSONAL protection. They are not your
body guard. That does not mean they are not there to protect individuals
through the enforcement of the law.
The logic, if not the application, by the SC is sound. It is to protect
individuals from suing the police simply because they're never around when
you need one.
Not the same assertion that you make at all.
A crappy strawman.
____________________________________________________________________
The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?
O[rphan] D[rift>]
Cyber Positive
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
