3 men charged with federal hate crimes in killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia

[Superbadbrutha]

[Superbadbrutha]
How many other people did they confront on someone else's property? English never asked the McMichaels to confront someone on his property.

"It now appears that this young man may have been coming onto the property for water," J. Elizabeth Graddy, the attorney for homeowner Larry English, said in a statement. "There is a water source at the dock behind the house as well as a source near the front of the structure. Although these water sources do not appear within any of the cameras' frames, the young man moves to and from their locations."

Nothing had been stolen from the property, she said.

Graddy also shared a text exchange with ABC News, allegedly showing that a police officer sent McMichael's phone number to English and told him that McMichael would offer assistance if anyone else came onto the construction site.

"This text may be the reason [police] didn't arrest him because they knew they could be implicated as aiding and abetting in the crimes of the McMichaels," said attorney Benjamin Crump, who represents Arbery's family.

Graddy said English had previously sent screenshots of people entering the property to police but never saw this text message and never contacted McMichael.

English noticed that people were entering the construction site because his phone would send him a push notification when a motion sensor was triggered, Graddy told ABC News.

The security video shows several different people entering the property, one appearing to be Arbery.

Homeowner's lawyer: Ahmaud Arbery may have entered property for water breaks before fatal shooting

Video released Friday shows a black man in a T-shirt and shorts leaving the home-building site Dec. 17. He walks a few feet, then runs to the street at a jogging pace.

abc7.com

First of all, I have not taken the stance of defending the McMichaels. I already replied to another poster that I don't care if they go to jail or not. It does look like they will be going to jail.

You could have fooled me.

When I said reports, I'm referring to the news coverage that has talked about the other trespassers. There was a previous incident on the property that involved a 911 call. I don't know if the property owner called it on a black guy or on someone else, but it was something mentioned in multiple articles early on when the Arbery incident first came to light.

Yea Travis McMichael claims he confronted a black dude.

And yes, I do know that whites steal guns too. The reason I brought up the gun theft is that it sounds like the McMichaels were on higher alert than normal after that event. Unfortunately, that led to them making some very poor decisions later on, but whether or not those decisions were specifically racist isn't known.

Yea it is known, you are just in denial.

Given what is known currently, making the argument that the McMichaels were murderous is substantially easier than suggesting they were specifically motivated by race. That requires a lot more evidence and analysis.

Edit: Man, the quotes tags are really screwed up now, and I don't know how to fix them.

The McMichaels and Bryan are 3 murdering, racist ass, hilly billys. Plain and simple.

You're pretty much the same as IM2. I'm not going to bother with you any further.

Why because we won't bow down to that bullshit you are coming with.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I believe the main reason they're being charged with a hate crime is because their buddy and co-defendant said that Travis uttered a racial slur while looking down at the dying/dead Arbery after he shot him.

If that's the case, then there are likely a lot of cases of black people shooting white people that haven't been pursued as a hate crime.

I'm quite sure there are. One of my objections to hate crime laws in general has been that it always goes only one way.

 

[Utilitarian]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

The problem with the Chauvin trial was again Chauvin. Let’s summarize the cases of the prosecution and the defense.

Prosecution. Look at these videos. Look at how many. Look at the number of people who cried out for Chauvin to get off of him. Look at how many untrained and trained people recognized that Floyd was in distress. Listen to his own superiors demonstrate how he violated policNow decide if this man was responsible.

Defense. Ignore your eyes. Trust us. It was just a coincidence that Floyd died then.

Even those of us who do not have children were kids. And at some point we tried to lie our way out of trouble. No. I didn’t break that. It just fell. It was a coincidence that I was nearby when it happened.

It did not work when we were kids. It was never going to work for adults.

Now. I am probably going to surprise you. Chauvin was sacrificed.

Give that a moment to sink in. The truth is that they had 18 years of evidence that Chauvin was a thug. The problem is that the other cops behaved much the same way. And when they received a report or complaint they slapped his wrist while patting him on the back. They encouraged his brutal behavior.

Then when it went too far the same supervisors who patted him on the back rushed out to say how shocked they were and how his actions do not represent the fine men and women of the department.

He was sacrificed. But not to social media. Or the 24 hour news. But to maintain the illusion that there are a few bad apples giving the cops a bad name.

If you're suggesting that most cops are bad, then I guess that means neighborhoods need to start forming militias to defend against rioters and looters. Because even if we assume that most cops are bad, there is still a major need for some sort of protection against crime, whether it's from rioters or regular criminals.

 

[Utilitarian]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

What was unfair about it?

The jury selection was clearly done improperly, when considering one of the jurors was a BLM sympathizer.

 

[Leo123]

If you're suggesting that most cops are bad, then I guess that means neighborhoods need to start forming militias to defend against rioters and looters. Because even if we assume that most cops are bad, there is still a major need for some sort of protection against crime, whether it's from rioters or regular criminals.

Yes, they claim cops are racist and bad but also claim that law abiding gun owners should not be armed. Total insanity.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

What was unfair about it?

The jury selection was clearly done improperly, when considering one of the jurors was a BLM sympathizer.

Do you think it's possible to find people who don't have an opinion one way or another? Do you think the Blue Lives Matter and their supporters aren't fit to sit on a jury?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

The problem with the Chauvin trial was again Chauvin. Let’s summarize the cases of the prosecution and the defense.

Prosecution. Look at these videos. Look at how many. Look at the number of people who cried out for Chauvin to get off of him. Look at how many untrained and trained people recognized that Floyd was in distress. Listen to his own superiors demonstrate how he violated policNow decide if this man was responsible.

Defense. Ignore your eyes. Trust us. It was just a coincidence that Floyd died then.

Even those of us who do not have children were kids. And at some point we tried to lie our way out of trouble. No. I didn’t break that. It just fell. It was a coincidence that I was nearby when it happened.

It did not work when we were kids. It was never going to work for adults.

Now. I am probably going to surprise you. Chauvin was sacrificed.

Give that a moment to sink in. The truth is that they had 18 years of evidence that Chauvin was a thug. The problem is that the other cops behaved much the same way. And when they received a report or complaint they slapped his wrist while patting him on the back. They encouraged his brutal behavior.

Then when it went too far the same supervisors who patted him on the back rushed out to say how shocked they were and how his actions do not represent the fine men and women of the department.

He was sacrificed. But not to social media. Or the 24 hour news. But to maintain the illusion that there are a few bad apples giving the cops a bad name.

If you're suggesting that most cops are bad, then I guess that means neighborhoods need to start forming militias to defend against rioters and looters. Because even if we assume that most cops are bad, there is still a major need for some sort of protection against crime, whether it's from rioters or regular criminals.

But how frequently do the cops protect anyone from crime? Don't they usually show up after the crime has been committed?

 

[Leo123]

But how frequently do the cops protect anyone from crime? Don't they usually show up after the crime has been committed?

That has to win the stupidest post of the Forum award. You expect cops to be on the scene before and during the commitment of every crime? You must really hate law enforcement to say a thing like that...or just stupid......Or maybe both.

 

[Utilitarian]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

What was unfair about it?

The jury selection was clearly done improperly, when considering one of the jurors was a BLM sympathizer.

Do you think it's possible to find people who don't have an opinion one way or another? Do you think the Blue Lives Matter and their supporters aren't fit to sit on a jury?

That's kind of my point. The media intentionally poisons the well, so that it's nearly impossible to have an impartial jury.

We've reached banana republic status both in elections and now trials.

Anarcho tyranny would also apply.

 

[Utilitarian]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

The problem with the Chauvin trial was again Chauvin. Let’s summarize the cases of the prosecution and the defense.

Prosecution. Look at these videos. Look at how many. Look at the number of people who cried out for Chauvin to get off of him. Look at how many untrained and trained people recognized that Floyd was in distress. Listen to his own superiors demonstrate how he violated policNow decide if this man was responsible.

Defense. Ignore your eyes. Trust us. It was just a coincidence that Floyd died then.

Even those of us who do not have children were kids. And at some point we tried to lie our way out of trouble. No. I didn’t break that. It just fell. It was a coincidence that I was nearby when it happened.

It did not work when we were kids. It was never going to work for adults.

Now. I am probably going to surprise you. Chauvin was sacrificed.

Give that a moment to sink in. The truth is that they had 18 years of evidence that Chauvin was a thug. The problem is that the other cops behaved much the same way. And when they received a report or complaint they slapped his wrist while patting him on the back. They encouraged his brutal behavior.

Then when it went too far the same supervisors who patted him on the back rushed out to say how shocked they were and how his actions do not represent the fine men and women of the department.

He was sacrificed. But not to social media. Or the 24 hour news. But to maintain the illusion that there are a few bad apples giving the cops a bad name.

If you're suggesting that most cops are bad, then I guess that means neighborhoods need to start forming militias to defend against rioters and looters. Because even if we assume that most cops are bad, there is still a major need for some sort of protection against crime, whether it's from rioters or regular criminals.

But how frequently do the cops protect anyone from crime? Don't they usually show up after the crime has been committed?

Depends on the situation, but this is part of why the Second Amendment is so important. Yet a lot of the same people who want to defund or disband police also want to disarm the public.

Ultimately, personal defense depends on having a gun in many cases.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

But how frequently do the cops protect anyone from crime? Don't they usually show up after the crime has been committed?

That has to win the stupidest post of the Forum award. You expect cops to be on the scene before and during the commitment of every crime? You must really hate law enforcement to say a thing like that...or just stupid......Or maybe both.

Think about what you just posted and then get back to the board.

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again Comments for Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again​

12/20/2018 Ryan McMaken

Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office , as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."

This latest decision adds to a growing body of case law establishing that government agencies — including police agencies — have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general:
Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Ryan McMaken

 

[Leo123]

Think about what you just posted and then get back to the board.

How about you address my post? How are cops not protecting anyone? Do you actually expect them to know when a crime is going to be committed? Come on now, stop with the deflection. The link you posted does not support you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

The problem with the Chauvin trial was again Chauvin. Let’s summarize the cases of the prosecution and the defense.

Prosecution. Look at these videos. Look at how many. Look at the number of people who cried out for Chauvin to get off of him. Look at how many untrained and trained people recognized that Floyd was in distress. Listen to his own superiors demonstrate how he violated policNow decide if this man was responsible.

Defense. Ignore your eyes. Trust us. It was just a coincidence that Floyd died then.

Even those of us who do not have children were kids. And at some point we tried to lie our way out of trouble. No. I didn’t break that. It just fell. It was a coincidence that I was nearby when it happened.

It did not work when we were kids. It was never going to work for adults.

Now. I am probably going to surprise you. Chauvin was sacrificed.

Give that a moment to sink in. The truth is that they had 18 years of evidence that Chauvin was a thug. The problem is that the other cops behaved much the same way. And when they received a report or complaint they slapped his wrist while patting him on the back. They encouraged his brutal behavior.

Then when it went too far the same supervisors who patted him on the back rushed out to say how shocked they were and how his actions do not represent the fine men and women of the department.

He was sacrificed. But not to social media. Or the 24 hour news. But to maintain the illusion that there are a few bad apples giving the cops a bad name.

If you're suggesting that most cops are bad, then I guess that means neighborhoods need to start forming militias to defend against rioters and looters. Because even if we assume that most cops are bad, there is still a major need for some sort of protection against crime, whether it's from rioters or regular criminals.

But how frequently do the cops protect anyone from crime? Don't they usually show up after the crime has been committed?

You don't think there's any protection involved in showing up after a crime has been committed? You sound like you want to airily dismiss it as being of no value, because it's not like your movie ideas of what cops should do, but I'd consider getting help for victims who need it and gathering information to catch the perpetrators so they can't do it again has a great deal of protective value.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

The problem with the Chauvin trial was again Chauvin. Let’s summarize the cases of the prosecution and the defense.

Prosecution. Look at these videos. Look at how many. Look at the number of people who cried out for Chauvin to get off of him. Look at how many untrained and trained people recognized that Floyd was in distress. Listen to his own superiors demonstrate how he violated policNow decide if this man was responsible.

Defense. Ignore your eyes. Trust us. It was just a coincidence that Floyd died then.

Even those of us who do not have children were kids. And at some point we tried to lie our way out of trouble. No. I didn’t break that. It just fell. It was a coincidence that I was nearby when it happened.

It did not work when we were kids. It was never going to work for adults.

Now. I am probably going to surprise you. Chauvin was sacrificed.

Give that a moment to sink in. The truth is that they had 18 years of evidence that Chauvin was a thug. The problem is that the other cops behaved much the same way. And when they received a report or complaint they slapped his wrist while patting him on the back. They encouraged his brutal behavior.

Then when it went too far the same supervisors who patted him on the back rushed out to say how shocked they were and how his actions do not represent the fine men and women of the department.

He was sacrificed. But not to social media. Or the 24 hour news. But to maintain the illusion that there are a few bad apples giving the cops a bad name.

If you're suggesting that most cops are bad, then I guess that means neighborhoods need to start forming militias to defend against rioters and looters. Because even if we assume that most cops are bad, there is still a major need for some sort of protection against crime, whether it's from rioters or regular criminals.

But how frequently do the cops protect anyone from crime? Don't they usually show up after the crime has been committed?

You don't think there's any protection involved in showing up after a crime has been committed? You sound like you want to airily dismiss it as being of no value, because it's not like your movie ideas of what cops should do, but I'd consider getting help for victims who need it and gathering information to catch the perpetrators so they can't do it again has a great deal of protective value.

I posted a link to the SCOTUS ruling that the police have no duty to protect any particular person in society but I don't see it anywhere.

In any case, while I'm sure it may be beneficial for the police to show up after the fact (depends on who is involved) that's not the same thing as protection. It also depends on the type of crime that occurred. The law enforcement agencies receive grant money that is tied to focus on certain crimes, drug crimes, anti-terrorism, and child sex exploitation being some of the top three, while other crimes, particularly property crimes not so much.

And for the record, my comments are based on personal experience both individually and professionally, not on what is portrayed on T.V. or in the movies, including what many people take to be absolute reality such as the T.V. show Cops.

Is it true The Supreme Court ruled law enforcement agencies don't have a constitutional duty to protect citizens?

Bill Caffrey, studied Administration of Justice - Policing & U.S. Constitutional Law at San Jose State University​

Short answer: Yes.

The court has ruled that the primary purpose of the police is to protect society, not individual members of that society. The duties of the police are to deter crimes through visible patrols, investigate crimes, collect evidence and to arrest those who commit crimes and aid in the prosecution of those persons.

If you call police for assistance and they either fail to arrive in time to prevent harm to you or others — or they fail to arrive at all — you cannot sue them for those failures. Even if the 911 operator assures you cops are on the way or they’ll send someone shortly, you still cannot sue the agency.

One of the earlier cases I know of was this one.

Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989).

Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as 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.''

With all that said…

Most police officers I’ve known or even chatted with, would much prefer to arrive at the caller’s location in time to stop a crime or be able to arrest the person who is the threat. But the system is reactive in principle. People have rights so police cannot just “shake down” anyone they feel like in an attempt to prevent crime. We rely on things like citizen calls, alarms, good police work and sometimes just dumb luck.

Most often, police are called at the outset of an incident and arrive after all the action is over. At that point, they’re going to get aid for the injured, investigate the crime, collect evidence and witness statements. That’s usually frustrating to the officers who would much prefer make the arrest of the criminal.

Have you ever been driving on a main arterial road and see a police car zoom past with his lights off except when he reaches an intersection? Some calls are urgent but police don’t want to scare off the perpetrators with approaching sirens or cause them to injure the victims for alerting the police.

Is it true The Supreme Court ruled law enforcement agencies don't have a constitutional duty to protect citizens? - Quora​

 

[Utilitarian]

People have been lynching other people since 'time immemorial' too. According to you, that makes it O.K. and is a tradition that should continue.

The question is one of a fair trial. To hear you all speak of it if anyone says anything then there can be no fair trial. But that hasn’t been the case in history.

There have been cases in the press forever. One only happened because of the press. The death of John Geer. It took two years to charge the cop who shot John Geer in his doorway with his hands up.

The police department had done everything possible to prevent the prosecution. They quashed subpoenas from both the DA and the US Attorney claiming the incident was still under investigation. Finally the family raised enough money thanks to press reports to hire an attorney for the wrongful death lawsuit. The judge refused to quash the discovery.

The day after the discovery was delivered the DA got their first look at the files. And the charges were filed next.

Two years. If John Geer had shot a cop he would have been in prison serving his sentence before two years was up. The trial and probably first denied appeal would have been done already.

So the question is did the twelve jurors enter the case with open minds? Perhaps a few didn’t. But is that any different than any other case? How many times do at least one Juror walk in with previously held bias? I’d say it is likely in every case.

Remember the OJ trial and the complaints he couldn’t get a fair trial because of the press? We saw what happened. The “Dream Team” of the best defense attorneys in the nation systematically destroyed or cast doubt on every witness for the prosecution and every piece of evidence.

Do I think OJ did it? Privately. Yes. Would I have convicted based upon the trial? No. Because the defense did a fantastic job. Countering every witness brilliantly. The Prosecutor was thrust into a much larger pond and was way out of her league.

To this day people argue about that trial. They want to claim racism in the jury. But the truth is that the Defense wrote a new textbook and the prosecution got their asses handed to them. Catching the cops in lies made the evidence suspect. Making the gloves the absolute key evidence meant that when they didn’t fit the set looked weak.

In combat it is called inflicting your will on the enemy. Or momentum. In the trial the Prosecution spent more time trying to defend than attack.

Despite months of press reports that OJ killed his wife and the lover OJ got off.

The same was true of Zimmerman. I honestly believed that case was a coin toss. He was exonerated because of excellent work by the defense.

The problem with Chauvin wasn’t one idiotic juror. The problem with Chauvin was Chauvin. The same mannerisms and facial expression designed to make a cop look professional and dispassionate made him look withdrawn and hostile as a defendant.

Think about it. 12 jurors found him guilty in no time. They walked into the room leaning towards conviction. Why? For some. Perhaps they believed that ****** deserved it. But for most it was the incongruous theory that Chauvin was not responsible when he knelt on a dying man.

For most people it would be like saying that yes I was holding the knife. Yes Bob got stabbed. But he ran into me. It wasn’t my fault.

Or claiming the gun just went off as you were pointing it at someone.

The defense argument looks and feels wrong. That is why IMO most of the jurors voted that way.

If Chauvin had been smart enough to get up off of Floyd as he was still alive. And Floyd died anyway. There never would have been charges. Much less a conviction. But Chauvin was a thug and a dumb one. So he went to prison. Get a new trial. Fine. But again you are convincing twelve people that Chauvin actions were not responsible for the death of the victim.

You are asking people to believe your words over their own eyes. And that is a hard sell my friend. It would take the OJ Dream Team to win that one. And even they would have a fifty fifty chance. At best.

The Chauvin case wasn't a fair trial, but that was never the intention to begin with. The problem is that we've reached a point where the media holds a lot of sway over how juries behave now.

The problem with the Chauvin trial was again Chauvin. Let’s summarize the cases of the prosecution and the defense.

Prosecution. Look at these videos. Look at how many. Look at the number of people who cried out for Chauvin to get off of him. Look at how many untrained and trained people recognized that Floyd was in distress. Listen to his own superiors demonstrate how he violated policNow decide if this man was responsible.

Defense. Ignore your eyes. Trust us. It was just a coincidence that Floyd died then.

Even those of us who do not have children were kids. And at some point we tried to lie our way out of trouble. No. I didn’t break that. It just fell. It was a coincidence that I was nearby when it happened.

It did not work when we were kids. It was never going to work for adults.

Now. I am probably going to surprise you. Chauvin was sacrificed.

Give that a moment to sink in. The truth is that they had 18 years of evidence that Chauvin was a thug. The problem is that the other cops behaved much the same way. And when they received a report or complaint they slapped his wrist while patting him on the back. They encouraged his brutal behavior.

Then when it went too far the same supervisors who patted him on the back rushed out to say how shocked they were and how his actions do not represent the fine men and women of the department.

He was sacrificed. But not to social media. Or the 24 hour news. But to maintain the illusion that there are a few bad apples giving the cops a bad name.

If you're suggesting that most cops are bad, then I guess that means neighborhoods need to start forming militias to defend against rioters and looters. Because even if we assume that most cops are bad, there is still a major need for some sort of protection against crime, whether it's from rioters or regular criminals.

But how frequently do the cops protect anyone from crime? Don't they usually show up after the crime has been committed?

You don't think there's any protection involved in showing up after a crime has been committed? You sound like you want to airily dismiss it as being of no value, because it's not like your movie ideas of what cops should do, but I'd consider getting help for victims who need it and gathering information to catch the perpetrators so they can't do it again has a great deal of protective value.

I posted a link to the SCOTUS ruling that the police have no duty to protect any particular person in society but I don't see it anywhere.

In any case, while I'm sure it may be beneficial for the police to show up after the fact (depends on who is involved) that's not the same thing as protection. It also depends on the type of crime that occurred. The law enforcement agencies receive grant money that is tied to focus on certain crimes, drug crimes, anti-terrorism, and child sex exploitation being some of the top three, while other crimes, particularly property crimes not so much.

And for the record, my comments are based on personal experience both individually and professionally, not on what is portrayed on T.V. or in the movies, including what many people take to be absolute reality such as the T.V. show Cops.

Is it true The Supreme Court ruled law enforcement agencies don't have a constitutional duty to protect citizens?​

​

Bill Caffrey, studied Administration of Justice - Policing & U.S. Constitutional Law at San Jose State University​

Short answer: Yes.​

​

The court has ruled that the primary purpose of the police is to protect society, not individual members of that society. The duties of the police are to deter crimes through visible patrols, investigate crimes, collect evidence and to arrest those who commit crimes and aid in the prosecution of those persons.​

​

If you call police for assistance and they either fail to arrive in time to prevent harm to you or others — or they fail to arrive at all — you cannot sue them for those failures. Even if the 911 operator assures you cops are on the way or they’ll send someone shortly, you still cannot sue the agency.​

​

One of the earlier cases I know of was this one.​

Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)

The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989).​

​

Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)​

​

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)​

​

Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as 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.''​

​

With all that said…​

​

Most police officers I’ve known or even chatted with, would much prefer to arrive at the caller’s location in time to stop a crime or be able to arrest the person who is the threat. But the system is reactive in principle. People have rights so police cannot just “shake down” anyone they feel like in an attempt to prevent crime. We rely on things like citizen calls, alarms, good police work and sometimes just dumb luck.​

​

Most often, police are called at the outset of an incident and arrive after all the action is over. At that point, they’re going to get aid for the injured, investigate the crime, collect evidence and witness statements. That’s usually frustrating to the officers who would much prefer make the arrest of the criminal.​

​

Have you ever been driving on a main arterial road and see a police car zoom past with his lights off except when he reaches an intersection? Some calls are urgent but police don’t want to scare off the perpetrators with approaching sirens or cause them to injure the victims for alerting the police.​

​

Is it true The Supreme Court ruled law enforcement agencies don't have a constitutional duty to protect citizens? - Quora​

So what's the answer? If you don't want cops around, you'd better make sure you're well-armed and well trained. Militias would be needed in the absence of cops, since violent crime has been rising, as has property crime (thanks to the "peaceful protesters").

 

[Canon Shooter]

Any updates on this case and/or these two idiots?

 

[Winco]

Any updates on this case and/or these two idiots?

Jury selection starts October 18, 2021.
Trial starts February, 2022.

Ahmaud Arbery: Trial date set for suspects charged with murder in Brunswick man’s 2020 death

A trial date has been set for the three Georgia men facing state murder charges in the 2020 death of Ahmaud Arbery.

www.actionnewsjax.com

Georgia trial date set in shooting of Black jogger pursued by three white men

A trail date has been set for the three men facing murder charges in the death of Ahmaud Arbery.It’s scheduled to begin on Oct. 18 in at the Glynn County Courthouse, court records say. Arbery, a 25-year-old Black jogger was pursued in February 2020 by the suspects, who are white, and then shot...

www.ajc.com

 

[surada]

I sincerely hope that they are able to get a conviction and that people's eyes are finally open to what's been happening all around them, even if they were unable of it.​

​

​

The prosecutor, Jackie Johnson, was voted out and is now indicted for covering up the murder.

 

[surada]

Whats that supposed to mean? Why comment if youre gonna be a dick?

The death of Aubrey was cold blooded murder. It made the national news yesterday. The prosecutor has been arrested.

 

[Canon Shooter]

Jury selection starts October 18, 2021.
Trial starts February, 2022.

Ahmaud Arbery: Trial date set for suspects charged with murder in Brunswick man’s 2020 death

A trial date has been set for the three Georgia men facing state murder charges in the 2020 death of Ahmaud Arbery.

www.actionnewsjax.com

Georgia trial date set in shooting of Black jogger pursued by three white men

A trail date has been set for the three men facing murder charges in the death of Ahmaud Arbery.It’s scheduled to begin on Oct. 18 in at the Glynn County Courthouse, court records say. Arbery, a 25-year-old Black jogger was pursued in February 2020 by the suspects, who are white, and then shot...

www.ajc.com

Thanks!