...Wait....WHAT?! 'You’re On Your Own': Raleigh Police Chief Tells Citizens She Will Not Put Officers in Harm’s Way to Protect Property

[Mac-7]

'If there is a chance myself or one of my police officers
will get hurt in the line of duty...uh-uh, baby! I will not
send my officers out to protect the businesses and the
city of Raleigh! If windows get broken and the city is
set ablaze, all I got to say is 'Burn, baby, burn'!'


She also said that it is hard to identify the white supremacist in the crowd when there are a thousand others attending the event, looting, destroying, burning....

Bwuhahahaha....

You're On Your Own: Raleigh Police Chief Says She Will Not Put Officers in Harm's Way to Protect Property

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown held a press conference on Sunday morning after the mass violence and looting by leftist protesters overnight. Deck-Brown called the mass destruction “disgusting and unacceptable.” Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown then lectured on white supremacy in front of...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Where is the video of the police chief saying that?

I followed the link provided and found no supporting evidence

I watched her say it on tv too.

It is astonishing that she still has a job after CLEARLY defying her constitutional oath.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

Providing private security is not the same as engaging active criminal behavior that is right in front of you.

Coming to the aid of a person who calls the police is not private security.

REad the article. If the cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted by a person on whom she has a legal restraining order why do they have to protect the property of some shop owner?

The Supreme Court coud not have made it more clear.

THE COPS DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE AID OF ANYONE...... PERIOD.

Fuck the Supreme Court

they are educated fools

I understand the legal hair-splitting that prevents lawsuits against the police dept by ambulance chasing lib lawyers

but the reason to have a police dept is to protect life and property

The base reason for a police force is to provide the State with a method to enforce its control on the powers of justice and arbitration. We give the government the power to settle disputes, both civil and criminal instead of people handling on their own.

If the government via the police decides they don't want to or can't do that anymore, then the right to handle it falls back to the people.

We don't want that, but we have the right to do it.

This really will put to rest any meaningful call for more strict gun laws for at least another decade.

Never underestimate the progressive ability for doublethink.

They will push gun control AND police defunding as ways to make us safer, and some useful idiots will buy it.

Unfortunately thats true

 

[Blues Man]

'If there is a chance myself or one of my police officers
will get hurt in the line of duty...uh-uh, baby! I will not
send my officers out to protect the businesses and the
city of Raleigh! If windows get broken and the city is
set ablaze, all I got to say is 'Burn, baby, burn'!'


She also said that it is hard to identify the white supremacist in the crowd when there are a thousand others attending the event, looting, destroying, burning....

Bwuhahahaha....

You're On Your Own: Raleigh Police Chief Says She Will Not Put Officers in Harm's Way to Protect Property

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown held a press conference on Sunday morning after the mass violence and looting by leftist protesters overnight. Deck-Brown called the mass destruction “disgusting and unacceptable.” Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown then lectured on white supremacy in front of...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Where is the video of the police chief saying that?

I followed the link provided and found no supporting evidence

I watched her say it on tv too.

It is astonishing that she still has a job after CLEARLY defying her constitutional oath.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

Providing private security is not the same as engaging active criminal behavior that is right in front of you.

Coming to the aid of a person who calls the police is not private security.

REad the article. If the cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted by a person on whom she has a legal restraining order why do they have to protect the property of some shop owner?

The Supreme Court coud not have made it more clear.

THE COPS DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE AID OF ANYONE...... PERIOD.

Fuck the Supreme Court

they are educated fools

I understand the legal hair-splitting that prevents lawsuits against the police dept by ambulance chasing lib lawyers

but the reason to have a police dept is to protect life and property

The base reason for a police force is to provide the State with a method to enforce its control on the powers of justice and arbitration. We give the government the power to settle disputes, both civil and criminal instead of people handling on their own.

If the government via the police decides they don't want to or can't do that anymore, then the right to handle it falls back to the people.

We don't want that, but we have the right to do it.

This really will put to rest any meaningful call for more strict gun laws for at least another decade.

Never underestimate the progressive ability for doublethink.

They will push gun control AND police defunding as ways to make us safer, and some useful idiots will buy it.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and his crime bill the police have been militarized to the point where they have become an occupying force that sees and treats the people as the enemy instead of actually protecting the people and being a part of the community they supposedly serve.

Oh and let's not forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone.

Knowing these 2 things how much more money do the fucking cops need?

Demilitarize the cops and make them legally bound to come to the aid of the people they are supposed to be protecting

 

[Mac-7]

'If there is a chance myself or one of my police officers
will get hurt in the line of duty...uh-uh, baby! I will not
send my officers out to protect the businesses and the
city of Raleigh! If windows get broken and the city is
set ablaze, all I got to say is 'Burn, baby, burn'!'


She also said that it is hard to identify the white supremacist in the crowd when there are a thousand others attending the event, looting, destroying, burning....

Bwuhahahaha....

You're On Your Own: Raleigh Police Chief Says She Will Not Put Officers in Harm's Way to Protect Property

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown held a press conference on Sunday morning after the mass violence and looting by leftist protesters overnight. Deck-Brown called the mass destruction “disgusting and unacceptable.” Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown then lectured on white supremacy in front of...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Where is the video of the police chief saying that?

I followed the link provided and found no supporting evidence

I watched her say it on tv too.

It is astonishing that she still has a job after CLEARLY defying her constitutional oath.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

Providing private security is not the same as engaging active criminal behavior that is right in front of you.

Coming to the aid of a person who calls the police is not private security.

REad the article. If the cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted by a person on whom she has a legal restraining order why do they have to protect the property of some shop owner?

The Supreme Court coud not have made it more clear.

THE COPS DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE AID OF ANYONE...... PERIOD.

Fuck the Supreme Court

they are educated fools

I understand the legal hair-splitting that prevents lawsuits against the police dept by ambulance chasing lib lawyers

but the reason to have a police dept is to protect life and property

The base reason for a police force is to provide the State with a method to enforce its control on the powers of justice and arbitration. We give the government the power to settle disputes, both civil and criminal instead of people handling on their own.

If the government via the police decides they don't want to or can't do that anymore, then the right to handle it falls back to the people.

We don't want that, but we have the right to do it.

This really will put to rest any meaningful call for more strict gun laws for at least another decade.

Never underestimate the progressive ability for doublethink.

They will push gun control AND police defunding as ways to make us safer, and some useful idiots will buy it.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and his crime bill the police have been militarized to the point where they have become an occupying force rather that sees the people as the enemy instead of actually protecting the people and being a part of the community they supposedly serve.

Oh and let's not forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone.

Knowing these 2 things how much more money do the fucking cops need?

Demilitarize the cops and make them legally bound to come to the aid of the people they are supposed to be protecting

Lets not forget the siege in Waco under bill clinton and Janet Reno

 

[martybegan]

'If there is a chance myself or one of my police officers
will get hurt in the line of duty...uh-uh, baby! I will not
send my officers out to protect the businesses and the
city of Raleigh! If windows get broken and the city is
set ablaze, all I got to say is 'Burn, baby, burn'!'


She also said that it is hard to identify the white supremacist in the crowd when there are a thousand others attending the event, looting, destroying, burning....

Bwuhahahaha....

You're On Your Own: Raleigh Police Chief Says She Will Not Put Officers in Harm's Way to Protect Property

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown held a press conference on Sunday morning after the mass violence and looting by leftist protesters overnight. Deck-Brown called the mass destruction “disgusting and unacceptable.” Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown then lectured on white supremacy in front of...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Where is the video of the police chief saying that?

I followed the link provided and found no supporting evidence

I watched her say it on tv too.

It is astonishing that she still has a job after CLEARLY defying her constitutional oath.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

Providing private security is not the same as engaging active criminal behavior that is right in front of you.

Coming to the aid of a person who calls the police is not private security.

REad the article. If the cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted by a person on whom she has a legal restraining order why do they have to protect the property of some shop owner?

The Supreme Court coud not have made it more clear.

THE COPS DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE AID OF ANYONE...... PERIOD.

Fuck the Supreme Court

they are educated fools

I understand the legal hair-splitting that prevents lawsuits against the police dept by ambulance chasing lib lawyers

but the reason to have a police dept is to protect life and property

The base reason for a police force is to provide the State with a method to enforce its control on the powers of justice and arbitration. We give the government the power to settle disputes, both civil and criminal instead of people handling on their own.

If the government via the police decides they don't want to or can't do that anymore, then the right to handle it falls back to the people.

We don't want that, but we have the right to do it.

This really will put to rest any meaningful call for more strict gun laws for at least another decade.

Never underestimate the progressive ability for doublethink.

They will push gun control AND police defunding as ways to make us safer, and some useful idiots will buy it.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and his crime bill the police have been militarized to the point where they have become an occupying force that sees and treats the people as the enemy instead of actually protecting the people and being a part of the community they supposedly serve.

Oh and let's not forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone.

Knowing these 2 things how much more money do the fucking cops need?

Demilitarize the cops and make them legally bound to come to the aid of the people they are supposed to be protecting

The issue is one can go too far and make the police impotent.

Maybe it's time to decriminalize drugs, i know we are making halting steps with pot, but maybe its time to declare the war on drugs over, and we lost.

 

[Mac-7]

but maybe its time to declare the war on drugs over, and we lost.

i think the result will be even more drug-soaked zombies having children they cant support and society is expected to care for

 

[Blues Man]

'If there is a chance myself or one of my police officers
will get hurt in the line of duty...uh-uh, baby! I will not
send my officers out to protect the businesses and the
city of Raleigh! If windows get broken and the city is
set ablaze, all I got to say is 'Burn, baby, burn'!'


She also said that it is hard to identify the white supremacist in the crowd when there are a thousand others attending the event, looting, destroying, burning....

Bwuhahahaha....

You're On Your Own: Raleigh Police Chief Says She Will Not Put Officers in Harm's Way to Protect Property

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown held a press conference on Sunday morning after the mass violence and looting by leftist protesters overnight. Deck-Brown called the mass destruction “disgusting and unacceptable.” Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown then lectured on white supremacy in front of...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Where is the video of the police chief saying that?

I followed the link provided and found no supporting evidence

I watched her say it on tv too.

It is astonishing that she still has a job after CLEARLY defying her constitutional oath.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

Providing private security is not the same as engaging active criminal behavior that is right in front of you.

Coming to the aid of a person who calls the police is not private security.

REad the article. If the cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted by a person on whom she has a legal restraining order why do they have to protect the property of some shop owner?

The Supreme Court coud not have made it more clear.

THE COPS DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE AID OF ANYONE...... PERIOD.

Fuck the Supreme Court

they are educated fools

I understand the legal hair-splitting that prevents lawsuits against the police dept by ambulance chasing lib lawyers

but the reason to have a police dept is to protect life and property

The base reason for a police force is to provide the State with a method to enforce its control on the powers of justice and arbitration. We give the government the power to settle disputes, both civil and criminal instead of people handling on their own.

If the government via the police decides they don't want to or can't do that anymore, then the right to handle it falls back to the people.

We don't want that, but we have the right to do it.

This really will put to rest any meaningful call for more strict gun laws for at least another decade.

Never underestimate the progressive ability for doublethink.

They will push gun control AND police defunding as ways to make us safer, and some useful idiots will buy it.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and his crime bill the police have been militarized to the point where they have become an occupying force that sees and treats the people as the enemy instead of actually protecting the people and being a part of the community they supposedly serve.

Oh and let's not forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone.

Knowing these 2 things how much more money do the fucking cops need?

Demilitarize the cops and make them legally bound to come to the aid of the people they are supposed to be protecting

The issue is one can go too far and make the police impotent.

Maybe it's time to decriminalize drugs, i know we are making halting steps with pot, but maybe its time to declare the war on drugs over, and we lost.

If they stopped spending millions on all the military grade toys I'm sure most cities would have enough money to put many more cops on the streets.

And I agree with you anout the failed war on drugs. By doing so we as a country would billions of dollara a year in saved drug enforcement related spending and maybe we could actually do some good for the people with some of that money

 

[Blues Man]

but maybe its time to declare the war on drugs over, and we lost.

i think the result will be even more drug-soaked zombies having children they cant support and society is expected to care for

The evidence does not agree with you.

14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks Like

In 2001, the Portuguese government did something that the United States would find entirely alien. After many years of waging a fierce war on drugs, it decided to flip its strategy entirely: It decriminalized them all. If someone is found in the…

www.mic.com

29 countries. 49 models of drug decriminalisation. One handy web-tool.

New Interactive Map by TalkingDrugs, Release & IDPC: Drug Decriminalisation Across the World

www.talkingdrugs.org

10 Countries That Ended Their War on Drugs - Inspire Malibu

America's war on drugs has reached a tipping point, but these 10 other countries have successfully decriminalized drugs and their approach to addiction.

www.inspiremalibu.com

When ten very different countries around the world have decriminalized drugs and found declines in usage, overdoses, and arrests, it’s a surefire signal that other countries should, at the very least, look at the alternatives to the war on drugs and treat it as a public health issue instead of a moral dilemma. Maybe then, we will find help for those that need it most.

 

[martybegan]

but maybe its time to declare the war on drugs over, and we lost.

i think the result will be even more drug-soaked zombies having children they cant support and society is expected to care for

If government controlled the selling of the drugs, and monitored the quality, and set a price for it, I think the damage done via use would be less than the damage we are seeing now from letting criminals control the supply.

We tried making drugs illegal, it isn't working. Something else has to be tried.

 

[martybegan]

'If there is a chance myself or one of my police officers
will get hurt in the line of duty...uh-uh, baby! I will not
send my officers out to protect the businesses and the
city of Raleigh! If windows get broken and the city is
set ablaze, all I got to say is 'Burn, baby, burn'!'


She also said that it is hard to identify the white supremacist in the crowd when there are a thousand others attending the event, looting, destroying, burning....

Bwuhahahaha....

You're On Your Own: Raleigh Police Chief Says She Will Not Put Officers in Harm's Way to Protect Property

Raleigh Police Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown held a press conference on Sunday morning after the mass violence and looting by leftist protesters overnight. Deck-Brown called the mass destruction “disgusting and unacceptable.” Chief Cassandra Deck-Brown then lectured on white supremacy in front of...

www.thegatewaypundit.com

Where is the video of the police chief saying that?

I followed the link provided and found no supporting evidence

I watched her say it on tv too.

It is astonishing that she still has a job after CLEARLY defying her constitutional oath.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone (Published 2005)

Supreme Court rules that police do not have constitutional duty to protect person from harm, even woman who obtained court-issued protective order against violent husband which made arrest mandatory for violation; decision overturns ruling by federal appeals court in Colorado; it had permitted...

www.nytimes.com

Providing private security is not the same as engaging active criminal behavior that is right in front of you.

Coming to the aid of a person who calls the police is not private security.

REad the article. If the cops have no legal obligation to come to the aid of a woman being assaulted by a person on whom she has a legal restraining order why do they have to protect the property of some shop owner?

The Supreme Court coud not have made it more clear.

THE COPS DO NOT HAVE TO COME TO THE AID OF ANYONE...... PERIOD.

Fuck the Supreme Court

they are educated fools

I understand the legal hair-splitting that prevents lawsuits against the police dept by ambulance chasing lib lawyers

but the reason to have a police dept is to protect life and property

The base reason for a police force is to provide the State with a method to enforce its control on the powers of justice and arbitration. We give the government the power to settle disputes, both civil and criminal instead of people handling on their own.

If the government via the police decides they don't want to or can't do that anymore, then the right to handle it falls back to the people.

We don't want that, but we have the right to do it.

This really will put to rest any meaningful call for more strict gun laws for at least another decade.

Never underestimate the progressive ability for doublethink.

They will push gun control AND police defunding as ways to make us safer, and some useful idiots will buy it.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and his crime bill the police have been militarized to the point where they have become an occupying force that sees and treats the people as the enemy instead of actually protecting the people and being a part of the community they supposedly serve.

Oh and let's not forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have absolutely no legal obligation to come to the aid of anyone.

Knowing these 2 things how much more money do the fucking cops need?

Demilitarize the cops and make them legally bound to come to the aid of the people they are supposed to be protecting

The issue is one can go too far and make the police impotent.

Maybe it's time to decriminalize drugs, i know we are making halting steps with pot, but maybe its time to declare the war on drugs over, and we lost.

If they stopped spending millions on all the military grade toys I'm sure most cities would have enough money to put many more cops on the streets.

And I agree with you anout the failed war on drugs. By doing so we as a country would billions of dollara a year in saved drug enforcement related spending and maybe we could actually do some good for the people with some of that money

All we now know is enforcement on the supply isn't working, and unless we want to start rounding up users and putting them in camps like a Hotel California, demand side enforcement won't work either.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If police are not going to protect property but will protect lives then the police should show up to protect the life of the thief who will be getting his head blown off.

 

[martybegan]

but maybe its time to declare the war on drugs over, and we lost.

i think the result will be even more drug-soaked zombies having children they cant support and society is expected to care for

The evidence does not agree with you.

14 Years After Decriminalizing All Drugs, Here's What Portugal Looks Like

In 2001, the Portuguese government did something that the United States would find entirely alien. After many years of waging a fierce war on drugs, it decided to flip its strategy entirely: It decriminalized them all. If someone is found in the…

www.mic.com

29 countries. 49 models of drug decriminalisation. One handy web-tool.

New Interactive Map by TalkingDrugs, Release & IDPC: Drug Decriminalisation Across the World

www.talkingdrugs.org

10 Countries That Ended Their War on Drugs - Inspire Malibu

America's war on drugs has reached a tipping point, but these 10 other countries have successfully decriminalized drugs and their approach to addiction.

www.inspiremalibu.com

When ten very different countries around the world have decriminalized drugs and found declines in usage, overdoses, and arrests, it’s a surefire signal that other countries should, at the very least, look at the alternatives to the war on drugs and treat it as a public health issue instead of a moral dilemma. Maybe then, we will find help for those that need it most.

Regardless of evidence, the fact is drug law enforcement is a major reason police forces have up-gunned and gotten more military style equipment and tactics.

Before we dismantle police departments, maybe we need to try reducing the number of actions that are considered crimes.

 

[Mac-7]

The evidence does not agree with you.

The evidence I’m interested in is ruined lives through drug abuse and the burden it puts on society

 

[Mac-7]

If government controlled the selling of the drugs, and monitored the quality, and set a price for it,

Will government sell to underage drug users who want to get high?

If not the drug pushers will

 

[Blues Man]

The evidence does not agree with you.

The evidence I’m interested in is ruined lives through drug abuse and the burden it puts on society

The war on drugs has done more to increase that than anything else.

 

[Blues Man]

If government controlled the selling of the drugs, and monitored the quality, and set a price for it,

Will government sell to underage drug users who want to get high?

If not the drug pushers will

That's a bullshit argument.

Kids get cigarettes, kids get booze but I bet you don't want to ban alcohol right?

FYI alcohol has ruined more lives than any other drug

Substance Abuse and Addiction

WebMD Substance Abuse and Addiction Health Center: Find in-depth information about causes, symptoms, risks, prevention, and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.

www.webmd.com

Alcohol was found to be the most harmful drug to society and the fourth most harmful drug to users.

 

[Mac-7]

The evidence does not agree with you.

The evidence I’m interested in is ruined lives through drug abuse and the burden it puts on society

The war on drugs has done more to increase that than anything else.

Not really

its drug addicts that are hurting society

 

[Mac-7]

If government controlled the selling of the drugs, and monitored the quality, and set a price for it,

Will government sell to underage drug users who want to get high?

If not the drug pushers will

That's a bullshit argument.

Kids get cigarettes, kids get booze but I bet you don't want to ban alcohol right?

FYI alcohol has ruined more lives than any other drug

Substance Abuse and Addiction

WebMD Substance Abuse and Addiction Health Center: Find in-depth information about causes, symptoms, risks, prevention, and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.

www.webmd.com

Alcohol was found to be the most harmful drug to society and the fourth most harmful drug to users.

So, because alcohol was not doing enough damage we need to add even more?

that does not make sense

 

[Fang]

The choice is clear in November, Law and Order with Donald Trump, or defund police and allow anarchy with Joe Biden. What's it going to be America?

 

[Blues Man]

The evidence does not agree with you.

The evidence I’m interested in is ruined lives through drug abuse and the burden it puts on society

The war on drugs has done more to increase that than anything else.

Not really

its drug addicts that are hurting society

And countries that have decriminalized hard drugs have seen an overall decline in drug use and drug overdoses while the American war on drugs has done nothing to decrease drug use

 

[Blues Man]

If government controlled the selling of the drugs, and monitored the quality, and set a price for it,

Will government sell to underage drug users who want to get high?

If not the drug pushers will

That's a bullshit argument.

Kids get cigarettes, kids get booze but I bet you don't want to ban alcohol right?

FYI alcohol has ruined more lives than any other drug

Substance Abuse and Addiction

WebMD Substance Abuse and Addiction Health Center: Find in-depth information about causes, symptoms, risks, prevention, and treatment for drug and alcohol abuse.

www.webmd.com

Alcohol was found to be the most harmful drug to society and the fourth most harmful drug to users.

So, because alcohol was not doing enough damage we need to add even more?

that does not make sense

Alcohol does the most societal damage hence it should be first on your list to ban

If you ignore one of the worst drugs regarding the actual damage done to society and want to focus on other drugs that are used by far fewer people and that do less societal damage your argument fails