On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 9:02 AM, voyager9 said:

So on-duty LEO are just citizens and have no duty to act.  Yet off-duty/retired LEO are a special class because they have training. Seems a conflict to me.  

On Duty I had to act, as a citizen you do not have to act. Off duty I only had to act if I did not put my family or myself in danger. But as when I training the County Prosecutor told us flat, if there is shooting and you do not do something, on or off duty...I will have your badge and more. Most of us, will always take action. Many of us will go the extra mile, my oath did not expire after I retired. 

31 minutes ago, TheWind said:

On Duty I had to act, as a citizen you do not have to act. Off duty I only had to act if I did not put my family or myself in danger. But as when I training the County Prosecutor told us flat, if there is shooting and you do not do something, on or off duty...I will have your badge and more. Most of us, will always take action. Many of us will go the extra mile, my oath did not expire after I retired. 

Cops do not have a duty to act.  The cop that stood outside the door of the school in Parkland, Florida and didn't do jack shit as while listening to children getting murdered is a recent example, but there is case law from the SCOTUS that illustrate this very fact.  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html  

Also see Warren Vs District of Columbia.  

I see absolutely no justifiable basis to create a special class of citizens who get special preference and special privilege with regards to the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. 

I'm not trying to bash cops.  I was a cop for 7 years (not in this communist state) and I have been in the military, both active duty and national guard, since 1998.  I understand what they do.  But unlike most of the sheeple out there, I also understand their limitations.  Would most cops act in a life and death moment? yeah, most would.  But most get to the scene after the moment has passed.  When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.  I'm a realist.  We need to be able and ready to defend ourselves.  The cops have a difficult, often thankless job.  It is primarily reactionary and they have to play by a set of rules that the criminals don't play by.  

 

5 minutes ago, Regular Guy said:

Cops do not have a duty to act.  The cop that stood outside the door of the school in Parkland, Florida and didn't do jack shit as while listening to children getting murdered is a recent example, but there is case law from the SCOTUS that illustrate this very fact.  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html  

Also see Warren Vs District of Columbia.  

I see absolutely no justifiable basis to create a special class of citizens who get special preference and special privilege with regards to the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. 

I'm not trying to bash cops.  I was a cop for 7 years (not in this communist state) and I have been in the military, both active duty and national guard, since 1998.  I understand what they do.  But unlike most of the sheeple out there, I also understand their limitations.  Would most cops act in a life and death moment? yeah, most would.  But most get to the scene after the moment has passed.  When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.  I'm a realist.  We need to be able and ready to defend ourselves.  The cops have a difficult, often thankless job.  It is primarily reactionary and they have to play by a set of rules that the criminals don't play by.  

 

Shoots holes in training, justifiable need, equal protections. Etc etc etc

Judge Refuses to Dismiss Lawsuit Against School Officer by Father of Parkland Shooting Victim 

https://www.lawfirmnewswire.com/2018/12/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-lawsuit-against-school-officer-by-father-of-parkland-shooting-victim-represented-by-brill-rinaldi-the-law-firm/

I usually hate conversations like this because of the perceived cop bashing however, I think this has been a good discussion here by all.  hats off to everyone

discussions are needed as the problems and inequities we are seeing are only going to get worse over the coming decade as the state's financial footing worsens, demographics change and more

Just now, PK90 said:

Judge Refuses to Dismiss Lawsuit Against School Officer by Father of Parkland Shooting Victim 

https://www.lawfirmnewswire.com/2018/12/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-lawsuit-against-school-officer-by-father-of-parkland-shooting-victim-represented-by-brill-rinaldi-the-law-firm/

will be interesting to see what happens here as he's not 100% required to render aid and of course, he can cite the need for more intel etc without putting his own life in danger.

6 minutes ago, myhatinthering said:

I usually hate conversations like this because of the perceived cop bashing however, I think this has been a good discussion here by all.  hats off to everyone

discussions are needed as the problems and inequities we are seeing are only going to get worse over the coming decade as the state's financial footing worsens, demographics change and more

I have a serious man crush on @High Exposure don’t tell him.

that being said. No duty means you can’t handicap me in my duty. That’s a fair assessment 

5 hours ago, Regular Guy said:

Cops do not have a duty to act.  The cop that stood outside the door of the school in Parkland, Florida and didn't do jack shit as while listening to children getting murdered is a recent example, but there is case law from the SCOTUS that illustrate this very fact.  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html  

Also see Warren Vs District of Columbia.  

I see absolutely no justifiable basis to create a special class of citizens who get special preference and special privilege with regards to the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. 

I'm not trying to bash cops.  I was a cop for 7 years (not in this communist state) and I have been in the military, both active duty and national guard, since 1998.  I understand what they do.  But unlike most of the sheeple out there, I also understand their limitations.  Would most cops act in a life and death moment? yeah, most would.  But most get to the scene after the moment has passed.  When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.  I'm a realist.  We need to be able and ready to defend ourselves.  The cops have a difficult, often thankless job.  It is primarily reactionary and they have to play by a set of rules that the criminals don't play by.  

 

Okay I basically agree with what youre saying but I'll go a little farther.  I wouldn't say most cops will act.  I'd say nearly all cops will act.

While we're very focused on self defense here, justifiably so,  there are plenty of situations where cops risk their lives that are not gunfighting.  Burning buildings, drowning kids, and many other situations occur where cops risk their lives.

How many times have you seen a burning building and everyone stands out on the sidewalk watching people hanging out windows yelling for help?  Usually the cops are the first on the scene and they do what they have to do.

Firefighters and EMS people risk their lives all the time to help people without gunfighting.  So do many private citizens.

We can always cherry pick and bring up some isolated incident to make a point.  That doesn't make it the norm.

1 hour ago, Zeke said:

I have a serious man crush on @High Exposure don’t tell him.

Now we’ve gotta know what exactly he is highly exposing to you.  Not that there’s anything wrong with it. 

32 minutes ago, BobA said:

Now we’ve gotta know what exactly he is highly exposing to you.  Not that there’s anything wrong with it. 

Can’t you people keep a secret!

2 hours ago, Zeke said:

But most get to the scene after the moment has passed.  When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.  I'm a realist.  We need to be able and ready to defend ourselves. 

THIS is a very important point!!

Does anyone know if it was used by our attorneys with the mag ban injunction?

This point absolutely helps justify the higher round mag possession, as by the time the cops get there to help you, you're dead, all they can do is start writing the report.

53 minutes ago, BobA said:

Now we’ve gotta know what exactly he is highly exposing to you.  Not that there’s anything wrong with it. 

Rumor is it has something to do with "swat stacking" and @rayray

And some have man crushes on me....

20 minutes ago, Zeke said:

And some have man crushes on me....

You’d have to be a man first...

4 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

You’d have to be a man first...

That’s a fair point.

” The measure of a man”

1 hour ago, voyager9 said:

You’d have to be a man first...

Hurts... guys. Jus hurts 

10 minutes ago, Zeke said:

Hurts... guys. Jus hurts 

ugh... really Zeke.  leaving yourself wide open like that. too easy, man, low hanging fruit etc etc.

Okay, I'll play.  This should make it hurt less.

1 minute ago, Scorpio64 said:

ugh... really Zeke.  leaving yourself wide open like that. too easy, man, low hanging fruit etc etc.

Okay, I'll play.

He claims that’s for his firearms....

5 hours ago, TheWind said:

Off duty I only had to act if I did not put my family or myself in danger.

Getting back on track.....

Off duty, you have a greater advantage since you have the element of surprise.  When an armed criminal sees a uniformed officer, they will do one of two things.  Either go away to perp another day or make you a target.  Out of uniform, they have no idea who they are dealing with.  They will assume you are just another disarmed potential victim ripe for the picking.  Out of uniform, you have the element of surprise.

14 minutes ago, voyager9 said:

He claims that’s for his firearms....

It works. I’ve tried it.

2 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

It works. I’ve tried it.

Oh, for crying out loud.  Really!  You to HE.  A freaking target rich environment here.

15 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

It works. I’ve tried it.

That's what HE said.......

55 minutes ago, High Exposure said:

It works. I’ve tried it.

Just need to buff it until the grease comes out the end of the barrel. 

Oh my

Reading this thread feels like I've taken a wrong turn down a really weird street.

But as for the subject started by the OP,  Kerik was on Tucker last night, and he defended the right of lawful gun owners to own  magazines holding more than ten rounds.  

21 hours ago, Sniper said:

That's exactly my point. Kav was willing to fight back against the shit show, and knew the blender it would put his family through.

What are the odds the current sitting judges will be willing to do that exact same thing, when arguing a 2A case and all the lunatics like Moms Demand Action and all the other Anti 2A fringe groups start showing up and make a scene with the other judges? Will all the other judges stand up and fight back, like Kav did, while having their personal lives investigated and threats made against their families?

To think that won't happen during an important 2A case is being really naive, based on the level of partisan attacks and the antics of the radical Lefties lately. Do I want that to happen, no. Do I totally rule out the possibility, based on what I've seen the last year or two since Trump won, no also. The Democrats and the Liberal media have zero issues throwing out all types of bullshit and lies.

Time will tell if the S.C. takes on any important 2A cases, but I'm not betting the farm on it.

To make it to their current position typically requires a really thick skin. This is the reality that everyone faces when they choose this line of work. In the case of SCOTUS, these judges arent fresh out of law school. By the time they get to that point in th eir career they typically know how things are run. Lets take the flip side of the argument. IF the liberals genuinely believe that us gun owners are a threat, then are there judges skirting the issue and not willing to take on cases that limit our rights? I dont see this happening.

When choosing replacements for SCOTUS, they likely vet their picks and go over every detail in their career to make sure they are a solid pick. Given this, its unlikely they would pick someone who has a history of shying away from issues due to it being hot topic.

16 hours ago, Regular Guy said:

Cops do not have a duty to act.  The cop that stood outside the door of the school in Parkland, Florida and didn't do jack shit as while listening to children getting murdered is a recent example, but there is case law from the SCOTUS that illustrate this very fact.  https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html  

Also see Warren Vs District of Columbia.  

I see absolutely no justifiable basis to create a special class of citizens who get special preference and special privilege with regards to the rights granted by the 2nd Amendment. 

I'm not trying to bash cops.  I was a cop for 7 years (not in this communist state) and I have been in the military, both active duty and national guard, since 1998.  I understand what they do.  But unlike most of the sheeple out there, I also understand their limitations.  Would most cops act in a life and death moment? yeah, most would.  But most get to the scene after the moment has passed.  When seconds count, the cops are only minutes away.  I'm a realist.  We need to be able and ready to defend ourselves.  The cops have a difficult, often thankless job.  It is primarily reactionary and they have to play by a set of rules that the criminals don't play by.  

 

That Sheriff's officer should be criminally charged. If it happens where we are present, we have to act. We do not have to sit in your living room and protect you from miscreants. We see, we act. As for the element of surprise, there are more bad guys that know me by sight, than I can count. Also something about walking straight, short hair, no facial hair, limits the surprise. My wife knows how a person addresses me if they were criminals or someone else.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/judge-tosses-parkland-shooting-lawsuit-cops-and-schools-had-no-duty-to-protect-students-she-says/ar-BBR6uqc?li=BBnb7Kz

saw this as a headline this morning.

Only posting it, regrading how someone else mentioned that they weren’t going to toss the case in Florida, but yet here it is tossed out, because we’re back to the reality that police are not legally required to render anyone aid.

Now with that being said I know a lot of Leo’s and men/women in general that would wouldn’t a second thought put themselves in harms way to protect people. I’m not trying to bash law enforcement ect, but the legal reality is that they are and will not ever be required to protect anyone.