GM kills Saturn after Penske ends deal. Obama Motors announces "Yugo" rebirth.

On 2009-10-06, dr_jeff > wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2009-10-05, hls > wrote:
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>> If you can't see it, you must like it.
>>>>
>>> I see it and dont like it.. However, I expect a certain amount of
>>> police protection. This may be a free country, but it should not be
>>> an anarchy, where everybody does whatever the hell he wants.
>>
>> Police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to enforce the
>> laws of the government. The government courts said so.
>
> Really? The motto of the LAPD is "To Protect and Serve."

You fall for bull****. Congrats.

> Please post links to the government documents that say otherwise.

I see you're well informed... NOT.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html

"Published: June 28, 2005
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police
did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a
woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent
husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."


>> If you want protection you have to do it yourself or hire someone to do
>> it for you.

> I did. It is called the police department.

That's not how it works any more. The police work for the government.
Their primary job is law enforcement and revenue collection now. They
work for the ruling class as does the military, not us.

>> And this isn't a free country. One of the reasons why we have to ask
>> government permission for so much these days.
>
> Really? No police officer will stop me from walking down the street or
> doing many other things. Of course, we have never been free do some
> things, like kill others or run naked down the streets.

If they decide to stop you, they can and will. (Yes, it's happened to
me.)

On 2009-10-06, hls > wrote:

> We have laws intended to mitigate this rogueish behavior, but if they are
> not enforced, or obeyed, a situation of civil disorder reigns.

The USA has countless laws selectively enforced. Where's the chaos? Why
is it that the more laws that are created the more lawless the society
becomes?

> Anarchy simply means that no one is in charge...no government. There may
> appear to be a government, but if it is ineffective, it is still anarchy.

Funny how we got along so long without the government monitoring all our
interactions with each other.

Brent wrote:
> On 2009-10-06, dr_jeff > wrote:
>> Brent wrote:
>>> On 2009-10-05, hls > wrote:
>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>>> If you can't see it, you must like it.
>>>>>
>>>> I see it and dont like it.. However, I expect a certain amount of
>>>> police protection. This may be a free country, but it should not be
>>>> an anarchy, where everybody does whatever the hell he wants.
>>> Police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to enforce the
>>> laws of the government. The government courts said so.
>> Really? The motto of the LAPD is "To Protect and Serve."
>
> You fall for bull****. Congrats.

Based on the good work that I see police do every day, I haven't fallen
for anything.

>> Please post links to the government documents that say otherwise.
>
> I see you're well informed... NOT.
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html
>
> "Published: June 28, 2005
> WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police
> did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a
> woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent
> husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

So? They may not have a constitutional duty, but that doesn't mean that
either the states or local government doesn't require them to protect or
serve.

>>> If you want protection you have to do it yourself or hire someone to do
>>> it for you.
>
>> I did. It is called the police department.
>
> That's not how it works any more. The police work for the government.
> Their primary job is law enforcement and revenue collection now. They
> work for the ruling class as does the military, not us.

You're welcome to believe that if you please.

>>> And this isn't a free country. One of the reasons why we have to ask
>>> government permission for so much these days.
>> Really? No police officer will stop me from walking down the street or
>> doing many other things. Of course, we have never been free do some
>> things, like kill others or run naked down the streets.
>
> If they decide to stop you, they can and will. (Yes, it's happened to
> me.)

And me, too. They have always had a reasonable reason.

jeff

Brent wrote:
> On 2009-10-06, hls > wrote:
>
>> We have laws intended to mitigate this rogueish behavior, but if they are
>> not enforced, or obeyed, a situation of civil disorder reigns.
>
> The USA has countless laws selectively enforced. Where's the chaos? Why
> is it that the more laws that are created the more lawless the society
> becomes?
>
>> Anarchy simply means that no one is in charge...no government. There may
>> appear to be a government, but if it is ineffective, it is still anarchy.
>
> Funny how we got along so long without the government monitoring all our
> interactions with each other.

How do you know what the government monitors? Remember the laws after
9/11? Not only could the gov't find out what library books we borrowed,
but the library couldn't even tell us they told the government.

Jeff

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-10-05, hls > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>
>>> If you can't see it, you must like it.
>>>
>>
>> I see it and dont like it.. However, I expect a certain amount of
>> police protection. This may be a free country, but it should not be
>> an anarchy, where everybody does whatever the hell he wants.
>
> Police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to enforce the
> laws of the government. The government courts said so.


Actually, they DO have an obligation to enforce the laws and provide
protection to the people. Laws are enacted for the protection of the
people. Enforcement of the law IS a very basic and essential police
protection.

On 2009-10-06, dr_jeff > wrote:

> Based on the good work that I see police do every day, I haven't fallen
> for anything.

Raiding the wrong homes, killing people, locking people up for their
vices, torture, theft, and so on. They are the biggest street gang in
the country. But hey, if that's what you consider 'good work' I guess
there's no reason to argue.

>>> Please post links to the government documents that say otherwise.

>> I see you're well informed... NOT.

>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po.../28scotus.html
>>
>> "Published: June 28, 2005
>> WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police
>> did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a
>> woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent
>> husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
>
> So? They may not have a constitutional duty, but that doesn't mean that
> either the states or local government doesn't require them to protect or
> serve.

LOL. cops don't care and nobody makes them care. It's not their job.
Every time I could have used some protection from cops they didn't care
and felt it too much trouble to even write it up. It was my problem and
my problem alone. Same with friends and family. Now maybe there are a
few individual exceptions out there but I figure they don't last long in
that profession except maybe in some bufu town.

Oh, and btw, local police departments are largely federalized by taking
federal money for toys and running checkpoints and other such things. It
would be nice if local cops could be counted on standing in the way of
the feds but that is probably highly unlikely in today's environment.


>>>> If you want protection you have to do it yourself or hire someone to do
>>>> it for you.

>>> I did. It is called the police department.
>>
>> That's not how it works any more. The police work for the government.
>> Their primary job is law enforcement and revenue collection now. They
>> work for the ruling class as does the military, not us.

> You're welcome to believe that if you please.

Do you really think that cop with a radar gun at a nonsensical drop in
speed limit is 'protecting' you? Come on now. He's doing what his
employer wants, collecting money from the population.

>>>> And this isn't a free country. One of the reasons why we have to ask
>>>> government permission for so much these days.
>>> Really? No police officer will stop me from walking down the street or
>>> doing many other things. Of course, we have never been free do some
>>> things, like kill others or run naked down the streets.

>> If they decide to stop you, they can and will. (Yes, it's happened to
>> me.)
>
> And me, too. They have always had a reasonable reason.

Well that explains your views then, you think it's reasonable to be
stopped and searched. It's not. One second I'm walking home with my
dinner the next I have a screaming cop in my face... yeah. Land of the
free... LOL.

On 2009-10-06, dr_jeff > wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2009-10-06, hls > wrote:
>>
>>> We have laws intended to mitigate this rogueish behavior, but if they are
>>> not enforced, or obeyed, a situation of civil disorder reigns.
>>
>> The USA has countless laws selectively enforced. Where's the chaos? Why
>> is it that the more laws that are created the more lawless the society
>> becomes?
>>
>>> Anarchy simply means that no one is in charge...no government. There may
>>> appear to be a government, but if it is ineffective, it is still anarchy.
>>
>> Funny how we got along so long without the government monitoring all our
>> interactions with each other.
>
> How do you know what the government monitors? Remember the laws after
> 9/11? Not only could the gov't find out what library books we borrowed,
> but the library couldn't even tell us they told the government.

I made no claim of any such knowledge. You're missing the point. The
point is we can get along without the ruling class telling us what we
must do and watching over us.

On 2009-10-06, hls > wrote:
>
> "Brent" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2009-10-05, hls > wrote:
>>>
>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> If you can't see it, you must like it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I see it and dont like it.. However, I expect a certain amount of
>>> police protection. This may be a free country, but it should not be
>>> an anarchy, where everybody does whatever the hell he wants.
>>
>> Police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to enforce the
>> laws of the government. The government courts said so.
>
>
> Actually, they DO have an obligation to enforce the laws and provide
> protection to the people.

No they don't. Try suing the police department when you're a victim of a
crime. If they had an obligation to protect us from criminals they could
be sued when they failed.

> Laws are enacted for the protection of the people.

Laws are enacted for those who wish to control others or seek to take
wealth from others in most cases. There is very little need for new law
governing people interfering with each other.

> Enforcement of the law IS a very basic and essential police protection.

How's that war on drugs going?

"Brent" > wrote in message
...
> On 2009-10-06, hls > wrote:
>>
>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2009-10-05, hls > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Brent" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can't see it, you must like it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see it and dont like it.. However, I expect a certain amount of
>>>> police protection. This may be a free country, but it should not be
>>>> an anarchy, where everybody does whatever the hell he wants.
>>>
>>> Police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to enforce the
>>> laws of the government. The government courts said so.
>>
>>
>> Actually, they DO have an obligation to enforce the laws and provide
>> protection to the people.
>
> No they don't. Try suing the police department when you're a victim of a
> crime. If they had an obligation to protect us from criminals they could
> be sued when they failed.

They are not immune from lawsuit, depending upon the complaint.



>> Laws are enacted for the protection of the people.
>
> Laws are enacted for those who wish to control others or seek to take
> wealth from others in most cases. There is very little need for new law
> governing people interfering with each other.

There is need for more enforcement. It is not a perfect society, but is
the only way a society can survive.



>> Enforcement of the law IS a very basic and essential police protection.
>
> How's that war on drugs going?

Compared to what? How would it be if there were no war on drugs?

On 2009-10-06, hls > wrote:

> "Brent" > wrote in message
>> On 2009-10-06, hls > wrote:


>>>> Police have no obligation to protect you. They are there to enforce the
>>>> laws of the government. The government courts said so.

>>> Actually, they DO have an obligation to enforce the laws and provide
>>> protection to the people.

>> No they don't. Try suing the police department when you're a victim of a
>> crime. If they had an obligation to protect us from criminals they could
>> be sued when they failed.
>
> They are not immune from lawsuit, depending upon the complaint.

Don't cloud the issue. You aren't getting anywhere with a lawsuit
because they didn't protect your house from being burgled or protected
you from being mugged. They don't have to protect you or your property.

Look at how well those cops protected that kid in Chicago just recently.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09...y5349007.shtml

>>> Laws are enacted for the protection of the people.
>>
>> Laws are enacted for those who wish to control others or seek to take
>> wealth from others in most cases. There is very little need for new law
>> governing people interfering with each other.

> There is need for more enforcement. It is not a perfect society, but is
> the only way a society can survive.

That's what government failure always demands, more government. More
intrusion into our lives. Will you be amung the first to sign up for
viewscreens ("1984") to be installed in your home?

>>> Enforcement of the law IS a very basic and essential police protection.
>>
>> How's that war on drugs going?
>
> Compared to what? How would it be if there were no war on drugs?

We'd have a much more pleasant society where the government didn't have
various ways around our constitutional protections. Nearly all of the
problems with 'illegal drugs' comes from the prohibition.

But hey, a few billion dollars more, more enforcement, more removing our
rights, maybe if they lock us all up, then nobody will use these drugs
anymore... oh wait, the drugs are even available in the prisons. Maybe
it's time to see what law enforcement (that term's rise in use
symbolizes the change in what they do and who they work for) really is.