Self defense against the cops

Quote:

---

Yeah, because cops aren't here to serve and protect.

---

Quote:

---

Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

---

Quote:

---

the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.

---

Quote:

---

I hope all you people who are concerned about the coercive power of the state have followed the links. You lap dogs can keep licking the hand that beats you.

---

Ok brother, methinks thou doth protest too much.

The links are an interesting, if very tilted and inflammatory read. By the logic of the articles, police could be thought to be even more heroic, as they have no duty to protect you - but they very often do so anyway.

While disturbing, the Gonzales case would seem to be the exception and not the norm. I have personally witnessed police officers helping their fellow citizens many times.

The ruling from the courts actually seem to be common sense to me, in this litigious age we live in. There are far less police than the general population. There is no way they can possibly protect everyone, all the time. This does not always make them lazy or careless. It is simple mathematics.

To have them legally obligated to protect everyone, all the time, would result in never-ending lawsuits that would probably end police assistance as we know it. Not a great option, really.

Quote:

---

Canadian Legal Rights:

Here in Canada, you have the “RIGHT” upon arrest or investigation to speak with legal counsel. I would hope that all of us here on the forum are “good guys and gals” and it is because of this fact, that unlike the bad guys who know to keep their mouth shut, we feel that we have to justify our reasons for defending ourselves because we were “lawfully” defending ourselves, and did nothing wrong. This “want” to justify our actions is a slippery slope that “could” mean the difference between freedom or incarceration!!!!

Remember that during a physical confrontation, Survival Stress Reaction (SSR) may likely take effect. One of the effects of SSR is something known as Critical Stress Amnesia (CSA). After a critical incident, it is not uncommon for a person to only recall approx 30% of what happened in the first 24 hours; 50% in the following 48 hours; and 75-95 % in 72-100 hours. As one can appreciate, this recall challenge could cause problems in a court of law down the road.

It is because of these above noted issues that I recommend that if being investigated as a possible suspect, you only provide a statement through a lawyer as there are a couple of advantages in doing so:

• In Canada you can not be cross examined on a statement that has been prepared by your lawyer

• Most lawyers, not all, are familiar with CSA and as a result will wait the appropriate amount of time before conducting a thorough interview which will be provided to the police later on.


If I were asked by the police to provide a statement (either verbal or written) I would give the following reply:

“ Officer, due to the fact that I was faced with a physical attack that I could not reasonably walk and talk my way out of, I responded with that amount of force needed to reasonably defend myself given the totality of the circumstances that will come to light in your investigation. I know that you would like me to provide a statement as to my perception of threat and the actions that I took to defend myself, and I will be more than happy to do so. However, given the fact that I am being investigated as a possible suspect, I want to ensure that I protect myself from any legal consequences (both criminal and civil) that may flow from my self defence actions, and as such, I will provide a voluntary statement to you through my lawyer as soon as possible.”

I believe that the above noted preamble is respectful and also sends a message that you will co-operate with police. I can only speak for LEO’s in my jurisdiction, and as such, I believe most would be very respectful and understanding of your legal concerns.

Remember, you may live by the sword, but you are judged by the pen. Although Shakespeare stated, “kill all the lawyers first”, a lawyer may be your best friend if being investigated by police for a self-defence action.


Darren

---

Quote:

---

Overview

Today’s police interrogation methods were developed to replace more brutal tactics of extracting confessions. While many hail the progress, others point to the lying, manipulation and verbal harassment that are all an accepted part of the interrogation process. The outcome, critics say, is a growing number of false confessions, especially among juveniles. Should interrogations or confessions be video taped? Should certain coercive practices be stopped or would we simply be straight-jacketing law enforcement and jeopardizing public safety?


Guests

John Timoney currently Chief of Police of the Miami Police Department, has had a long and distinguished career in law enforcement. Beginning in 1969, as a rookie officer in New York City, Timoney rose through the ranks gaining a wealth of experience in the department’s Organized Crime Control Bureau, Chief of Department’s Office, Investigation and Review Section, the Office of Management Analysis and Planning and, ultimately, was appointed First Deputy Commissioner. He served four years as Police Commissioner for the city of Philadelphia, commanding a diverse force of 7000 officers. Prior to his appointment in Miami, he served as the CEO for Beau Dietl & Associates.


Peter Neufeld co-founded and directs the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. He is the co-author of Actual Innocence: Five Days to Execution, and Other Dispatches From the Wrongly Convicted. In 1988, Peter became involved in studying and litigating issues concerning the use of forensic DNA testing. His work not only shaped the course of U.S. case law but helped lead to an influential study by the National Academy of Sciences on forensic DNA testing, as well as legislation setting standards for the use of DNA testing. Neufeld serves as a member of the New York State's Commission on Forensic Science.

---

Quote:

---

The problem seems to be that whilst the police officers who indulge in 'shall we say less than reputable practices', harm the whole police force in the longer term, they seem not to realise nor care about the fact.

As an example, many years ago I was traveling in a car with a chum of mine. The journey we had undertaken was being made at the behest of his father who's car we were in. We were both 19 at the time and the car in question was his fathers E type Jaguar.

My chum was stopped for overtaking a lorry (truck) on double white lines on a dead straight bit of road. The peculiar thing was. There was no lorry (there had been one but it had turned off in a different direction) and there were no white lines. It made no difference whatever to the police officer when we pointed these facts out and he took huge exception when I took out my cameras and started taking pictures. My chum was served with a 'notice of intended prosecution'. The following day, having got the pictures developed and printed (way before digital) we took the pictures along to the officers listed station and made an official protest. This made no difference whatever and my chum was prosecuted, subsequently convicted and paid a fine and had his license endorsed.

Strangely enough, the self same thing happened to myself on a different road and different vehicle (Heally 3000) some 18 months after the event above, but within the same county. I consider that at the time the local police force had some sort of objection to young blokes driving powerful cars.

From that day to this we both adopt the same attitude to the police. Don't have anything to do with them. If you see one in trouble tough, they are on their own. They put on the uniform and take the salary and pension, then they sort out their own problems. If I was to see one being assaulted then I walk the other way, that's getting one back for what happened to us. Nobody helps you or me do our job, so why should the police expect help in doing theirs?

Both the incidents were over 45 years ago but I can see those coppers face's as if it was yesterday. They managed to create animosity towards the police from two young blokes who hitherto would have gone out of their way to help out, and that created attitude has lasted a lifetime.

MC.

---

Quote:

---

Wow, do you write off every member of any group when you come across the proverbial bad apple that just so happens to be a member?

Ever meet a bad/mean/bully MA-ist? Better not have anything to do with the rest of us then.

Ever meet an unethical doctor? Better learn medicine and avoid them.

Ever meet a female who was deceptive and manipulative?

How about a male?

How far can we take this stupidity? Pretty far it seems.

Get the point?

---

Quote:

---

So, a few bad cops mean they are all bad, but a few bad members of any other group only means that the specific few are bad?

And, if you look at the differences and even "rivalries" between city, county, state and federal LE organizations, you'll not be able to call it a "monopoly" either.

---

Quote:

---

The notion that police are primarily concerned with enforcing criminal law was popularized in the 1930s with the rise of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as the pre-eminent "law enforcement agency" in the United States; this however has only ever constituted a small portion of policing activity.[6] Policing has included an array of activities in different contexts, but the predominant ones are concerned with order maintenance and the provision of services.[7]

---