ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
There is no source on "that" because "that" isn't true and even after pages of posts conclusively demonstrating that it isn't true, he still wants it to be true.
Of course, I'm telling you something you know already.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Of course not having the resources is choosing not to respond. The intent was not in question. The point was that police can choose to not respond. That was the whole point....lol. That's exactly what both decisions I posted said....police can pick and choose at their discretion. They can choose to not answer a call with no fair of being sued. As you can see from both lawsuits, both police departments did not respond and neither suffered "repercussions".
What??? What happens in this area is germaine to this conversation.....what happens outside this area is just as germaine to this conversation. In fact, you're the one who changed the conversation to RI/Mass police response while everyone else was discussing police response....in general.
You have failed to show an example where police were summoned and they chose not to respond... so it is epic fail. In practice they do not pick and choose who or what they respond to...
Police may technically may be able to choose what they respond to, but they do not and if they did so in this area(which we are most familiar with) in all likelihood they would be fired..
It is germane... not germaine.
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
Do you have a source where police made a conscious choice not to respond to a situation??.. there is a difference between what might or could happen and what does happen.
Keep asking the same question and there is a whole lot of tapdancing..
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
Do you have a source where police made a conscious choice not to respond to a situation??.. there is a difference between what might or could happen and what does happen.
Keep asking the same question and there is a whole lot of tapdancing..
I didn't make that claim, so why would I provide a source?
You on the other hand said:
Quote:
police have the responsibility to respond
And I'm asking what your source is for that.
Why is it that when I ask you to provide a source, instead of backing up what you said you ask for a source for something I didn't say?
You have failed to show an example where police were summoned and they chose not to respond... so it is epic fail. In practice they do not pick and choose who or what they respond to...
Police may technically may be able to choose what they respond to, but they do not and if they did so in this area(which we are most familiar with) in all likelihood they would be fired..
It is germane... not germaine.
LOL.......Castle Rock v Gonzales........Castle Rock v Gonzales......Castle Rock v Gonzales. (maybe if I say it enough times it will sink in). Please read it.....
You know what....I'll even put the part that matters to make it easier:
During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, since Ms. Gonzales, from time to time, did allow her husband to take the children at various hours, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival, and he died afterwards.
LOL.......Castle Rock v Gonzales........Castle Rock v Gonzales......Castle Rock v Gonzales. (maybe if I say it enough times it will sink in). Please read it.....
You know what....I'll even put the part that matters to make it easier:
During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, since Ms. Gonzales, from time to time, did allow her husband to take the children at various hours, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival, and he died afterwards.
An incident that happend 12.5 years ago justifies your position?? There is nothing else?? Check the NRA message boards, gotta be more than this.
Act intelligent, do not just quote Wikipedia, the reality is all that you can show is anecdotal evidence.. there is not trend, and for about 99.99% of the time police respond.. that is expected and that is what happens..
The exception is not the rule..
__________________ "Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.
An incident that happend 12.5 years ago justifies your position?? There is nothing else?? Check the NRA message boards, gotta be more than this.
Meanwhile you still haven't provided a source for your statement.
Quote:
Act intelligent, do not just quote Wikipedia, the reality is all that you can show is anecdotal evidence.. there is not trend, and for about 99.99% of the time police respond.. that is expected and that is what happens..
The exception is not the rule..
I believe the original argument was not that police only show up 1% of the time, just that they don't have a legal obligation to individuals unless there is a special relationship - you shifted the discussion from that to showing whether the police don't respond to 911 calls.
Meanwhile you still haven't provided a source for your statement.
I believe the original argument was not that police only show up 1% of the time, just that they don't have a legal obligation to individuals unless there is a special relationship - you shifted the discussion from that to showing whether the police don't respond to 911 calls.
What is the purpose of the original argument then? The message is loud and clear: You better arm yourself, because the police don't have to come. The case is put out there to instill that fear in people. It is disingenuous because the opposite occurs in the real world. Isolated incidents can be blown up to "prove" the point but the reality is police die every single day doing what they don't have to do...protecting individuals. Narrowing down the discussion absent of the context of what happens every day in the real world is an obvious attempt to hide that reality. If you have to look at real world reality in the face then the case loses all of its fear factor. Without the irrational fear factor there is no reason to even bring the case up.
What is the purpose of the original argument then? The message is loud and clear: You better arm yourself, because the police don't have to come. The case is put out there to instill that fear in people. It is disingenuous because the opposite occurs in the real world. Isolated incidents can be blown up to "prove" the point but the reality is police die every single day doing what they don't have to do...protecting individuals.
The fact police die in the line of duty is a total red herring. No one is denying that police put their lives in danger. You're creating a dichotomy between the police aren't doing anything, or the police can always be relied upon. The truth is of course in between. Wanting the ability to protect yourself in case the police can't or won't doesn't mean you believe no cops put their lives in danger, or that they never respond to 911 calls.
Quote:
Narrowing down the discussion absent of the context of what happens every day in the real world is an obvious attempt to hide that reality. If you have to look at real world reality in the face then the case loses all of its fear factor. Without the irrational fear factor there is no reason to even bring the case up.
The isolated incidents that are being dismissed as anecdotal are what happens in the real world. That's reality. It's irrational to dismiss what happens in the real world as something outside of "reality" and "irrational".
The fact police die in the line of duty is a total red herring. No one is denying that police put their lives in danger. You're creating a dichotomy between the police aren't doing anything, or the police can always be relied upon. The truth is of course in between. Wanting the ability to protect yourself in case the police can't or won't doesn't mean you believe no cops put their lives in danger, or that they never respond to 911 calls.
The isolated incidents that are being dismissed as anecdotal are what happens in the real world. That's reality. It's irrational to dismiss what happens in the real world as something outside of "reality" and "irrational".
The fact is it's sunny in Denver 300 days per year. The NRA style ad would be, run for cover, rain is coming
Actually a fairer analogy would be that it's sunny 364 9/10 of the year and the ad was "rain is coming, run for cover". Then the guys that got caught out in the rain would be the poster children for the rain coat cause.
14Likes
Re: Carmin Ortiz makes case for
Linear Mode
