Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
Read the decisions - they clearly state that individuals have no redress IN COURT for the failure of police to protect. That's what the "liable" in your statement means. All 3 decisions go on to state that protection is the central function of police departments. Let me know if you need me to dig up links to synopese of the decisions, but you're trying to twist the documents from saying that you can't sue if you're hurt in a crime into some warped idea that the cops can sit on their asses all day long with no recourse. The key word here is "liable" and it has a very specific meaning that I think you're missing.
|
I see, they are responsible but not liable when they can't. I'm so inspired with confidence that the police will be there to save me. why is my life, or anyone elses, worth so much crap?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by The_Jazz
As a nod to the other companion thread about perceptions of gun owners, I love how you just called any gun owning residents of DC gang members and all criminals gang members. Yes, some of them probably are, but certainly not all. Probably not even most. Another example of the far right gun nuts screaming in terror "If I don't have my gun the gangs are going to get me!"
|
actually, what I said was that since ALL guns are banned from D.C. that all of those gun deaths would have to be gang related/crime related. I did not synonomize the two and if you gathered that from me using the slash, my apologies. I simply meant that those are the two types of relations for gun crimes or gun deaths.