VA Tech shooting

[TicaL]

police are allowed to carry guns 24-7 because it's their job duty to protect lives of citizens and aren't ever considered "off duty" and are not allowed to strike for better wages and benefits because they are deemed vital for safeguard of society. Police officers know what their duties and responsiblities are or at least they should be when they swore an oath before being issued the badge and gun. i think you have your information wrong about police officers not legally bound to protect the citizens period. its private security officers that are not legally bound to protect the citizens at large because we are private. We only need to worry about those that hired out for our service and even then, we are considered no more than private citizens and aren't bound to interfere even when a crime happened.
and i never said you quoted me. Anyway, it's cool since some agreed with my posts some didn't, and some agreed to parts but not others; but, i do agree with you that the thread did seem to have drifted, and my condolences and grief goes to the victim's families and even the shooter's parents who probably didn't have any idea their son will become deranged like that and destroyed so many peoples lives and no they have to live with the consequences of their son's actions.

for the last time...

Police officers in the United States have no legal duty to protect anyone. Private security gaurds don't even have the legal right to handcuff you but the ones at the mall carry them anyways. I suggest you read the book titled, 'Dial 911 and Die'. The book is full of facts and instances that help prove this clearly in ways that will make you feel a bit uneasy but nevertheless it's true.

You neglect to observe the fact that police typically investigate a crime after it happens and it is very rare indeed when they prevent them.

In example, if a cop was standing 20ft. away from you and you got shot in the arm and the gunman stood there for a moment before firing a second round that cop would not be held accountable under law for not preventing or even attempting to prevent the second shot from being fired. What would happen if this really happened in the real world? The cop who was 20ft. away would give a nice little statement on the news of what he saw and conclude it with something how police investigating and other police work is then being conducted AFTER the shooting occurred. I'm not knocking police because I do think there's more good ones than bad but citizens in this country have grown dangerously dependant of them.

 

[Razman]

No almost every one of the news stations is saying it was suicide not the police, I also no a few people at VT, including family, who also said it was suicide........could be wrong but i'm pretty sure i'm not.........

i trust your personal connections with people at tech more then what i thought i heared.

 

[tyl089]

you know what, i'm done. you think what you like. but, maybe it's my fault for not being more clear. Yes, the police in theory is not liable to protect individual citizens and is not charged with negligence for failing to prevent specific crimes etc. due to limits of resource on police depts. but, there are still areas where the police will be found negligent if it is considered within their scope to protect private individuals but didn't like the case in NY where the NY police dept was held liable for not protecting a witness to a crime after he was murdered and in the court's opinion" in our view the police owed a special duty to use reasonable care to protect persons who have collaborated with them in the arrest, or posectution of criminals" (Schuster v. City of New York, 154 NE 2d 534 {NY 1958}. thats falls under "beyond police duty", and when a police deprive individuals of liberty, then that person when under police custody will also get the police in trouble if he/she was hurt if negligence is shown.
Having said that, there is still the SPIRIT OF THE LAW VS. LETTER OF THE LAW where police officers are supposed to hold spirit of the law more in regards as do you really want a police officer who don't give a damn crusing a beat, letting crimes happen even in "plain sight" because he/she feels they're not legally bound to protect anyone anyway? C'mon.
two, anyone can put handcuffs on criminals if they choose security officers included. ITS CALLED CITIZENS ARREST if you consider yourself an United States Citizen then you should know or atleast try to understand that.
as for books, try reading Criminal Procedure Law and Practice Rolando V. del Carmen, Criminal Justice in the Community Charles R. Mc Dowell, Multicultural Law Enforcement Robert M. Shusta Philip R. Harris, Deena R Levine, Herbert Z. Wong, Social Problems D. Stanley Eitzen, Understanding Human Behavior Rinehart Winston.
I'll read your recommendations; hope you read mine. I got more too if you want.

 

[M|L]

IT WAS A CRAZY ASIAN KID!!!

WTF's wrong with that dude???

 

[tyl089]

if anyone knows the answer to that, the world wouldn't be so screwed up and i'll bet you can't blame the parents because they probably worked their ass off to make sure their kid went to a good school.

 

[bigsmooth]

IT WAS A CRAZY ASIAN KID!!!

WTF's wrong with that dude???

what???? It wasn't a crazy ass white kid

 

[JD7.62]

you know what, i'm done. you think what you like. but, maybe it's my fault for not being more clear. Yes, the police in theory is not liable to protect individual citizens and is not charged with negligence for failing to prevent specific crimes etc. due to limits of resource on police depts. but, there are still areas where the police will be found negligent if it is considered within their scope to protect private individuals but didn't like the case in NY where the NY police dept was held liable for not protecting a witness to a crime after he was murdered and in the court's opinion" in our view the police owed a special duty to use reasonable care to protect persons who have collaborated with them in the arrest, or posectution of criminals" (Schuster v. City of New York, 154 NE 2d 534 {NY 1958}.

Are you cut and pasting stuff from google with out reading it first? I mean come on it cleary states that the police have a duty to protect those in the witness of a crime, NOT the individual citizen. I dont know about you but most people I know are not the witnesses of a crime!

 

[dougefresh]

if anyone knows the answer to that, the world wouldn't be so screwed up and i'll bet you can't blame the parents because they probably worked their ass off to make sure their kid went to a good school.

Actually if you read more of the news tonight they are saying he was deeply depressed, apparently his English professor was begging him to go to counseling because she knew he was but he wouldn't go. All his classmates are saying his writings and play were very morbid and disturbing too. They talked about the one play and it says it is about a son who hates is stepfather, and during the play throws chainsaws and hammers at his father, but finally kills him in the end by suffocating him with a Rice Krispie Treat. Obviously it was a disturbed young man who needed help, but didn't seek it so he went to drastic measures.

 

[CichlidPharmer]

IT WAS A CRAZY ASIAN KID!!!

WTF's wrong with that dude???

It was a crazy English Major!

WTF's wrong with you? No need to blame Asians for this one.

Or maybe it was a crazy TwentySomething! Lol

 

[Mourinho18]

1095 people died yesterday from cigarettes, same again today ( 400,000 per year in the USA)
If human life is so precious then wtf does the gov allow this?...oh yeah...they make a lot of $$$'s from it......

The difference is that those people knowingly kill themselves by smoking. Those kids at VT didn't have a chance to make that choice for themselves. They had some crazy kid make that choice for them.