Posted on 07/24/2012 5:45:52 AM PDT by Vaquero
Mayor Bloomberg suggested Monday that cops should go on strike to spur the nation’s leaders to get serious about cracking down on guns.
“I don’t understand why the police officers across his country don’t stand up collectively and say, ‘We’re going to go on strike. We're not going to protect you unless you, the public, through your legislature, do what's required to keep us safe,” Bloomberg said on CNN’s “Piers Morgan Tonight.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...
the police CANNOT PROTECT YOU...Bloomie
they can draw a chalk line around your body and tag your toe, though.
my pre-written response to all things Bloomberg:
Bloomers is a Crony-capitalist, nebbish, poor little rich boy, self hating jew, tiny buttwipe of a man...the only reason he is probably not a fag (the jury is still out) is that he has the greatest aphrodisiac of all time, billions of dollars....he decries the 2nd amendment, but whines about how the enemy’s first amendment rights to worship are being usurped....even though Islam is NOT a religion but a murder cult.....and dont get me started on salt, transfats, cigarettes and sugar
© Vaquero 2012
I’m sure cities around the country would love for their police to go on strike. Then they could fire them, hire new guys at half the salary and change the pension system.
Bloomberg is a bloomin' idiot!
LOL
The police can't protect you...they can only live off Taxpayers, under Union control, and they all should be FIRED, re-hiring only Non-Union Public Employees, to eliminate the gravy train of incompetents. This is true in ALL Public Employment, where Unions have created fortunes for Democrats/Progressives/Socialists, and the Public is left with low-class Teachers, Police, etc., who can't get a REAL job in the Public Sector, but get Union Protection and Dues funneled to get them greater pay and Benefits, ALL paid for by the un-protected Taxpayer.
/s
AM I reading this correctly? bloomberg wants the public to protect the police? HUH? Then give every citizen a gun and then they will be able to keep the police safe.
OTOH, we do not need the police. They did remove their "To serve and protect" motto. They act as if they are a higher species of human beings.
they are already not there when something bad happens, then they about cause you a wreck when they turn on the siren and drive aggressively, they shoot your dog and bash down grandma’s door executing a search warrant at the wrong house
Case Histories
Ruth Brunell called the police on 20 different occasions to plead for protection from her husband. He was arrested only one time. One evening Mr. Brunell telephoned his wife and told her he was coming over to kill her. When she called the police, they refused her request that they come to protect her. They told her to call back when he got there. Mr. Brunell stabbed his wife to death before she could call the police to tell them that he was there. The court held that the San Jose police were not liable for ignoring Mrs. Brunell's pleas for help. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975).
Consider the case of Linda Riss, in which a young woman telephoned the police and begged for help because her ex-boyfriend had repeatedly threatened "If I can't have you no one else will have you, and when I get through with you, no-one else will want you." The day after she had pleaded for police protection, the ex-boyfriend threw lye in her face, blinding her in one eye, severely damaging the other, and permanently scarring her features. "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand," wrote a dissenting opinion in her tort suit against the City, "is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968). [Note: Linda Riss obeyed the law, yet the law prevented her from arming herself in self-defense.]
Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: ``For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers.'' The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a ``fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.'' Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981).
The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989). Frequently these cases are based on an alleged ``special relationship'' between the injured party and the police. In DeShaney the injured party was a boy who was beaten and permanently injured by his father. He claimed a special relationship existed because local officials knew he was being abused, indeed they had ``specifically proclaimed by word and deed [their] intention to protect him against that danger,'' but failed to remove him from his father's custody. ("Domestic Violence -- When Do Police Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect?'' Special Agent Daniel L. Schofield, S.J.D., FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, January, 1991.)
The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship,'' concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. ``The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf.'' (DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 109 S.Ct. 998 (1989) at 1006.)
About a year later, the United States Court of Appeals interpreted DeShaney in the California case of Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990) Ms. Balistreri, beaten and harassed by her estranged husband, alleged a "special relationship'' existed between her and the Pacifica Police Department, to wit, they were duty-bound to protect her because there was a restraining order against her husband. The Court of Appeals, however, concluded that DeShaney limited the circumstances that would give rise to a "special relationship'' to instances of custody. Because no such custody existed in Balistreri, the Pacifica Police had no duty to protect her, so when they failed to do so and she was injured they were not liable.
A citizen injured because the police failed to protect her can only sue the State or local government in federal court if one of their officials violated a federal statutory or Constitutional right, and can only win such a suit if a "special relationship'' can be shown to have existed, which DeShaney and its progeny make it very difficult to do. Moreover, Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990) very likely precludes Section 1983 liability for police agencies in these types of cases if there is a potential remedy via a State tort action.
Many states, however, have specifically precluded such claims, barring lawsuits against State or local officials for failure to protect, by enacting statutes such as California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.
In other words this means the only people the police are duty-bound to protect are criminals in custody, and other persons in custody for such things as mental disorders. YOU have no recourse if the police fail to respond or fail to protect you from injury!
This is exactly why public employee unions are a very bad idea.
Clear the aisle shoppers, I think he's onto something! I think that may very well be the most intelligent thing he has said since becoming a politician.
When they do, every state instantly becomes a “Stand Your Ground” state since there is no way you can call police.
Hey Bloomberg! If the police all went on strike, how would we know the difference? Maybe we could drive fast and not have to pay the tax and the local Dunkin Donuts would take a loss but how good are they at preventing break ins or recovering stolen stuff, anyway? Heck, calling for the cops now is a lot like inviting the Syrian Army to your home: somebody’s going to get shot for sure, just not positive if it will be us or the bad guys or both (or they’ll break in to the wrong house or shoot your dog). No, maybe turning our security over to us would work better. Thanks for the suggestion, Bloomie ‘ol buddy..
Bttt
Did you forget the sarc tag?
Is this from the Onion?
Is it possible that he is that stupid?
Just curious. Do the NYPD officers turn their weapons in at the station before they go home, or do they take them with them?
I amy be wrong, but doesn’t the Taylor law prevent public employees from striking?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.