IL: Man charged for failing to aid officer

St. Louis Post Dispatch ^ | 8/17/2005 | Leah Thorsen

[Smokin' Joe]

Funny how the officer allegedly asked this guy for help, but if this guy had asked the officer for help and not gotten it, many who use the "allegedly" word would not doubt for a second that the eeevil cop had ignored his pleas.

Okay, In the first place I don't believe there should be a law requiring the civillian to help the officer. Being press-ganged seldom leads to anything but resentment, and seldom gets quality assistance.

It is a dumb law, especially when there is apparently a problem with the police/community relations in that state anyway.

Why do I say a problem? It seems everyone here would either run away (OK, that is one choice, although unlikely to be mine), or help anyone BUT a COP IN ILLINOIS.

Here in North Dakota, with the exception of a couple of political hacks, county sherrifs and police chiefs have consistently backed concealed carry laws because they know we are the ones they can depend on for help if they are in a bind. From the attitudes seen here, I wouldn't expect the pollice there to be in a rush to back such initiatives there in Illinois. Especially with the hostility toward the police there--more on that later.

Maybe the "helpful" guy who had helped change the tire on the stolen car is like some other folks around this site and just does not like cops.

I have met a few police officers who were real buttheads, but on balance, most were pretty decent folk--if you were not breaking the law.

I suppose part of that animosity comes from not knowing what new law or regulation you might be breaking at any given time, but rather than direct that animosity at the cops, go after the weasels who have deluged you with laws and regulations which are useless, ridiculous, or just over the top, and get that crap repealed.

I have allready dealt with the idea of rendering unrequested aid to the officer, and how that could be misconstrued as interference (which could be dangerous to everyone involved).

Arresting the guy who had rescued the swimmer in trouble was STUPID on the part of the officers involved.

But if we are seeing a lack of common sense in the police force, then that is just a symptom of a far deeper societal problem, merely a reflection of the lack of common sense in the laws they are duty bound to enforce.

Someone passed the law they arrested this guy for 'breaking', and those nitwits are the ones who should be taken to task. Let them get a real job before you turn them loose in the Legislature again, if ever.

While 'prosecutorial discretion' saved the real abortion of justice, these UNIVERSITY cops (not necessarily the sharpest knives in the law enforcement drawer...) never should have busted the guy.

If Universities have no better rules and regulations than those which would permit this mess, then how can we expect those who graduate from such institutions to have enough sense to pour renal outflow from the proverbial boot, even with the directions engraved on the heel?

When common sense was named, there was a prevalence of such in that part of society which lived to the age of majority. Only the very wealthy or aristocracy could afford to be well enough insulated from the day to day hazards of existence to survive in a time when a mere infection would kill. The stupid were generally weeded out of the working class by their own stupidity or mischance.

Not so today.

As more and more rules are promulgated by those who have been insulated from lifes knocks and dings, and those with deep seated psychological problems which translate themselves into jihad-like agendas, we will see a further departure from common sense. Then, our culture can quit circling the drain and slip down it.

If the rest of us stand idly by and watch, "not getting involved", that will only accelerate the process, not stop it.

Back to whether you feel your neighborhood is worth defending by helping those who defend it: If you do not value where you live enough to assist those who defend your nieghborhood from the criminal element, please don't move here.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[ellery]

I agree that citizens need to take responsibility. However, there is a huge difference between a citizen voluntarily deciding what he/she can handle, and a citizen who is compelled by force of law to assist in a dangerous arrest. For example, I'm five months pregnant w/ twins, but it's not obvious when I'm wearing baggy clothes. I would participate in a neighborhood watch in an instant -- but I damn well wouldn't be throwing myself into a fight and risking my babies because some officer ordered me to do so.

How can an officer determine whether a person is in any condition to help in a physical confrontation (e.g., the person may have a heart condition, or a hairline fracture, or any number of dangerous conditions, or hell, an oven at home that needs to be turned off before it sets the house on fire)? The officer can't -- that's for the free citizen to decide. Yes, we all have the responsibility for our society, but that doesn't mean we can all help physically, and that is not for the government to decide for us except possibly in WWII-level wartime mobilization.