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?
A Mayor calling for his police to go on strike is about the most stupid thing I have ever read.
It isn’t a bad idea though. It might be rough for a while,but it wouldnt take long for vigilante justice to prevail and the criminals hanging off flagpoles and not weightlifting and playing basketball in the prisons.
The police assigned to Bloomie's bodyguard detail protect HIM just fine. I would love to see a law that said that bodyguards (and police assigned to bodyguard details) are not allowed to have any arms that would not be allowed to civilians in that area, and are subject to the same carry rules as civilians.
Hey Bloomberg - I have an idea. If they don’t feel safe, maybe we should allow the Police to carry guns.
See? Problem solved.
In New York State (and many others) LEO are prohibited by law from going on strike. Bloomie is advocating that the police break the law.
BTW, guns were not used to commit the greatest mass murder in United States history, rather the murders were committed by llegal aliens using box cutters and airplanes. But rather than demanding more immigration control to protect our borders, Bloomie and his leftest tards advocate open borders and less immigration control and enforcement. Go figure.
They can scream about gun control all they want. The fact is, AFTER the shooting, a significant number of Colorado residents purchased guns.
POLICE STRIKE... collective bargaining at the expense of the electorate’s safety. Nice trade there NY. If you ever get hit by a terror attack again NY... you are on your own this time. You have become the enemy yourselves and I no longer care about you. I am not alone in my anger towards you.
LLS
PLEASE....watch what you say...the messiah and his minions in the regime may think that is a good idea.
Bloomberg has a fundamentally backward view of the relationship between a free citizen and the elected government. It makes no sense to quibble with his position on individual issues, because the error is at the root level, and that just can’t be fixed.
Nice try, blow-berg.
You are proof that there is no correlation between money and brains.
Further proof is the fact that you are in politics.
It can be no other way. If the police had a general duty to protect, the state would become legally responsible for every crime. Furthermore, if they had that duty, it would require them to have sweeping powers that are inconsistent with freedom.
The moral of the story is that the only ones who will protect you are you and yours. This is how it should be.
Wow, where did you get those case histories? Looks like a great source.
Thank you sir.
Finally, someone here has caught the salient point underlying his little tirade.
Just as the mask was ripped off when Obama said," You didn't build that," so it was done by Bloomberg when he suggested that police should enforce his own personal dictates, rather than the people remain free to decide such matters.
Fascism and Socialism are the two different sides of the same coin.
Remember:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!
Another issue exposed is the fact that progressivism is the same animal no matter which side of the aisle it comes from.
And how about violent movies, violent video games and twisted, broken families? Whatcha gonna do about those influences on youth, Chump?
PS Bloomie, the theater was a gun-free zone.
First Mayor Bloomberg wants to reduce the armed population of the nation to two groups; police officers and criminals. He has already done so in New York City.
Then Mayor Bloomberg wants the police to go on nation wide strike to get more restrictive but ineffectual gun laws passed.
A question mayor Bloomberg? Will striking police officers be required, or able, to respond to armed violence?
The way I see it mayor Bloomberg wants to first disarm everyone and then remove the police protection that is the last remaining, and very weak, wall between the law biding citizens and the criminals.
When you take his actions and statements at their face value this is what he wants.
HA-HA, Your boy Obama is in a re-election Bloomy and is not going to say a word in support of your ideas until it is over.
Maybe you should go to CO and run for office . Who needs a liberal mayor of NYC deciding gun laws for the entire country?
Well, if the cops strike, then the 75% of people that DON’T have guns already will just have to buy them, in order to protect themselves.
And, by the way, the cops are more likely to go on strike if new laws are passed against guns. They generally do not fear responsible gun-owning citizens.
You read my mind...
FU Bloomberg
Totalitarian liberals of all kinds disgust me. Soviet Socialists disgust me. National Socialists disgust me. Democratic Socialists disgust me. The socialists in today's far left "democrat" party disgust me. The similarities among these groups are broad and the differences incredibly minor. Socialists by nature want government power over individuals, and the outcome is never pretty - especially if they are able to disarm the people.
If the cops go on strike we might actually start to regain some of our lost Constitutional freedoms.
The 2nd Amd has been around for 220 years. Multiple-shot handguns are 150 years old. Semi-auto "assault rifles" are 80 years old. Yet there were no maniac massacres to speak of.
What has changed is the culture. Dark, nihilistic movies with evil but charismatic "anti-heroes" have only existed in the last 30 or so years. Yet liberals don't want to discuss the smashing of cultural and moral values, only the availability of guns!
The police won’t strike. They don’t want people to figure out how easy it is to do without them.
So Bloomberg is suggesting vacating public order to advance his personal political agenda.
Gee, what a great idea. Not.
Dear Mayor Bloomingidiot,
Cops cannot protect you or anyone else from becoming a victim. All they can do is record the position of your dead body and hunt down the perpetrator.
If you don’t want to be a victim, then you have to protect yourself. Buy and carry a gun.
If the police struck where I live, it would be five of six years before anyone around here noticed.
We don’t use them, we don’t need them.
The only thing a cop does within 20 miles of my residence is take the occasional accident report or get conned into running speed traps with the Staters.
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.