RTR Truth Media (Portland) - A couple who attended a local park for some recreation were warned by police to avoid a homeless couple who police informed them had been some trouble in the past. Apparently there were no warrants nor any infractions of the law that the police were able to enforce.
Some hours later the homeless man apparently emotionally snapped and assaulted the couple with a baton and threw one of them, the female, on the rocks of the beach.
The man was arrested, charged and convicted. He was sentenced to 5 years in prison.
But now the couple is suing the city and the police because they say the homeless couple was “illegally camping” and that the police “failed to protect them”.
As many people know several cities in Oregon have a regular homeless population and as they have tried many methods to alleviate this problem, several cities have relaxed their rules regarding enforcement. Frankly, I for one don’t really have an idea what they would do if they had not as there seems to be few places equipped with handling the problem. Portland especially seems to attract homeless individuals many say because the city is friendly and sympathetic to their situations.
The real issue here, and what this couple apparently do not realize is that the US Supreme Court has ruled on this type of case many times before. In fact, the court has ruled in far more serious cases that law enforcement officers have no duty nor obligation to protect you or me. That does not mean a police officer will never protect an individual, it simply means that the logo on the sides of many police cars is little more than propaganda and at best a public relations gimmick. There is one other distinct possibility. And that is that municipal state and federal law enforcement do have an obligation to serve and protect. Serve and protect what you may ask? To serve and protect the government corporation.
Even if there had been a law that these officers failed to enforce, as we saw in Florida at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, the officer who failed to enter the building and engage the armed suspect, the Supreme Court ruled that neither the County of Browaed nor the officer was liable as he had no duty to protect someone not in custody. So in fact, officers have a duty and obligation to protect only the lawbreakers whom they place under arrest.
We can also analyze the “failure to enforce the law” claim that this Oregonian couple are standing on. Well, in the situation with the Parkland case, there had been many contacts with Nicholas Cruz the alleged lone gunman, by law enforcement. Several of these contacts or reports were in fact considered violent or felonious. But in our assessment and after reviewing the evidence as well as whistleblower testimony from Palm Beach County Sheriffs whom were deposed, the Obama era Cultural Marxist based PROMISE Federal grant program provided federal money to these departments for reducing the school to prison pipeline of “marginalized students” (that means non white students) and to reduce criminal statistics by employing programs and measures to intercede. What was revealed and was occurring in both Miami Dads as well as Broward County was that officers were told on several occasions to not arrest these students and if found with contraband or stolen property, to log said items into evidence as “found property”. This did reduce the appearance and statistics of criminal activity, but it was not long before drug dealers and older criminals became wise to this and used younger folks more and more to do the trafficking etc. Well one would think that all of that activity and failure to intercede in Nicholas Cruz’ life would be considered failing to make an arrest which in the same although less serious case of the Portland couple, the Supreme Court still found no culpability upon the county or the department as there was no duty nor obligation Constitutiobally or legally binding to protect an individual not in custody.
I hope the public is learning just how screwed up the government as well as law enforcement has become in America. And after 150 or so years of American law enforcement history, for this to remain unfixed and a continuing issue is insane. Politicians are the first to make the claim that we don’t need guns for self defense because that is what the police are for. But the one thing you can take away from this report, is that they are at best idiots and oblivious, but I suspect the worst in this, which is that they know that they are lying and that it is not the job of police to protect anyone. Perhaps they have a duty or obligation to protect a governor, or a public official as they are an agent of government. Maybe that falls within the “to serve and protect the corporate government, its assets, and its functionality. I’m not really sure. But I do know that there should be repercussions for politicians who bald faced lie to the public while moving further and further to disarm them.
No comments:
Post a Comment