Page 1 of 1

They All Quit

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 3:15 am
by P5 Guy
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/en ... 3fca0730ae

It's a small community at about one square mile and 685 residents, but as of Friday, the town of Melbourne Village won't have a police force.

The entire force of six resigned on Monday, which includes the chief, three full-time officers, one part-time and a volunteer.

:lol: :roll:

Re: They All Quit

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:01 am
by flcracker
Terrible "journalism" in the linked article. Completely left out the "Why?".

Re: They All Quit

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:57 am
by osprey21
flcracker wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:01 am Terrible "journalism" in the linked article. Completely left out the "Why?".
From what little I've been able to discern it was due to "ongoing conflicts with the town commission."

Re: They All Quit

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:47 pm
by Allme
I love the mention of "protected protected protected".... Um... The police have no duty/obligation to protect ANYBODY. I honestly tip my hat to those cops, seriously good for them; I wish them well in future endeavors... Hopefully in the private sector or a different occupation all together.



In case you missed it in my other post:

https://mises.org/power-market/police-h ... -yet-again

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again
12/20/2018Ryan McMaken

Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office , as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."

This latest decision adds to a growing body of case law establishing that government agencies — including police agencies — have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general:

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out.

Moreover, even though the state of Florida has compulsory schooling laws, the students themselves are not "in custody":

“Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own — such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.”

Hutchinson is right.

The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

In both of these court cases, clear and repeated threats were made against the safety of children — but government agencies chose to take no action.

A consideration of these facts does not necessarily lead us to the conclusion that law enforcement agencies are somehow on the hook for every violent act committed by private citizens.

This reality does belie the often-made claim, however, that police agencies deserve the tax money and obedience of local citizens because the agencies "keep us safe."

Nevertheless, we are told there is an agreement here — a "social contract" — between government agencies and the taxpayers and citizens.

And, by the very nature of being a contract, we are meant to believe this is a two-way street. The taxpayers are required to submit to a government monopoly on force, and to pay these agencies taxes.

In return, these government agents will provide services. In the case of police agencies, these services are summed up by the phrase "to protect and serve" — a motto that has in recent decades been adopted by numerous police agencies.

But what happens when those police agencies don't protect and serve? That is, what happens when one party in this alleged social contract doesn't keep up its end of the bargain.

The answer is: very little.

The taxpayers will still have to pay their taxes and submit to police agencies as lawful authority. If the agencies or individual agents are forced to pay as a result of lawsuits, it's the taxpayers who will pay for that too.

Oh sure, the senior leadership positions may change, but the enormous agency budgets will remain, the government agents themselves will continue to collect generous salaries and pensions, and no government will surrender its monopoly on the use of force.

Re: They All Quit

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 12:48 pm
by Allme
osprey21 wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 10:57 am
flcracker wrote: Fri Aug 19, 2022 6:01 am Terrible "journalism" in the linked article. Completely left out the "Why?".
From what little I've been able to discern it was due to "ongoing conflicts with the town commission."
They asked why of the police officer that wasn't named but he referred back to a notice that was given city hall, about 1/2 way into the story. It was pretty vague at best. I am certain more will come out about this sooner or later.

Re: They All Quit

Posted: Fri Aug 19, 2022 1:55 pm
by FfNJGTFO
Would the next higher govt. provide police protection (i.e. County or State)? When I was living in the PRNJ for a bit, and I was volunteering for my local EMS unit, we also covered a small borough directly adjacent to our township limits that had no local LEA. It did have a volunteer fire dept, but no local police. Technically, that borough was covered by the NJ State Police which (once or twice) actually responded to an EMS call when we went in. The NJSP, apparently, covers any NJ municipality that doesn't have its own local LEA. Mostly, our town's LEA also covered those calls when we went in, and always the borough's local fire dept. would respond in case we needed some "heavy lifting."

Re: They All Quit

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2022 11:39 am
by Wakko
The Sheriff's office is required to provide services in the absense of a police force. Don't expect any proactivity, just response.