An officer's duty to care for and protect people

[WalkingWolf]

Nothing to refute or defend them for. Story was too vague to even make an opinion on. It was a gas station . Ok? So we have 24 hr gas stations with benches and coffee and bright lights and multiple people attending the place. Not a blade place to get stuck.

Did the officer drive her there and drop her off? Was it the only place he knew that was open in his jurisdiction that was open? Did he offer her to hang out at the station but she said no?

Cmon guys..... I always say theres a million better stories of police being evil and malicious. Maybe the cop could have warned her and not cited her. Don't have any idea what they do or why they did it.

I'm under the impression this place she was stopped was "half way across the state"? So the cop needed to leave her somewhere.

And you own a person once you take custody. When you release them not unless it was something you knew of while in your custody. So the DUI thing? Yea. A girl being released then getting murdered later? Not so much. Not unless you could prove the cop knew she was LIKELY to get murdered.

We are just what iffin for the hell of it now.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I know that road, unless it was a truck stop by a larger city, most of the stations on that I 64 are closed late at night. Particularly where he is talking about. For a interstate in that section there are few all night truck stops. A gas station is not a safe place to leave a young lady. The officers duty was to take her to a place of safety.

 

[JustaShooter]

I know that road, unless it was a truck stop by a larger city, most of the stations on that I 64 are closed late at night. Particularly where he is talking about. For a interstate in that section there are few all night truck stops. A gas station is not a safe place to leave a young lady. The officers duty was to take her to a place of safety.

Are you even talking about the same story? How can you "know that road" since it wasn't even stated in the post? From the post, she was passing through Springfield IL at the time - hardly an out-of-the-way location. It is the state capitol after all, so much depends on which local gas station she was left at. Also not sure where you would have gotten I64 from the story, either - not mentioned, and nowhere near Springfield. I72 would be the more likely interstate, assuming she was even traveling via the interstate.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Are you even talking about the same story? How can you "know that road" since it wasn't even stated in the post? From the post, she was passing through Springfield IL at the time - hardly an out-of-the-way location. It is the state capitol after all, so much depends on which local gas station she was left at. Also not sure where you would have gotten I64 from the story, either - not mentioned, and nowhere near Springfield. I72 would be the more likely interstate, assuming she was even traveling via the interstate.

My mistake I missed the Springfield. Most people take I 64 from IN to St Louis. But yea I55 is sparse, unless she was actually in Springfield. He said local officer, that could have been Sherman on the north side, Chatham on the south side. Most of the towns are relatively small outside of Spfld. Last time I was on I55 in the area around Springfield the stations on the highway were closed late at night. Now stations in the towns may have been open, Chatham is a busy little town, but the business district is not on I55. There are numerous safe places to drop a young lady off IN Springfield that are safe. Springfield has three hospitals. A state police headquarters, the city police dept itself, and government center. A very large hotel in downtown Springfield. Several full time fire stations.

That the officer dropped her at a gas station would indicate, IMO, it was not a Spfld officer, and it was in the country.

 

[Superlite27]

Just to clarify: She was never "in custody" in terms of arrest. It was her vehicle that was placed "in custody" by being impounded. Instead of being left on the side of the road, she was given a ride by the officer employed by the village of Grandview, to the Circle K, which is on Clearlake Ave. More clearly: near the intersection of 55 and 72. As you're driving west on 72, there's a section that merges with 55 south as it passes through Spgfld. Before diverting back westerly......

.....which is all IRRELEVANT.

The fact is, I had to drive from my home near St. Louis to pick her up and drive her to her home in Quincy IL.

The semantics of arguing the subjective safety of which particular gas station, if it was technically a "gas station" or, more accurately, a truck stop, or the minutia of opinions regarding this or that definition of "safe" are IRRELEVANT.

Leaving a 22 year old girl alone ANYWHERE that is not her chosen place to visit, or her abode without any means to travel to either cannot possibly fit the definition, regardless of the terminology used to define it, of "looking out for her best interests.

There is no other explanation possible from any party that can define this behavior as anything other than LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE.

Emotional response by me? Yes. I fully realize this. However, I personally don't think this clouds my logical examination and conclusion that this is a valid example of evidence of police officers NOT being required to adhere to a duty to protect. I offer this example as a contradiction to Primus' claim of officer's required duties. Whether it is "proof"? I'll leave it for others to determine. In my eyes? Absolutely. I'll even admit bias. However, I don't think my bias discounts the validity of my conclusion: Police are not "required" to protect. Otherwise, why the hell did they leave my daughter at a damned gas station a hundred and some-odd miles away from her house?

If that's considered, in any way, beneficial for anyone involved other than the state, I'd hate to see how a person could be treated if their intention was to screw a person over.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Just to clarify: She was never "in custody" in terms of arrest. It was her vehicle that was placed "in custody" by being impounded. Instead of being left on the side of the road, she was given a ride by the officer employed by the village of Grandview, to the Circle K, which is on Clearlake Ave. More clearly: near the intersection of 55 and 72. As you're driving west on 72, there's a section that merges with 55 south as it passes through Spgfld. Before diverting back westerly......

.....which is all IRRELEVANT.

The fact is, I had to drive from my home near St. Louis to pick her up and drive her to her home in Quincy IL.

The semantics of arguing the subjective safety of which particular gas station, if it was technically a "gas station" or, more accurately, a truck stop, or the minutia of opinions regarding this or that definition of "safe" are IRRELEVANT.

Leaving a 22 year old girl alone ANYWHERE that is not her chosen place to visit, or her abode without any means to travel to either cannot possibly fit the definition, regardless of the terminology used to define it, of "looking out for her best interests.

There is no other explanation possible from any party that can define this behavior as anything other than LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE.

Emotional response by me? Yes. I fully realize this. However, I personally don't think this clouds my logical examination and conclusion that this is a valid example of evidence of police officers NOT being required to adhere to a duty to protect. I offer this example as a contradiction to Primus' claim of officer's required duties. Whether it is "proof"? I'll leave it for others to determine. In my eyes? Absolutely. I'll even admit bias. However, I don't think my bias discounts the validity of my conclusion: Police are not "required" to protect. Otherwise, why the hell did they leave my daughter at a damned gas station a hundred and some-odd miles away from her house?

I also would not have impounded her car for just a expired tag. The officer must have been bored, though I don't know how that is possible in Springfield.

If that's considered, in any way, beneficial for anyone involved other than the state, I'd hate to see how a person could be treated if their intention was to screw a person over.

The moment the police officer stopped her, held her license, she was detained, and the police officer was responsible for her safety. He could not have transported her to your home or hers. But in Springfield there were many places much better than a gas station. Unless things have changed gas station robberies are common in Illinois. Probably do to the unarmed population. I would never have dropped a girl at a gas station unless it was her request. Usually in such a case I take the person to a open fire dept, a hospital, or a police lobby depending a lot on where the stop took place. There is a wide variety of safe refuge to drop a young lady much better than a gas station.

 

[Maverick9]

There's no defense to what the officer did.

Anyone who tries to say it IS defensible is a jerk and is going in my ignore file, FWIW.

 

[Primus]

Just to clarify: She was never "in custody" in terms of arrest. It was her vehicle that was placed "in custody" by being impounded. Instead of being left on the side of the road, she was given a ride by the officer employed by the village of Grandview, to the Circle K, which is on Clearlake Ave. More clearly: near the intersection of 55 and 72. As you're driving west on 72, there's a section that merges with 55 south as it passes through Spgfld. Before diverting back westerly......

.....which is all IRRELEVANT.

The fact is, I had to drive from my home near St. Louis to pick her up and drive her to her home in Quincy IL.

The semantics of arguing the subjective safety of which particular gas station, if it was technically a "gas station" or, more accurately, a truck stop, or the minutia of opinions regarding this or that definition of "safe" are IRRELEVANT.

Leaving a 22 year old girl alone ANYWHERE that is not her chosen place to visit, or her abode without any means to travel to either cannot possibly fit the definition, regardless of the terminology used to define it, of "looking out for her best interests.

There is no other explanation possible from any party that can define this behavior as anything other than LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE STATE.

Emotional response by me? Yes. I fully realize this. However, I personally don't think this clouds my logical examination and conclusion that this is a valid example of evidence of police officers NOT being required to adhere to a duty to protect. I offer this example as a contradiction to Primus' claim of officer's required duties. Whether it is "proof"? I'll leave it for others to determine. In my eyes? Absolutely. I'll even admit bias. However, I don't think my bias discounts the validity of my conclusion: Police are not "required" to protect. Otherwise, why the hell did they leave my daughter at a damned gas station a hundred and some-odd miles away from her house?

If that's considered, in any way, beneficial for anyone involved other than the state, I'd hate to see how a person could be treated if their intention was to screw a person over.

At what age could she be left on her ow at said gas station? If she was a 22 year old male would it have been ok? I get it. Your upset you had to drive to go get her. You know she wasn't in any danger and the place was open. Your peeved she was left there and she was probably upset and mad about it. Your her father and are supposed to be upset for her. But it does mean the cop did anything wrong because it was your daughter.

Whether the fact that the law was passed that says her car has to be towed for being uninsured or not is "fair" is a while different circumstance. Was it an inconvenience to make you drive to get her? Yes. She could have asked anyone else to get her. Shes 22. Not 12. She's an adult by a long shot.

Does it suck she got caught with an uninsured car? Yes. Did the cop do anything illegal or immoral? Not remotely. Sounds like he did actually help her by giving a ride to the gas station. I mean he has duty to protect her right? So I guess him giving her a ride to said station was what? A favor? For fun?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[WalkingWolf]

At what age could she be left on her ow at said gas station? If she was a 22 year old male would it have been ok? I get it. Your upset you had to drive to go get her. You know she wasn't in any danger and the place was open. Your peeved she was left there and she was probably upset and mad about it. Your her father and are supposed to be upset for her. But it does mean the cop did anything wrong because it was your daughter.

Whether the fact that the law was passed that says her car has to be towed for being uninsured or not is "fair" is a while different circumstance. Was it an inconvenience to make you drive to get her? Yes. She could have asked anyone else to get her. Shes 22. Not 12. She's an adult by a long shot.

Does it suck she got caught with an uninsured car? Yes. Did the cop do anything illegal or immoral? Not remotely. Sounds like he did actually help her by giving a ride to the gas station. I mean he has duty to protect her right? So I guess him giving her a ride to said station was what? A favor? For fun?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

How wonderful you know she was not in any danger, more of your fantasies. He never said she was not insured, again your imagination. He was obligated to to take her to a safe place, and that is not a gas station. Especially in Illinois. Guess they don't have armed gas station robberies in Mass?

 

[77zach]

Does it suck she got caught with an uninsured car? Yes. Did the cop do anything illegal or immoral? Not remotely. Sounds like he did actually help her by giving a ride to the gas station. I mean he has duty to protect her right? So I guess him giving her a ride to said station was what? A favor? For fun?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Of course, morally, the cop was a POS, and will be judged accordingly. It takes a real scumbag to do what he did.

I'm glad you know she was never in any danger. Must be one of your superpowers. Maybe they'll make a Marvel movie out of you? Right next to Iron Man.

 

[WalkingWolf]

Of course, morally, the cop was a POS, and will be judged accordingly. It takes a real scumbag to do what he did.

I'm glad you know she was never in any danger. Must be one of your superpowers. Maybe they'll make a Marvel movie out of you? Right next to Iron Man.

:lol: I was wondering when they would get around to a mighty mouse movie...

 

[Superlite27]

Once again......

Addressing the arbitrary opinions concerning the degree of safety in various locations I PREMPTIVELY addressed before: Define "safe".

Who's definition do we use?

If anyone chooses to agree to an experiment, I will gladly take you to a gas station here on the North side of St. Louis. Feel free to ask the clerk if you are safe. Evidently, he feels it must be safe. Else why would he agree to be employed at a location which is not?

Are you safe? Maybe you could elect to walk a few blocks over to the ABB parking lot. They have a security guard. Unfortunately, as safe as this may be, it didn't prevent a lunatic wielding an AK-47 from killing a boatload of folks there several years ago.

....and we're off! Arguing the metaphysics of "safe". Robert Pursig, eat your heart out.

However, as I stated before: I didn't want to argue the semantics. The point being avoided/question being ignored---> For who's benefit was she prevented from continuing her peaceable journey to her home? The second question completely ignored: How does her "derailed" journey home support the claim that officers have any duty to protect?

Arguments addressing other irrelevant points are exactly that: irrelevant.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Once again......

Addressing the arbitrary opinions concerning the degree of safety in various locations I PREMPTIVELY addressed before: Define "safe".

Who's definition do we use?

If anyone chooses to agree to an experiment, I will gladly take you to a gas station here on the North side of St. Louis. Feel free to ask the clerk if you are safe. Evidently, he feels it must be safe. Else why would he agree to be employed at a location which is not?

Are you safe? Maybe you could elect to walk a few blocks over to the ABB parking lot. They have a security guard. Unfortunately, as safe as this may be, it didn't prevent a lunatic wielding an AK-47 from killing a boatload of folks there several years ago.

....and we're off! Arguing the metaphysics of "safe". Robert Pursig, eat your heart out.

However, as I stated before: I didn't want to argue the semantics. The point being avoided/question being ignored---> For who's benefit was she prevented from continuing her peaceable journey to her home? The second question completely ignored: How does her "derailed" journey home support the claim that officers have any duty to protect?

Arguments addressing other irrelevant points are exactly that: irrelevant.

I agree whole-heartedly and would like to answer your questions. Question one: who benefits? Clearly, the largest beneficiary here is the state. Your daughter is clearly not the recipient of any benefit, and to argue that any other member of the public is benefited by the officer's actions is pretty laughable as well. The state, however, has received fairly significant monetary gain. We don't know if the officer personally and directly benefited in any way, so I won't go there. Question two: how does this story support the claim that officers have a duty to protect? It does not, in any way that I can see.

I don't see how any answers significantly different than these could be of very much integrity.

"We don't have enough information" is a pretty useless cop-out, if not a direct effort to divert.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Nothing to refute or defend them for. Story was too vague to even make an opinion on. It was a gas station . Ok? So we have 24 hr gas stations with benches and coffee and bright lights and multiple people attending the place. Not a blade place to get stuck.

Did the officer drive her there and drop her off? Was it the only place he knew that was open in his jurisdiction that was open? Did he offer her to hang out at the station but she said no?

Cmon guys..... I always say theres a million better stories of police being evil and malicious. Maybe the cop could have warned her and not cited her. Don't have any idea what they do or why they did it.

I'm under the impression this place she was stopped was "half way across the state"? So the cop needed to leave her somewhere.

And you own a person once you take custody. When you release them not unless it was something you knew of while in your custody. So the DUI thing? Yea. A girl being released then getting murdered later? Not so much. Not unless you could prove the cop knew she was LIKELY to get murdered.

We are just what iffin for the hell of it now.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Since we only have about a million cops, where are the good apples?

And right on cue as predicted by the other poster, standing up for stranding someone for not having all das papiers readily handy.

 

[77zach]

Since we only have about a million cops, where are the good apples?

And right on cue as predicted by the other poster, standing up for stranding someone for not having all das papiers readily handy.

It's interesting, but some years ago I was in the exact situation as Superlite's daughter. The result? Nothing. I had to go down to the court house within a few days and have my insurance company fax over proof of insurance, lest I pay a hefty fine. Then I had to update my tag, plus a small fine for it being expired. I never dreamed that in other places what happened to his daughter was a possibility. But who can plumb the depths of the state's darkness? One thing is for sure, we'll always have people willing to enforce the state's edicts, no matter how perverse. We'll always have apologists for every depravity, just as some posters here .

 

[Primus]

It's interesting, but some years ago I was in the exact situation as Superlite's daughter. The result? Nothing. I had to go down to the court house within a few days and have my insurance company fax over proof of insurance, lest I pay a hefty fine. Then I had to update my tag, plus a small fine for it being expired. I never dreamed that in other places what happened to his daughter was a possibility. But who can plumb the depths of the state's darkness? One thing is for sure, we'll always have people willing to enforce the state's edicts, no matter how perverse. We'll always have apologists for every depravity, just as some posters here .

Were you more outraged they stopped you and held up a law you don't agree with? Or were you upset and felt they were not "protecting" you?

Listen if for someone reason you break the law, even if its a dumb law and it's a clerical error, how can you be upset and say you were protected or served?

Finally, I'm not an apologist... it's called a REALIST. When you and some other guys throw out some BS about fake tyranny or how many bad "apples" there are or so many fake and BS claims about how supposedly police operate (funny how you know, yet your not one?) I step in and call BS flag on the play. I will not apologize for it being illegal to not have insurance in your state. I will not apologize for your not having said proof of insurance when it's needed. I save my apologies for mistakes I make and when I actually mean it.

 

[Superlite27]

Were you more outraged they stopped you and held up a law you don't agree with? Or were you upset and felt they were not "protecting" you?

Listen if for someone reason you break the law, even if its a dumb law and it's a clerical error, how can you be upset and say you were protected or served?

I realize this question is pointed at 77zach, but it also applies to my daughter's situation.

Unlike others, I don't fault the officer. She was breaking the law. The law dictates her car be impounded. Yes, my problem is with the stupid law and not actually with the officer who's job it is to enforce it.

I'm also familiar with the law's origination: Seems as though awhile back, an officer pulled over an uninsured motorist and issued a warning. Several miles down the road, the uninsured motorist smashed into a minivan full of cancer patients, schoolbus filled with terminally ill children, or (insert sob story). Flash forward to today...problem solved. Legislators wielding the ungainly law like a fiery sword have slain the evil dragon of uninsured motorists.

I realize my "beef" is with the stupid law and its unintended consequences. However, it cannot be argued that officers have a duty to protect when I can cite an example of an instance of the exact opposite. The OP lists an example of a regulation requiring officer response and attempts to use this as the basis for an argument for police having a duty to protect. Well, if this one example is valid, and officers DO have a duty to protect based in regulation, how is it possible for them also to be required to strand passing motorists by dumping them at random gas stations?

The Nuremberg Defense only goes so far.

 

[Bigpapa]

Well I guess that we going to have to be arm ourself.

 

[wimwag]

Well I guess that we going to have to be arm ourself.

Careful dude. Protecting yourself from tyranny and violence by sworn officers gets looked down on here. Fluffers everywhere!

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It's interesting, but some years ago I was in the exact situation as Superlite's daughter. The result? Nothing. I had to go down to the court house within a few days and have my insurance company fax over proof of insurance, lest I pay a hefty fine. Then I had to update my tag, plus a small fine for it being expired. I never dreamed that in other places what happened to his daughter was a possibility. But who can plumb the depths of the state's darkness? One thing is for sure, we'll always have people willing to enforce the state's edicts, no matter how perverse. We'll always have apologists for every depravity, just as some posters here .

+1 They always need someone to carry out the "orders".

Were you more outraged they stopped you and held up a law you don't agree with? Or were you upset and felt they were not "protecting" you?

Listen if for someone reason you break the law, even if its a dumb law and it's a clerical error, how can you be upset and say you were protected or served?

Finally, I'm not an apologist... it's called a REALIST. When you and some other guys throw out some BS about fake tyranny or how many bad "apples" there are or so many fake and BS claims about how supposedly police operate (funny how you know, yet your not one?) I step in and call BS flag on the play. I will not apologize for it being illegal to not have insurance in your state. I will not apologize for your not having said proof of insurance when it's needed. I save my apologies for mistakes I make and when I actually mean it.

NO you listen, you have no right first to lecture anyone especially since you are probably still quite young. And since you don't even grasp what the previous poster was saying. I bet you break some laws everyday.
No you are an apologist, you are rationalizing the "just following orders" mindset of police, you do not understand what laws are meant to be in a society like ours founded on common/natural law.

Fake tyranny? Cops kicking in your doors of a wrong house is fake tyranny? Judges sentencing people for non crimes is fake tyranny? Prosecutors inventing new ways to find violations of law fake tyranny? The detention of people without a warrant and who have done no wrong fake tyranny? One set of rules for the enforcers and one for the population, fake tyranny? Mandating peoples actions in almost every action they take, fake tyranny? Listening in on your phone calls reading your emails, fake tyranny? Stealing a large portion of your labor, fake tyranny? You have made excuses for many of these actions and continue to do so.

A realist would understand things without the narrow mindedness of your infatuation of your profession, your infatuation of controlling other people, your infatuation of a government tricking you into thinking it is necessary and does more good than harm, your infatuation of yourself and your own deluded "realities". A realist would have an open mind and actually learn the truth of what is or is not allowed by the Constitution and not make excuses for the ridiculous tortured "interpretations" of it by the judges and the government in its continued grasp for more and more power, a realist would pay attention to the concerns of others and see if there was a way to address them, a realist would stand up and condemn the bad actions of others in his profession, a realist would realize that he is getting owned on every subject he posts here and would maybe reevaluate his prejudices and faulty positions.

I realize this question is pointed at 77zach, but it also applies to my daughter's situation.

Unlike others, I don't fault the officer. She was breaking the law. The law dictates her car be impounded. Yes, my problem is with the stupid law and not actually with the officer who's job it is to enforce it.

I'm also familiar with the law's origination: Seems as though awhile back, an officer pulled over an uninsured motorist and issued a warning. Several miles down the road, the uninsured motorist smashed into a minivan full of cancer patients, schoolbus filled with terminally ill children, or (insert sob story). Flash forward to today...problem solved. Legislators wielding the ungainly law like a fiery sword have slain the evil dragon of uninsured motorists.

I realize my "beef" is with the stupid law and its unintended consequences. However, it cannot be argued that officers have a duty to protect when I can cite an example of an instance of the exact opposite. The OP lists an example of a regulation requiring officer response and attempts to use this as the basis for an argument for police having a duty to protect. Well, if this one example is valid, and officers DO have a duty to protect based in regulation, how is it possible for them also to be required to strand passing motorists by dumping them at random gas stations?

The Nuremberg Defense only goes so far.

Yep and that's why I do fault the officers who enforce state rules over natural laws.

 

[Primus]

I realize this question is pointed at 77zach, but it also applies to my daughter's situation.

Unlike others, I don't fault the officer. She was breaking the law. The law dictates her car be impounded. Yes, my problem is with the stupid law and not actually with the officer who's job it is to enforce it.

I'm also familiar with the law's origination: Seems as though awhile back, an officer pulled over an uninsured motorist and issued a warning. Several miles down the road, the uninsured motorist smashed into a minivan full of cancer patients, schoolbus filled with terminally ill children, or (insert sob story). Flash forward to today...problem solved. Legislators wielding the ungainly law like a fiery sword have slain the evil dragon of uninsured motorists.

I realize my "beef" is with the stupid law and its unintended consequences. However, it cannot be argued that officers have a duty to protect when I can cite an example of an instance of the exact opposite. The OP lists an example of a regulation requiring officer response and attempts to use this as the basis for an argument for police having a duty to protect. Well, if this one example is valid, and officers DO have a duty to protect based in regulation, how is it possible for them also to be required to strand passing motorists by dumping them at random gas stations?

The Nuremberg Defense only goes so far.

Thank you super for clarifying. This was my point. I can get behind you on disagreeing with the law and we have similar laws around here for the same reasons. We are often told we can't let someone go one we find out they are uninsured for liability reasons. On occasion I do anyways.

I don't think its an all or nothing thing. Listen.. even if you strongly believe that the officer didn't protect her by leaving her at that station, even if you feel he actually harmed her in some way, that does not remotely mean no one else or even he had a duty to protect. It just means he didn't do I in your opinion. Its like the bad cops who beat people. They have the same duty I do. They chose not to follow it at that time. Its a choice to follow that duty. Its like the sheriffs refusing the gun ban. They are choosing to follow their duty to the people over the government. The duty is always there its the choice that matters.

Even all the case law. The officers showed up because they had a duty to. Then they made choices that let people hurt indirectly. Still doesn't destroy that duty.

Do soldiers not have a duty to their country? But wait some commit heinous crimes while deployed. It doesn't change the other 99% who are doing the right thing.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk