- This topic is empty.
October 3, 2009 at 3:01 pm #677972
Gee, and I thought the police were here to “protect and to serve” not just apprehend violators of the law. Apprehending after the fact, isn’t really very protective. Thank goodness for the West Seattle Blog supplying a place for community information to be shared.October 5, 2009 at 12:32 am #677973
TDe: your belief is a very common liberal fallacy, you may want to brush up on some rudimentary civics to comprehend the reality of our legal system.October 5, 2009 at 12:51 am #677974
i know several officers who feel that protect and serve is what they do.. not some “common liberal fantasy” …
you may be speaking for the bureaucracy but not generally for the officers …October 5, 2009 at 2:55 am #677975
Wow, Vincent. Not really broaching the subject of our entire legal system, just talking about officers. It’s really a liberal fantasy to think police officers are generally tasked to protect and serve? That’s a new one. Do you really think a rudimentary civics lesson, perhaps middle or high school rudimentary, will teach me the “truth” of the matter? Is this one of those conspiracy things?October 5, 2009 at 6:05 pm #677976
This is a pretty basic exercise for criminal justice students. Please find *any* law that supports your statement of police being obligated to “protect and serve”… while your at it, try to produce a picture of a Seattle or king county police cruiser that says the phrase.
The sad truth is the phrase is associated with police, because it was featured in many TV shows. The sadder part is that people actually believe it.
This country was founded on the concept of individual freedoms (bill of rights) and that extends to freedoms of others from unjust prosecution (Amendment 4), to your own freedom to defend your person, and property (Amendment 2). It’s very depressing to me when people approach this with statements like “this is new to me” and “one of those conspiracy theory’s” frankly you sound uneducated about the reality of our criminal justice system, as do most people when they imply that the law has the ability to pre-emptively imprison someone for the “potential” for breaking a law.October 5, 2009 at 6:31 pm #677977
Thanks for the education, Vincent. Take the apostrophe out of “theory’s” and put it in “your” and you’ll sound more educated, too.October 5, 2009 at 8:41 pm #677978
I barely take time to spell check, and now your saying there is some sort of intelligence standard on the WSB? your trying to kill me with lolzOctober 5, 2009 at 9:33 pm #677979
Reminds me of the time I saw a mattress on the Aurora bridge, northbound. High potential there for someone to jam up and then someone else flipping over the side so I called 911. The operator wanted to know the cross street. Aurora Bridge?, I said. Yes, he said, what is the cross street. Okay, so they’re idiots. They are paid to respond to 911 calls but they are not trained to well enough to respond appropriately.October 5, 2009 at 10:09 pm #677980
Woe to any out-of-towner in distress who doesn’t know his/her cross streets!October 6, 2009 at 12:50 am #677981October 6, 2009 at 1:04 am #677982
By the way Vincent, I love the dog picture. I think I’ve seen this video on TV. It always makes me laugh. I’m sorry you’re sad and depressed about this issue and somehow think it’s held in the realm of liberal thought only. I’ve never thought that the concept of protecting included pre-emptive jailing. And nope, I’ve never been a Constitutional law student, either. I did however spend years in another state as a police officer, where protecting and serving was definitely part of the job. Although we weren’t “obligated” by written law to protect and to serve, the police academy did have community relations in the curriculum and service was a big part of that. I was at times assigned service duties: providing directions to lost citizens, helping stalled drivers on the road, providing first aid to the injured until medics arrived, assisting drivers who locked keys in their cars, etc. And at times I was assigned protective duties: Providing a visible police presence in a troubled area, escorting people who had been threatened by others, directing traffic around a hazard so that drivers wouldn’t injure themselves or others, etc. But, that was a long time ago.
So, here’s my question to you: What do you think the role of the police should be in our society today and what is it currently?October 6, 2009 at 1:20 am #677983October 6, 2009 at 7:49 pm #677984
Off topic but the mattress comment reminded me of a 911 call I heard on a tv show a couple of years ago. This happened in another state. The caller tried to report a mattress in the middle of the road and the dispatch treated her the same way and what happened was someone hit the mattress and died in a car accident. I wonder what the justification is for cut and dry information? I could understand if someone reported an incident on a 5 mile stretch of road like Fauntleroy but a specific location like a bridge, even if a mile long, does not seem like it would be unreasonable to have dispatch be able to file the appropriate information in order to have an officer respond or have some way for the SDOT to respond.October 6, 2009 at 7:59 pm #677985
Last year, WSB reported on a meeting where 911 gave a presentation. If TR reads this, maybe she can dig up the link to that story. It seems relevant to many of the concerns folks are discussing here. It was a pretty comprehensive primer in how 911 is managed and it’s policies re: dispatching. WSB has, many many times reiterated that very enlightening information since.October 6, 2009 at 8:37 pm #677986
TDe: Your response is anecdotal nonsense, as you yourself acknowledge your actions where beyond the police charter. The discussion isn’t about what I believe the role of police is, as your trying to re-frame your debate is based on your experiences alone. The discussion is of what role the police actually have in Seattle. Which I have made very clear with examples. Also welcome to the Internet, using examples to give yourself credibility in a discussion are as meaningless as they are relevant to the original discussion. You may want to get out of the habit of using them now.October 6, 2009 at 9:41 pm #677987
Ha…. Still need a hug, I see. Thanks for all the education, Vincent. However would I survive with you telling me how it really is…October 7, 2009 at 8:53 pm #677988
WSBKeymasterOctober 7, 2009 at 9:08 pm #677989
Are you implying that I still need a hug? Or are you implying that TDe’s mom is not someone who liberals would want to spend a lot of time with in a way that would not be described as friendship.
Also, way to plug the frontpage in the forums. It would be easier if you wrote a adbot to do it on keywords.October 7, 2009 at 9:52 pm #677990
vincent…the owner gets to play on the playground anyway she/he wants. So, maybe there’s another playground that’s “unsullied”, that you might want to frequent?
I don’t think you’ve started any new threads, so you must not be getting many hugs ;-)October 7, 2009 at 10:02 pm #677991October 7, 2009 at 10:12 pm #677992
oh, I get it now! Vincent’s Word of the Day is “adbot” – quick- see how many threads he uses it in! I’ve counted two so far. How useful! It adds SO much to the conversation.October 7, 2009 at 10:36 pm #677993
JenV, that’s just a typical liberal misconception. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH adbot BLAH BLAH BLAH.October 7, 2009 at 11:57 pm #677994
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.