Hey Blake, still think the police have a duty to protect you?

[Blake]

You're so full of and you know it and so does anyone reading this thread. Post what you think you've proven please. Post your proof that police have a duty to protect you.

I already posted they have a duty to protect the community against drunk drivers. You agreed.

Damn you're slow and stupid.

[TSA]

I already posted they have a duty to protect the community against drunk drivers. You agreed.

Damn you're slow and stupid.

It's amusing watching you grasping for straws.

[TSA]

I see Fuzzy has stopped by, and as much as he despises me he will unfortunately have to agree with me here. The police have no duty to protect you and can not be held liable for such. (State created danger doctrine does not count, as Blake just learned today)

[TSA]

Fuzzy ran in here with his non-semi-automatic guns of empirical data blazing and left without saying a word, his silence speaks volumes.

[Blake]

I see Fuzzy has stopped by, and as much as he despises me he will unfortunately have to agree with me here. The police have no duty to protect you and can not be held liable for such. (State created danger doctrine does not count, as Blake just learned today)

Lol doesn't count.

it's amusing to watch you make up your own rules so you can win the internets.

[TSA]

Speaking of winning the internets.................

Yeah, sorry, I just don't care enough to argue this trivial crap.

And yet you're still here



True or False: Blake understands the state-created danger doctrine

[Blake]

Speaking of winning the internets.................



And yet you're still here



True or False: Blake understands the state-created danger doctrine

I'm not really arguing anything here any more. Watching you get all hissy about this is why I'm still here.

I understand the state created doctrine pretty well, imo. Post a third party poll so we can all vote on if that's true or false, imo.

[TSA]

Yeah, i don't see a true or false in there.

I'm betting you don't answer.

I'm also betting you move the goalposts again.

[Blake]

True or False: Blake understands the state-created danger doctrine

I understand the state created doctrine pretty well, imo.

Yeah, i don't see a true or false in there.

Damn you're slow and stupid.

[Blake]

I'm also betting you move the goalposts again.

Make it $1000 and you have a bet.

[TSA]

I understand the state created doctrine pretty well, imo.

Since you claim to understand it well, explain how is it relevant to our discussion.

[Blake]

Since you claim to understand it well, explain how is it relevant to our discussion.

You're claiming there is no federally mandated duty for police officers to protect.

State-created danger is an exception to that general rule.

I.e., In certain situations, police do have a federally mandated duty to protect.

Slooooooooooooooooooo


































































































oooooow.

[TSA]

You're claiming there is no federally mandated duty for police officers to protect.

State-created danger is an exception to that general rule.

I see you've finally accepted that there is no duty for police officers to protect you.

[Blake]

I see you've finally accepted that there is no duty for police officers to protect you.

You've got horrible reading comprehension skills.

[TSA]

In certain situations, police do have a federally mandated duty to protect.

Here are your two conditions:

First, a government has a duty to protect a person if he/she is physically in government custody. Second, a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.

Are you going to sit here and say you were right because there is a .1% chance of the police being required by law to protect you?

[TSA]

You've dug your own hole, it's been nice helping you along.

[Blake]

Here are your two conditions:

First, a government has a duty to protect a person if he/she is physically in government custody. Second, a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.

Are you going to sit here and say you were right because there is a .1% chance of the police being required by law to protect you?

.1% > 0 so yes, I'm right.

And lawsuits have been won because that .1% chance you made up actually hit.

And that's not really why I said they have a duty to begin with. I clearly stated why, but whatever reading disorder you have kept you from understanding it.

[TSA]

.1% > 0 so yes, I'm right.

[Blake]

You're unintelligent.

[TSA]

Here now is the final version of your argument:

In certain situations, police do have a federally mandated duty to protect. First, a government has a duty to protect a person if he/she is physically in government custody. Second, a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.

The possibility of either of these happening and requiring a duty for police to protect is EXTREMELY rare, while ALL other crimes committed against citizens fall outside these conditions and require no duty to protect.

And yet..........

Yeah, sorry, I just don't care enough to argue this trivial crap.

Thanks for playing Blake.

[Blake]

Oh look, I argued some after I said I didn't care enough to argue. Golly you're a good at trolling.

Too bad you're too unintelligent to have a good conversation with.

[TSA]

Intelligent enough to know the police have no duty to protect me