Sign in to follow this  
Plein Air

.

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Plein Air said:

I am not one bit surprised by this, but I do find it very disturbing that she actually planned on letting them tear up the city with no concerted effort to keep the peace. What a horrible precedent to set for the next round of protests. Salt Lake City is and has been for a long time, on my list of least liked cities in the entire country and it is now bucking for a spot in the top 5. 

https://www.ksl.com/article/46759423/former-police-chiefs-weigh-in-on-hands-off-protest-strategy

 

 

When government decides not to uphold the law and to not protect property - What else is it for?

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, SLC has a fund specifically to clean up graffiti; so they figured they’d just let the victims make claims on the fund.  I *presume* they figured they’d have to be more aggressive if it went beyond broken windows and spray paint (as, in fact, they ultimately did).

They seem to have learned their lesson—my wife’s phone just got an emergency alert of a curfew to last all week.

I wonder if the Church is re-thinking its decision to tear down major parts of the wall around Temple Square . . .

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2020 at 10:15 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, SLC has a fund specifically to clean up graffiti; so they figured they’d just let the victims make claims on the fund.  I *presume* they figured they’d have to be more aggressive if it went beyond broken windows and spray paint (as, in fact, they ultimately did).

They seem to have learned their lesson—my wife’s phone just got an emergency alert of a curfew to last all week.

I wonder if the Church is re-thinking its decision to tear down major parts of the wall around Temple Square . . .

I hate to invoke Godwin's Law on this... just pardona moi for the reference but it's just the perfect example.  As a child I have always wondered why the Jews peacefully filed into camps and box trains.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2020 at 7:15 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, SLC has a fund specifically to clean up graffiti; so they figured they’d just let the victims make claims on the fund.  I *presume* they figured they’d have to be more aggressive if it went beyond broken windows and spray paint (as, in fact, they ultimately did).

So why can't individual business owners file suit against the city for the police's failure to protect them? It was done (or not done) at the behest of the city officials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Vort said:

So why can't individual business owners file suit against the city for the police's failure to protect them? It was done (or not done) at the behest of the city officials.

Qualified immunity, I suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Qualified immunity, I suspect.

Can you explain a bit more, for the legally impaired among us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Vort said:

Can you explain a bit more, for the legally impaired among us?

“Legally impaired”?  Like, BAC over .05?  :satan:

Basically, qualified immunity is the idea that when I foul up as a government employee, you still can’t sue me unless I do something really, horrendously, egregiously bad.  Here’s the Wikipedia treatment on the issue.

I haven’t exhaustively researched the issue.  But I know 2nd Amendment advocates are fond of citing to a SCOTUS case—I think from the 1970s?—that basically says police have no obligation to come to your aid in an emergency.  So I would guess that between that holding and the QA doctrine, you’re probably not going to get punitive damages for property damage incurred due to an uncontrolled riot—just actual damages, which is what the fund already covers.  :(

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Plein Air said:

I am familiar with the case law that pretty much says there is no implied right to protection of the individual by law enforcement. I don't think that would preclude the city and / or the mayor from being sued over damages caused by negligent behavior that lead to the rioting and property destruction. I believe that if the trial was held outside the Wasatch Front,  and it was a jury trial, the mayor would lose big time. 

Morally, I agree that the city’s absolutely culpable.  Legally . . . I don’t see a basis for having the case removed from the Wasatch Front, especially if it goes federal; and even if it did it’s have to survive as 12(b)(6) motion before a jury even got impaneled.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Morally, I agree that the city’s absolutely culpable.  Legally . . . I don’t see a basis for having the case removed from the Wasatch Front, especially if it goes federal; and even if it did it’s have to survive as 12(b)(6) motion before a jury even got impaneled.  

I don't know the legal precedents other than supposedly police have no responsibility to protect any individual from criminal action.

 

Under the idea of just letting the protesters destroy everything...

The question I'd as is that if they have no responsibility to protect the safety and security of citizens and their property, what exactly is their function?  What are we paying taxes to support?

  • To enforce the law?
  • To bring people to justice?
  • Punish the guilty?

It doesn't seem any such goals are being fulfilled by letting protesters run amok.  So, what is their purpose? Why do I pay tax dollars to support them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know the legal precedents other than supposedly police have no responsibility to protect any individual from criminal action.

 

Under the idea of just letting the protesters destroy everything...

The question I'd as is that if they have no responsibility to protect the safety and security of citizens and their property, what exactly is their function?  What are we paying taxes to support?

  • To enforce the law?
  • To bring people to justice?
  • Punish the guilty?

It doesn't seem any such goals are being fulfilled by letting protesters run amok.  So, what is their purpose? Why do I pay tax dollars to support them?

That's a great question...

For your local department...

PS: To be clear, in relation to various decisions in the recent past, each group of law enforcement from state to state, and even county to county, may have different purposes and reasons they say they exist for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know the legal precedents other than supposedly police have no responsibility to protect any individual from criminal action.

 

Under the idea of just letting the protesters destroy everything...

The question I'd as is that if they have no responsibility to protect the safety and security of citizens and their property, what exactly is their function?  What are we paying taxes to support?

  • To enforce the law?
  • To bring people to justice?
  • Punish the guilty?

It doesn't seem any such goals are being fulfilled by letting protesters run amok.  So, what is their purpose? Why do I pay tax dollars to support them?

To be fair, it’s not like the police don’t do *anything* towards those ends.  It just means that—rightly or wrongly—they have their limits. 

To my mind, one of the really amusing things about all the leftist cop-hate we’re seeing, is that it’s the left whose policies really rely on the police for enforcement.  It’s the left who wants to use police power to shut down “discriminatory” businesses, to nanny quarantine-breakers, to track and seize privately-owned guns, to regulate professions from hair-cutting to nail-filing, to harass parents who won’t subject their kids to state indoctrination in the public schools, to go after citizens who buck progressives’ idea of paying “their fair share” in taxes, to punish businesses that don’t have a sufficient quota of gender-based or race-based hires, to prevent convenience stores from selling cigarettes individually rather than in packages . . . and so on, and so on.   If the citizenry isn’t scared spitless of the cops, 75% of progressive social theory comes apart.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

To my mind, one of the really amusing things about all the leftist cop-hate we’re seeing, is that it’s the left whose policies really rely on the police for enforcement.  It’s the left who wants to use police power to shut down “discriminatory” businesses, to nanny quarantine-breakers, to track and seize privately-owned guns, to regulate professions from hair-cutting to nail-filing, to harass parents who won’t subject their kids to state indoctrination in the public schools, to go after citizens who buck progressives’ idea of paying “their fair share” in taxes, to punish businesses that don’t have a sufficient quota of gender-based or race-based hires, to prevent convenience stores from selling cigarettes individually rather than in packages . . . and so on, and so on.   If the citizenry isn’t scared spitless of the cops, 75% of progressive social theory comes apart.  

My thoughts completely. Virtually no leftist can see the hypocrisy.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

My thoughts completely. Virtually no leftist can see the hypocrisy.   

I think a few can see the hypocrisy. 

Taking @Just_A_Guy example above, what they don't see is even application of Justice in their eyes. 

So, while I agree with him, I think the issue is not just the people complaining, but they are complaining about the uneven hand of justice IN THEIR VIEW (which does not mean it is necessarily true or correct, just their view of it).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

I think a few can see the hypocrisy. 

 

A few probably can, but generally speaking, no one basking in their own righteousness can be critical of themselves or their ideology. It goes for all of us. From the right wing to the left wing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this