The Public Duty Doctrine.33: Got Your Back

Assuming the reader by now knows the basic concept of The Public Duty Doctrine, allow me to expand on this concept a little further.

When your son or daughter, your father or uncle, goes into the military and then off to war, something happens in their psyche. They see themselves in a different light, one tied to and responsible for others. They think in terms of their unit: You're only as good as the guy standing next to you. In time, each member pledges to their comrades, "Don't worry. I've got your back!" It means that while, say, I'm pursuing my mission, concentrating, and focusing on the particulars, one of my buds is watching over me, prepared at any moment to risk his or her life to protect mine. It is truly a matter of life and death.

Police officers know this. They think of themselves in these terms, like "We take care of our own. We've got each other's back." Police officers tend to make law enforcement a career, so they maintain this philosophy throughout much of their lives. They cannot relate to the general public (dah!), which is viewed often as self-centered, lacks character, a sense of loyalty and responsibility.

However, the soldier, more times than not, comes home to an economic and social system where "I've got your back" does not exist. The culture shock is staggering. They sense something is wrong with our system. They come home to a system where the majority of rape victims fail to report their victimization because they fear the system, to a system ignored by the Federal Trade Commission and FBI concerning the looting of our financial system, to a system where OSHA is supposed to routinely check safety at the plant where his wife works, but doesn't, until you have one dead body or three in a hospital. And that's just for starters. They sense something isn't right, and they can't put their finger on it.

What if American soldiers knew of The Public Duty Doctrine, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect (the families they've left behind); that they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place? These soldiers were never taught this in school. They bought into the message written on the side of the patrol car "Protect & Serve." They left to go fight, thinking that government and its agents had their back, that is, to protect their families.

I understand that The Public Duty Doctrine simply states that government and its agents have a duty to protect society as a whole, not the individual, unless a specific promise has been made, like Witness Protection. But, considering that, government and its agents have done a miserable job, have failed to protect America as a whole. For instance, Border Patrol, protecting America from an invasion of cheap, illegal labor. And that's just for starters. How are American soldiers going to react when they get home and can find no jobs? Or jobs, at least, that can support their families?

Are they going to feel a sense of betrayal? Do you want to be around when they find out the truth about our glorious system?

I understand that law enforcement cannot be everywhere, that they cannot pre-emptively strike before a citizen is victimized. However, failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine and allowing people to have a false sense of security, is both reckless and criminal. And I wouldn't want to be those who are failing to disclose this most vital information. Because someday they will be, themselves, looking over their shoulder, seeing if someone's got their back. And all they'll find is thin air.

Refer back to my post, The Public Duty Doctrine.32, to see what must be done. There will be short-term chaos. But the long-term benefits should be eye-opening, a dawning on a new America.

The Public Duty Doctrine.32: Areas of Interest

In June, I mentioned some items we should be focusing on which could make a significant difference in our relationship with government and its agents:

1. Cultivating better Refs on the field (local police, FBI, DEA, FTC, etc............)

2. Citizen Review Boards. Citizen oversight of law enforcement agencies. If citizen involvement continues to be stymied by law enforcement, I see the rise of Star Chambers in the foreseeable future.

3. A new type of grand jury system, implemented by Citizen Review Boards.

4. A new Miranda-type warning for victim/witnesses (disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine).

5. Class-Action lawsuits brought against the American Bar Association, State Bar Associations, State University/College Systems, and the 50 state Departments of Instruction for failing to disclose this most vital information to its clients/students in a timely manner.

6. High school dropouts and graduates (home-schooled, as well) shall spend at least one day discussing The Public Duty Doctrine prior to leaving school. A police officer, a lawyer, a social worker, and victim-rights' advocate shall conduct the class. The students shall sign a form acknowledging they understand the Doctrine. If these students are minors, their parents shall be required to sign off on this form likewise.

7. Keep an eye on U.S. Government's statistical value placed on an American life (see June 18, 2009 posting)

8. New Idea. Promoting "Citizens on Patrol" nationwide. Volunteers donating so many hours a month to patrol their neighborhoods. This goes beyond Neighborhood Watch, which is passive. Citizens on Patrol is an active enterprise. For further information, pull up National Association Citizens on Patrol, founded July, 1999. I have some reservations, though, about "how close" these volunteers work with law enforcement.

The Public Duty Doctrine.31: Cattle?

If we accept the Evolutionary notion that we're animals, what difference is there between humans and cattle?

I thought about this while standing on my porch this chilly morning, watching the cows graze across the way, penned into their little section of pasture. They are cordoned by barbwire into one section, and then rotated into another, and then another, so they don't over-graze any one section.

It's kind of like when countries created borders, then passports, then immigration policies and quotas. There was apparently a need to restrict mass population movements, restricting the nomadic lifestyle. Probably for personal income tax purposes. I think most illegal immigrants in this country never got the memo. Maybe they're resorting to the old nomadic ways and the hell with local laws.

I digressed here. Sorry about that.

What is the relationship between civilized humans and domesticated cattle, especially having to do with the Public Duty Doctrine? Government and its agents fail to disclose they have no legal duty to protect individual humans (although they have every right to control same), just as cattle (a commodity) are unaware they're going to be slaughtered. "Keep eating! Keep buying!"
Our economy rewards passive-submissive behavior.

As I've said before, the history of mankind is all about slavery and/or cheap labor. Cows labor by grazing. Humans labor by buying stuff.

Humans and cattle are fenced in, movements are restricted. If either breaks out, they are apprehended and incarcerated. They're considered socially adjusted as long as they keep grazing and don't make waves. Government and its agents, and ranchers, fear civil unrest/stampedes; humans and cattle should never be spooked. American citizens (cheap labor) and cattle (cheap food) should be kept in the dark, on a need to know basis, regarding the role they play in our? system.

Maybe that's why The Public Duty Doctrine is not disclosed in schools, by the police or district attorneys, corporate media, social workers, politicians -- because they're afraid of a stampede.
Tea Parties anyone?

I have no doubt that managers/experts world-wide, on the whole, view their subordinates as cattle, unruly, unpredictable, prone to being spooked ("Refrain from gossip on the shop floor!), easily motivated by monetary-carrot rewards.

You're either the managed or the manager.

Lately, managers have been getting away with murder. Remember Wall Street and the looting of our treasury? They operate under a different system from the managed. They have no fences, no moral foundation, except "Do whatever it takes, but don't get caught," no flag they pledge their allegiance to, no home, except a Swiss bank account.

So, what is the difference between humans and cattle in a "managed economy"? Nothing.

Welcome to Wanesville, home of the grazed and slaughtered.

PDD.30: Grisham's "The Client"

John Grisham's "The Client" was published in 1993, and subsequently made into a movie.

An eleven year old (going on thirty), Mark Sway, and his younger brother, Ricky, sneak away from their Memphis mobile home park to smoke cigarettes in the woods. They come upon a car, idling, with one end of a hose inserted in the tailpipe and the other end stuffed into one of the windows. The driver, Jerome Clifford, the sole occupant, is a lawyer for the mob. He's drunk and wants to die.

Mark figures out the driver's intentions and sneaks up and removes the hose. Clifford gets out, sees the hose dislodged from the tailpipe, looks around, re-inserts it, and gets back in the car. Mark pulls it out again. Clifford gets out and re-inserts it again. Finally, Clifford catches Mark and forces him into the car, while Ricky watches in terror from the reeds.

Jerome Clifford, Attorney at Law, slaps Mark around, offers him some whiskey, and figures, in his drunken state, he won't die alone. Mark is one of those kids that questions everything. So, a conversation ensues. Mark learns that Clifford represents a mob hit-man. This hit-man killed a United States Senator, for which the FBI has not yet found the body. Clifford discloses to Mark where the body is buried. He doesn't mind telling the kid because the kid's going to la-la land too.

Mark escapes and watches from the reeds while Clifford staggers out of the car, looks around, puts a gun to his head, and takes his own life. Little Ricky goes into shock.

At home, Marks calls 911, trying to disguise his voice. He returns to the scene to watch the police, and accidently gets caught by an officer.

To make a long story short (although I will not reveal the ending), Ricky goes to the hospital. Mark's mother (divorced and single) stays glued to Ricky. Mark sneaks out of the hospital and hires a lawyer. The mob and the U.S. Attorney figure out that Mark knows more than he's telling; they found Mark's fingerprints inside the car. A local newspaper man breaks the story with Mark's picture on the front page.

The problem is, Mark won't disclose what was said to him inside the car. He fears for his life and that of his family.

Mark is taken into custody and placed in a juvenile detention center. On the way to the center, Mark asks the cops why they didn't read him his rights. No response. So, Mark yells out, "I have a right to remain silent."

Up to this point, the Feds have not officially offered the Witness Protection Program to Mark and his family. Remember: Government and its agents have no legal duty to protect unless government and its agents promise to do so; then, and only then, do they become liable.

Mark is hauled in Juvenile Court under the pretext that he's obstructing justice by not disclosing the contents of his conversation with Clifford in the car; that it is a citizen's duty and obligation to cooperate in a criminal investigation, even if the witness fears for his or her life by doing so.

In Chapter 25, upon questioning by the judge, Mark pleads the Fifth, which is not applicable here. What we have here is a collision between the witnesses' Right to Remain Silent versus the Fed's charge of Obstruction of Justice. What the Fed wants is for the witness to disclose the information without any promise by the Fed to protect him and his family.

The Public Duty Doctrine has been around since 1850 or so. In Grisham's Chapter 25, Grisham does not mention, through the character of the Judge, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect; that they can't be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, except if an offer to do so was granted and accepted.

Grisham is a lawyer and one of the most popular writers of our time. I know this is a work of fiction. Fiction or not, this most fundamental concept, The Public Duty Doctrine, should have been included into the storyline.

The Public Duty Doctrine.29: The Public Trust

The reason government and its agents fail to disclose the Public Duty Doctrine in more public ways is, they don't trust the public with this information. They are afraid our country will turn into the wild west. I thought it was the wild west. Just watch the news. Agents of power have lost trust in us?

When was the last time your government asked you to vote on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, War(s), Nafta ? Nuclear power? Where's the love?

The police and district attorneys find witness testimony iffy. Witnesses lie or get it wrong. Ergo: forensics or, like the FBI, behavioral science sections.

Cameras are mounted everywhere you go: banks, convenience stores, street corners, outer space, monitoring the baby sitter, camera phones catching the riske, on and on and on.....

Employment: urine and psychological testing, criminal and financial background.

Gated Communities: private police, security dogs, on and on and on.

Dating: Some women are checking the new guys out -- criminal/financial background, Face Book, just to name a few.

Television programming is interesting. The weekly series "House" simply makes a doctor and his staff into something close to criminal investigators. House, M.D. makes no bones about patients lying. We, as viewers, start to sympathize with the doctor's plight. The show "Mental" illustrates that there are ways to trick victims and criminals into telling the truth. "Lie To Me" involves a behavioral science company which is called in to verify the veracity of whoever for a fee.

Politically speaking, our country is terribly divided; it's approaching the level of dividedness similar to the period before the Civil War. But, more importantly, our people are divided, shattered like a broken mirror. It's hard to get a clear picture of who we are, who we want to be, when the old saying, "Divided We Fall" is so clearly evident.

Welcome to Wanesville.

The Public Duty Doctrine.28: Reckless Cowboys

Looking at the big picture, our economy has been ransacked by reckless cowboys. However, yesterday I saw the same behavior from a truck driver in little ole Waynesville.

I'm in my truck, stopped at a stop light. There's a car in front of me. Railroad tracks are running parallel to my truck, passenger side. On the opposite side of the tracks, there's a tractor-trailer truck, facing me.

The lights and bells go off. A train is coming.

The truck driver pulls out, making a right turn. As the tractor crosses the tracks, he guns it. The junction arms come down and just miss touching his trailer. If he had stalled on the tracks, it wouldn't have been a pretty picture, to himself or anyone around, including myself.

I notified the Waynesville Police, gave "her" the tag number and the name of the company. The police person said, "He's probably out of the county by now." It was a casual, indifferent response. I told her that I was calling the company this driver worked for and make a complaint. She couldn't have cared less.

The police, Osha, EEOC, on and on and on, generally don't do anything unless there's a dead body or at least three in the hospital.

I called the company and reported their driver. I called again today and told the manager I'd be following up the end of the week.

Apparently, each of us must get involved locally and nationally to keep these reckless cowboys in line. If we don't, we're doomed. Cutting corners, like dodging an oncoming train, is unacceptable.

The Public Duty Doctrine.27: (100 : 1.5)

I've got a couple of hundred more pages to read in Derrick Jensen's Volume 2 of Endgame: Resistance (2006). I wish to share the following from pages 734 and 735. Quoting:

Study after study has shown that nearly all crimes go unpunished. Jessica Mitford, in her book The American Prison Business, writes, "The President's Commission on Causes and Prevention of Violence says that for an estimated nine million crimes commited in the United States in a recent year [this was forty years ago, but the statistics still generally hold], only 1 percent of the perpetrators were imprisoned. Carl Rauh, advisor to the deputy attorney general of Washington, D.C., describes the process: 'Of 100 major crimes {felonies}, 50 are reported to the police. For fifty incidents reported, 12 people are arrested. Of the 12 arrested, 6 are convicted of anything -- not necessarily of the offense reported. Of the 6 who are convicted, 1.5 go to prison or jail."

Given the above, that 1.5 felons out of 100 will go to prison or jail, how important is it that people understand The Public Duty Doctrine, that government and its agents have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place ????

The Public Duty Doctrine.26: Needle in Haystack

The problem with gun advocates is, they only tell half the truth. In the following case, you read down through so much mumbo-jumbo and finally get to the heart of the issue (Section 41 and 42); the author (and Cato) fails to call this legal principle by name (The Public Duty Doctrine). This makes it next to impossible for average folks to research it. Therefore, the advocates of gun ownership are just as bad as the opponents of gun ownership. Here is just one example of the Needle in the haystack:

Quoting from this article, "Cato Policy Analysis, No. 284, October 22, 1997," entitled "Fighting Back: Crime, Self-Defense, and the Right to Carry a Handgun," by Jeffrey R. Snyder, Attorney at Law:

"To make matters worse, while laws deprive citizens of the ability to effectively defend themselves outside the home, thereby placing citizens in the position of having to rely on the police for their protection in extremis, it is a settled law throughout the United States that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime. That may come as a surprise to many people, but the principle holds even in cases where the police have been grossly negligent in failing to protect a crime victim (41)."

Read the next paragraph (42) in the attached link.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1143&full=1

The Public Duty Doctrine.25: Ready For The Storm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pK02USyU8M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv4Wpychxh8&feature=fvw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_3jbwU3F78&feature=related