By now you're probably concerned that I have flipped my lid on this subject. I trust, however, you're being informed about a serious matter, one that may knock on your door in the future.
So far, I have evidence to prove that the elites in our society are talking about this issue, struggling with how to balance public trust with law and order. I have no evidence of public discussion on the issue, nor that it is being taught in our schools. Therefore, I have to conclude that there is an elite conspiracy of silence involved in failing to disclose this most vital of information concerning our public safety.
The Oxford Concise Dictionary of Phrase and Fable states that a conspiracy of silence is "an agreement to say nothing about an issue that should be generally known."
To prove there is an conspiracy, I must obtain internal documents from governmental agencies that explicitly exposes this agreement.
It is obvious that someone might say to me: "Dave, it's on the internet. You've proved it by linking documents to your daily blog. It may be simply a matter of the public not caring about it."
My reply is: The Public Duty Doctrine is not taught in schools. There is no evidence that the public knows about it. The public routinely does not read legal journals or case law.
* * * * * * * * * * *
One of my primary concerns is: This failure to disclose goes to the issue of informed consent. You mostly hear of Informed Consent in hospital settings, but it also relates to Tort Law.
Wikipedia's Informed Consent states, among other things: "In cases where an individual is provided insufficient information to form a reasoned decision, ethical issues arise."
If the victim of a crime or witness to a crime believes that law enforcement "protects and serves" and, as such, makes that 9-1-1 call based on that belief, we have an ethical problem.
But law enforcement may say that "We have no idea what's in the victim/witnesses' mind."
That would be a farfetched argument, in that there's nothing to prove that the public knows.
Wikipedia's Informed Consent continues: "In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given." That is, consent to cooperate with police. That's what they want, for you to cooperate. But they don't want you to know that there is no legal duty to protect them.
Wikipedia article continues: "Impairments to reasoning and judgment which would make it impossible for someone to give informed consent include such factors as severe mental retardation, severe mental illness, intoxication, severe sleep deprivation, Alzheimer's disease, or being in a coma." However, it fails to mention ignorance/lack of education as an impairment.
Where we stand right now is: Law enforcement, and other governmental agents, are involved in a conspiracy of silence. When you call 9-1-1, they choose to believe that you are consenting to cooperate fully, and that you have adequate reasoning faculties, and are "in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given." Why do they assume this? It works. At least they believe it does. Unless you're one of the thousands, as evidenced by my blog, where it didn't work. For law enforcement, Ignorance is Bliss; it's less messier, more efficient, you're merely a number, a case file.
Welcome to Wanesville!!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment