Proposal to create a National Urban Crime Awareness Week. http://www.gop.gov/bill/111/2/hconres227
Postscript: It failed to pass because there was not a quorum, maybe a lack of interest. It will be put to a vote when a quorum is present -- maybe.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Saturday, February 20, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.72: Cops Don't Co-Parent
C-Span 1 this morning interviewed a Michelle Alexander, author of "The New Jim Crow." The crux of her position was that The Drug War is making people of color, who have been convicted of a felony, permanent second class citizens, a form of branding. She mentioned that America has more people incarcerated than any other country in the world, and that it boils down to racial politics.
I hope this critique clearly presented her basic position.
Question: Why does America have more people incarcerated than any other nation?
Could it be that Ms. Alexander failed to grasp the broad context in which criminal behavior is dealt with?
If the majority of American parents bought into the idea of law enforcement's Protect & Serve motto, could it be that Americans on average, regardless of color, view police paternalistically -- in other words, as co-parents? Co-parenting their unsupervised, out-late-at-night, gang-involved, unprotected-sex-involved, graffiti-involved, drug-involved children?
This view of law enforcement's legal duty (protect & serve) sounds like "It takes a village to raise a child" -- on steroids.
As we know, this is not Mayberry. There is no Sheriff Andy Taylor, who catches a truent student and asks, "Does your momma know where you are?" and then takes him home in the patrol car with a stern warning, released into the arms of an embarrassed mother who says, "Just wait until your father gets home."
No. We're a different kind of America. Law enforcement does not co-parent or enable parents. Their mission, legally speaking, is Law & Order -- period.
Now, here's a twist: Suppose your 14-year-old daughter is raped by a stranger while walking a few blocks from home. She cooperates with the police, goes to the hospital, participates with Rape Crisis counselling, and the case starts to fall apart.
Suppose the father suggests to the investigating officer on more than three occasions that his daughter undergo hypnosis in order to glean more information to help in the investigation.
Suppose the hypnosis is performed with the daughter's and the doctor's agreement. Suppose the father calls the investigating officer upon completion of the hypnosis and says that they'd like to meet at the police station and provide this additional information.
And suppose the next thing that happens is the father receives a letter in the mail from the district attorney's office stating that the father had irreparably harmed his daughter's case by having her memory refreshed; in other words, her memory contaminated by a psychiatrist. Her testimony deemed unreliable by having her memory refreshed.
And at no time did the investigating officer warn the father to refrain from the procedure or to consult an attorney before doing so.
As you can see, cops don't co-parent the parents either.
I hope this critique clearly presented her basic position.
Question: Why does America have more people incarcerated than any other nation?
Could it be that Ms. Alexander failed to grasp the broad context in which criminal behavior is dealt with?
If the majority of American parents bought into the idea of law enforcement's Protect & Serve motto, could it be that Americans on average, regardless of color, view police paternalistically -- in other words, as co-parents? Co-parenting their unsupervised, out-late-at-night, gang-involved, unprotected-sex-involved, graffiti-involved, drug-involved children?
This view of law enforcement's legal duty (protect & serve) sounds like "It takes a village to raise a child" -- on steroids.
As we know, this is not Mayberry. There is no Sheriff Andy Taylor, who catches a truent student and asks, "Does your momma know where you are?" and then takes him home in the patrol car with a stern warning, released into the arms of an embarrassed mother who says, "Just wait until your father gets home."
No. We're a different kind of America. Law enforcement does not co-parent or enable parents. Their mission, legally speaking, is Law & Order -- period.
Now, here's a twist: Suppose your 14-year-old daughter is raped by a stranger while walking a few blocks from home. She cooperates with the police, goes to the hospital, participates with Rape Crisis counselling, and the case starts to fall apart.
Suppose the father suggests to the investigating officer on more than three occasions that his daughter undergo hypnosis in order to glean more information to help in the investigation.
Suppose the hypnosis is performed with the daughter's and the doctor's agreement. Suppose the father calls the investigating officer upon completion of the hypnosis and says that they'd like to meet at the police station and provide this additional information.
And suppose the next thing that happens is the father receives a letter in the mail from the district attorney's office stating that the father had irreparably harmed his daughter's case by having her memory refreshed; in other words, her memory contaminated by a psychiatrist. Her testimony deemed unreliable by having her memory refreshed.
And at no time did the investigating officer warn the father to refrain from the procedure or to consult an attorney before doing so.
As you can see, cops don't co-parent the parents either.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.71: More Propaganda
It is 2010 and victim advocates are still spewing falsehoods and placing the public at risk. Consider the following:
http://themountaineer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6171:how-a-restraining-order-can-affect-a-violent-relationship&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=27
Now, pull up Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005) and read the truth of the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
http://themountaineer.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6171:how-a-restraining-order-can-affect-a-violent-relationship&catid=25:the-project&Itemid=27
Now, pull up Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 US 748 (2005) and read the truth of the matter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
Friday, February 12, 2010
PDD.70: The Sophisticated User Doctrine
I've mentioned in the past (12-9-2009) that I thought the criminal justice system might in the future claim, if sued for failure to protect, that the average citizen should have known that the state has no legal duty to protect; in other words, that average citizens should have known of The Public Duty Doctrine by way of their civic sophistication or common sense.
The Sophisticated User Doctrine generally involves product liability. However, you will probably see the government claim this in future defenses in conjunction with The Public Duty Doctrine.
Consider this: http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/fabricated-metal-product-manufacturing/1038734-1.html
Now, consider the case of Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
So, if a case like Warren v. Dist. of Columbia were to be heard in the future, the court's rationale might evolve into the following:
1. The District of Columbia police had no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, ie The Public Duty Doctrine.
2. And, furthermore, the Plaintiffs (victims) should have known of The Public Duty Doctrine because of The Sophisticated User Doctrine, and, therefore, taken the necessary steps to protect themselves absent police protection.
3. The State may go so far as claim "The Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine," meaning that when a victim risks calling 911, instead of immediately taking the necessary steps to protective themselves first, that this was an open and obvious danger and liability is, therefore, a non-issue. Now, this doctrine generally involves property/land issues (trip-and-fall/injury cases). But consider this, as well, as something that might evolve into the above defenses. http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/open-and-obvious-doctrine/
The problem with the State using this defense (SUD) is that there is no evidence that the public is knowledgeable of the Public Duty Doctrine, no curriculums in schools, no public service announcements, zip. In other words, the public is unsophisticated pertaining to such matters. However, they are very savy about dialing 911, if in trouble. The problem is: the public's expectations are at odds with law enforcement's legal duty, which is not to protect and serve but to maintain law and order; the victim, in the eyes of the law, is not a victim but a witness for the State -- period.
I have no doubt that at some point the State will use The Sophisticated User Doctrine, regardless of the public's lack of civic/legal sophistication. It will be much like "doublespeak" in the book "1984" or "Alice Through The Looking Glass" where everything, including rules of behavior, are upsidedown or backwards.
Welcome to Wanesville!!!!
The Sophisticated User Doctrine generally involves product liability. However, you will probably see the government claim this in future defenses in conjunction with The Public Duty Doctrine.
Consider this: http://www.allbusiness.com/manufacturing/fabricated-metal-product-manufacturing/1038734-1.html
Now, consider the case of Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
So, if a case like Warren v. Dist. of Columbia were to be heard in the future, the court's rationale might evolve into the following:
1. The District of Columbia police had no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held legally liable for failure to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place, ie The Public Duty Doctrine.
2. And, furthermore, the Plaintiffs (victims) should have known of The Public Duty Doctrine because of The Sophisticated User Doctrine, and, therefore, taken the necessary steps to protect themselves absent police protection.
3. The State may go so far as claim "The Open and Obvious Danger Doctrine," meaning that when a victim risks calling 911, instead of immediately taking the necessary steps to protective themselves first, that this was an open and obvious danger and liability is, therefore, a non-issue. Now, this doctrine generally involves property/land issues (trip-and-fall/injury cases). But consider this, as well, as something that might evolve into the above defenses. http://definitions.uslegal.com/o/open-and-obvious-doctrine/
The problem with the State using this defense (SUD) is that there is no evidence that the public is knowledgeable of the Public Duty Doctrine, no curriculums in schools, no public service announcements, zip. In other words, the public is unsophisticated pertaining to such matters. However, they are very savy about dialing 911, if in trouble. The problem is: the public's expectations are at odds with law enforcement's legal duty, which is not to protect and serve but to maintain law and order; the victim, in the eyes of the law, is not a victim but a witness for the State -- period.
I have no doubt that at some point the State will use The Sophisticated User Doctrine, regardless of the public's lack of civic/legal sophistication. It will be much like "doublespeak" in the book "1984" or "Alice Through The Looking Glass" where everything, including rules of behavior, are upsidedown or backwards.
Welcome to Wanesville!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)