I am at war, a battle of words, against a specific doctrine of law. This type of writing is called Polemic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polemics
I have nothing against the idea of The Public Duty Doctrine, only that the public doesn't know about it. Ironic, isn't it?
Thank God it's only a part of who I am and what I do.
Most of my writing up to this point has been an exercise in putting my thoughts into some coherent form for some future forum. I've made it public because my struggle to get my head around this will be your struggle. It might help you and others.
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.86: Policing Ourselves
Given that law enforcement has no legal duty to protect the individual, only society as a whole (D+ for effort), and that they cannot be held legally liable for failing to protect the individual because there was no legal duty to protect the individual in the first place (The Public Duty Doctrine), American individuals should police themselves (presently, an F for effort).
In other words, individuals, like Boy Scouts, must be vigilant, must be prepared to act, be resolved to protect themselves and not rely totally on law enforcement.
Law enforcement cannot be everywhere, not outside your home at night, not escorting your child to school, not walking to your car in a dark parking lot. And if you call 9-1-1 for help, 99 percent of the time they will arrive. But how long will it take? And if they did not arrive, or did not arrive in a timely manner, you have no recourse. They cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
When they arrive, your expectation is that the "calvary has arrived." Not so with law enforcement. When police show up on the scene, they have no idea who the good guys or bad guys are. They are there to simply maintain law and order ("Just the facts, ma'am").
Your obligation, in a crime, is to defend yourself, first, and, secondly, to call 9-1-1 and report what you saw or experienced. Because, you see, all you are to the State is a witness, alive or dead. Don't forget that.
I give American law enforcement a "D+" because they fail to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine to the public. Talking about an oxymoron!!!
I give American individuals an "F" for effort. Because when you get right down to it, when you focus on the reality of the situation, they have failed to take the necessary responsibility in defending themselves. In a way, if they did, it would be called "Good Citizenship" to do so.
In other words, individuals, like Boy Scouts, must be vigilant, must be prepared to act, be resolved to protect themselves and not rely totally on law enforcement.
Law enforcement cannot be everywhere, not outside your home at night, not escorting your child to school, not walking to your car in a dark parking lot. And if you call 9-1-1 for help, 99 percent of the time they will arrive. But how long will it take? And if they did not arrive, or did not arrive in a timely manner, you have no recourse. They cannot be held liable for failing to protect because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place.
When they arrive, your expectation is that the "calvary has arrived." Not so with law enforcement. When police show up on the scene, they have no idea who the good guys or bad guys are. They are there to simply maintain law and order ("Just the facts, ma'am").
Your obligation, in a crime, is to defend yourself, first, and, secondly, to call 9-1-1 and report what you saw or experienced. Because, you see, all you are to the State is a witness, alive or dead. Don't forget that.
I give American law enforcement a "D+" because they fail to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine to the public. Talking about an oxymoron!!!
I give American individuals an "F" for effort. Because when you get right down to it, when you focus on the reality of the situation, they have failed to take the necessary responsibility in defending themselves. In a way, if they did, it would be called "Good Citizenship" to do so.
Friday, March 19, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.85: Due & Owing
"All Souls' Day" by D.H. Lawrence, extracted from The Oxford Book of Death, Chosen and Edited by D.J. Enright, Oxford University Press, 1983:
"Be careful, then, and be gentle about death,
For it is hard to die, it is difficult to go through
the door, even when it opens.
"And the poor dead, when they have left the walled
and silvery city of the now hopeless body
where are they to go, Oh where are they to go?
"They linger in the shadow of the earth.
The earth's long conical shadow is full of souls
that cannot find the way across the sea of change.
"Be kind, Oh be kind to your dead
and give them a little encouragement
and help them to build their little ship of death.
"For the soul has a long, long journey after death
to the sweet home of pure oblivion.
Each needs a little ship, a little ship
and the proper store of meal for the longest journey.
"Oh, from out of your heart
provide for your dead once more, equip them
like departing mariners, lovingly."
For those of you who linger, seeking truth and justice, you can go now. I promise to do what I can.
Due.
What I can. We owe you that much............One thing, though.
Yes?
Don't look back.
"Be careful, then, and be gentle about death,
For it is hard to die, it is difficult to go through
the door, even when it opens.
"And the poor dead, when they have left the walled
and silvery city of the now hopeless body
where are they to go, Oh where are they to go?
"They linger in the shadow of the earth.
The earth's long conical shadow is full of souls
that cannot find the way across the sea of change.
"Be kind, Oh be kind to your dead
and give them a little encouragement
and help them to build their little ship of death.
"For the soul has a long, long journey after death
to the sweet home of pure oblivion.
Each needs a little ship, a little ship
and the proper store of meal for the longest journey.
"Oh, from out of your heart
provide for your dead once more, equip them
like departing mariners, lovingly."
For those of you who linger, seeking truth and justice, you can go now. I promise to do what I can.
Due.
What I can. We owe you that much............One thing, though.
Yes?
Don't look back.
The Public Duty Doctrine.84: Due Process
According to Black's Law Dictionary, Due Process Rights are defined as such: "All rights which are of such fundamental importance as to require compliance with due process standards of fairness and justice."
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.83: Road To Hell...
That old expression, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" has been brought to my attention.
I would like everyone reading this to know that my intentions are good. Truth is good. I want to set things right. My world view is skewed without truth.
Some may say, "Well, your truth might not be someone else's truth."
I agree. But understand: throughout this blog (regarding The Public Duty Doctrine), I have done nothing but simply state the law of the land and back it up with citations.
The problem is: It's not disclosed, except in legal journals, unfit for human consumption. It is not proached in schools. Without a full understanding of your legal relationship with your government, you are literally playing russian roulette every day. The government is failing to disclose information vital to the public safety and interest. And that's not right to me. It is not humane. It is reckless behavior -- actually, criminal.
Until then, walk with me.
I would like everyone reading this to know that my intentions are good. Truth is good. I want to set things right. My world view is skewed without truth.
Some may say, "Well, your truth might not be someone else's truth."
I agree. But understand: throughout this blog (regarding The Public Duty Doctrine), I have done nothing but simply state the law of the land and back it up with citations.
The problem is: It's not disclosed, except in legal journals, unfit for human consumption. It is not proached in schools. Without a full understanding of your legal relationship with your government, you are literally playing russian roulette every day. The government is failing to disclose information vital to the public safety and interest. And that's not right to me. It is not humane. It is reckless behavior -- actually, criminal.
Until then, walk with me.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.81: Hamartia
Everyone lives their own story. In a sense, each one of us are protagonists in our own story. We are met with challenges in life and try, as we do or don't, to overcome and reach resolution.
For the most part, those who have encountered The Public Duty Doctrine are tragic characters. The morning they walked out of the house was like any other morning. They believed certain things. And by end of day they found their life, or what they believed in, was a lie. They slumbered their way through life, and now they are excruciatingly awake.
In my "Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, written by Chris Baldick, 1996, page 95, there is a word that embraces victim/witnesses, those who encounter the criminal justice system with certain expectations and find that those expectations were false. That word is hamartia.
Quoting, "Hamartia (pronounced ha mar te a), the greek word for error or failure, used by Aristotle in his Poetics (4th century BC) to designate the false step that leads the protagonist in a tragedy to his or her downfall. The term has often been translated as 'tragic flaw' but this misleadingly confines the cause of the reversal of fortunes to some personal defect of character, whereas Aristotle's emphasis was rather upon the protagonist's action, which could be brought about by misjudgment, ignorance or some other cause."
Examples of hamartia (just to name a few):
South v. Maryland (1855)
Buck vs. Bell (1927) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_vs._Bell
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)
Stone et al. v. N.C. Department of Labor (1997)
Akre v. Fox News (2003)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)
Victims of Madoff & SEC (2009)
Victims of other financial scandals: http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=657&title=Corp.%20Scandal
For the most part, those who have encountered The Public Duty Doctrine are tragic characters. The morning they walked out of the house was like any other morning. They believed certain things. And by end of day they found their life, or what they believed in, was a lie. They slumbered their way through life, and now they are excruciatingly awake.
In my "Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms, written by Chris Baldick, 1996, page 95, there is a word that embraces victim/witnesses, those who encounter the criminal justice system with certain expectations and find that those expectations were false. That word is hamartia.
Quoting, "Hamartia (pronounced ha mar te a), the greek word for error or failure, used by Aristotle in his Poetics (4th century BC) to designate the false step that leads the protagonist in a tragedy to his or her downfall. The term has often been translated as 'tragic flaw' but this misleadingly confines the cause of the reversal of fortunes to some personal defect of character, whereas Aristotle's emphasis was rather upon the protagonist's action, which could be brought about by misjudgment, ignorance or some other cause."
Examples of hamartia (just to name a few):
South v. Maryland (1855)
Buck vs. Bell (1927) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_vs._Bell
Warren v. District of Columbia (1981)
DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989)
Stone et al. v. N.C. Department of Labor (1997)
Akre v. Fox News (2003)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005)
Victims of Madoff & SEC (2009)
Victims of other financial scandals: http://timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=657&title=Corp.%20Scandal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)