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!!!!
Friday, January 22, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.69: Review To-Do List
On November 21, 2009 (Areas of Interest), I summarized what we should be focusing on which could make a significant difference in our relationship with law enforcement. Let's include one more to the list:
1. Cultivate better "refs" on the field, based on the public knowing of The Public Duty Doctrine; these would include local/state police, FBI, DEA, FTC, SEC, DSS, etc.
2. Create Citizen Review Boards, nationwide, to monitor law enforcement activity.
3. Create a new type of Citizen Review Board Grand Jury system, with subpoena power.
4. Create a new Miranda-type warning for victim-witnesses, disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine: Government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place).
Note that the criminal justice system is an adversarial system (State vs. Smith). This alteration will create a three-tiered system, a system that focuses on victim's rights, whereas now the victim is merely a witness under law, many times viewed as suspect by district attorneys. There should be no change to the civil side of suing the wrongdoer.
5. President declares national/state of emergency, nationwide, on the basis that the public is not aware of certain information vital to the public safety, that is: The Public Duty Doctrine; that the failure to disclosure The Public Duty Doctrine is systemic and average citizens have unrealistic expectations regarding law enforcement and unknowingly put their lives at risk by doing so.
Example:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/message-congress-annual-renewal-emergency-authorities
6. If the President fails to declare a national/state of emergency, class-action lawsuits should be brought up against the U.S. Government, State Governments, American Bar Association, State Bar Associations, State University/College Systems, and the 50 Departments of Public Instruction for failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine, which is information vital to the public safety and promotes responsible citizenship.
7. High school dropouts and graduates, including the home-schooled, shall spend at least one full day in class discussing The Public Duty Doctrine prior to leaving school. A police officer, a lawyer, a social worker, and a 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 an appropriate form.
8. Promote and create groups of 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. Depending on the response, able-bodied citizens may be called to duty as in being called to jury duty.
9. Keep an eye on U.S. Government Statistical Value placed on an American life (see June 18, 2009 posting to this blog).
1. Cultivate better "refs" on the field, based on the public knowing of The Public Duty Doctrine; these would include local/state police, FBI, DEA, FTC, SEC, DSS, etc.
2. Create Citizen Review Boards, nationwide, to monitor law enforcement activity.
3. Create a new type of Citizen Review Board Grand Jury system, with subpoena power.
4. Create a new Miranda-type warning for victim-witnesses, disclosing The Public Duty Doctrine: Government and its agents (law enforcement) have no legal duty to protect; they cannot be held liable for failing to protect, because there was no legal duty to protect in the first place).
Note that the criminal justice system is an adversarial system (State vs. Smith). This alteration will create a three-tiered system, a system that focuses on victim's rights, whereas now the victim is merely a witness under law, many times viewed as suspect by district attorneys. There should be no change to the civil side of suing the wrongdoer.
5. President declares national/state of emergency, nationwide, on the basis that the public is not aware of certain information vital to the public safety, that is: The Public Duty Doctrine; that the failure to disclosure The Public Duty Doctrine is systemic and average citizens have unrealistic expectations regarding law enforcement and unknowingly put their lives at risk by doing so.
Example:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/message-congress-annual-renewal-emergency-authorities
6. If the President fails to declare a national/state of emergency, class-action lawsuits should be brought up against the U.S. Government, State Governments, American Bar Association, State Bar Associations, State University/College Systems, and the 50 Departments of Public Instruction for failing to disclose The Public Duty Doctrine, which is information vital to the public safety and promotes responsible citizenship.
7. High school dropouts and graduates, including the home-schooled, shall spend at least one full day in class discussing The Public Duty Doctrine prior to leaving school. A police officer, a lawyer, a social worker, and a 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 an appropriate form.
8. Promote and create groups of 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. Depending on the response, able-bodied citizens may be called to duty as in being called to jury duty.
9. Keep an eye on U.S. Government Statistical Value placed on an American life (see June 18, 2009 posting to this blog).
The Public Duty Doctrine.68: State of Emergency 2
July 1 & 2 of 2009, I posted on this blog a 1991 letter that I had sent to then North Carolina Governor James Martin, along with the Governor's response. Actually, the State Attorney General's Office responded on behalf of the Governor.
The Governor's response then to my request amounted to obstruction of justice. It still does.
Generally, state governor's declare states of emergencies, and then petition the federal government for assistance. However, the President of the United States can also declare a national/state of emergency as well.
Consider this (and by the way, have fun trying to research this issue with any kind of clarity):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency Did you catch the words "... alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors ..." in the first sentence? Did you read the part that the President can initiate a state of emergency on his own?
As stated in the title of this piece, I'm going to prepare and send a very similar letter, as I did in 1991, and direct it to President Obama. And I will get a letter back, I'm sure, from the U.S. Attorney's Office stating pretty much the same response as I got before. Obstruction of Justice II.
You see, I need to go on the record, make it official. And when I get Obama's response back, if any, I will post it here.... for you to see...with your own eyes.
Alive from Wanesville, David McMillan
The Governor's response then to my request amounted to obstruction of justice. It still does.
Generally, state governor's declare states of emergencies, and then petition the federal government for assistance. However, the President of the United States can also declare a national/state of emergency as well.
Consider this (and by the way, have fun trying to research this issue with any kind of clarity):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_emergency Did you catch the words "... alert citizens to alter their normal behaviors ..." in the first sentence? Did you read the part that the President can initiate a state of emergency on his own?
As stated in the title of this piece, I'm going to prepare and send a very similar letter, as I did in 1991, and direct it to President Obama. And I will get a letter back, I'm sure, from the U.S. Attorney's Office stating pretty much the same response as I got before. Obstruction of Justice II.
You see, I need to go on the record, make it official. And when I get Obama's response back, if any, I will post it here.... for you to see...with your own eyes.
Alive from Wanesville, David McMillan
Thursday, January 21, 2010
The Public Duty Doctrine.67: The Red Pill
The movie Matrix appeared in American theaters in 1999. The protagonist, Neo (played by Keanu Reeves) seeks the truth. Neo is offered two pills: The red one leads to the truth. The blue one maintains the status quo. Neo chose red, as I did, long ago.
Which are you going to choose?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6qG4yn-Ps
http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php
Which are you going to choose?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=te6qG4yn-Ps
http://www.arrod.co.uk/essays/matrix.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)