What does one girls rap sheet have to do with anything?

So emotional.

'They've been arrested seven times in the last year on just auto theft charges,' Gualtieri said. 'These are not good kids. These are kids who are heavily engaged in criminal activity. I didn't make it up. I didn't make it up that at 4 o'clock in the morning they were driving a stolen car.'

All that aside, the these aspiring (and unarmed) girls were being chased simply because they were black. This must stop.

Where did you read that? I didn't see it anywhere,and have been conditioned to expect it and look for it.

All that aside, the these aspiring (and unarmed) girls were being chased simply because they were black. This must stop.

Watch out. You should know by now that sarcasm triggers the special snowflakes that post here.

So emotional.

Yes,you are. In fact,so emotional you are completely ignoring the FACTS that none of those cops did the DUTY they had SWORN oaths they would perform,and try to justify it by posting the arrest records of one of the girls.

There really is no limit to the depth you are willing to plunge to in order to protect your man crushes,is there?

none of those cops did the DUTY they had SWORN oaths they would perform

Put aside your intense feelings for a moment, and quote the supposed oath.

Who wants to strip down and jump into a murky pond, at night, and risk drowning to save the scumbags in the car?

That's what cops are paid to do.

Despite the fact that the sheriff initially released false information and his deputies likely provided false reports claiming they tore off their gun belts and dove into the murky water to save the dying teen girls, no criminal charges have been filed against any of the deceitful deputies. Caught on police dash cam video, the deputies clearly falsified their reports after standing around while callously listening to the drowning girls die.

Guess you don't have a problem with the cops lying and attempting to portray themselves as "heroes".

Figures.

Just like the majority of cops, these scumbags showed themselves to be cowards.

"Put aside your intense feelings for a moment, and quote the supposed oath."

Next he'll be telling us that during a shootout some cops should help the criminals defend themselves.

"They took an oath!"

Next he'll be telling us that during a shootout some cops should help the criminals defend themselves.

"They took an oath!"

Strawman.

Typical.

Put aside your intense feelings for a moment, and quote the supposed oath.

I'm not the cop groupie here,you are.

Are you now going to try to claim cops don't take oaths to protect and serve the public? I know you,in your role of Wal-Mart parking lot cop never took such an oath,but I'm talking about real cops.

Next he'll be telling us that during a shootout some cops should help the criminals defend themselves.

Ok,Princess,blow away the vapors for a few minutes and tell us where it was reported these girls were shooting at them as the car was sinking.

You need to reign in your inner Drama Queen.

"Although Sheriff Gualtieri announced at a press conference that his deputies flung off their gun belts and dove into the swamp in a failed attempt to save the teenage girls, police dash cam video actually shows the deputies standing near the shore listening to the girls scream to death."

That's a flat-out lie.

At the press conference, "Gualtieri said the doors were closed and the windows were up, so there was no way out. Deputies who had been following shed their gun belts and other equipment and attempted to reach the occupants of the vehicle to try to rescue them. They were unable to reach the car, due to the thick muddy water and the grass growing on the surface of the pond."

“Deputies wading out into the water were just sinking (into the muck) and couldn’t get to the car,” the sheriff said."

"Were the victims black or white? Their names sound black."

The carjackers were black.

Teens arrest records

Dominique M. Battle, 16, had an active warrant for violation of probation – burglary at the time of her death. Other arrests include:

• Oct. 30, 2014, burglary to a dwelling
• Nov. 10, 2014, burglary to a dwelling, resist officer without violence, tsrespassing
• Jan. 16, 2015, vehicle theft, resist officer without violence
• March 16, 2015, vehicle theft
• July 7, 2015, burglary to a dwelling, provide false name to law enforcement< enforcement
• July 25, 2015, violation of probation
• Nov. 22, 2015, vehicle theft, resist officer without violence
• Dec. 15, 2015, possession of marijuana, burglary to a dwelling
• Jan. 8, 2016, vehicle theft

Ashaunti N. Butler, 15, also had an active warrant for failure to appear, resisting officer without violence and two counts of petit theft, plus an active pickup order – runaway. Other arrests include:

• May 5, 2015, resist officer without violence, retail theft
• Nov. 21, 2015, vehicle theft
• Dec. 9, 2015, burglary to a dwelling, burglary to a conveyance
• Jan. 18, 2016, vehicle theft, possession of marijuana, burglary, petit theft theft
• March 29, 2016, violation of probation- trespassing trespassing

Laniya D. Miller, 15, had only one arrest on her record at the time of her death, a vehicle theft charge on March 16, 2015. trespassing trespassing

Laniya D. Miller, 15, had only one arrest on her record at the time of her death, a vehicle theft charge on March 16, 2015.

I bet they wuz gud grlz, wuz gonna bez doktors, thei luvd jeesus n shit

Just like the majority of cops, these scumbags showed themselves to be cowards.

100% agreement here.

I'd try my best to save a cat or dog in the water. These young girls...

It's criminal.

Were the victims black or white? Their names sound black.

First off,they were only victims of their own stupidity. If they hadn't stolen a car and tried to outrun the police in a freaking Honda,they wouldn't have gone into the water.

Secondly,they were black,which makes no difference at all other than for the deafening silence from the professional black victims profession. I have no doubt some of them will show up soon,though. I guess the elections are keeping them busy visiting graveyards so then can register new voters.

That's a flat-out lie.

Oh - the dash cam video lied?

"... police dash cam video actually shows the deputies standing near the shore listening to the girls scream to death."

"... police dash cam video actually shows the deputies standing near the shore listening to the girls scream to death."

I watched the video and couldn't see one way or the other.

But if they were indeed standing near (not on) the shore, then that confirms their story -- -- "Deputies wading out into the water were just sinking (into the muck) and couldn’t get to the car”

I watched the video and couldn't see one way or the other.

They stood around and did nothing. I watched the video too.

They stood around and did nothing.

And lied about it on their reports.

“Deputies wading out into the water were just sinking (into the muck) and couldn’t get to the car,” the sheriff said."

quick
sand
muck
liberalism

gone

love
boris

"They took an oath!"

But she's too deep into her ongoing estrogen storm to quote it.

I'm talking about real cops.

Pinellas County oath of office for sheriffs and other county personnel:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the state of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of [the position] on which I am now about to enter, so help me God."

Change your rag.

"I'd try my best to save a cat or dog in the water."

Hell, yes. No question.

"These young girls..."

Yeah. I hear ya. A real toughie.

Good riddance to bad garbage. Thank God they won't be back on the road to kill someone next time.

ANYBODY and EVERYBODY that raises their hand and takes a oath to protect the public,and then takes "the Kings money" to do so. They did not have to save even one of those girls,but they damn sure had obligation to TRY.

Whatever duty you assume to exist, there is no legal duty to rescue.

http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2094&context=californialawreview

Lisa McCabe, Police Officers' Duty to Rescue or Aid: Are They Only Good Samaritans, 72 Cal. L. Rev. 661 (1984). Available at:
http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/californialawreview/vol72/iss4/10

Conclusion of Law Review paper arguing their should be a duty to rescue.

Police officers hold a unique position in society: they are protectors of public safety and at the same time they are governmental employees. This unique role should be acknowledged through a police duty to rescue. Such a duty comports with public expectations of police responsibilities, exposes the police to no undue risk, and requires reasonable affirmative efforts to rescue those in immediate physical danger. The recognition of this professional duty and standard of care is both justified and overdue.

Nothing in there about sacrificing your life to save some carjacking career criminals following a 4:00 am, no headlights, red-light-running high-speed chase

Emanations from a penumbra, perhaps.

"Emanations from a penumbra, perhaps."

Granted, I was a tad specific.

Pinellas County oath of office for sheriffs and other county personnel:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the state of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of [the position] on which I am now about to enter, so help me God."

roscoe --- Change your rag.

Faithfully performing duties includes saving lives, -- even the lives of teenie bopper car thieves, you arse hole.

That's what cops are paid to do.

Studies show that car thieves that die stealing a car never steal again.

Studies show that car thieves that die stealing a car never steal again.

As roscoe put it, change your rag, pussieboy.

Pussieboy?

I ain't the one who's weak pathetic heart bleeds for piece of shit criminal.

I'm talking about real cops.

Pinellas County oath of office for sheriffs and other county personnel:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, protect and defend the Constitution and Government of the United States and of the state of Florida; that I am duly qualified to hold office under the Constitution of the State, and that I will well and faithfully perform the duties of [the position] on which I am now about to enter, so help me God."

Change your rag.

If that is their oath in full,every one of those porkers should either be fired or forced to take a new oath that requires them to do their damn jobs. If "Officer Safety" is their number 1 concern,they need to stay home like the cowardly punks they are.

I can't imagine they were too stupid to figure out how to open a window or door.

People panic,and panicked people will sit right there and keep screaming right up to the point where their lungs fill with water.

One of the first car accidents I ever saw happened on Christmas morning when a car with 2 adults and 5 children ran off a bridge in about 20 feet of water,and every damn one of them drowned. My father's car was one of the first ones on the scene and we watched the wrecker winch the car back up out of the water,and there was a dead little girl laying in the parcel shelf by the back window. I can close my eyes and still see her in her white Christmas dress,all dressed up to go to grannie's.

I have since fished that area as a commercial fisherman,and there isn't even any mud at the bottom. Just hard packed sand. They should have been able to get out of the car after it flooded,but I guess with 7 people screaming and panicking,they probably got in each other's way trying to get a door open. The car was a brand new 58 Buick,and had electric windows that wouldn't go down after it hit the water. That car sat in a local junkyard for decades,and I would remember that little girl every time I went there to buy parts.

Whatever duty you assume to exist, there is no legal duty to rescue.

There there is no legal obligation to pay them.

Studies show that car thieves that die stealing a car never steal again.

As roscoe put it, change your rag, pussieboy.

I ain't the one who's weak pathetic heart bleeds for piece of shit criminal.

Nor am I. -- You're the pussy claiming that "studies show".

Studies show

Did my humor offend your bleeding heart? TFB.

If that is their oath in full,every one of those porkers should either be fired or forced to take a new oath that requires them to do their damn jobs.

Thank you for sharing your feelings.

There there is no legal obligation to pay them.

Yeah, there is a legal obligation to pay them.

There is no duty to rescue, for cops or ordinary citizens. Watching someone drown, even when one has the means available to save him, does not create legal liability.

what
can
the
govt
do
to
fix
that

more
head
start

sesame
street

love
boris

ps

more

movie
actors

documentary
lecturers

tv
commercials

isn't
it
obvious

documentary
experts

Run Silent Run Deep > Sloppo • 15 minutes ago

Well, have you noticed that on television many commercials replaced intelligent white people with white joker buffoons? Check out those Progressive car insurance commercials. Oh...and there's a KFC commercial where the white guy can't figure out how to order a combo meal, so he needs to beg chicken from the intelligent black guy.

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/04/harriet-tubman-boots-andrew-jackson-from-20- bill/#comment-2633999857

Watching someone drown, even when one has the means available to save him, does not create legal liability.

I disagree. There is such a thing as institutional liability,and police and fire departments clearly come under that heading,or why even bother to have them? It would be like having a military that refuses to fight.

"Those cops ended a crime wave by doing nothing."

Amen. Before innocent lives were lost.

nolu chan (#49) -- Watching someone drown, even when one has the means available to save him, does not create legal liability.

I disagree. There is such a thing as institutional liability,and police and fire departments clearly come under that heading,or why even bother to have them? It would be like having a military that refuses to fight.--- sneakypete

Good point, and one that the bureaucratic 'public servant' personality will never admit.

This place is infested with that type, which makes it fun to rub their noses in the bullshit, no?

I disagree. There is such a thing as institutional liability,and police and fire departments clearly come under that heading,or why even bother to have them? It would be like having a military that refuses to fight.

You are free to disagree all you want. You are free to expound your opinion about the way things ought to be. That does not change the way the law is. There is no duty to rescue, and police and fire departments clearly do NOT come under a duty that does not exist.

For combatant military (not medics, etc.) it is a lawful duty to fight. Refusal generally gets a court-martial.

http://www.lifeofthelaw.org/2013/05/wait-what-no-duty-to-rescue/

Wait, What? No Duty to Rescue

May 14, 2013 by Gilad Edelman

In Wait, What?, our law student contributors share unexpected lessons from law school. Here, Gilad Edelman writes on the duty to rescue (spoiler alert: there is no such thing).

A pillar of every first-year law curriculum is the subject of torts, the area of law covering suits over harm to people and property. For a lot of Americans, tort suits have a lot to do with why they hate lawyers. It’s a cliché that we live in a litigious society, and Americans like to gripe about how vulnerable we’ve become to being sued.

And yet, the most surprising thing I learned in first-year Torts concerns a limitation on liability where I didn’t expect it: generally speaking, you can’t be sued for failing to help someone in distress. Forget the Seinfeld finale; in America, with few exceptions, if you see someone in danger—a kid diving into the shallow end, George Bush choking on a pretzel, James Bond with a laser headed for his crotch—you can stand by and do nothing. You may be a bad person, but you won’t be liable in court.

Learning this felt especially counterintuitive because the topic we started the course with was the “standard of care,” which refers to how you have to behave to avoid being held liable in court. Generally speaking, the question of whether someone is liable (whether she’s breached the standard of care) for harm caused unintentionally comes down to the question of negligence—and that ultimately comes down to questions of reasonableness. The general idea is that if you’ve acted as we expect a reasonable person to in a given situation, then (1) you’re morally blameless and shouldn’t be punished, and (2) liability wouldn’t influence behavior, since you were already taking reasonable care—or put another way, it would make people become more cautious than we think desirable.

So why am I not liable for failure to rescue? Suppose, for instance, that I’m walking by a pond and see a baby drowning in two feet of water. It would pose no risk to me to save her life by bending over to pick her up. Yet if I don’t, her parents can’t sue me for wrongful death. But how can that be true, since most people would agree that my behavior fails the test of reasonableness (and of basic humanity)?

The law’s answer is that I didn’t owe the baby any duty of care. And if I don’t owe a duty of care, it doesn’t matter whether my inaction was reasonable.

In the case of actions, the question of duty is usually pretty simple: we owe a duty of care to the people our actions affect. But when it comes to inaction, the law is hesitant to impose a duty outside of certain special situations.

I should say, judges are hesitant, because in our legal tradition duty is mostly judge-made law. When we talk about whether a duty exists in a certain context, we’re almost always talking about whether judges have decided it’s a good idea from a public policy perspective to hold people liable for harms caused in those contexts. As Oliver Wendell Holmes put it in 1897, “a legal duty so called is nothing but a prediction that if a man does or omits certain things he will be made to suffer in this or that way by judgment of the court (Legislatures sometimes step in and create legal duties through statutes. A few states have passed laws imposing versions of a duty to help under threat of modest criminal penalties. Usually the duty is limited to calling the police, and imposed only where the situation is sufficiently grave.)

There are some situations where judges have decided you do have an affirmative duty to act. These vary somewhat from state to state, but the main categories are: (1) you have some special fiduciary obligation to the victim, like a teacher to a student; (2) a special relationship with the perpetrator (or “tortfeasor,” if you want to get fancy, lawyer-style) as a parent whose child causes harm; (3) you yourself created the risk, though innocently; and (4) you have already started trying to help the person.

That’s right: you may be more exposed to tort liability if you do help than if you don’t. This is the extra-weird caramel center of the no-duty-to-rescue doctrine. In many states, if you do pick up that drowning baby, you now have a duty of reasonable care, and can be sued if you negligently cause harm in helping her.

So there are exceptions to the no-duty-to-rescue rule. But in your bread and butter, see-someone-walking-into-open-sewer-and-don’t-say-anything situation, judges in most states have historically declined to impose a duty to rescue. Partly this stems from autonomy interests. Although we’re fine mandating that people play by the rules when choosing to undertake a given activity, we’re pretty uncomfortable requiring people to take action in the first place. (This distinction is often referred to as “misfeasance” versus “nonfeasance”: you’re liable for doing something the wrong way, but not for doing nothing at all.)

There are also causation issues: does it make sense, philosophically, to say that my failing to rescue the baby caused it to drown? Then there are what we might call administrative issues: how do we draw the boundaries of liability? How far out of our way should we be expected to go to save someone? Do we have to balance the cost to ourselves against the cost to the person in peril? If there are ten people in position to rescue someone, do they all have a duty? Is it the same duty? Does the ablest person have the greatest duty?

It’s the stickiness of questions like these that have led judges to avoid imposing a duty to rescue in most cases. Although our legal rules tend to reflect society’s moral preferences, there are limits to the extent to which the law can enforce morality. The impracticality of imposing a duty to rescue is one such limitation.

That’s what our reactions to situations of seeming excessive liability and to this seeming lack of liability have in common: a sense that the law is not lining up with our feelings about moral right and wrong. On the other hand, having read this, the next time you go out of your way to rescue someone you’ll know you did it out of moral goodness, not because you thought you had to. Maybe that’s worth something to us, too.

There is no duty to rescue, and police and fire departments clearly do NOT come under a duty that does not exist.

IF that is the case due to idiot judges making bad rulings,then every police department in the country should be disarmed.

every police department in the country should be disarmed.

Who will disarm them, snowflake? You?

As the video moves forward another deputy can be heard saying, “They’re done. They are 6-7, dude.”

“They were yelling,” a deputy responds. “I thought I heard yelling.”

I
know
from
experience

paramedics

rightfully
so

can
be
very
stoic

cold

love
boris

ps

toughen

sober

up

pss

it's
only

lib
melt
down

going
to
get
worse