Police for Protection?

[Kennedy 0]

So, do the police have to protect you?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/17/60minutes/main681416.shtml

Quote

What is the duty of the police in your hometown to protect you from your estranged husband, after you’ve had your ex-husband served with a legal restraining order because you fear he may try to harm you and your children?

That question is at the heart of a lawsuit from Castle Rock, Colo., which has now made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Oral arguments in the case will be heard on March 21.

In 1999, three little girls - aged 10, 8, and 7 - were shot to death by their father. Now, their mother is trying to sue Castle Rock and its police force for not protecting her daughters.

U.S. cities are immune from most lawsuits, and the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the mother, Jessica Gonzales, can sue in this case. It's a decision, reports Correspondent Mike Wallace, that could affect police departments across the country. Sisters Rebecca, Kathryn and Leslie Gonzales were known to their friends as "three peas in a pod."

The sisters were a fun-loving trio, even though their parents were getting divorced. Their mother, Jessica, said her estranged husband, Simon, had been frightening the family by acting erratically. He even put a noose around his neck and attempted to hang himself in front of the girls.

"I went out in the garage and found him standing on this stool, and his neck in the noose, and the children are standing at the door watching this," says Gonzales. "And I was holding the rope away from his neck. And I made the girls call the police, because I couldn’t do it myself."

There were repeated calls to the police, because Simon kept scaring the family, even after the couple separated. "He would stalk us. He would break into the house," says Gonzales. "He didn't have a key, when he wasn't living there. And it frightened us because we didn't expect him to be there."

Gonzales got a restraining order to keep Simon away from her and the girls. The order stipulated that he could be with his daughters only on alternate weekends, and one prearranged dinner during the week.

But just one month after the restraining order was issued, on a night when he wasn’t supposed to see the girls, Simon loaded his daughters into his pickup truck and drove off.

How did Gonzales find out that her daughters were missing?

"They'd been gone over an hour. They had asked me around 4:30 if they could go out and play. And they checked in just about every hour. And so I knew when they didn’t check in with me by 5:30 something was wrong," says Gonzales, who decided that Simon must have abducted the girls.

"I had to assume it was him, but I didn’t. I was afraid. I couldn’t believe that he would do that. And so I told the police I believed that it was him, and they were gone."

She called the police just before 6 p.m. When officers came to her house, she says she immediately showed them the restraining order. Colorado law requires police to arrest anyone who violates a restraining order, but Gonzales says the officers did not seem very concerned.

"Their first reaction was, 'Well, he's their father. It's OK for them to be with him,'" says Gonzales. "And I said, 'No, it's not OK. There was no arranged visit for him to have them.'"

Castle Rock Police Chief Tony Lane told 60 Minutes that domestic disputes are often tough to sort out. "What safer place can children be than with one of the parents, the mother or the father," says Lane. "And we had no indication from past records that he was ever violent with these children, or even his wife, physically."

Lane said his men drove around looking for Simon. And officers told Gonzales to call them back if the girls weren’t home by 10 p.m. Gonzales said Simon wasn't answering his cell phone, but he was calling his girlfriend, and the girlfriend kept calling Gonzales with disturbing news.

"She talked about him wanting to drive off a cliff, and she asked if he had a gun," says Gonzales. "And about whether or not he would hurt the children."

Three hours after he took the girls, Simon finally answered Gonzales' call and told her they were at an amusement park called Elitch Gardens, and that he'd eventually bring them home.

Gonzales then called the police and told them about her conversation: "I told them that I finally caught up with him. And where he was. And could they locate him, and bring the children home. And, as I recall, they told me that was out of their jurisdiction."

Police told Gonzales that it was out of their jurisdiction because it was in Denver instead of Castle Rock. So then, Gonzales says she asked them "if they could call Denver police, because there’s one way in and one way out of the amusement park."

Gonzales says the Castle Rock police refused and that instead of sensing danger, police were treating this as merely a domestic spat.

"I practically read the restraining order to them," says Gonzales. "And I said, 'Well, what if he doesn’t bring them home?' They said, 'Well, you call us back in a couple of hours.'"

Gonzales says she read them the part of the restraining order that instructs police, “to use every reasonable effort to protect the…children to prevent…violence.” She also told 60 Minutes that she begged and pleaded with the police to get her girls.

But Lane disputes that. "She did not beg us to go to Elitch Gardens. In fact, she said she had told Simon to bring the kids home and he agreed to do that," says Lane. "So we were all under the impression that Simon was bringing the children home."

But Simon didn't do that. When the girls still had not returned after 10 p.m., Gonzales says she called police for the third time, and they told her to wait until midnight before calling again. At midnight, Gonzales drove to Simon’s apartment.

He wasn’t there, so Gonzales made her fourth call to police, and then, fighting panic, she says that, feeling frightened and frustrated, she drove to the police station. There, she told another officer about the restraining order and that her daughters had been gone for seven hours. Then, she went home.

According to police, at 3:20 a.m., Simon Gonzales drove to what was then the site of the Castle Rock police station. Police say Simon got out of his truck and started shooting at the building with a semi-automatic gun that he’d bought that evening after he’d picked up the girls.

Police returned fire, killing Simon. When they looked into the cab of his truck, they found the bodies of Rebecca, Kathryn, and Leslie. An autopsy concluded that Simon had shot each of them in the head at close range after leaving the amusement park, which meant that he’d driven around with their bodies beside him for several hours.

Who dropped the ball on this case? "Nobody dropped the ball," says Lane. "You give me a crystal ball, and you tell me that this was gonna happen ahead of time, and we would have certainly taken action on it."

Lane adds that "we certainly had no indication that Simon was gonna kill these kids."

"I would think working with a restraining order, his girlfriend thinks he's a little nuts, he's tried to commit suicide on more than one occasion," says Wallace. "I would think that it would occur to the cops, 'Hey, this guy's crazy.'"

Says Lane: "These officers acted on the information that was available to them, at the time."

Chief Lane says the officers that night apparently did not know that Simon had recently been ticketed for road rage, and for trespassing in a private section of their own police department, after police served him with the restraining order.

"We have upgraded our computer systems, our information systems, so we have this information more available," says Lane. "And we have a much better system in place now that we did six years ago, obviously."

But Gonzales' attorney, Brian Reichel, who will argue her case before the Supreme Court, says police didn’t need to know about Simon's bizarre behavior. They just needed to follow the law. Colorado is one of 30 states that passed a law instructing the police to arrest people who violate restraining orders.

"If there’s a restraining order in place, a court order in place, telling them what to do, just do it," says Reichel. "They knew exactly where he was. We have their own logs that say that Jessica called and advised the police department that Simon had the children at Elitch Gardens amusement park -- at 8:30 that night, when they were still alive."

But the cops had said that the amusement park was out of their jurisdiction. "Well, I'm assuming that Castle Rock police department have the phone number for the Denver police department," says Reichel. "A simple telephone call to the security officials at Elitch Gardens, to the Denver police department, this tragedy could have been avoided."

In hindsight, should Castle Rock police have asked the Denver police to go to the amusement park?

"That's a judgment call," says Lane. "Could we have called Denver police department? Sure. What would we have to tell them? Go to Elitch park and check on the welfare of Simon Gonzales? Sure."

And now the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether Gonzales can sue Castle Rock for not doing enough to enforce the restraining order, not doing enough to protect her children.

Cities have immunity against most lawsuits. A federal district court ruled Gonzales couldn’t sue, but then an appeals court ruled she could sue. So the Supreme Court will have the last word.

"If the Supreme Court is to decide that Jessica has no remedy, where’s the accountability for the police," says Reichel. "Where, if the courts tell them to do something, and they refuse to do it, or don’t do it properly, and the legislature tells them that they’re supposed to act in a certain way and they don’t do it, where’s the accountability? Where’s the accountability?"

What impact would this have on Chief Lane's police force, or police across the country, if Gonzales were to win this lawsuit?

"That would have a severe impact on not only our department, but law enforcement in general," says Lane. "It would open up the door for all kinds of liability issues."

Castle Rock will tell the Supreme Court that if this type of lawsuit is allowed, it could bankrupt some cities, because law enforcement inevitably is less than perfect.

But Gonzales says she's suing for $30 million to force police departments across the country to improve officers' training on how to enforce restraining orders.

"I don’t lose three children and not do something about it. And this is the only way I know to make that right," says Gonzales. "All I can do is give it my best shot to make a change, to make the world a little safer. And if that doesn’t work, then at least I know I tried. I didn’t just roll over and accept it."

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 21. Chief Lane sent 60 Minutes a letter after our interview. And on one key point, he agrees with Gonzales: “The tragedy of the Gonzales shootings points out the much larger problem in this country … with restraining orders. They do not protect society from the Simon Gonzales of the world.”

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Some cases to help you decide, but I'm not telling what they say.

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856)
(the U.S. Supreme Court)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S.Ct. 998, 1989

Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 (1975)

Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982)

Westbrooks v. State, 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 (1985)\

Ne Casek v. City of Los Angeles, 233 Cal.App.2d 131, 43 Cal.Rptr. 294 (1965)

Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969)

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ChrisL 2]

Protect and Serve

Thats their alleged purpose, isnt it?

__

My mighty steed

[Jimbo 0]

Yes, it is. But I think that the real question is 'Protect and Serve who or what?'.

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[kelpdiver 2]

what a mess.

But I'm not sure any result from the courts would improve the over situation.

It seems like the sort of event that should result in the top cop and others getting fired, but past that, I'd say no. And couldn't she have called the Denver police?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So, do the police have to protect you?

I know! Call on me! I know! Can I answer! Please! Please!

[Kennedy 0]

OK, John. Go ahead and share with the class.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Antidote 0]

I'd say no. You're the only one truly responsible for your own safety. The police CANNOT be relied upon to protect you.

It's not a matter of not wanting to - it's just that cops can't be everywhere at once and bad stuff happens in seconds. The police might be minutes away and that won't help if you need protection here and now

I've tried talking to my friends in this country about just that issue but they're unable or unwilling to see my point. Mostly, I think, because it naturally leads to the question "how do you protect yourself?", to which my (simplistic) answer is: training and tools.

My preferred training/tool combination would be with a handgun. Unfortunately, my government/friends do not agree with me, insisting the police can protect me no matter what.

And that's an unrealistic answer IMHO.

[bobsled92 0]

Good protection due to proven danger works.
My Mom was threatened by her 1st husband (3 counts of attempted murder (2 in Europe, 1 in U.S.)
In hopes of getting her inheritance.
A N.Y. State Trooper was assign from 3pm to 8am to protect her until he was caught. On my half brother's birthday, he tried again and was caught.
I worked well.
That State Trooper would have given his life to protect the 2 boys and her.
(That State Trooper is my Dad)

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/

[miked10270 0]

What surprises me is that the amusement park was "out of juristiction".

I assume that this is a result of America's very decentralised government and "hotch-potch" system of city police forces, county police forces, & state police forces.

Over here at the centre of "The Evil Ailing Empire", a police officer is a police officer and can exercise his powers anywhere in the country, and in neighbouring countries in the UK. This is largely possible (and made simple) by our centralised government and single(ish) criminal law.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[WrongWay 0]

Do they have to "protect" you? Not necessarily.

BUT

Do they have to follow the law themselves and carry out an arrest or at least take some kind of action when a restraining order is violated, especially when children are involved (whether they knew the childrens lives were at stake or not)? Hell yes they do.

If you ask me, this is just another case of cops being lazy and not doing their job. The fact of the matter is that they were showed a restraining order that not only specifically stated that he could be violent, but also stated that they are “....to use every reasonable effort to protect the…children....”, and still they made no effort whatsoever.

I hope she wins, and on top of that, I hope these assholes get fired for not doing their duty.

Wrong Way
D #27371 Mal Manera Rodriguez Cajun Chicken Ø Hellfish #451
The wiser wolf prevails.

[freethefly 6]

The police are not there to protect the average citizen. If they were protecting the population then crimes such as rape, murder, abductions and so on would not occure. The police come in to play after the fact, not before. Their role is to enforce laws set by a legisaltive body. Having family members in law enforcement I hear that everyone is a suspect. The majority protects themselves and those of their kind. Police are needed, there is no argument there. But do they really protect? No is my opinion. I have had a truck stolen, a house broke into, I have been shot, robbed at knife point and a few other things. Where were the police to protect? Nowhere near that was for sure. In most cases they only showed, and not so fast, after the fact. In others why even call as they will do very little in way of help after the fact. All in all I can protect myself just fine. If treaded upon I can deal with it without the police.

I do have one exception and he is Detective Fellows of the San Diego PD. He brought back my Les Paul 55 after she was taken when my house was broke into. This was after the fact. Yet, after six months I gave up hope of ever seeing my guitar when the phone ranged. Detective Fellows stayed on this one little case and found my baby hanging in a pawn shop. Without his work my girl would had been sold and never seen again. The police do things behind the scene that most never see or even realize. Hats off to the good ones who really do make a differance.

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[EBSB52 0]

What is policy, procedure an the like are just fluff. The reality is that they protect their own agenda, as in "taking care of their own."

So what is writtena nd what is realized are worlds apart in most cases.

We studied special realionship contracts in college, I think there were 3.

1. Parent to a child. I can watch a child getting killed and have no legal duty to do anything in most jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions might require I at least make a phone call. (Of course I would fight to the death to save a child, I'm just illustrating my legal duty as it relates to special relationships) But a parent must go to great lengths to save their child if they are in peril. They are violating that special relationship if they do nothing.

2. Cops. They can't sit there and do nothing, they are in a special relationship contract to render aid to a citizen within their jurisdiction.

3. I forget maybe some lawyers fill in the blank.


Anyway, what is written and what is realized can be worlds apart, and ofet are. Should they just do the paperwork with no duty to protect? I dunno. I would just like the rules clarified and some accountability realized.

U.S. cities are immune from most lawsuits, and the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the mother, Jessica Gonzales, can sue in this case. It's a decision, reports Correspondent Mike Wallace, that could affect police departments across the country. Sisters Rebecca, Kathryn and Leslie Gonzales were known to their friends as "three peas in a pod."

I disagree with this part of the article. They are immune from lawsuits that state a claim for failing to protect maybe, but they get successfully sued all the time, which is why they are required to carry insurance.

"Their first reaction was, 'Well, he's their father. It's OK for them to be with him,'" says Gonzales. "And I said, 'No, it's not OK. There was no arranged visit for him to have them.'"


This is police discretion and we allow people who are cops, often of low education, generally very conservative, to make these calls that should be made by higher authorities.

The kids being killed could have happened at any time since thefather had custody of them. He could have just waited until one of his custodial times to do it.

I'm a process server and tried to enforce a restraining order for a client to the effect that the guy I served 2 weeks prior was feet away from my client, I told a cop about it,he shrugged and said that the peace wasn't being breached,.

If you guys wanna understand what motivates police, look no further than....

ONE OF THEIR OWN

I can't totally blame the street cop for that though, the agnda of various levels of government is to keep cops in their corner; they do this by creating divide between cops and citizens. Racial divide, class divide, and authority divide ensure enough dissention to thwart any revolt from citizen to government.

[skycop 0]

Another shit sandwich, with the local cops as the meat.
This is a tough one, if it was a restraining/protective order then yes, it was the cops job to protect these people. BUT, if this was some kind of custodial agreement, then no, (at least here) it's not the cop's job to protect individuals in these situations. Depends on the wording.
Sounds like word games but it's reality.
We do not enforce civil custodial agreements unless there is known actual criminal conduct (such as abuse). However these situations normally end up in a protection order, which is required by state law to be enforced. If a mom or dad violates a civil custody order, it is handled through civil court until someone files contempt of court charges (usually a judge.)
I wasn't there so I will withhold any comment. A decision was made and three little girls are dead. The cops are the last ones who wanted that to happen.
That's the rub, we (LEO's) make a bad decision and people can die, how many of you can say that?
Many people we deal with expect us to SOLVE their problems, many times these problems have brewed for years. These same people want the problem solved NOW. I always tell, and I have my men tell people we can help solve their problems, but only they can ultimately solve them. I'm not saying that is the case here but, it can become a factor when you are constantly thrust into the middle of these kinds of situations.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[gmanpilot 0]

Very sad story, but I'm very surprised her case has gotten this far. The financial and civil precedent could be far reaching. Imagine cops, firemen, and paramedics being successfully sued when:

-a convenience store is robbed and the attendant gets shot and killed; or
-a vacant house gets burned down and a homeless person perishes in the flames; or
-a victim dies before the ambulance can get to the rural scene of the accident.

Everyone knows that a convenience store (Stop-n-Rob) is a probable robbery target, vacant buildings are probable arson targets and, if you live in the country, it will probably take a while for the ambulance to get to you. Yet, it's someone elses fault when something tragic happens??

Bad things happen to good people every day.

_________________________________________
-There's always free cheese in a mouse trap.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Another shit sandwich, with the local cops as the meat.
This is a tough one, if it was a restraining/protective order then yes, it was the cops job to protect these people. BUT, if this was some kind of custodial agreement, then no, (at least here) it's not the cop's job to protect individuals in these situations. Depends on the wording.
Sounds like word games but it's reality.
We do not enforce civil custodial agreements unless there is known actual criminal conduct (such as abuse). However these situations normally end up in a protection order, which is required by state law to be enforced. If a mom or dad violates a civil custody order, it is handled through civil court until someone files contempt of court charges (usually a judge.)
I wasn't there so I will withhold any comment. A decision was made and three little girls are dead. The cops are the last ones who wanted that to happen.
That's the rub, we (LEO's) make a bad decision and people can die, how many of you can say that?
Many people we deal with expect us to SOLVE their problems, many times these problems have brewed for years. These same people want the problem solved NOW. I always tell, and I have my men tell people we can help solve their problems, but only they can ultimately solve them. I'm not saying that is the case here but, it can become a factor when you are constantly thrust into the middle of these kinds of situations.

That's the rub, we (LEO's) make a bad decision and people can die, how many of you can say that?

LOt's people. I'm an aircraft mech/Inspector; FAA licensed. I'm going into nursing, need I say more? Many people are in jobs where bad decisions = dead people, but some are exonerated for these 'bad decisions' even if more than just good ole poor judgment is obvious.

This is a tough one, if it was a restraining/protective order then yes, it was the cops job to protect these people. BUT, if this was some kind of custodial agreement, then no, (at least here) it's not the cop's job to protect individuals in these situations. Depends on the wording.


I agree, tricking wording. The cops aren't responsible for people's safety, butthey do have a duty to report crimes, for which they selectively do.

A decision was made and three little girls are dead. The cops are the last ones who wanted that to happen.


OMG, so you're saying the cops did want it to happen, just that they were the last ones on the list to have it happen? I know what you're saying and of course teh cops would have died killing this SOB before he did what he did, had they been there. I think that can be said of any of us. I can understand some motives of some criminals, but to kill your 3 darling little girls to spite your wife; there's a special hell for that mother fucker.

Hard to argue against CP with cases like this, had the perp been alive, but the emphasis is still on the wrongly convicted innocent.

Another shit sandwich, with the local cops as the meat.

Hold the mayo.....

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Very sad story, but I'm very surprised her case has gotten this far. The financial and civil precedent could be far reaching. Imagine cops, firemen, and paramedics being successfully sued when:

-a convenience store is robbed and the attendant gets shot and killed; or
-a vacant house gets burned down and a homeless person perishes in the flames; or
-a victim dies before the ambulance can get to the rural scene of the accident.

Everyone knows that a convenience store (Stop-n-Rob) is a probable robbery target, vacant buildings are probable arson targets and, if you live in the country, it will probably take a while for the ambulance to get to you. Yet, it's someone elses fault when something tragic happens??

Bad things happen to good people every day.

I agree with the spirit of this, but the differences are that there had been an order of protection issued and an alert was made. Truth is he did have access to the kids and could have done it next weekend.

I wonder why mommy is thinking lawsuit instead of mourning???

[justinb138 0]

Quote

This is police discretion and we allow people who are cops, often of low education

Every police department in my area requires at least a 2-year degree, and most require a 4 year degree. Get your facts straight before you start your police-hating messages again.

[Gawain 0]

Well, I understand that their role is to enforce the law. However, there was a lawful restraining order, or legal framework for them to enforce. Why they didn't default to a "kidnapping" response is beyond me. I side with the mother in this one.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[skycop 0]

I hate to compare jobs BUT, the thing unique to police work is the human factor. In your job, if you fail to follow tech data then there is a given result.
Imagine an engine or airplane knowing what you are going to do, then doing one or several things to prevent you from doing it, or undoing what you did. All this with conscious thought and planning, not circumstances.

The point I'm trying to make is, people who have jobs that require dealing with human factor are much less likely to point fingers until they know all facts. I'm sure you'll find that out when you start in the medical field. All we've seen here is a news report, that alone does not constitute fact.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[skycop 0]

I don't even bite on that one anymore. We have guys with everything from a high school education to masters degrees. Most lie somewhere in between.
My signature line says it all................

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

OK, John. Go ahead and share with the class.

Warren v. District of Columbia (D.C. App 1981): "A government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen". It also ruled that the police have a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.

Similar rulings go back to 1856 in South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396. The court held that local law enforcement officers had only a general duty to enforce laws, not to protect a particular person.

So the answer is "no". If the police fail to protect you from being attacked, even if you have a restraining order in place, you can't sue them...

Do I get a gold star?

[Kennedy 0]

A check plus and a gold star for John.

That's right folks, the police have no legal duty to protect you. Their responsibility is to "the community at large."

In many jurisdictions, even if they witness a felony in progress, they have no requirements to stop and help (a la the King riots in LA).

Yes, this is why I laugh every time the anti-gun forces tell us how the police are there to protect us, and we don't need our own guns.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

Quote

This is police discretion and we allow people who are cops, often of low education

Every police department in my area requires at least a 2-year degree, and most require a 4 year degree. Get your facts straight before you start your police-hating messages again.

DOn't start your crap and then cry foul.

I don't hate cops, it's the courts that direct them and the corporations run the courts and government in general.

Now, which departments require a 4 year degree? Please post web sites with application criteria. Arizona requires a 2-year degree in justice, which is one of the easiest degrees to get - I have a BS in justice from ASU in 2002. SO to say a 2-year justice degree and think it's not low education means to me that you have zero education. I don't say that to denograte you, but that people in academia know that an associates degree in an easy area is not much. Guys like Kallend have PhD's in physics, which basically makes him a genius.... if he read the AS in Justice not being of low education he would surely laugh.

[EBSB52 0]

Quote

I hate to compare jobs BUT, the thing unique to police work is the human factor. In your job, if you fail to follow tech data then there is a given result.
Imagine an engine or airplane knowing what you are going to do, then doing one or several things to prevent you from doing it, or undoing what you did. All this with conscious thought and planning, not circumstances.

The point I'm trying to make is, people who have jobs that require dealing with human factor are much less likely to point fingers until they know all facts. I'm sure you'll find that out when you start in the medical field. All we've seen here is a news report, that alone does not constitute fact.

I know what you're saying and it is a good point. To sum it up with one word I would say: Predictability. I can predict what my acft are going to do, but people are much different and intuition is much more imptorant.

The point I'm trying to make is, people who have jobs that require dealing with human factor are much less likely to point fingers until they know all facts. I'm sure you'll find that out when you start in the medical field. All we've seen here is a news report, that alone does not constitute fact.

Hell, I know that now. The criticism I have with the way cops are treated as far as their discretionary action go, they are absolved by the authorities and rack it up to a bad decision, but good faith when that is often not the truth.