Interesting article showing that 911 may not help at all. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html
Women - 911 or 1911 ?
- Thread starter mete
- Start date
Limeyfellow
New member
Just a shame it from such a trashy thing such as foxnews. It be like quoting White Power Magazine to justify that black people are untrustworthy. Complete tripe. Is there any more reputable sources out there?
OLD SF MJT
New member
Limeyfellow,
Hey, pal (or should I say 'bloke?'), regarding FOX News, you are way, WAY off base. As an example, I'm a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom & I was continually having to alay the fears of my wife regarding what CNN & the 'mainstream' news services were reporting about events over in Afghanistan...their reporting was nearly pure lies. FOX, on the other hand, was far more accurate (perfect...Hardly!). Additionally, the items reported in this write-up are dead-nuts accurate!
So, if your idea of accurate reporting is the BBC, well, friend, your views are to be expected! There is "complete tripe!" You need to wake up. Of all the broadcast media out there, FOX is the best at TRYING to be reasonable fair and accurate. Your buddies may not like hearing Fox cited as a source, but then, the ignorant seldom like hearing the truth when it refutes their point of view.
Hey, pal (or should I say 'bloke?'), regarding FOX News, you are way, WAY off base. As an example, I'm a veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom & I was continually having to alay the fears of my wife regarding what CNN & the 'mainstream' news services were reporting about events over in Afghanistan...their reporting was nearly pure lies. FOX, on the other hand, was far more accurate (perfect...Hardly!). Additionally, the items reported in this write-up are dead-nuts accurate!
So, if your idea of accurate reporting is the BBC, well, friend, your views are to be expected! There is "complete tripe!" You need to wake up. Of all the broadcast media out there, FOX is the best at TRYING to be reasonable fair and accurate. Your buddies may not like hearing Fox cited as a source, but then, the ignorant seldom like hearing the truth when it refutes their point of view.
Limeyfellow
New member
Fox trying to be fair and balanced? I'm not sure what world this is on. The boss of Fox has even come out and said they are not responsiable for telling the truth. They are there for entertainment purposes only.
CNN is no better really and got rather pathetic, as have most the mainstream news, but Fox is no better than al jazeera and make a laughing stock out of the media.
I rarely get my news from BBC either. Not much is even shown over where I am living about 2 hours away from you.
CNN is no better really and got rather pathetic, as have most the mainstream news, but Fox is no better than al jazeera and make a laughing stock out of the media.
I rarely get my news from BBC either. Not much is even shown over where I am living about 2 hours away from you.
Limey, Fox news may not be perfect, but when you compare it to the likes of ABC-NBC-CBS-MSNBC, they look like the Gospel! I cannot think of a non-Fox broadcast media source that is anything less than Ultra Far Left in its agenda.
Murdoch may be a loon & a kook, especially in the print media, but hardly anybody READS the paper any more.
Murdoch may be a loon & a kook, especially in the print media, but hardly anybody READS the paper any more.
it's true. fox's reputation is mostly hype too, sort of a slanderous bite at them for employing the likes of a conservative - God forbid there be any hannity, even if colmes' mug is squat next to him every time. i tend to stick to local news and fox, but occasionally cross-reference, and in terms of reporting major nonmilitary events there's typically very little difference between the writeups on fox versus cnn. all i know is i less frequently want to kick my computer reading fox than most of the others when a highly politicized topic comes around. that's not to say it doesn't happen, it just happens less.
On Topic
Anyone that thinks that the police are in existence to "protect and serve" is a fool. Maybe not idiotic, but foolish. The police are there to solve crimes. Yes they do serve other purposes, but this is their main job. I have no problem with this.
Off topic.
Get a freakin clue Limeyguy!
The gist of this story is reporting the court ruling which was reported by many other news agencies. But, alas, you have nothing to contribute so stfu. If you aren't bright enough to see past the spin, that's your problem. Do a Google of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
Anyone that thinks that the police are in existence to "protect and serve" is a fool. Maybe not idiotic, but foolish. The police are there to solve crimes. Yes they do serve other purposes, but this is their main job. I have no problem with this.
Off topic.
Get a freakin clue Limeyguy!
The gist of this story is reporting the court ruling which was reported by many other news agencies. But, alas, you have nothing to contribute so stfu. If you aren't bright enough to see past the spin, that's your problem. Do a Google of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
On Topic
Changing the facts - say the plaintiff had a weapon and she went looking for her husband, he refused to give the kids back - would she be justified in using force - or should she call the cops? Surely she would be justified if the husband was threatening her or her children. But if he just had the girls out at the local fair according to the terms of the TRO (the dad had reportedly taken the girls to the amusement park on his custody night and they were a little late, the PD told her that maybe they were having fun and were running late, and to call back if they were not home by a certain time- the PD did not have any idea that he was violent, they did not know he was going to kill the girls- in fact, up until that night - he was complying with the terms of the TRO) - would she be justified in looking for her husband with her 1911 and making him give her the kids back?
About Castle Rock - My Constitutional Law Professor actually did the oral argument for the City of Castle Rock in front of the Supreme Court and I had the privilege of listening to him practice his argument. The plaintiff's claim was that she was denied due process of the law, which she was not - had the local law enforcement officers simply took her report with no intention to follow up - she would have been denied due process. Don't get me wrong - the facts of the case are particularly heinous - but bad facts often make bad law. Initially after hearing my professors argument I had a problem with the fact that the PD holds itself out as an agency you call to protect you and yet it has no affirmative duty to protect you. But IMHO - the decision is more of a balance of limiting liability for law enforcement departments and allowing them still to perform their duties. Placing an affirmative duty to protect each and every person and then allowing them to sue if they were not adequately protected would not only bankrupt cities and municipalities, it would be impractical, and it would almost be tantamount to strict liability.
I think protection should be a combination of both - if someone comes into my home - I will use the 1911 and then call 911. However, I am indeed glad there is a 911 at all - I surely wouldn’t want to break up every dispute in my neighborhood. Surely we all have a duty to protect ourselves, our neighborhoods and our families; however I don't think the decision in Castle Rock means law enforcement is unnecessary.
However - the author's slant of the facts makes it seem as if LE is useless - but sometimes I think its easier spotlight failures than it is to recognize that a lot of LEO's do their jobs and do them well.
Changing the facts - say the plaintiff had a weapon and she went looking for her husband, he refused to give the kids back - would she be justified in using force - or should she call the cops? Surely she would be justified if the husband was threatening her or her children. But if he just had the girls out at the local fair according to the terms of the TRO (the dad had reportedly taken the girls to the amusement park on his custody night and they were a little late, the PD told her that maybe they were having fun and were running late, and to call back if they were not home by a certain time- the PD did not have any idea that he was violent, they did not know he was going to kill the girls- in fact, up until that night - he was complying with the terms of the TRO) - would she be justified in looking for her husband with her 1911 and making him give her the kids back?
About Castle Rock - My Constitutional Law Professor actually did the oral argument for the City of Castle Rock in front of the Supreme Court and I had the privilege of listening to him practice his argument. The plaintiff's claim was that she was denied due process of the law, which she was not - had the local law enforcement officers simply took her report with no intention to follow up - she would have been denied due process. Don't get me wrong - the facts of the case are particularly heinous - but bad facts often make bad law. Initially after hearing my professors argument I had a problem with the fact that the PD holds itself out as an agency you call to protect you and yet it has no affirmative duty to protect you. But IMHO - the decision is more of a balance of limiting liability for law enforcement departments and allowing them still to perform their duties. Placing an affirmative duty to protect each and every person and then allowing them to sue if they were not adequately protected would not only bankrupt cities and municipalities, it would be impractical, and it would almost be tantamount to strict liability.
I think protection should be a combination of both - if someone comes into my home - I will use the 1911 and then call 911. However, I am indeed glad there is a 911 at all - I surely wouldn’t want to break up every dispute in my neighborhood. Surely we all have a duty to protect ourselves, our neighborhoods and our families; however I don't think the decision in Castle Rock means law enforcement is unnecessary.
However - the author's slant of the facts makes it seem as if LE is useless - but sometimes I think its easier spotlight failures than it is to recognize that a lot of LEO's do their jobs and do them well.