Results 11 to 20 of 20
-
12-23-2010, 05:57 PM #11
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
We need to hire good trial attorney's that refuse to kneel down and pay. Doesn't it seem that most civil service (government) type attorney's steer clear from anything adversarial and rather give in to pay outs instead of fighting it in court. I get tired of hearing it would save more money to pay them out which is similar to the same lame excuses prosecutors give when they don't want to really have to try a case. I think the state cap is around 250,000, so how are we saving money when we pay out on average 200,000 per case. I know civil rights violations have no cap, but they are making these private attorney's jobs too easy to earn their 331/3 percent of the pay out on these state cases.
-
12-31-2010, 06:01 PM #12
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
This is a precident that has been upheld by the US Supreme multiple times and is not a purely local policy....
(not saying that is correct, just legal)
-
12-31-2010, 09:07 PM #13
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
Sure its legal.....and it reduces the backlog in the courts.....This agency needs to hop up and down a few times and HOPE the nuts drop.....then stand up and let it be known, if you sue PBSO and loose....PBSO will sue YOU for legal costs......might not get anything but a judgment, but the stupid little law suits would end in a BIG HURRY ! !
-
01-11-2011, 02:18 PM #14
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
Took me a while to find it, but here it is:
.. a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen...
-- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
-
01-12-2011, 02:24 AM #15
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
So exactly why should John Q. Public want to bother funding law enforcement at all if not for the expectation of protection?
-
01-12-2011, 02:25 PM #16
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
Originally Posted by Great
-
01-13-2011, 02:11 AM #17
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
Hey "numbskull" as a taxpayer I'm all for Scott and the County Commission gutting your budget and benefits. Get it?
-
01-13-2011, 04:04 PM #18
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
Originally Posted by No common sense
Too bad it won't happen. Scott is a one-termer grandstander who bit off more than he can chew. Go ahead on back to your pitiful existence and let your jealousy fester over those of us who chose security in our professions.
Oh, by the way, I saw Denny's was hiring a dishwasher for the midnight shift. Get on down there before a homeless person beats you out!
-
01-13-2011, 11:53 PM #19
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
Scott is exactly what this state needs and we need him now. We no longer can eat, drink, and do Mary in the breakroom or anyplace else for that matter (no matter if we do drive an Impala with dark windows). Those few that do understand that serving the public through law enforcement is noble and worthy but never a top-tier 'get all you can grab from the public' run will not want to eat their gun. The spoiled throng of babies will wonder why they can't get all the politicos to lend a shoulder for them to cry on. The gangster style hold that Public Safety has on the legislature is no longer vogue. Lets not make bigger fools of ourselves. We are public servants. The public does, in fact, pay our salaries...and no, we cannot ask them for a raise. Time to give away some of the toys in our overcrowded, stuffed toy chest. Many people would love a job. That what we have....a job. Minimal training. Minimal experience. Maximum immaturity.
-
01-14-2011, 01:02 AM #20
Re: "We owe no duty to protect the general public"
Originally Posted by Guest
Bookmarks