Duggar Fox News Interviews - Mild, Inappropriate Lying

[ApologistsBeDamned]

So I have been looking at photos of their house and I have to say I do not understand that upstairs layout at all. It seems like a bunch of metal railings that is open to the downstairs.

What is actually up there besides a boys room, girls room and the parents area? Seems like the weirdest layout I've ever seen. I know that it's some kind of metal house or something, but it is sure misleading to look from the outside.

They have what is called a catwalk. A balcony that goes from one side of house to other. Open on both sides.

Upstairs on one side is boys room with bathroom and media room.

Then on the other side is the girls rooms, bathroom and then master bedroom and bath.

There is a floor plan floating around here on FJ somewhere. Or maybe google it.

[mebeforee]

And I guess I should say "shouldn't" rather than "wouldn't". Because obviously that is not what happened to those unfortunate people.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I'm reading up on that Warren vs. DC case and I am confused about the outcome. The initial trial came out on the side of the police, but did the appeal overturn that? The beginning of the article seems to indicate that they came to the conclusion that the police were at fault, but at the end it says the appeal found that they owed no 'special duty' toward the people.

But I don't understand how that can possibly be. They called 911 twice about the intruders in the home and the police didn't do anything but knock on the door and leave? Which resulted in them all being beaten and raped. How is the fact that the women called twice not probable cause for them to enter the home and stop the intruders? WTF is the point of the 911 service if the police don't bother to follow through and ensure that the people who made the call are safe? And what exactly do they mean by 'special duty of care'? Isn't following through on 911 calls part of the job? It doesn't seem like a special service, it's not like they were expecting the police to psychically know they were in trouble. They called them twice.

I'm not someone who knows much about law so I find this whole case very confusing. I can understand the police not being held accountable for preventing the rape of the first woman, because the call wasn't made until after the intruders were in the house and the police couldn't possibly have known or prevented that attack. But once they made the emergency calls, it's reasonable to expect the police WOULD be held accountable for failing to enter the home and confront the intruders when they were repeatedly told this was happening... and wouldn't the officer who received the second call be held accountable for NOT dispatching officers to investigate?

Without legal mumbo jumbo it boils down to Public Duty Doctrine and Special Doctrin.

Police have no duty to protect you just because you called 911 or ran up to them. You have no established special relationship with them just because you are in troubme and they have "serve and protect" on their cars.

[mebeforee]

What does it mean to have a 'special relationship'? Is that someone who is part of an ongoing investigation or existing legal relationship with the department? Like, unless you have opened a domestic abuse case or have a restraining order or something, they aren't legally required to pursue a call informing them that there is violence happening or that the person has violated the RO?

[ApologistsBeDamned]

And I guess I should say "shouldn't" rather than "wouldn't". Because obviously that is not what happened to those unfortunate people.

Thank you for looking the case up. I always feel optimistic about this country.when people actually want to learn about how thengovt works.

Here is a succinct statement from Warren v DC

"fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

[ApologistsBeDamned]

What does it mean to have a 'special relationship'? Is that someone who is part of an ongoing investigation or existing legal relationship with the department? Like, unless you have opened a domestic abuse case or have a restraining order or something, they aren't legally required to pursue a call informing them that there is violence happening or that the person has violated the RO?

Well not it so many terms. Sometimes a special relationship is established via restraining order or when in police custody.

In general it means:

special duty doctrine : an exception to the public duty doctrine that imposes liability for injury on a government entity when there is a special duty owed to the plaintiff but not to the public at large

[mebeforee]

That conclusion from the case is just... obscene to me. We pay taxes, support our police departments, often give them special honors and respect because of the risk involved in their job (though, granted, not always... especially depending on the community in question) because of the implication that they are there to protect and help us. We teach our children that if they are in trouble, they should find a police officer, and that they can trust them. And their work is funded by the public. How can it be that they can legally say 'well, that's not really our job'?

[mebeforee]

And I'm mostly being rhetorical here... because I guess the law doesn't state that they HAVE to do those things. But even with all the current press about police corruption and bias, it is still the idea of a police officer that a great many people have. It's extremely disappointing to think that these men just failed to follow normal procedure for whatever reason, and got away with it because they didn't technically break any laws. What they did was immoral.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

That conclusion from the case is just... obscene to me. We pay taxes, support our police departments, often give them special honors and respect because of the risk involved in their job (though, granted, not always... especially depending on the community in question) because of the implication that they are there to protect and help us. We teach our children that if they are in trouble, they should find a police officer, and that they can trust them. And their work is funded by the public. How can it be that they can legally say 'well, that's not really our job'?

Oh BINGO!

I love when people realize the Police aren't here for us.

Police aren't heroes automatically. They don't even have very dangerous jobs.

They are and should only ever be used for crime investigation. They will never be in the position to protect you.

Please tell your friends.

BTW FOR THOSE READING.

I have NEVER been in trouble with the law. I have no personal ax to grind with LE. I dislike govt corruption and police just happen to have a lot of it.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

And I'm mostly being rhetorical here... because I guess the law doesn't state that they HAVE to do those things. But even with all the current press about police corruption and bias, it is still the idea of a police officer that a great many people have. It's extremely disappointing to think that these men just failed to follow normal procedure for whatever reason, and got away with it because they didn't technically break any laws. What they did was immoral.

Many people don't consider morals or ethics when they refuse to do things- Police are no different so even things an every day citizen would do many police will refuse to do because they are not required to by law or job title and they certainly didn't think to do it morally.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

The Court in DeShaney held that no duty arose because of a "special relationship," concluding that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves. "The affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitation which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf."

[mebeforee]

So a convict serving a life-sentence for child murder has more legal protection from the police than a group of women who make a 911 call about the rapists who have broken into their home. :cray-cray:

[ApologistsBeDamned]

I also want people to understand the history of Police.

We didn't always have a police force in the US.

They weren't created because there are more criminals now either.

They were created to help citizens serve warrants,investigated crimes and to be hulking men who could bring in criminals the little old lady down the street couldn't bring in on her own.

They were a mayoral answer to private detectives like Pinkerton etc...

They work for us. They are paid out of the town coffers.

And you don't have to use them.

You can arrest people without police.

You can bring criminal charges without police.

You can serve warrants without police.

Police are a tool not a system.

Although I am not sure even most police understand this.

I know most think we work for them rather than the other way around.

*stepping off my soapbox :dance:

[ApologistsBeDamned]

So a convict serving a life-sentence for child murder has more legal protection from the police than a group of women who make a 911 call about the rapists who have broken into their home. :cray-cray:

Yep, and criminals have more "rights" than we do too.

Like rights to three meals, certain size rooms, computer access, medical care.

Ain't it grand?

[lascuba]

I also want people to understand the history of Police.

We didn't always have a police force in the US.

They weren't created because there are more criminals now either.

They were created to help citizens serve warrants,investigated crimes and to be hulking men who could bring in criminals the little old lady down the street couldn't bring in on her own.

They were a mayoral answer to private detectives like Pinkerton etc...

They work for us. They are paid out of the town coffers.

And you don't have to use them.

You can arrest people without police.

You can bring criminal charges without police.

You can serve warrants without police.

Police are a tool not a system.

Although I am not sure even most police understand this.

I know most think we work for them rather than the other way around.

*stepping off my soapbox :dance:

They were also created to control target and control former slaves. There's a reason the amendment abolishing slavery specifically exempts convicts. There's also a reason why cops do not get punished for crimes against minorities. It was always intended to be that way. The police in this country are working exactly as they are supposed to, and THAT is the problem.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

They were also created to control target and control former slaves. There's a reason the amendment abolishing slavery specifically exempts convicts. There's also a reason why cops do not get punished for crimes against minorities. It was always intended to be that way. The police in this country are working exactly as they are supposed to, and THAT is the problem.

They were also in many towns created at the insistence of big companies to control workers. Gangs never like it when another gang enters their turf.

[mebeforee]

See, I only have one lawyer friend and his experience so far and intentions are to work in family court. So I really have no personal knowledge of the law and this stuff is astonishing to me. I'm sure the majority of the country are in the same boat - most laws are kind of common sense, and you typically know when you do something whether it is illegal. Smoking pot, jaywalking, public drunkenness, etc. Then of course offenses against others, like theft or violence or rape. What is not clear is how exactly law is enforced - if I'm smoking a joint with one of my friends, technically they could arrest me? Without a police officer? I knew there was something referred to as 'citizen's arrest' but I have no idea how that stuff works. What you have to do to make it into a legally recognized arrest rather than an illegal detaining or assault of another person. And I apparently had no clue about how police actions are regulated legally. This is pretty mind-blowing and disturbing to me, and while I want to know more about it, I also... don't. I want to remain ignorant because it's upsetting :crying-yellow:

[ApologistsBeDamned]

See, I only have one lawyer friend and his experience so far and intentions are to work in family court. So I really have no personal knowledge of the law and this stuff is astonishing to me. I'm sure the majority of the country are in the same boat - most laws are kind of common sense, and you typically know when you do something whether it is illegal. Smoking pot, jaywalking, public drunkenness, etc. Then of course offenses against others, like theft or violence or rape. What is not clear is how exactly law is enforced - if I'm smoking a joint with one of my friends, technically they could arrest me? Without a police officer? I knew there was something referred to as 'citizen's arrest' but I have no idea how that stuff works. What you have to do to make it into a legally recognized arrest rather than an illegal detaining or assault of another person. And I apparently had no clue about how police actions are regulated legally. This is pretty mind-blowing and disturbing to me, and while I want to know more about it, I also... don't. I want to remain ignorant because it's upsetting :crying-yellow:

The only major difference between you and a badged cop making an arrest is the badged coo has what is called qualified immunity.

That means he can legally make a mistake in the arrest and tou can't sue him.

Whereas if you without a badge arrest someone and they aren't guilty they can sue you.

This is from findlaw:

Criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/citizen-s-arrest.html

In certain situations, private individuals have the power to make an arrest without a warrant. These types of arrests, known as citizens arrests, occur when ordinary people either detain criminals themselves or direct police officers to detain a criminal.

Citizens arrests are subject to fewer constitutional requirements than an arrest by law enforcement officers, but citizens arrests still have rules that govern them. Failure to abide by these rules can result in civil and criminal liability for the arresting individual.

Felonies

A person can arrest someone that they reasonably suspect of committing a felony, even if the felony didnt occur in the presence of the individual making the arrest. As long as a felony was actually committed and the individual making the arrest knew of the crime, a reasonable suspicion about the identity of the perpetrator will justify their arrest.

The felony must have actually occurred before an individual can make a citizens arrest. Even if a person reasonably believes that a felony has occurred, if the crime did not in fact happen, the person making the arrest could become civilly and criminally liable.

Breaches of the Peace

In general, people cant use citizens arrests for misdemeanors unless the misdemeanor involves a breach of the peace. Even in these circumstances, however, individuals can only make arrests when they have personally witnessed the criminal behavior and the breach has just occurred or there is a strong likelihood that the breach will continue.

Constitutionality of a Citizens Arrest

As mentioned above, a citizens arrest does not carry with it the same constitutional requirements that attach to an arrest by law enforcement officers. If, however, a person acts on the request of law enforcement, any arrest they carry out must meet the same constitutional standards as an arrest by the law enforcement officers themselves.

[Palimpsest]

I spend my days fighting for people who innocently spoke to the police and then found themselves in trouble with the law.

Do yourself a favor and invoke your right to remain silent and then ask for your lawyer. :angry-banghead:

You can't be kept very busy in your day job. You've spent an enormous amount of time on FJ recently spouting your anti-law enforcement conspiracy theories and self-proclaimed FOIA expertise.

[ApologistsBeDamned]

You can't be kept very busy in your day job. You've spent an enormous amount of time on FJ recently spouting your anti-law enforcement conspiracy theories and self-proclaimed FOIA expertise.

Edit: you won't see me here tommorrow or friday becausenof that 10% that requires me to be in another state. So you can calm down.

Not really any of your business is it. But my husband makes enough to support me so I have only done volunteer work for the last decade.

90% of my volunteer work involves reading files, requesting documents and responding to other volunteers on cases we are involved in.

Fortunately I am clever enough to do more than two things at once.

Not everyone else is.

I also specifically registered after this scandal broke because I am familiar with police record requests.

And nothin have said is a conspiracy. I provided case law for everything.

Not sure what your problem is.

[justbecause]

I think that everyone should share what they believe relevant.

[anon710]

Off topic, I do think "Mild, inappropriate lying" should be a post count title, that's how much I love the title of this thread.

Carry on

[halcionne]

So I have been looking at photos of their house and I have to say I do not understand that upstairs layout at all. It seems like a bunch of metal railings that is open to the downstairs.

What is actually up there besides a boys room, girls room and the parents area? Seems like the weirdest layout I've ever seen. I know that it's some kind of metal house or something, but it is sure misleading to look from the outside.

TTH floorplan

http://kodiaksteelhomes.com/images/DuggarFloorPlan.pdf

Sorry, but what does "BEC'ing" mean?

bitch eating crackers

[karen77]

TTH floorplan

http://kodiaksteelhomes.com/images/DuggarFloorPlan.pdf

bitch eating crackers

Well, that keeps the boys separate and the girls near the new babies and the baby -making room :ew:

[VelociRapture]

While I find the discussion about Law Enforcement interesting, I do want to take a moment to remind people that not all LEO are bad people or immoral people. Many police officers are good people who go beyond what they are asked to do in order to help others - whether that's trying to save a life during a violent robbery or solve a crime. And while they may not have a job that is always dangerous, I do find it misleading to claim that they're jobs aren't really that dangerous at all. Maybe Police in small towns with low crime rates don't face a lot of danger, but Police in other areas of the country do face very real danger.

I also want to say that it is a good idea to have a lawyer with you or at least consult with one ahead of time if you need to go in to make a statement about something. It's always good to try and prepare a bit.

Basically, just in my own personal opinion, its more important to know what rights you do and don't have. If you know those, then you're going in better prepared then a lot of people and the bad cops out there will have a tougher time trying to take advantage of the situation.