ForumGarden

How about your country, do your policeman have an obligation to protect you ? :-2



“...a government and its agencies 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. 1981)



“Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public.”

[right]”Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989[/right]

[right] [/right]

[right] [/right]

[right] [/right]

so are those cites the current holding citations? have they been superseded? and they are not federal opinions, which is all that matters, those are regional. it is true, however, that i cannot stand by and protect an individual from something that might happen...i can only intercede when a law has been broken. which is as it should be, or it is a police state.

I'm just thankful that we have police !

lady cop wrote: so are those cites the current holding citations? have they been superseded? and they are not federal opinions, which is all that matters, those are regional. it is true, however, that i cannot stand by and protect an individual from something that might happen...i can only intercede when a law has been broken. which is as it should be, or it is a police state.These are current cite's, and there are more. They have stood up to appeal and are now of course used as precedent.

the Federal cite is: Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

I think however that you are missing the point, this has nothing to do with when or how the police may intervene, it holds that the police are not obligated to protect any individual. As an example, if I report that I'm being stabbed, and you choose to help a little old lady cross the street instead of saving my life, the "government" including you as an officer, have no blame for my death because you are not obligated to protect any individual. (check it out with your legal rep)

:yh_sighNow before I go further this is not a criticism of the police, most would risk their life to save mine. As a matter of fact, most officers are totally unaware and would strongly object.

html http://home.pacbell.net/dragon13/policeprot is a s ingle page dissertation, or google to find lots more.

My purpose for posting is twofold:

1] When considering your security options, you need to be aware that as an individual, the police do not have a legal responsibility to protect you. I'm aware of how difficult it is to accept this, but you owe it to yourself and your family to check it out

2] I am curious about the status of this situation in countries other than the U.S.



BTW: Lady Cop, sounds like you are returning to "fight mode", good on ya

.

when i am back at fighting weight so to speak i will look into the federal cite and read it. i do see your point now. however, in your scenario , after you are stabbed and bleeding in the street and i do nothing, you are going to get a lawyer and OWN my county sheriff dept. i am not certain the cite can overcome what we are SWORN to do and the mandate of the community. i will have to read up. i still believe we have an obligation, if not a legal one, according to your research, a moral one certainly. thanks for the good on 'ya! i am doing better.

lady cop wrote: when i am back at fighting weight so to speak i will look into the federal cite and read it. i do see your point now. however, in your scenario , after you are stabbed and bleeding in the street and i do nothing, you are going to get a lawyer and OWN my county sheriff dept. i am not certain the cite can overcome what we are SWORN to do and the mandate of the community. i will have to read up. i still believe we have an obligation, if not a legal one, according to your research, a moral one certainly. thanks for the good on 'ya! i am doing better.
actually, in the scenario above, i can certainly get a lawyer, and sue until i'm blue in the face - but it will be dismissed on the precedents cited. that's principally where those precedents came from - citizens suing their local law enforcement or other govt agency for not protecting them, and the suits being tossed because of the lack of obligation on the part of the police to protect us.



as others have said, i'm *very* glad we have police, but unfortunately, people are routinely given incredibly bad advice in that regard - *depend* on the police to save your life when it is threatened, and you are ceding your right to defend yourself. too many people die patiently waiting on 911, rather than taking affirmative action to save their own hide.

unless new precedents are set, and new case law created. the law is not immutable. and i support every citizen's right to self defense, it can take time for a police officer to arrive. and i know the horror stories about people being sued successfully by their assailants. i really look forward to telling my compatriots we are not required to protect the public, thay will be astounded!

lady cop wrote: i really look forward to telling my compatriots we are not required to protect the public, thay will be astounded!
You are still just a tad off point, you are required to protect "the public", but not an individual. I know, its lawerspeak, but it gets worse, if we have a "special relationship" (like if you arrest me, and put me in cuffs), then you may be required to protect me.



The sad thing, as I'm sure you know, is how many people foolishly put themselves in danger because they simply refuse to accept personal responsibility for their own safety.:-5

Der Wulf wrote: You are still just a tad off point, you are required to protect "the public", but not an individual. I know, its lawerspeak, but it gets worse, if we have a "special relationship" (like if you arrest me, and put me in cuffs), then you may be required to protect me.



The sad thing, as I'm sure you know, is how many people foolishly put themselves in danger because they simply refuse to accept personal responsibility for their own safety.:-5
that is true...once i take you into my custody and cuff you i am responsible for you. i am very mindful of that. i guess i am having difficulty comprehending this case law since i feel mandated to protect the individual who calls upon me. i cannot wrap my cop brain around this, and let me say...i used to TEACH law! i understand its vagaries. but this has yet to be tested in my venue, and i'd like to do it. i am also going to write a memo to our legal dept. for their opinion and holding florida cites. this is perfect time with new sheriff coming in jan. 1....further note, in re: personal safety...not everyone is competent to handle it. nobody should have a gun who is not prepared to use it, and nobody should have a gun if it is likely to be taken from them and used against them.

"further note, in re: personal safety...not everyone is competent to handle it. nobody should have a gun who is not prepared to use it, and nobody should have a gun if it is likely to be taken from them and used against them."



Actually, although I support gun use for self defense, I was hoping to keep that issue from this thread, to prevent the anti gun folks from turning this into a pro/anti gun argument. As a defensive shooting instructor, I totally agree about incompetence.

What I meant about personal responsability was first, acknowledging danger, understanding vulnerability, and minimizing risks. Simple stuff like places not to go, were to park, how to unlock your car, keys as weapon, maintaining your "security" space, "sensing" danger -not paranoia, but excercising intelligent options and vigilance.

It comes to mind the numbers of stories I have heard about excessive police force used in cases of intoxicated people and other non threatening situations. The Vancouver Police Force has acquired a rather bad name. So, if police are not required to protect the individual I could accept that except for they seem to be so busy giving parking violations and other mundane things it does not come across like a TV drama to me ie) they have to choose which life to save.

I am not accusing all police of being misdirected, I am actually wondering how a good cop (which I assume you are from your posts LC) feels about the bad rap that some cops give the whole unit. On top of feeling underappreciated, do you also feel defensive when bad cops get caught or do you just ignore it as you know it is not reflective of who you are?

Der Wulf...Happy New Year...ok, guns aside, i do not want to turn this into gun control either, your comments about personal safety sound like self-defense classes which are great as far as they go. i certainly support them. but in MY real world, i need a gun. i have pulled it and have used it. car keys aren't going to cut it for me. however the general public, especially women, need to learn how to NOT be a victim. walk tall. look confident. let me tell you, if you look vulnerable, you are. Koan...we have IA..internal affairs. we police ourselves and it is very serious stuff. i hate bad cops, they make our lives doubly hard. here are some examples on my dept....we have one doing life for killing someone. we have one doing 20 for killing his wife with his service weapon, after an injunction and weapon removed from him, then given back, we have had some fired and arrested, for DUI, for Rx drug abuse, a female for screwing a convict (a felony)...i am hurt and embarrassed and sad whenever these things happen. some of us have been known to cry when arresting our own. there is no worse hurt than booking one of our own as i have done. could not even look him in the eye as i fingerprinted him. all this stuff makes the papers, but our everyday "good deeds" do not. don't know if this answers your question. underappreciated? no, the general public has no idea unless they need us one on one, and then we are very appreciated. at least in my experience. do i meet cop-haters? sure. usually at the receiving end of my handcuffs.

posted by der wulf

Actually, although I support gun use for self defense, I was hoping to keep that issue from this thread, to prevent the anti gun folks from turning this into a pro/anti gun argument. As a defensive shooting instructor, I totally agree about incompetence.


The pro/anti gun bebate is a peculiarly american one. Speaking personally the only time I would comment is of someone tries to relate the us experience to the UK. Doesn't work our cultures are so different on this it becomes a pointless debate.

We have a similar legal situation in that the police cannot get involved until there is an actual crime taking or taken place. If I witness a crime and report it to the police no action can be taken unless there is corroboratory evidence, another witness or forensic evidence of some kind. makes sense if you think about it else think of all the malicious reports there would be floating around.

Turn it in it's head, would you help a policeman if you saw him or her struggling with several people?

Sorry gmc, but your missing the entire point. PLEASE, please, read the entire thread carefully.

It has nothing to do with guns, that is a related but entirely different issue.



It has nothing to do with preemptive or overly "exuberant" police action.



please don't be offended by the bold's and underline's. I need us to be clear on the issue. Simply put, the issue is this: I am being stabbed to death on a street corner, across the street is a little old lady that wants to cross the street to visit a friend. The police arrive, look at my plight, help grandma cross the street, then leave without hellping me in any manner.

In the US, neither I, [if i survived], or my family [if i didn't], have any recourse against the police. The law holds that the police are required to "keep the peace", but are not obligated to protect any individual.



What I want to learn, is if this situation is unique to the U.S. It's not a well known fact here, very few policemen [sorry PW] POLICEPERSONS, are aware of it, obviously it is contrary to the traditions of police officers, and not in the interest of government administrators to be common knowledge.

My guess is that it is probably widespread as a protective shield against lawsuits, and citizen intervention in policy. :yh_shhhh :yh_worry

Der Wulf wrote: "further note, in re: personal safety...not everyone is competent to handle it. nobody should have a gun who is not prepared to use it, and nobody should have a gun if it is likely to be taken from them and used against them."



Actually, although I support gun use for self defense, I was hoping to keep that issue from this thread, to prevent the anti gun folks from turning this into a pro/anti gun argument. As a defensive shooting instructor, I totally agree about incompetence.

What I meant about personal responsability was first, acknowledging danger, understanding vulnerability, and minimizing risks. Simple stuff like places not to go, were to park, how to unlock your car, keys as weapon, maintaining your "security" space, "sensing" danger -not paranoia, but excercising intelligent options and vigilance.


Der Wulf. are you telling us that All law and Order is going to break down?

Der Wulf wrote:

My guess is that it is probably widespread as a protective shield against lawsuits, and citizen intervention in policy. :yh_shhhh :yh_worry
well, there's another aspect, and it is one that is pragmatic. nobody is, or should be, required to lay down their life to save another person's life. now, in practice, there are some jobs where a requirement is that - if faced with imminent harm to a particular person, the employee *is* required to take all steps, up to and including sacrificing their life, to save that person - to wit, the president, major political candidates, etc - that's the job of the secret service.



for most other forms of law enforcement, the employee is not required to lay down their life if necessary in order to save an innocent person. and that's a good thing. while it would be nice if joe or jane average cop took a bullet for me if mr. badguy was standing right there, *I* most certainly would not _expect_ them to do so. Bravery and heroics are a matter of personal choice, and the person charged with keeping the peace can decide on his or her own to what length they will go to protect another person. but i would certainly expect that if a cop were *required* to protect my life at all costs, then he or she damn well better be making $350,000 a year, be outfitted with full-body bullet-resistant clothing, have a fully automatic glock 18 - make that two! - and a $10,000,000 life insurance policy provided free to protect his or her family after they're gone.



i certainly don't expect a local sheriff's deputy making $26,000 a year to lay down his or her life for mine.



trouble is - most people seem to think that that is precisely what they're supposed to do.

anastrophe wrote: if a cop were *required* to protect my life at all costs, then he or she damn well better be making $350,000 a year, be outfitted with full-body bullet-resistant clothing, have a fully automatic glock 18 - make that two! - and a $10,000,000 life insurance policy provided free to protect his or her family after they're gone.



i certainly don't expect a local sheriff's deputy making $26,000 a year to lay down his or her life for mine.



trouble is - most people seem to think that that is precisely what they're supposed to do.
great post Anastrophe...now where do i apply to this mythical department?

lady cop wrote: great post Anastrophe...now where do i apply to this mythical department?
We need a few Good Lady Cops......

capt_buzzard wrote: We need a few Good Lady Cops......
i'll be a ferry ride away! :-6

anastrophe wrote: well, there's another aspect, and it is one that is pragmatic. nobody is, or should be, required to lay down their life to save another person's life.

, *I* most certainly would not _expect_ them to do so. Bravery and heroics are a matter of personal choice, and the person charged with keeping the peace can decide on his or her own to what length they will go to protect another person.



i certainly don't expect a local sheriff's deputy making $26,000 a year to lay down his or her life for mine.



trouble is - most people seem to think that that is precisely what they're supposed to do.
And so we come 360 deg. to the other side of my original premise that " people need to be aware of this issue before making personal security decisions".

It is not only foolish, but incredibly selfish to sit back and blindly expect the police to be responsible for your protection. Frankly, this thread proceded much as I expected, with diversions to gun control, and objectifying the police into some kind of infallable super action figure's.



Let's face it, it's scary to face the truth that you are are the person with the greatest responsibility for your safety and protection. Did you ever think about how much time and energy the police waste because of someone's personal irresponsibility, or thoughtlessness.

The point is not to create "Dirty Harry's", or to cower in your closet. Self defense class is a great idea, simply understanding reality, using your locks, and making security conscice decisions is a great start. Let the police do their jobs, don't see them as your personal body guards.



Now since we can't bring successful litigation against stupid or incompetent cops, how do we deal with that? [hint, watch this space for a code 3, felony stop, tire squeelin visit from Lady Cop looking great in her red spandex suit, high black spike heeled boots, and golden cape with 8'' high LC monogram]

Being an outsider and a Canadian I find myself in a quandry about protecting people who are in peril? If a mafioso were being threatened by another of that ilk, then would the police be obligated to respond by using their people to protect them from the mob?

What a great way to get the cops out of the way for some scam that they are presently working on. I know and believe that if police are confronted with a scenario where someone is in need of their help, they would take the chance on losing their job to protect those that need their help. They are, after all, human.

As I stated, when you first posed the question to me, there is not enough information that tells me why they would respond or not respond to a particular scenario. There is a world out there that pits cops against dirty cops that I don't want to have anything to do with other than tell the cops that I am on their side. Much as I don't agree with many of the laws that they are forced to enforce, I know that if they were living in the perfect world then they wouldn't enforce them...A la "I vas only doink my job".

Your question of, " who protects me" is well taken. It is how we define who is protected that needs elucidation?

My real point was this: There are a lot of folks that pay no attention to their own safety. They make foolish choices, and take stupid chances, secure in the [false] notion that the police are obligated to protect *them*.

I'm pretty sure the legal position that I reported for the U.S., also exists in other countries. I have'nt been able to google up any answers, so I'm still curious.

It seems to be a difficult concept for most folks to accept.:-6

You are right Der Wulf, but in the United States you can buy a gun, any weapon you choose to protect yourself and your home when no cops are available to protect you. Over here in Europe, one cannot just go into a hardware store a purchase a gun ect, its not on. But many criminals and terrorists groups in Ireland/Europe do have lots of weapons at their disposal. :-5

I believe what you are saying but, I also know that there is a larger and bigger picture that you and I are not privvy to. Trust in their police is the most easily accesible route for their demise. (people being in the wrong space at the wrong time?)

I would guess that there is a reason for people to take a step back and look at what is going on in America, but we are still working on is how to allow us to identify who is in need of help.

I call on your good President Bush to deport all non national americans (including Irish) back to their own countries. ID Cards for all too. Forget about getting involved outside the US of A. Protect the US and its people first.

Hey Brother,

As the story goes, I think that each of the outgoing citizens should take a n-word under each arm and swim back to Africa.

When the land of "give us your poor" falls into 'send them all back regardless'', I want to ask you to take a deep breath 'cause the idiots are causing you to hyperventilate.

Think about what you are saying,

Kensloft.

Olly,

I am a Canadian. I am as proud of being a Canadian as any American or Brit is of their nationality.

However, just last week there was a burglary taking place in the middle of the night at a convenience store. Unbeknownst to the felons was the fact that the family, who owned the business, lived upstairs

Hearing noises in the store two members of the family went to investigate with hockey sticks in hand.

An altercation ensued when the robbers tried to escape the hockey stick wielding owners. The thieves ran out of the store and jumped into their getaway van. It then had its windshield promptly smashed by the pursuing owners.

They jumped out of the vehicle and fled on foot. They have not been caught and the only trace of their flight is a bloodied bandana. DNA will come from that piece of evidence. The gist of the article was that everyone was having a good chuckle.

On the same token, several years ago, a storeowner cofronted some burglars under the same circumstances but this time there was a gun in hand.

They fled. He shot after the fleeing vehicle and was charged by the police for discharging the gun and endangering people. The message was clear. You don't shoot at people. That is what only the police can do with impunity.

Olly wrote: In Britain, one can get succesfully sued by one's assailant if you pacify them, for instance, someone I know held a burglar at knifepoint and was told by the afforementioned burglar that he would sue him. This is one example of the way that the European convention on Human Rights is missused by criminals to get off scot free, I do not support gun ownership (although both my parents and I go shooting, that is, driven game shooting, regularly, and my parents both own sporting shotguns), I do not support the ownership of non-sporting guns and abhor violence in any form.



However there is something basically wrong with someone being sued by their assailant, I therefore would support the use of violence in defence of one's life and/or property.If you've read through earlier posts you will have noted that this is'nt intended as a referendum on firearms, that needs its own thread.

You have gotten to the nub of the issue however, in affirming both your right to defend yourself, and acknowledging that the police can not, nor are they required, to always be there in your defense.

Our laws vary by state, but basicaly hold that you may use "deadly force" if you are in fear for your life, you will be required to prove that your fear was justified.

That of course, leaves property rights in jepardy. We had one case here where a burglar succesfully sued because the homeowner's dog bit him, and another where a store owner tired of being burglarized, electrafied the metal bars protecting the skylight through which the burglars normaly entered. The burglar lost his balance, got caught in the bars, and fried. His family won the lawsuit, then the jury awarded them $1.00. Seems they did'nt think he was very valuable. The shop owner however still had to pay for his lawyer, plus a fine for "endangering public safety".

I guess as perspective, there is an old american saying, "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6" :-2

From my take on this the storeowner could have kept himself out of trouble if he had put a sign where the electrified bars were by stating that they were electrified? Death in the commission of a non-violent crime is wrong.

And the same for the dog owner had he posted a beware of the dog sign?

I'm asking. Not stating.

Der Wulf wrote: And so we come 360 deg. to the other side of my original premise that " people need to be aware of this issue before making personal security decisions".

It is not only foolish, but incredibly selfish to sit back and blindly expect the police to be responsible for your protection. Frankly, this thread proceeded much as I expected, with diversions to gun control, and objectifying the police into some kind of infallible super action figure's.



Let's face it, it's scary to face the truth that you are are the person with the greatest responsibility for your safety and protection. Did you ever think about how much time and energy the police waste because of someone's personal irresponsibility, or thoughtlessness.

The point is not to create "Dirty Harry's", or to cower in your closet. Self defense class is a great idea, simply understanding reality, using your locks, and making security conscice decisions is a great start. Let the police do their jobs, don't see them as your personal body guards.



Now since we can't bring successful litigation against stupid or incompetent cops, how do we deal with that? [hint, watch this space for a code 3, felony stop, tire squeelin visit from Lady Cop looking great in her red spandex suit, high black spike heeled boots, and golden cape with 8'' high LC monogram]


Der Wulf,

I agree with you. I got a thread going several months ago about the UK'ers loss of their legal right to defend themselves - which of course I started out the thread as a gun control topic. The responses were very good and it underlined the vast differences in culture, perceptions, and history between the U.S., Canada, UK, and Australia. I learned a lot about the UK's perceptions of the U.S regarding this topic.

Some think that owning a gun is complete lunacy. The "system will protect" and "the laws of the land" will provide comfort. Others dismiss the fact that some of us have successfully used firearms to defuse and stop some very bad situations. The reality in the less populated states is that you are pretty much on your own. My police and deputy friends are very pragmatic about it. They'll tell you up front that you need to be able to competently handle firearms.

It's the moral responsibility for the head of the household to make sure that he or she has the ability to directly protect his/her family. Cowering in a corner and praying that someone shows up in 30 minutes to an hour doesn't cut it.

Tombstone wrote: Der Wulf,







Some think that owning a gun is complete lunacy. The "system will protect" and "the laws of the land" will provide comfort. Others dismiss the fact that some of us have successfully used firearms to defuse and stop some very bad situations. The reality in the less populated states is that you are pretty much on your own. My police and deputy friends are very pragmatic about it. They'll tell you up front that you need to be able to competently handle firearms.



It's the moral responsibility for the head of the household to make sure that he or she has the ability to directly protect his/her family. Cowering in a corner and praying that someone shows up in 30 minutes to an hour doesn't cut it.
The term "To protect and serve" has been eliminated from the walls and cars of many of the police agencies in my area. Why? Because the police have realized they CAN'T protect. They can only investigate a crime once it has occurred. You can bet that we have the means and the ability to protect ourselves, if the need ever arises. And I totally agree, what are we supposed to do if an armed criminal is breaking into our home? Call 911 and fend off the intruder with a wooden spoon till help arrives? No. And it has less to do with the population in my area. I live outside Detroit and police response is generally pretty quick, but if it comes down to my family's safety over the life of an intruder, I'm not putting my money on "generally pretty quick."

I applaud all cops for doing the job they do, I sure wouldn't want to! But it's a simple fact that they can't and apparently, aren't required to protect us! The initial conversation in this thread amazes me, and I'm sure the cops in my area would be shocked, too!

BabyRider wrote: I applaud all cops for doing the job they do, I sure wouldn't want to! But it's a simple fact that they can't and apparently, aren't required to protect us! The initial conversation in this thread amazes me, and I'm sure the cops in my area would be shocked, too!


Indeed! You know, I've talked about this before with anastrophe and have recently brought it up at some county emergency management meetings where I live. The majority of cops are aware of this subject - hence - they are not required to just rush into a home or building when there is present danger there. They will always do their best and take whatever actions are necessary to win - but sacrificial lambs they are not.

My police and deputy friends are very pragmatic about it. They'll tell you up front that you need to be able to competently handle firearms.

It's the moral responsibility for the head of the household to make sure that he or she has the ability to directly protect his/her family. Cowering in a corner and praying that someone shows up in 30 minutes to an hour doesn't cut it.


I guess living in Canada means that there aren't many hand guns around and thieves aren't, as a rule, armed. I know that America is quite different. Lived there long enough to figure that guns are a part of the culture. I won't offer any platitudes as to life without guns, but knowing how to defend yourself and your family are global concepts.

In Canada a good hockey stick'll do the trick. But you know that it is not the only thing that is handy in a household. Our previous Prime Minister protected himself and his wife from an intruder with an Eskimo carving.

kensloft wrote: I guess living in Canada means that there aren't many hand guns around and thieves aren't, as a rule, armed. I know that America is quite different. Lived there long enough to figure that guns are a part of the culture. I won't offer any platitudes as to life without guns, but knowing how to defend yourself and your family are global concepts.

In Canada a good hockey stick'll do the trick. But you know that it is not the only thing that is handy in a household. Our previous Prime Minister protected himself and his wife from an intruder with an Eskimo carving.
Agreed. As long as the playing field is at least level! Using an Eskimo carving in Detroit or L.A. would get you dead in a heartbeat since the home invader is almost guaranteed to be packing a handgun.

In my part of the country, it seems that almost everyone is armed. Not just in the home, but many people have concealed weapons permits. Robberies and other violent crimes are rare. Being a "bad guy" in Idaho or Montana is a short-lived occupation.

Tombstone wrote: Agreed. As long as the playing field is at least level! Using an Eskimo carving in Detroit or L.A. would get you dead in a heartbeat since the home invader is almost guaranteed to be packing a handgun.


Dead in a heartbeat, yes, most likely with that pretty carving sticking out of your rear end! :yh_ooooo

BabyRider wrote: Dead in a heartbeat, yes, most likely with that pretty carving sticking out of your rear end! :yh_ooooo
Not a pretty visual!

Tombstone wrote: Agreed. As long as the playing field is at least level! Using an Eskimo carving in Detroit or L.A. would get you dead in a heartbeat since the home invader is almost guaranteed to be packing a handgun.

In my part of the country, it seems that almost everyone is armed. Not just in the home, but many people have concealed weapons permits. Robberies and other violent crimes are rare. Being a "bad guy" in Idaho or Montana is a short-lived occupation.


In Canada hanging around certain people will get you around guns. Bikers, hoods, mafioso, thugs, crack dealers etc. There are plenty of shootings in Canada but the guns are brought in from the States and are usually in the hands of the aforementioned types.

Most people are law abiding (as are Americans) but the hardcore criminals are just that... hardcore. They operate on fear of the unknown guy walking up to you and killing you. Toronto doesn't have much of a mafia problem because it is known as 'Retirement City". They are here but they know better than to bring any heat on themselves, so, they let the thug wannabes fight it out for them.

Personally, I am glad that guns aren't a problem here. It's too much power. The population would be a lot smaller if Canadians were to have them as easily accessible as Americans do. People get crazy when they have power in their hands.

kensloft wrote: In Canada hanging around certain people will get you around guns. Bikers, hoods, mafioso, thugs, crack dealers etc. There are plenty of shootings in Canada but the guns are brought in from the States and are usually in the hands of the aforementioned types.


Wow...do the bikers in your area all carry? Illegally? I'm around bikers all the time, and they would not appreciate being lumped in with thugs, drug pushers and mafia. Maybe the bikers in your area are different. Yes, a lot of them do carry here as well, but most, (No, I won't say ALL) are carrying legally. There's even a few of the guys in the clubs that are cops!

BabyRider wrote: Wow...do the bikers in your area all carry? Illegally? I'm around bikers all the time, and they would not appreciate being lumped in with thugs, drug pushers and mafia. Maybe the bikers in your area are different. Yes, a lot of them do carry here as well, but most, (No, I won't say ALL) are carrying legally. There's even a few of the guys in the clubs that are cops!


No. Bikers don't carry guns. You wouldn't find a biker that would be able to get a license to carry a gun. We get into the question of which club are we talking about?

The HOG bikers are lawyers, professionals etc. They are the Harley Owners Group. A lot of them could be licensed to get guns. No records. Model citizens. Money to afford Harleys. Cops can even belong to this club. They like to ride Harleys.

Then you have the Hell's Angels, Bandidos, The Rock Machine, Outlaws and the many associate clubs and associates. I would get into naming a number of other groups but they have, for the most part, been assimilated by the Angels and Bandidos. Controlling drug distribution and prostitution etc. is what they do.

When they carry guns, they carry them illegally. If they have guns then you can be sure that they are illegal because of the rules surrounding who can get a permit to carry, let alone, own one. That is not to say that there aren't any that pass the eligibilty tests but the vast majority don't.

OK, you're talking about several different things at once, here. First off, the HOGS are a "riding" club. Very different from a motorcycle club. The "colors" or patches the two groups wear are distinguished by the name of the group followed by "R.C." (riding club) or "M.C." (motorcycle club). A riding club gets together, rides, has fun, has no demands of it's members. Anyone with 5 bucks and a Harley can jump online, buy a patch, and become a member of the HOGS. The M.C.'s are clubs with stringent rules, and by-laws, probationary periods for prospective members, demands for members to put in time on runs, at the clubhouse, and whenever they are needed by their brothers. It's a commitment, with expectations. It's a true brotherhood. If a member of the HOGS needed help, he really can't expect any from a member of his "club". And, women are allowed to join the HOGS, whereas an M.C. does not allow female members. But there's another type of club, where drugs and prostitution are not a form of profit for them, but they are just as die-hard, just as committed; to their club, their brothers. So many people have this misconception that if a biker wears colors, he is into criminal activity. There is a distinct way to tell one club from another, and it's by the patch they wear. The clubs who are into the illegal activity are 3-patch clubs. The colors on their vests are broken into 3 patches: on top is the club name, the middle patch is the club's logo, and the bottom patch is the "rocker". The clubs who operate more "within the law" (I'd never say they are saints) have what is called a "tombstone" patch. One solid patch, in the shape of a tombstone. As far as the club my man belongs to, I'm not supposed to mention the name on the internet, (yes, really), but they are a tombstone patch club.

Thanks for the explanation of the third class of biker(not saying they're third class). However, as you say, you wouldn't call all of them saints. For everyone of them, that live within the rules, I offer my sincerest apologies. Bike clubs in Canada are patching over to one club or another, so my generalization doesn't necessarily apply to every club everywhere.

I have known bikers all my life. Many different clubs from both sides of the border. My attitude of live and let live kept me out of the maelstrom. I wasn't a danger and was always considered a friend. Even if I didn't agree with their lifestyle it was accepted because I was known to always speak my mind.

I had my life, my family and my work. I didn't need or want to get caught up in the rivalries that are inherent when you pit one team against another. I understood their brotherhood and did not dismiss its importance in their lives. They understood that, although I wasn't a brother per se, I could always be counted on to help them in their times of need.

Homeless, broken down, turfed out of the club or what have you, I would help them however I could. Straight up help not holding their pasts against them because there, but for the grace of God, go I.

If there was one thing that they taught me, it was that you share with each other in good times and bad. You are the judge of what you share.

Hope I didn't sound like I was preaching! Didn't mean to come off that way. I just find it interesting, and therefore assume, (silly mortal) that everyone else does too! :yh_giggle

Well we're still on topic because we could've had a real live case of who is going to protect me. :-3

ME, my poodle, flashlight, my 300 lbs. son(bodybuilder) cops that are friends, and just kill me, i rode the bus with Micheal Ross, he chased me...too. I am stillalive...

Paula wrote: ME, my poodle, flashlight, my 300 lbs. son(bodybuilder) cops that are friends, and just kill me, i rode the bus with Micheal Ross, he chased me...too. I am stillalive...


This is too cryptic for me to comprehend. Could you tell me if you think that I don't know cops as friends? Or do you think that I hate cops? They have a brotherhood all of their own. Michael Ross?

kensloft wrote: This is too cryptic for me to comprehend. Could you tell me if you think that I don't know cops as friends? Or do you think that I hate cops? They have a brotherhood all of their own. Michael Ross? Kensloft...don't bother, we've decided that Paula is hitting the sauce too hard tonight. Poke around, she's not making sense ANYWHERE! So it's not you!

Hey, if you need protecting, it sounds like you're keeping good company for it!

BabyRider wrote: Kensloft...don't bother, we've decided that Paula is hitting the sauce too hard tonight. Poke around, she's not making sense ANYWHERE! So it's not you!

Hey, if you need protecting, it sounds like you're keeping good company for it!


You Brat!~ we Have A Girl Scout Leader Here!

Paula wrote: ME, my poodle, flashlight, my 300 lbs. son(bodybuilder) cops that are friends, and just kill me, i rode the bus with Micheal Ross, he chased me...too. I am stillalive...


MIcheal Ross is a Serial Killer to be put to sleep, 1/26/05.

Paula wrote: ME, my poodle, flashlight, my 300 lbs. son(bodybuilder) cops that are friends, and just kill me, i rode the bus with Micheal Ross, he chased me...too. I am stillalive...



Dementia is a problem in the brain that makes it hard for a person to remember, learn and communicate. After a while, this makes it hard for the person to take care of himself or herself.

Dementia may also change a person's mood and personality. At first, memory loss and trouble thinking clearly may bother the person who has dementia. Later, disruptive behavior and other problems may start. The person who has dementia may not be aware of these problems.

http://familydoctor.org/662.xml :yh_sigh