Pixiq

>> He was told that one day he might need police
>> to protect him, and was then released

With cops like that, I'd say that the cops are the ones from whom we need protection.

So, if you don't do exactly what Chicago PD says, and act exactly as Chicago PD wants, and don't show proper respect at all times, don't expect the Chicago PD to protect you when you need them.
The message is clear.

Last time I ran into attitude like that was when I went to the Mob to make sure it was not going o be a problem taking one of their members to court over misconduct in office.

Oh wait, the mob was more respectful, because they thanked me for showing enough respect to ask 1st before filing, which they had no problem with.

"We're not taking the picture without Michael." ~Don Corleone

"He was told that one day he might need police to PROTECT him."

----------------------------------

Most people don't realize both the U.S. Federal and State Courts have repeatedly reconfirmed that.... Police Agencies are NOT responsible for the SAFETY and PROTECTION of individual persons, but in fact are only responsible for upholding the law of the General Populace! Various lower Courts have also followed these same views and decisions.

In 1968 the Court of Appeals of New York declared that.... One has NO right to expect "protection" from the City of New York because, to create such a right would impose a crushing economic burden on the City. Riss v. City of New York, 293 N.Y.2d 897 [1968]

In 1975 the California Court of Appeals (under the California Tort Claims Act, Section 845), stated that.... Neither a public entity nor a public employee is LIABLE for failure to establish a Police Dept or otherwise provide Police "protection" services, or, if Police protection services is provided, for failure to provide sufficient Police "protection" services. Hartzler v. City of San Jose, App., 120 Cal.Rptr 5 [1975]

In 1981 the Superior Court of the District of Columbia held that.... A Government and its Agents are under NO general duty to provide public services [Police] to any INDIVIDUAL citizen because, the duty to provide public services [Police] is owed to the public at large.... and absent a special relationship between the Police and an individual NO LEGAL DUTY exists! In a accompanying memorandum the Court explained that the term "special relationship" did NOT mean.... A ORAL PROMISE TO RESPOND TO A CALL FOR HELP!! Warren v. District of Columbia, D.C. App., 444 A2.d 1 [1981]

In 1982 the U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, declared that.... There is NO Constitutional right to be "protected" by the State [Police] against criminals or their acts (and as such), does NOT violate the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.... nor any other provision of the Constitution. The Court also stated that.... The Constitution is in fact a charter of NEGATIVE liberties. Because of this, both the State and Federal Government are MANDATED by the Constitution to leave one alone.... even to the point of NOT providing such elementary services as maintaining law and order. Bowers v. DeVito U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686 F.2d 616 [1982] See also Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 471 F.Supp. 1262 [E.D.Pa. 1979]

In 1982 the New York State Court of Appeals handed down a decision in which it stated that.... The New York City Transit Authority (like any other municipality or Government Agency), had NO responsibility (and thus NO liability), to "protect" a individual person on its premises from assault by a third party.... nor did it have any obligation to provide increased Police "PROTECTION" for well documented HIGH CRIME areas within the subway system. Weiner v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 55 N.Y. 2.d 175, 448 N.Y.S.2.d 141 [1982]

--------------------

Ahhhh.. what's this now about Police "protecting" us..!!..? So here's another lie they want us to believe.

Rail Car Fan