Women - 911 or 1911 ?

mete · July 16, 2005, 03:05 PM

Interesting article showing that 911 may not help at all. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

Massan · July 17, 2005, 12:22 AM

Wow, finally a news article that we can use to defend our choice to bear arms.

Limeyfellow · July 17, 2005, 11:14 AM

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 · July 17, 2005, 12:03 PM

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.

Limeyfellow · July 17, 2005, 03:27 PM

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.

Vic303 · July 17, 2005, 04:00 PM

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.

butch50 · July 17, 2005, 05:36 PM

Vic 303:

That's tantamount to saying Son of Sam was a good man compared to Jeffery Dahmler. :barf:

mete · July 17, 2005, 08:31 PM

I posted that article because I though it was of interest on this forum and it was well written. Unfortunately most are more interesting in bashing the media.

LAK · July 18, 2005, 02:49 AM

Real news from Rupert Murdoch?

Doug.38PR · July 19, 2005, 02:24 PM

CNN, NBC, CBS et al are Liberal/FOXnews and Rush Limbaugh are Neoconservative
All in all, FOX with all it's faults is the better of all of them though.

bclark1 · July 19, 2005, 02:46 PM

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.

625 · July 19, 2005, 02:49 PM

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.

MissMak · July 20, 2005, 12:52 PM

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.

mete · July 20, 2005, 03:18 PM

MissMak, thanks for that interesting input.

Eisande · July 20, 2005, 07:25 PM

Excellent summary Missmak.

I was involved in an off duty (I am LE for small agency in LA area) incident which involved some exchange of gunfire. My fiance at the time immediately ran to the bedroom, armed herself with the 12 gauge and then dialled 911.
We are married now.

July 16, 2005, 03:05 PM	#1
mete Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2004 Location: NY State Posts: 6,575	Women - 911 or 1911 ? Interesting article showing that 911 may not help at all. www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html

July 17, 2005, 05:36 PM	#7
butch50 Senior Member Join Date: April 15, 2005 Location: Republic of Texas Posts: 1,403	Vic 303: That's tantamount to saying Son of Sam was a good man compared to Jeffery Dahmler. :barf: __________________ ‘‘Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.’’ ~ Mahatma Ghandi, "Gandhi, An Autobiography", page 446 ‘‘The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.’’ ~ Patrick Henry

July 19, 2005, 02:49 PM	#12
625 Senior Member Join Date: May 3, 2005 Location: PA Posts: 858	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. __________________ I don't believe in a government that protects us from ourselves. Ronald Reagan

July 20, 2005, 12:52 PM	#13
MissMak Member Join Date: March 14, 2005 Location: Orange County Posts: 46	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.

July 17, 2005, 12:22 AM	#2
Massan Senior Member Join Date: June 27, 2005 Posts: 171	Wow, finally a news article that we can use to defend our choice to bear arms.

July 17, 2005, 11:14 AM	#3
Limeyfellow Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2005 Posts: 1,380	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?

July 17, 2005, 12:03 PM	#4
OLD SF MJT Junior Member Join Date: September 20, 2004 Location: Greenville, NC Posts: 7	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.

July 17, 2005, 03:27 PM	#5
Limeyfellow Senior Member Join Date: May 31, 2005 Posts: 1,380	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.

July 17, 2005, 04:00 PM	#6
Vic303 Member Join Date: May 17, 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 90	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.

July 17, 2005, 08:31 PM	#8
mete Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2004 Location: NY State Posts: 6,575	I posted that article because I though it was of interest on this forum and it was well written. Unfortunately most are more interesting in bashing the media.

July 18, 2005, 02:49 AM	#9
LAK Junior member Join Date: May 14, 2002 Posts: 2,251	Real news from Rupert Murdoch?

July 19, 2005, 02:24 PM	#10
Doug.38PR Junior member Join Date: January 18, 2005 Posts: 3,298	CNN, NBC, CBS et al are Liberal/FOXnews and Rush Limbaugh are Neoconservative All in all, FOX with all it's faults is the better of all of them though.

July 19, 2005, 02:46 PM	#11
bclark1 Senior Member Join Date: January 5, 2005 Location: Ohio Posts: 1,531	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.

July 20, 2005, 03:18 PM	#14
mete Senior Member Join Date: June 14, 2004 Location: NY State Posts: 6,575	MissMak, thanks for that interesting input.

July 20, 2005, 07:25 PM	#15
Eisande Member Join Date: June 15, 2005 Location: Lomita, CA Posts: 24	Excellent summary Missmak. I was involved in an off duty (I am LE for small agency in LA area) incident which involved some exchange of gunfire. My fiance at the time immediately ran to the bedroom, armed herself with the 12 gauge and then dialled 911. We are married now.