[FDFW News] FLA correct about Corrupt Government?

[TinMan]

Respect +++ @ Drix

[LewisChurch]

Constant threat indeed, that's why we put government officials on our protection and encourage them to impersonate a lawful officer with the attempt to  harass civilians.
You do not have the right to speak about his safety because you gotten him into that position, with the abuse of your duties you had Mr Charles Dentico do un-lawful acts which agitated the civilians, and most of them set a hit on his death. You witnessed the out-come of your own mistakes, not ours.

First of all Chief, Charles is not officially part of the govermen. Second, if you do know these people are setting hits on him shouln't you be assigning your Detective Bureau on the case? I mean you are fully aware that these civilians could be pretty much behind this.

Charles was just brought for a ride along, at the end the only people harmed were those who actually did a crime, the civilians in this video only got a minor annoyance and I truely believe that the hit is a disproportionate response.

[Teddy]

Charles was just brought for a ride along

I've been on a police ride along. I watched while the cop did the cops job. I didn't get to play wannab cop.

[psyron]

@TinMan as a reporter, you should not have an opinion on anything, or try to impose your opinion on anyone. you are only required to report the news, not manipulate them. it all comes under journalism ethics.

on the other hand, i blv the police should protect the mayor at all costs without any questions asked. the law enforcement has no authority to speak above the mayor and is obligated to do whatever he asks. it seems they are constantly trying to defame the mayor and its funny

[Bruce.]

Charles was just brought for a ride along,

Only because of this, you shouldn't have allowed him to get out of the police cruisers and even worse to make the traffic stop for you.

on the other hand, i blv the police should protect the mayor at all costs without any questions asked. the law enforcement has no authority to speak above the mayor and is obligated to do whatever he asks. it seems they are constantly trying to defame the mayor and its funny

Clearly the mayor didn't need the police to protect him as you can see on the video on the first post. He brought his gangster friends and his own "bodyguards". He got owned by Palomino Creek guys and now he blames it on the SAPD  because he doesn't have someone who to shit on.

Now let me quote you a piece of our Constitution.

XIII.VI: Any person who is in duty is required to provide necessary assistance if possible. Any person who will not accomplish their duties and who will not have decent reasons for not accomplishing those duties can see their rights to law enforcement revoked by this court or by their chiefs.

There were 3 officers on duty and 14-17 full and heavy armed people which makes the situation IMPOSSIBLE for the officers to provide assistance because of the massive outnumber.

[Bruce.]

Well... shit. There goes the neighborhood.

Trust me your neighborhood is in good hands.

[Marcel]

i blv the police should protect the mayor at all costs without any questions asked. the law enforcement has no authority to speak above the mayor and is obligated to do whatever he asks. it seems they are constantly trying to defame the mayor and its funny

No, it is the task of law enforcement to enforce the laws. They are not obligated to do whatever he asks.

Now let me quote you a piece of our Constitution.

[snip]

There were 3 officers on duty and 14-17 full and heavy armed people which makes the situation IMPOSSIBLE for the officers to provide assistance because of the massive outnumber.

Allow me to further clarify this: The constitution mentions the requirement to assist others. This is more aimed towards assisting other officers who request backup and citizens whose life is in danger. It requires the officer to make a call to EMS when a citizen is injured, for example.

In no way should this article be seen as a requirement for the cops to do exactly as the mayor says. It is not their task nor are they lawfully required to do so. Any claims quoting XIII.VI or claiming gross negligence better be solidly backed up by some proof.

[psyron]

No, it is the task of law enforcement to enforce the laws. They are not obligated to do whatever he asks.

afaik the law enforcement can take actions against the mayor only if they have a written warrant from the fbi/cia director, which is after an effective investigation and gathering substantial evidence against him.

however im unaware of the complete scenario here so i take back my words

[PulseEffect]

afaik the law enforcement can take actions against the mayor only if they have a written warrant from the fbi/cia director, which is after an effective investigation and gathering substantial evidence against him.

however im unaware of the complete scenario here so i take back my words

No Law Enforcement can take actions against the mayor if they have direct proof of a criminal act being undertaken by the mayor. Warrants are used only after a long period of time after an act was committed.

[Whiteman]

Clearly the mayor didn't need the police to protect him as you can see on the video on the first post. He brought his gangster friends and his own "bodyguards". He got owned by Palomino Creek guys and now he blames it on the SAPD  because he doesn't have someone who to shit on.

Act VI: Threats, plotting for a criminal act or encouraging criminal act is a crime.

No Law Enforcement can take actions against the mayor if they have direct proof of a criminal act being undertaken by the mayor. Warrants are used only after a long period of time after an act was committed.

Act IV: A person is innocent until proven and declared guilty.

Ordinance II: Due to the requirement of protection against terrorism, against doers of wrong, of ones own property, and the protection of the states themselves, the government shall not reject the right of citizens to bear arms.

[Mark]

True real life politicians over here, that's gold lmao.

[Mikal]

if you do know these people are setting hits on him shouln't you be assigning your Detective Bureau on the case? I mean you are fully aware that these civilians could be pretty much behind this.

Why would he when the mayor is under Mafia and Yakuza protection? If the mayor wants to side with criminals instead of law enforcement, that's his choice.

@TinMan as a reporter, you should not have an opinion on anything, or try to impose your opinion on anyone. you are only required to report the news

Who says you need to be unbiased and impartial to be a news reporter? If you want that, start your own news company.

on the other hand, i blv the police should protect the mayor at all costs without any questions asked. the law enforcement has no authority to speak above the mayor and is obligated to do whatever he asks. it seems they are constantly trying to defame the mayor and its funny

The mayor, just like the police, are civil servants, they are all equal, the police are not the mayors slaves, and like I said, if he want's to side with Mafia's and Yakuza's for protection over the police, that's his choice and he'll pay the price when those guys either die or abandon him, police can return, criminals cannot, the person at fault here is the mayor who chooses the wrong side.

[PulseEffect]

Act IV: A person is innocent until proven and declared guilty.

By a court.

Act XIII.III: A person can be arrested without a warrant if he is suspected immediately after committing the offence.

[Pizza4_Games]

I appreciate your hard work TinMan.

[psyron]

Who says you need to be unbiased and impartial to be a news reporter?

journalism ethics. but lets stick to the topic