3 Girls busted for running a Lemonade Stand

[Mr. Analog]

In summary: three kids were trying to save up money to go to a waterpark and so they started a lemonade stand. After a day the police shut them down because they were operating without a business license:

http://youtu.be/mPKUUH7ytUo

WHAT THE HELL

Specious (and hilariously misworded) reasoning was given that "anything" could have been in the lemonade and that there was no way to tell how it was prepared. Well that's wrong because having a business license does not automatically grant a health-safety standard not to mention that it patently ignores presumption of innocence.

The question I have is THE COPS HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO?

[Darren Dirt]

The question I have is THE COPS HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO?

answer: nope.

[Thorin]

The question I have is THE COPS HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO?

answer: nope.

For those that don't want to click Darren's link, it's a Google search for "police no duty to protect".  I clicked it thinking it was a link to an actual article.  Instead of getting a huff and a puff about a lmgtfy link, I decided to add "Canada" to that search.

The first hit was "Dial 911 and Die", which is an overview of the book by the same name, which covers "the law in all 50 states, Puerto Rico,  the Virgin Islands, the District of Columbia and Canada".  That's either a really big book or a very abbreviated (and probably biased) one.

The second hit was the Wikipedia entry for "Duty to rescue", which discusses the differences between civil law and common law and mentions specifically that in the US the US Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the police cannot be sued for failing to protect a citizen not in their custody.  It also points out that in other countries there exists criminal law requiring one to help others in distress (where this exists, of course it would apply to the police as well).

The third hit was a Supreme Court of Canada case, R. v. Godoy, which talks about cops busting into a dwelling and arresting a man for spousal abuse after receiving a 911 call where the caller hung up before speaking to the 911 dispatcher.  The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the lower courts' decision that the police were acting within the scope of their duties and powers when they forced entry because the common law duties of the police include protection of life.  The specific statute that affirms the police's duty to protect life used for this case is the Ontario Police Services Act, section 42(3).

So maybe in the US the cops have no "duty to protect", but in Canada they certainly do.  In fact, if you're in Quebec you have a duty to protect and can be sued (although that really just means if you see someone in danger you must call 911 or similar to get them help).

Back to the original video, yeah, those cops are enforcing the letter of the law but certainly not the spirit, and I'm sure that if you dig a little you can find instances of Midway, GA, police officers not enforcing a law.  This was just an idiot cop who could've pretended he didn't see the lemonade stand and his superior backing him up no matter what, "Blue Wall" style.

Like, the fourth or fifth video on the side was of a woman opening a beer with her tit.  What?  Youtube does weird associations.