Let's Wrap This Baby Up, Folks!
The bastard had the badge, the gun and the responsibility. He needs to pay the price for his cowardice.
I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled on this already. Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm.
He still should have gone in as that was his job.
1st the deputy, then go after Sheriff Israel.
Didn't have the stones to face the attacker, why should anybody be surprised that he can't face the victims?
POS coward.
Finally, if you are going to get paid to provide security, then provide security. Hopefully this ignites a good conversation about what security police CANT provide, and why citizens should not rely on police for safety while being disarmed.
Let's Wrap This Baby Up, Folks!
The Supreme Court ruling regarding the fact that the police have no duty to protect any particular person is a tremendously significant decision which supports the Second Amendment.
The dead girl's parents entrusted the welfare of their daughter to anti-gun liberals. Any expectation that they would protect her was unreasonable given the known attitude of liberals toward self-defense with firearms.
The recent decision of some schools to arm their classrooms with buckets of rocks to throw at attackers is an ever-so-slight movement in the right direction. I am reminded of a story attributed to Churchill:
“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”
Liberals who support having buckets of rocks in the classroom are just haggling over what the most effective weapon is for stopping an armed attacker. They have already agreed that the students and teachers must be prepared to defend themselves.
As a retired Police Officer I would say I still have a duty to protect any citizen!
Sadly, the USSC already ruled sometime ago that Law enforcement has no duty to protect anyone. So legally the deputy is on solid ground when he makes his claim.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Nope, the Judge is not following precedent, namely Warren v. District of Columbia.
This case is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Prima Facie Duties
A prima facie duty is considered to be a duty that is binding on first glance - on the surface - but which might, under certain circumstances, be overridden by a more pressing (or, “higher-order”) duty.
For Mr. Peterson to not have a “duty” to try and stop the killing makes him being there a Fraud.....in my humble opinion.
I kept a running record of posts placed in Free Republic with links to them Documenting the disastrous result of policies known as Promise put into place by the Obama regime. Hoping that the focus would be put on them and not on guns or the NRA
http://www.theusmat.com/index.htm
That particular deputy KNEW the guy. The guy knew he wasn’t supposed to be there, either.
Had the deputy followed the guy in and confront him, the whole thing might have been averted.
The judge should rule that if that is the case, then the deputy should be required to repay his salary for the length of his service and the judge should take action to place liens against all his property and discontinue his pension.
won’t this bump into the 2005 SC decision that “police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm”?
Obviously this judge disagreed with the USSC Castle Rock opinion, but cops have zero duty to protect, and this judge will lose.
For those who rely on law and common sense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunition sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF) is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.
Criminals can not be compelled to register guns. The U. S. Supreme Court determined,
"...that a felon who has a gun cannot be compelled to complete such forms, because it violates the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. That's right, registration -- not in your case of course but in the case of a criminal -- is a self-indictment of a crime, and is therefore prohibited."
Haynes vs United States (1968).
In 1856, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled,
"Local law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws."<
South vs. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 (1856).
A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982,
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."<
Bowers vs. devot, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 (1982).
The U.S. Supreme Court declared,
"The Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect citizens from criminal harm."
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989)
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia."
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir.1992)