but you'd prolly get in trouble if you scrapped off that PROTECT part on their cars...
Posted on 12/19/2018 9:50:09 AM PST by blueyon
They should appeal this “Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.”
I think it can be argued that the students were “in the custody” of the school. Were the kids free to leave without consequences or punishment? Could they leave without being charged with truancy?
This probably lets the sheriff’s department off the hook, but they may get traction on continuing the case against the school. The school can probably sue the sheriff’s dept for breech of contract depending on the nature of the agreement.
But when you are told by the government, we will protect you in schools or your children so you can’t protect yourself or your children in schools. However, if we screw up or decide not you protect you or your school children in a situation, tough, you can’t hold us accountable. That is not acceptable.
Remembering that this is a FEDERAL court ruling on CONSTITUTIONAL issues, it's probably true that a local state or city police department does not have a *constitutional* duty to do anything, as those are state responsibilities.
That said, the Army has a *constitutional* duty to protect the land from invasion, as also do the states in times of imminent threat or domestic insurrection.
-PJ
I know what this means to me:
GET A GUN!!!
And parent are coerced to send their children to these asylums.
When I went to school, AFAIK school was mandatory until age 18 or graduation from high school, whichever came first. And students could and did get in trouble with the law regarding truancy. Maybe that’s changed - but why would schools be publically funded up to 12th grade if it weren’t required?
Well, I do pickups so no trunk.
Also for the longest time the glove box or center console - locked or not - was not considered securing your vehicle.
I guess one could put it in a locked carrying case and even put the trigger guard/chamber lock in place - In VA a lock comes with new gun.
If I were of a mind to, could put a ‘safe’/locked box in rear but again, you are relying on someone else to be the final ‘judge’.
I carry out of state and VA has been known to release your ‘private’ info on the original check, informing the stopping authority that I am licensed to carry - which, in due diligence, I would imagine it would give the Officer ‘cause’ to question you tighter.
You hear too many times the Officer acting real friendly etc and casually asking if you have a weapon and the driver saying yes - WELL, in MD, NJ, NY (New England) you will probably be looking down the barrel of the Officers gun.
I go by the oldie but goodie, ‘It is called CONCEALED CARRY for a reason’.
I don’t drink and drive (any more), I use turn signals, use seat belts (where mandatory) keep in or around the posted speed limit or flow of traffic and am familiar with the state I am in...If a trooper in WV asks if I am carrying, I will probably fess up AFTER showing him my permit.
In NJ etal, they will have to physically search me and/or my vehicle WITHOUT my permission.
The danger there is how much time does one spend ‘locked up’ before seeing a judge or someone to say the Officer didn’t have probable cause BUT you still end up losing your weapon.
I am still ‘waiting’ for PDJT to do the auto receprocity but was skeptical when it was announced etc etc etc
That there is what is called settled law.
It is the duty and purpose of the police to protect and serve the state, not her citizens. Laws are written and enforced for the benefit of the state, not her citizens.
When the people understand that; they understand the true interests of government and why it should be decentralized, disorganized, under funded and impotent. Your safety depends on it.
I wonder if they can sue for failure to post a product warning?
There doesn’t seem to be enough room to print “We serve and protect the state, not you unwashed citizens.” on the side of every car.
This is why school personnel after training, should be able to carry weapons. The coaches and teachers will feel an obligation to protect the students. It will have a chilling effect on would be mass murderers to realize they will be shot in the back.
Worth a try?
You mean besides the rare firing, suspension, or demotion? I must confess being ignorant.
Of course they can.
The government has lots of guns at every level, and has no compunction against using them at all. They can make whatever silly rules they want, and there isn't a damned thing you can do about it until you are willing to be every bit as violent as the government is willing to be at the drop of a hat.
I'm actually surprised that so many people on this forum didn't already know that the cops don't have a duty to protect citizens. The law on this is very firmly settled and has been for decades.
The motto is absolutely correct. However, you are making assumptions about who it is that they protect and serve. Those assumptions are not valid.
Try calling the police after you have been robbed.
They will essentially say, its your fault.
Case closed.
Yup. I carry a gun because it is too tiring to carry a cop. (especially these days)
It’s becoming clear that rogue, fascist judges are becoming a greater threat to our republic than elected politicians.
When a cop swears to serve and protect citizens, that’s what it means. No less and no more. A black robe fascist has no authority to change or lessen that oath.
Impeachment and severe punishment, including prison, directed toward black robes is the answer to end this cr*p.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom is another Barack Obama stooge that John Roberts does not think exist. If police have no obligation to try to protect society, then why the hell do we hire them? Judge Beth Bloom is sadly wrong in this decision.
“I’m actually surprised that so many people on this forum didn’t already know that the cops don’t have a duty to protect citizens. The law on this is very firmly settled and has been for decades.”
What “law” has been settled?
“Shouldn’t be a surprise. Entirely consistent with precedent”
yep. and “duty to protect” is specifically disclaimed in the laws of some states ... the problem is that if the police have a “duty” to do anything and any outcome is less than perfect, then police departments would have to be disbanded because of the hundreds of thousands of bazillion dollar lawsuits that would constantly be thrown at them ...
and it’s not just police departments that don’t have a “duty”: almost no branch of government has a “duty” ... snow removal is not a “duty” ... smoothly paved roads that are pot-hole free are not a “duty” ... libraries providing books that you like is not a “duty” ... picking up the garbage during a blizzard is not a “duty” ... heck even keeping the electricity, water, natural gas, and waster water removal services operating are not “duties” ...
again, if all of these services and hundreds more were “duties”, then any failure at all, big or small, would provoke unwinnable lawsuits and all government services would have to be halted in the face of millions of of lawsuits ....
the ballot box provides the sole remedy for failures of any government services ... if you don’t like the way things are going, then vote the bastids out ... if the voters are too ignorant to do that, then society as a whole has failed to produce knowledgeable and involved citizens, in which case MUCH more than just a few creaky government services is going to collapse ...
but you'd prolly get in trouble if you scrapped off that PROTECT part on their cars...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.