Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

So police to not have to defend us, schools to not have to protect our child while they are there and the left wants to take our guns away..........we are truly living in an insane asylum
1 posted on 12/19/2018 9:50:09 AM PST by blueyon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: blueyon

They went home safe that day but at least some of thos police are bound to try filing for disability when they retire.


2 posted on 12/19/2018 9:52:10 AM PST by a fool in paradise (Denounce DUAC - The Democrats Un-American Activists Committtee)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

It is ever and always “Heads we win, tails you lose”.

If you hadn’t noticed.


3 posted on 12/19/2018 9:53:57 AM PST by Freedom4US
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

Wasn’t there a different lawsuit where one of the parents was suing Peterson and Peterson tried to use that as a defense? If I remember correctly, the judge in that case ruled differently.


4 posted on 12/19/2018 9:54:12 AM PST by ConjunctionJunction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

Shouldn’t be a surprise. Entirely consistent with precedent.


5 posted on 12/19/2018 9:56:05 AM PST by DugwayDuke ("A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

What an utterly stupid judgement....In this judge’s eyes, why do we even have police departments????


6 posted on 12/19/2018 9:56:33 AM PST by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon
It's an Obama judge.

The goose-stepping Lefty Obama and Rapin Bill judges will protect The State at all costs...

7 posted on 12/19/2018 9:56:50 AM PST by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

The police do not have a duty to protect.

We have a duty to protect ourselves.

That’s why we have a Second Amendment.


8 posted on 12/19/2018 9:57:17 AM PST by Lurkinanloomin (Natural Born Citizen Means Born Here of Citizen Parents__Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

I could see throwing it out because they thought the shooter was to blame, not the police, but why have security on campus if they aren’t going to protect the kids?

I don’t even know what country this is any more. Who are these people??


9 posted on 12/19/2018 9:57:24 AM PST by No Socialist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

The Supremes have ruled on this before. No duty to protect any one individual. DemocRATS will never acknowledge this as they try and disarm Americans while they put more felons on the streets who have more rights than law abiding Americans.


10 posted on 12/19/2018 9:57:47 AM PST by AlaskaErik (I served and protected my country for 31 years. Progressives spent that time trying to destroy it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

Warren v. District of Columbia 1981

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

“the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”.

Only you, the individual, can protect yourself. Which should nullify almost all gun laws.


11 posted on 12/19/2018 9:57:57 AM PST by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

The black robes know everything.


12 posted on 12/19/2018 9:59:43 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

I know cops and respect my local police.

But the “cops are heroes” propaganda is becoming a bit too much.


13 posted on 12/19/2018 10:00:06 AM PST by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

While I do not agree with that legal position, it is the current state of the law.


14 posted on 12/19/2018 10:02:02 AM PST by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

So, the shooter, the kid who had been expelled from this school (and NOTABLY, per the School Admin’s Policy maker the Administrator Mr.Runcie— who used obamaumao inspired federal funds to support it— the protection of the “juvenile” offenders, particularly minorities— like the shooter- NOT to inform law enforcement of the student’s dangerous actions, like drug dealing or firearms on campus or gang activity)— The Shooter, acc. to the judge— since he wasn’t “in custody”... was not an individual that the School or the Sheriff’s office onsite “resource officer”— was not the responsibile for PROTECTING THE STUDENTS.

So the resource officer (the one who ran away) is not responsible to defend the students and school from “THIRD PARTY ACTORS” === that is ANYONE from outside the school system OR who is not in the school or Law enforcement custody. So-— the officer(s) are to protect the students from ... the students and faculty.

This ruling is utterly PRETZEL logic irrational-— doublespeak. Orwellian.


16 posted on 12/19/2018 10:03:52 AM PST by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

Many people already knew this. The Supreme Court ruled on this a long time ago. Police have no duty to defend. They only have to clean up the crime scene and catch the perpetrator.

Maybe now a couple of these moronic leftists will wake up and realize that each person is the responsible for the defense of their own lives. Relying on others to protect you from harm is sheer folly. It sounds like common sense but it’s not so common among the left. I mean, if not me then who? Protecting my life is my ultimate human right, and screw anyone who says otherwise.


17 posted on 12/19/2018 10:03:55 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

This ruling is not surprising as it follows long standing precedent. As unfortunate as it is. Usually the only remedy offered to parties suing law enforcement is to show civil rights were violated. Otherwise there is “no duty of care” as law enforcement is charged with protecting the public-not an individual.


18 posted on 12/19/2018 10:04:35 AM PST by lastchance (Credo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

Not exactly.

The real meaning of this is that sleazy, scummy lawyer cannot sue the person protecting us from harm or their employers for massive amounts of money.

This is a very good ruling.

Disbar the scummy lawyer who brought the lawsuit.


22 posted on 12/19/2018 10:06:12 AM PST by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

As long as we have no duty to send our children into gunfree, unprotected government shooting galleries.


24 posted on 12/19/2018 10:07:33 AM PST by Yaelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

The state REQUIRES attendance at public schools (unless they are homeschooled). The state will also step in and remove children from a home where physical abuse is found.

But they have no duty to protect minors?

That is some garbage.


25 posted on 12/19/2018 10:07:45 AM PST by Bryan24 (When in doubt, move to the right..........)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: blueyon

There is no duty or ability to protect this judge 24/7 for the rest of his life either.


27 posted on 12/19/2018 10:09:57 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (Reverse Wickard v Filburn (1942) - and - ISLAM DELENDA EST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson