Totally Unbelievable
https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2018/12/19/judge-sheriffs-deputy-no-duty-protect-parkland-students/?fbclid=IwAR0FaHRWk4z6VIRsmNeQ0BwPapsDpD-8XMavzd31aMusK34KsIMbinN-26Y
Judge: Sheriff?s Deputy Had No Duty To Protect Parkland Students
Posted at 4:00 pm on December 19, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Anti-gunners love to argue that we don?t need all of our guns. Quite a fair number will tell you that while you may feel the need to defend yourself, you shouldn?t. That?s what the police are for, they argue.
The courts have ruled time and time again that the police have no duty to protect you.
Now, we have yet another example. This time, it applies to people who are required by law to be disarmed.
A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff?s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff?s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.
Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.
?The claim arises from the actions of [the shooter], a third party, and not a state actor,? she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. ?Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.
?As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody? ? for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.
The problem with that is that students and teachers are required by law to be disarmed. If there is no legal duty for the officer on the scene to act?there is a moral duty, however?then that means the onus for protection falls on the individuals themselves.
Unfortunately, the law requires these potential victims to be disarmed. It makes it impossible for them to defend themselves from an attack, even while the state has absolved itself of any responsibility to protect those they?ve disarmed.
Frankly, it?s disgusting.
However, it?s also par for the course. While anti-gunners repeatedly echo refrains about the police protecting us and renew calls for disarmament, we should all remember that if children remanded to the care of the state for a mandated purpose?namely that of education?can be determined not to be deserving of literal police protection, then just how does anyone think you or I will be protected?
Get armed. Get trained. Learn. Protect yourself.
You and yours are the only ones you can trust to protect you. If school children and teachers who are barred from carrying a gun on government property aren?t going to be protected, there?s no way you?re going to be. For some of us, this is the reality we?ve understood for quite some time. That?s why we have guns. That?s why we carry guns. That?s why we train with them.
It?s also why we become so belligerent when some anti-gunner starts screaming bloody murder about how our guns somehow make them unsafe. No, they don?t. My disarmament will make me unsafe.
Judge: Sheriff?s Deputy Had No Duty To Protect Parkland Students
Posted at 4:00 pm on December 19, 2018 by Tom Knighton
Anti-gunners love to argue that we don?t need all of our guns. Quite a fair number will tell you that while you may feel the need to defend yourself, you shouldn?t. That?s what the police are for, they argue.
The courts have ruled time and time again that the police have no duty to protect you.
Now, we have yet another example. This time, it applies to people who are required by law to be disarmed.
A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff?s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff?s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.
Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.
?The claim arises from the actions of [the shooter], a third party, and not a state actor,? she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. ?Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.
?As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody? ? for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.
The problem with that is that students and teachers are required by law to be disarmed. If there is no legal duty for the officer on the scene to act?there is a moral duty, however?then that means the onus for protection falls on the individuals themselves.
Unfortunately, the law requires these potential victims to be disarmed. It makes it impossible for them to defend themselves from an attack, even while the state has absolved itself of any responsibility to protect those they?ve disarmed.
Frankly, it?s disgusting.
However, it?s also par for the course. While anti-gunners repeatedly echo refrains about the police protecting us and renew calls for disarmament, we should all remember that if children remanded to the care of the state for a mandated purpose?namely that of education?can be determined not to be deserving of literal police protection, then just how does anyone think you or I will be protected?
Get armed. Get trained. Learn. Protect yourself.
You and yours are the only ones you can trust to protect you. If school children and teachers who are barred from carrying a gun on government property aren?t going to be protected, there?s no way you?re going to be. For some of us, this is the reality we?ve understood for quite some time. That?s why we have guns. That?s why we carry guns. That?s why we train with them.
It?s also why we become so belligerent when some anti-gunner starts screaming bloody murder about how our guns somehow make them unsafe. No, they don?t. My disarmament will make me unsafe.
0
-
What was that previous post made about kids having "canned goods" available and on hand to "defend" themselves?
Yeah, that should enable them to take care of the threat. [:0][B)][xx(]0 -
ta paid COWARDS...and there should be torch light gatherings at the STUPID judges home at night....he should be RECALLED...judges have "no legal duty" for protect anyone so make em GONE and get some one to support law and order....and your kids this isa bad as the lansas state supreme STUPIDS....most judges rule #1 ----take good care of the perp 0 -
Demonrat logic.
Protect the criminal, not the law abiding.
Of course, this decision will never make the MSM because it contradicts the "You don't need guns because the police will protect you" narrative.0 -
They just well remove all the " Protect and Serve " from all Police Cars. 0 -
If the officers are assigned there for security it seems to me their duty is to protect every civilian in the building. WTH are they there for if not? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by fideau
If the officers are assigned there for security it seems to me their duty is to protect every civilian in the building. WTH are they there for if not?
Your Tax Dollars.0 -
The term no work and pay comes to mind. 0 -
To Collect And Serve 0 -
I never leave home...with out being well heeled... 0 -
On the side of every police car in my town, it says to "serve and to protect".... 0 -
Just copy and paste the link to the story in your smartphone and show it to any liberal that say you have no right to keep and bear arms... I did 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
11 comments