A Judge Says Cops Have No Duty To Protect Kids From School Shootings. This Is Why We Need The Second Amendment.

A federal judge ruled this week that neither the police nor the school system had any duty to protect students at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High during the shooting that claimed 17 lives last year.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a lawsuit filed by several students of the school. She claims that the duty to protect only applies to prisoners and others who are being held in state custody involuntarily. Kids, apparently, are on their own. The motion filed by the judge, according to the Miami Herald, explains, incredibly, that children in school have "the ability to take care of themselves." Bloom also argued that the shooter was not a "state actor." Which is an entirely irrelevant point that nobody disputes.
This is not the first time that the courts have relieved law enforcement of any legal obligation to actually protect the citizens who are paying their salaries. Bloom has precedent on her side, if not rationality or sound moral reasoning. But this case isn't exactly the same as some of the others that have dealt with similar issues. At Stoneman Douglas, the cop who cowered outside while children were slaughtered at their desks was a school resource officer. His whole job was to see to the safety of those very kids. If a school resource officer has no duty to protect the children at the school where he is stationed, then the position is pointless. A school resource officer with no duty to protect is essentially just a piece of moving furniture, taking up space and wasting money.
The other difference between this and superficially similar cases is that kids are legally required to attend school. Judge Bloom didn't find this point relevant, but it is indeed extremely relevant. Truancy is a crime. You could go to jail if your kid doesn't show up for class. It is simply beyond the pale to claim that the state has no duty to ensure the safety of the kids whose attendance they have legally mandated. Duty should not be a one way street. It should not be, in a free country, that parents have a duty to send their children to school but schools have no duty to see to the well-being of those children, and citizens have a duty to obey the police but police have no duty to protect and serve those citizens. This is how things work in a dictatorship, not a free republic. Not a country where agents of the state claim the title "public servants."
Fortunately, though we may not look like a free republic in many respects, we do still have the Bill of Rights. The second article in that document is even more crucial given this ruling. We have the right to arm ourselves. We would be wise to take advantage of this right. The state may decide to help us out if we're in trouble, but it may not. It evidently recognizes no obligations either way. Perhaps a police officer will come charging into harm's way to rescue us, like the hero cops in Pittsburgh. Perhaps they will hide behind a tree, like the coward in Broward. It is better not to pin your hopes on that roll of the dice.
Of course, the Second Amendment can do little for our children in the public school system. They will still be exposed and vulnerable, and the authority that has taken them into its custody will not necessarily promise to shield them when the bullets start flying. Perhaps that's another good reason to keep your kids out of the system entirely.
A Judge Says Cops Have No Duty To Protect Kids From School Shootings. This Is Why We Need The Second Amendment. A Judge Says Cops Have No Duty To Protect Kids From School Shootings. This Is Why We Need The Second Amendment. Reviewed by STATION GOSSIP on 06:00 Rating: 5

7 comments:

  1. Waiting for the next school massacre....

    ReplyDelete
  2. The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that "Where rights (liberty) secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate (abolish) them." (Miranda v Arizona) What’s that mean? Well, it means that in order to lawfully effect a Right/Liberty protected by our Constitution (nullify it, limit it, license it or restrict it) the powers that be (state or federal) are required to comply with the Constitution’s Article V Amendment process before they expediently make an end-run around our Constitution to take away (or “infringe” upon) your Right of self defense protected by the Second Amendment.

    A few elected bozos and the stroke of an executive’s pen doesn’t cut it my friends. Telling you they have the “authority” to by-pass the Constitution by passing some goofy law because ‘they’ voted on it is what’s known as acting under “the color of law.” The color of law is defined as the actions of an ‘official’, be it law enforcement or legislative, purported to be in the conduct of their official duties when, in fact, they have no lawful authority to actually ‘act’ or conduct themselves. An example might be law enforcement making arrests of peaceful protestors or phony traffic arrests in order to raise revenue. Another example would be a legislature passing laws effecting areas where they have no lawful authority to legislate.

    “Shall not be infringed” means that if they want to “infringe” and expand the government’s authority to nullify, limit, license or restrict that doesn’t exist, they must go through the Article V Amendment process in order to ‘acquire’ the lawful authority to legislate limits, licenses or to nullify your Rights. If they have no authority to pass such a law or ordinance (haven’t complied with the the lawful Amendment process) then the aforementioned Supreme Court stated in Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham Alabama that the individuals should “engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” Without said lawful Amendment the Supreme Court’s Marbury vs Madison comes into play: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void."

    If the Supreme Court’s declarations mean nothing, Hamilton made clear in Federalist 78 that “No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid.” Jefferson said much the same thing in 1798 when he said “Whenever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void and of no force.” The Supremacy Clause (Article 6 clause 2) codifies this very principle; that any law made by Congress that is not made in pursuance to the Constitution, is no law at all.

    You can certainly choose to allow a government, acting unlawfully, to strip you of your Rights like they were a cheap prom dress or you can/should become a bit more literate. If politicians, judges and law enforcement don’t care to comply with our Constitution (the ‘highest’ law of the land) which they’ve sworn an Oath to, then the People shouldn’t worry about complying with their ‘gun laws’.

    https://resistancetononsense.wordpress.com/2018/06/29/our-preexisting-irrevolkable-right-of-self-defense/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Heavens forbid a crises actor gets injured on the job.


    Rick Costello. 100% correct.

    ReplyDelete
  4. If the judge ruled any other way it would stymie the "Deep Swamp" in creating their red flags.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Next time I see a policeman in trouble I'll ask him how he feels about this ruling.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "At Stoneman Douglas, the cop who cowered outside while children were slaughtered at their desks was a school resource officer."

    Could we please get this correct. This officer and three other officers were ORDERED by their command dispatcher to NOT ENTER the school and to prevent anyone else including Medical Emergency personal from entering.

    The question is WHO gave the order? It has never been even ASKED let alone answered.

    "Scott Peterson, the Broward County sheriff’s deputy who failed to engage the Parkland high school shooter,"

    NO this officer and THREE OTHER officers were ORDERED not to enter the building and to not let emergency services or anyone else enter. WHO did this ordering and WHY?

    We are being given a whole line of BS on this "school shooting"

    Here are some FACTS which have DISAPPEARED from the almost vacant narrative.

    The events at Stoneman DEMAND exposition in open forum; Anyone who has spent a few hours watching Stoneman videos KNOWS these highly probable facts.

    o A "code red active shooter drill" was scheduled for the day of the shooting. Did this drill take place?

    o Three SWAT dressed men are shown transiting a classroom and shooting of some sort is heard immediately after. Were these members of a SWAT drill team and did they fire blanks?

    o A Stoneman teacher describes a man dressed in full SWAT gear as a "shooter" firing down the hall 20 feet from her classroom. Was this man one of the three SWAT members transiting a classroom? Was this man firing blanks?

    o Cruz entered the building with a school backpack and a small case of some sort a few minutes before shooting started. If he was "the shooter" where did he get all the SWAT gear? Was this SWAT gear found after the events were over? Cruz is 5 foot 7 inches tall: I bet dollars to doughnuts the "shooter" the teacher saw was MUCH taller. ASK HER!

    o Video shows three or four big men loading a BIG bag into an unmarked pick up truck and taking it from THE CRIME SCENE. Was the missing SWAT gear being "disappeared"?

    We NEED complete video; We NEED complete video; We NEED complete video.

    My conclusion: Cruz was not the only shooter and probably not "a shooter".

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.