I came across this in regard to Parkland and, while I need to investigate further, the implications are chilling.
The public duty rule is grounded in the principle that the duty of the government entity to preserve the well-being of the community is owed to the public at large rather than to specific members of the community. As a result, the doctrine holds local government entities owe no duty to individual members of the general public to provide adequate government services, such as police and fire protection.
Basically A cop doesn’t HAVE to risk his life to save yours citizen. And yet they demand our ability to defend ourselves be restricted, or even eliminated.
I could have sworn I posted something earlier about a Federalist article concerning the fact that the Police are under no legal obligation to save or actually protect any individual citizen. Was it taken down or did I delete it accidentally?
It will be interesting to see if your post about the Federalist article reappears here in 24 hours or so.
I seem to recall a similar experience within the last month or two — I posted an article excerpt with the link to the original source. Next morning when I looked, my post was not there. At neither the time or posting or the time of checking did I get a “Your post is awaiting moderation” notice.
“Welp,” I figured, “either they didn’t like the viewpoint or the source.” But then the post appeared somewhat later! Could some linked things be subject to extra extra scrutiny before being broadcast? Maybe in an automated way, like swears are, so Basil has no control over it?
(Mr. Trump, stop separating posters from their posts!)
The question that I raised is that if the Police [State] are/is not obligated to protect you as an individual how can anyone then justify the same State taking away the means for you to protect your self? You can only be safe if the Police/State “feels” like protecting you in that particular instance? How is that not a abrogation of the social contract between the governed and the government they have agreed to permit?
San Francisco is a third universe?..yes it must be.
I came across this in regard to Parkland and, while I need to investigate further, the implications are chilling.
The public duty rule is grounded in the principle that the duty of the government entity to preserve the well-being of the community is owed to the public at large rather than to specific members of the community. As a result, the doctrine holds local government entities owe no duty to individual members of the general public to provide adequate government services, such as police and fire protection.
Basically A cop doesn’t HAVE to risk his life to save yours citizen. And yet they demand our ability to defend ourselves be restricted, or even eliminated.
I have the sadz.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/23/could-the-police-legally-do-no-wrong-in-the-parkland-shooting/
I could have sworn I posted something earlier about a Federalist article concerning the fact that the Police are under no legal obligation to save or actually protect any individual citizen. Was it taken down or did I delete it accidentally?
It’s true. The police aren’t the Lone Ranger.
It will be interesting to see if your post about the Federalist article reappears here in 24 hours or so.
I seem to recall a similar experience within the last month or two — I posted an article excerpt with the link to the original source. Next morning when I looked, my post was not there. At neither the time or posting or the time of checking did I get a “Your post is awaiting moderation” notice.
“Welp,” I figured, “either they didn’t like the viewpoint or the source.” But then the post appeared somewhat later! Could some linked things be subject to extra extra scrutiny before being broadcast? Maybe in an automated way, like swears are, so Basil has no control over it?
(Mr. Trump, stop separating posters from their posts!)
See? It came back.
I’ll have to question it to see if it is really my post or some imposter post posted by imposters.
It was in moderation. Don’t know why.
Anyway, I set it free
The truth is now out there.
The question that I raised is that if the Police [State] are/is not obligated to protect you as an individual how can anyone then justify the same State taking away the means for you to protect your self? You can only be safe if the Police/State “feels” like protecting you in that particular instance? How is that not a abrogation of the social contract between the governed and the government they have agreed to permit?