Posted on 12/19/2018 9:50:09 AM PST by blueyon
And what repercussion ever arose from even failing to “protect the public”?
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.
>Only you, the individual, can protect yourself. Which should nullify almost all gun laws.
Only you can nullify gun laws.
As long as we have no duty to send our children into gunfree, unprotected government shooting galleries.
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.
What recourse is there when the “person protecting us from harm” doesn’t do so when it was eminently possible?
Thanks to sleazy scummy unions (why can’t they be disbarred first) that person can’t even be fired or undergo forced retraining!
There is no duty or ability to protect this judge 24/7 for the rest of his life either.
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.
They make up the law as they go.
If not, then those students were in the legal custody of the school and those whom they appointed over them to keep them there disarmed including Deputy Scott Peterson. How often have we heard the term in loco parentis?
Suppose they failed to protect the judge?
To collect evidence of crime.
The government gets to have both.
Unless you overthrow it.
Not guilty.
By reason of incompetence.
Nope, those “No Gun Zone” signs will do the job.
Only you can nullify gun laws.
Yet, ‘they’ continue to ask ‘me’ - with a straight face -
“Why do you feel the need to carry?”
Damned mind boggling.
The ‘law’ requires you to send your kids to school and now they say once they get there it is NOT their responsibility to protect them YET, I am committing a felony by bringing my concealed weapon on school property.
(New change says OK if I am in vehicle BUT once I step out of vehicle if weapon in my possession or not COMPLETELY secured in vehicle, the law is being broken (VA))
I pay absolutely no attention to the signs inre concealed carry, the ONLY time I get concerned is if there is a metal detector.
No ... nothing new about that.
Uh, no. They don’t. Havving had to clean up several crime scenes, including one extremely blood soaked crime scene, they don’t even do clean-up. The crime victim is also responsible to clean up after the criminalists have gone through the scene and left everything the victim owns covered in fingerprint dusting powder. Nor is there an actual duty to really catch the perpetrator, only to take a report.
re: “..In this judge’s eyes, why do we even have police departments????”
Statistics collection.
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.