Posted on 12/19/2018 9:50:09 AM PST by blueyon
To levy and collect fines.
So if the police have no duty to protect you, then the left’s often stated phrase “You don’t need a gun, the police will protect you” holds no bearing or ground. Suck it lefties!
Cops do not protect us. Do not ever expect it.
As for judges, this was a MI rat gal governor appointed judge: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3713913/posts
It is the same reason that you cannot sue First Responders.
Say ‘the fire fighters did not immediately rush into the burning building to try to save my baby’
If the law shits are allowed, the end result will be the loss of all emergency response.
This couldn’t be true anyhow... what police department was ever sued for failing to do right unto “the public at large”?
Why do a lot of police departments use the motto “To Serve and Protect” or some such???????????
Nay, there have to be some canons of honor, or these agencies WILL become useless drones.
We have a different means of redress for a bad police department. We can fire them and replace them with a more effective force... or elect politicians to do the same.
If police have no legal duty to protect the public, then take their weapons away from them.
I believe they have such a duty, so they should keep their weapons, but progressives want to have both no responsibility and weapons to defeat their enemies.
To mark the chalk outlines.
Didn’t Pam Bondi promise to get to the bottom of this scandal and prosecute those responsible quickly? She seems to have disappeared.
Fair enough. You’re right. I guess I meant to say “examine the crime scene for evidence” but used sloppy language. My main point was that their job is to catch people after the fact, they have no duty to prevent a crime.
The police are not here for our protection. As near as I can figure, they are revenue agents who, occasionally, record the facts about crimes. They may make a case. They may make arrests, but their primary function appears to be revenue.
Here is the case that the judge in this case is probably referencing.
Usually secured means "in the trunk" as most new cars don’t have lockable glove compartments or center consoles and I wonder how they reconcile getting out to secure your gun in the trunk with stepping out of the vehicle? Is there a safe area around your vehicle in which you can carry legally to get to the trunk or are you momentarily in violation while you transport you weapon to secure it?
Here in California one cannot carry concealed or openly even an unloaded firearm. I ask how do you get your newly purchased firearm from the gun store to your trunk. If the gun is in its box or bag it’s concealed, if it’s not, it’s Illegal to carry openly. Damned if you do or don’t. Either way, you are committing a crime by the letter of the law. Should we back up our vehicles to the door of the store, open the trunk and the store’s door, and then throw the newly purchased gun into the trunk, thus avoiding the action of carrying at all? If one doesn’t live in a house with an attached garage, how does one get your legally owned, but illegal to carry, firearms from the trunk of one’s car into your house without violating these idiotic laws? It is true that an innocent person unknowingly commits three felonies every day just by living their life due to the state of our idiotic laws and regulations.
"Show me the man, and I’ll find you his crimes."— Lavarenty Beria, Joseph Stalin’s head of the Soviet Union’s Secret Police.
Pull all security off the courts
That “Serve and Protect” simply means we serve ourselves and protect each other.
Having left Chicago I know what it really means.
It’s totally insane. I read that a lower court said they did have a duty to protect (and not just stand outside listening to the screaming) but obviously the leftist judicial establishment strikes again. This should be appealed, if there’s the money to do so.
Otherwise, do a go fund me. I’d contribute...
So that cops who have outlived their usefulness as street cops and are too stupid to become detectives can work out their last few years doing nothing on the taxpayer’s dime and maximize their pensions.
I disagree with many posters on this thread who claim this is long-settled law. School is mandatory and students have been arrested for truancy. That fact is not consistent with a decision that claims stidents “are not in custody”. Either you have to be in school (which brings back a constitutional duty to protect) or you don’t (which vacates all truancy charges).
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.