So...We're allowed to carry in "gun-free" zones now?

[Racer88]

this article has nothing to do with Parkland directly but
it's hilarious when you read the last line.

BSO cops did not enter and engage Cruz & they claimed
they had no legal duty to protect, however when they
kill someone they claim they did have a duty to protect. well
Cruz was a danger to himself and others so...WTF ?

What they're claiming, quoted as having said, or what an article says (or doesn't say) has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is the FACT that the police (nor any other government agency) has a duty to protect citizens from harm (with the SOLE exception of when that citizen is IN FORCIBLE CUSTODY). This has been established by MULTIPLE federal courts, including the SCOTUS, TWICE. As far as I can tell, it goes back to at least 1981 (Warren vs DC).

This is a well-established precedent. And, it's the right precedent. As soon as we (citizens) and the gov't agree that it's the gov't's DUTY to protect us, we WILL give up ALL of our FREEDOM. Not some of it. ALL OF IT. Be careful what you wish for.

The bottom line: The police DO NOT HAVE A DUTY to protect ANYONE (except those in custody) from harm. Period. Ever. Never. Never ever.

[Allme]

this article has nothing to do with Parkland directly but
it's hilarious when you read the last line.

BSO cops did not enter and engage Cruz & they claimed
they had no legal duty to protect, however when they
kill someone they claim they did have a duty to protect. well
Cruz was a danger to himself and others so...WTF ?

What they're claiming, quoted as having said, or what an article says (or doesn't say) has no bearing on the case whatsoever.

The only thing that matters is the FACT that the police (nor any other government agency) has a duty to protect citizens from harm (with the SOLE exception of when that citizen is IN FORCIBLE CUSTODY). This has been established by MULTIPLE federal courts, including the SCOTUS, TWICE. As far as I can tell, it goes back to at least 1981 (Warren vs DC).

This is a well-established precedent. And, it's the right precedent. As soon as we (citizens) and the gov't agree that it's the gov't's DUTY to protect us, we WILL give up ALL of our FREEDOM. Not some of it. ALL OF IT. Be careful what you wish for.

The bottom line: The police DO NOT HAVE A DUTY to protect ANYONE (except those in custody) from harm. Period. Ever. Never. Never ever.

I agree with you Racer88. Now lets take that one step further. We The People have a natural right to defend ourselves. IF the LEOs have no duty to perform this then We The People (individuals) must take up this responsibility. That being said no reasonable person would deny that the individual should be allowed to possess/carry/purchase etc. the same means of defense that any LEO is allowed to. Anything short of that is hypocrisy and is frowned upon in courts of law... Now just to get a federal judge to hear the case...

This here is the skinny of it... Let the ruling stand and take this argument to the SCOTUS.

Tenzing_Norgay wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:07 pm
If the police & gov't have no duty to protect us, we can DIY, no? Can't have it both ways...

[Racer88]

I agree with you Racer88. Now lets take that one step further. We The People have a natural right to defend ourselves. IF the LEOs have no duty to perform this then We The People (individuals) must take up this responsibility. That being said no reasonable person would deny that the individual should be allowed to possess/carry/purchase etc. the same means of defense that any LEO is allowed to. Anything short of that is hypocrisy and is frowned upon in courts of law... Now just to get a federal judge to hear the case...

This here is the skinny of it... Let the ruling stand and take this argument to the SCOTUS.

Tenzing_Norgay wrote: ↑
Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:07 pm
If the police & gov't have no duty to protect us, we can DIY, no? Can't have it both ways...

Yep. Quite the contradiction, eh?

Agree 100%. Not that the antis had a cogent argument in the first place.... this renders their position utterly vacuous and indefensible.

[REDinFL]

That’s the advantage of having the power they crave: one CAN have it both ways.