Ruling: Government has no duty to protect its citizens
And this is why the Second Amendment is so important. If government can not be held responsible for the safety of its citizens, then it must allow its citizens to retain that responsibility for themselves.
Exercising your 2nd amendment right of self defense is, unfortunately, not as easy as one would think. Even in states like Oklahoma, where concealed carry licenses aren't difficult to get, and a CCW license holder may carry openly, the laws regarding use are often confusing. If you misread a situation and draw your weapon, whatever your good intent, you run the risk of a charge of "brandishing" (considered criminal intimidation or threatening) if someone faint of heart wants to press charges. If you actually have to discharge your weapon, even in your own home, it immediately becomes evidence in a crime scene and must be surrendered to the police until a determination is made as to what actually happened. That's why it's a good idea to own more than one gun.
Regarding thoughts about establishing "pre-crime" units, we aren't actually that far away form something like that. As AI becomes more refined, it should be possible for law enforcement to scour social networks to look for troubling behaviors and identify potentially dangerous people. The legal issue is how to enable such precautionary action without crossing the 4th amendment line of illegal search. From a technology perspective, I think it's possible, but will have to stand up to strong scrutiny before it's accepted. Having seen what the NSA already does looking for spies and terrorist cells, I think pre-crime may be routine in the near future.
In my book, that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as they do not have a warrant for any such activities.
We may feel like this is an "end around" of the 4th amendment, but it's a legal path to accomplish a pre-crime regimen similar to what police informants do now.
There's a hue and cry about why the social engine giants didn't notify law enforcement about some of the statements made by some of the recent shooters, but I have no doubt their legal staff has rules to prevent liability. Shareholders don't like lawsuits.
AI can be used to flag statements that indicate a possible threat, but humans should review those flagged items, and be trained to recognize the difference between radical opinion and malicious intent to commit criminal acts.Violent threats against specific individuals, racial or religious groups, as opposed to general angry statements regarding those individuals or groups constitute the dividing line to trigger a warrant.
Spot on! I'm a data scientist, and in today's world there is no shortage of data. The problem is developing the heuristics to deal with and thereby transform data into information.
Which is why I noted the AI needs to become more refined before I would rely on such reports from the private firms, were I a law enforcement official.
Teachers have only a responsibility to teach. They are not there to defend our kids.
Police have only a responsibility to react to civil problems and find perpetrators of crimes. The first of those two could even be questionable.
The real problem is we cannot defend ourselves (without facing serious legal and financial issues)
That b****'s name should be changed from Bloom to Blood.
The only option here is to do what the Goldman's did with OJ and sue him in civil court and ruin his life.Any money derived from the lawsuits should be re-invested back in to more lawsuits. Make the bastard show up in court at least once a month for the next 10 years or til he dies...or kills himself. This is basically the tactic Mueller is using to try to get Trump Associate s to say something useful against him.
Back in the 70's, in New York city, there was a woman (or women) who was violently raped. When the question was asked, concerning police "protection" the answer that was given stated that the police are not there to "protect" the citizenry (regardless of the "To Protect And Serve" you might see on the side of their vehicles).
I don't recall the exact reason that I researched this article, but it seems that it was in reaction to the draconian gun laws that the city of New York was putting in place at the time. These gun laws made it impossible to obtain a firearm and, yet, the police were not required to protect you.
Go figure...
What they are supposed to do is to stand for us when our rights ARE violated
I certainly think there is an argument the sheriff was incompetent and negligent. A Constitutional duty? Maybe not. A civil case against the municipality citing negligence with the sheriff and school board could hold financial penalties.
They had to know this would fail, or perhaps they want it to go to SCOTUS and see how that turns out. New Amendment?
On a positive note, they did publish an action addendum (the school) and they recommended arming the teachers. Finally, some common sense!
A nutty teacher with a handgun is 1) unlikely to kill very many people, and 2) completely manageable (interviews, assessments, etc). Such a person could easily shut down the next one of these incidents quickly.
Just ask Nutty Nancy, Darth Schumer and The Anointed One.
BTW, Judge Beth Bloom, you're a citizen too. Tough luck, Dem-wit!
"Skilled and objective operators would have to decide what within reason means."
I look at the FISA courts and their recent abuse and come to the conclusion that "within reason" can not be left up to a government official to decide.
What can we expect?
I trust the plaintiffs will appeal the case to a higher Court.
I think there were two issues which the lawsuit sought to highlight, but which will fail because the mainstream media refuses to cover them. One of the egregious things about the Parkland shooting was that only minutes after the incident began, LEO's were on scene, but did nothing. None attempted to enter a building to reconnoiter or to attempt to stop the situation from going any further.
The other egregious failing was that the individual who perpetrated the shooting was the "beneficiary" of new law enforcement guidelines which allowed him to escape custody and sentencing for several relatively minor violations. Had these violations been reported as normal, the perpetrator would have been blocked from legally purchasing the firearms he used and had to resort to other means.
But all the other stuff government does is its proper role.
/s
it's only logical