Ruling: Government has no duty to protect its citizens

Posted by  $  blarman 3 months ago to Government
48 comments | Share | Flag

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.
SOURCE URL: https://www.theblaze.com/judge-issues-a-stunning-ruling-in-lawsuit-against-police-and-school-officials-by-parkland-victims


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months ago
    No surprise here. This echoes a similar lawsuit brought by a Maryland family when police were too late to save a female relative who was on the 911 line when her attacker killed her. In that case the police were not held liable either, even though they took longer than usual to arrive. Even though many departments like to use the logo "To Protect and To Serve" on their cruisers, it's been well established that the courts recognize the limits of police power to actually serve as a security force. Their primary responsibility is to draw chalk lines around the body, and hopefully catch the perp before anyone else is harmed.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months ago
      "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."

      In my book, that is a violation of the Fourth Amendment, as they do not have a warrant for any such activities.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months ago
        If a government agency performs the task, you're correct. However, if the private entities that run the social engines monitor (as they do now) individual communications, and notify authorities of potentially troubling persons, as do current anonymous callers routinely, then the agencies can get a warrant that would allow them to confirm what they've been told and act on it.

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Owlsrayne 3 months ago
          This type of scenario could incringe upon the First Amendment of the Constitution. A person like myself could be arrested due to my political views on Revolution, Civil War and Secession. AI is still in it's infancy stages and is about dumb a brick. We already see that as these systems read news media headlines then go into sell mode tanking the Sttock Market.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months ago
            That's why any firm that decides to notify law enforcement about what they perceive as dangerous statements on social media needs to be exceedingly careful. It's one thing to arbitrarily censor statements that you don't like, and ban someone you disagree with from your private network, but altogether different when you risk legal backlash from involving law enforcement.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by zagros 2 months, 2 weeks ago
          You need probable cause of an actual crime to get a warrant. The expression of your views on social networks rarely rises to that level. One could 'flag' individuals for enhanced public scrutiny, however, under such a proposal so long as one is not trying to get a warrant. Still, I do not think that it is a good idea. It would identify far too many individuals and be counterproductive. What we need is good information, not more data.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  2 months, 2 weeks ago
            "What we need is good information, not more data."

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months ago
          Agreed. Private citizens can certainly report potentially dangerous behaviors for investigation. But I think it becomes much more nebulous ethically once you start getting computers involved. Computers are notoriously bad at identifying context, satire, and sarcasm.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by DrZarkov99 3 months ago
            "Computers are notoriously bad at identifying context, satire, and sarcasm."

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  IAMGROOT 3 months ago
    The article is discussing the mass shooting at a FL school. The judge is taking the position that protection would be required in the situation where those in danger were in custody (the state is obligated to protect persons it has incarcerated). In this situation, students are wards of the state while in school (the law requires children to attend school). On those grounds alone I believe the judge is in-error. In a broader sense I agree, as others have said here, that government's primary responsibility/duty is to protect its citizens. That is, to physically protect them from foreign invasion, and from each other through maintenance of a standing military, and through reasonable laws preventing force, fraud, and coercion by anyone (including the government itself). Ok, that's my .02. =]
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months ago
      Hadn't thought of the custody thing. Now that I do, I think that you are right: if the State is going to make laws preventing personal self-defense, they must take the responsibility for the safety of those they deny that right to. Great point!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ZenRoy 3 months ago
    The ruling looks correct.

    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)
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by brucejc04 3 months ago
      On the contrary, the only legitmate function of government is to protect its ciitizen's rights, which includes their right to life!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by chad 3 months ago
        The way to identify a legitimate and therefore moral government is to verify that they are protecting the citizens in their right to be free. If the government is stealing from some with the promise to enrich others then the citizens are slaves. The current motto of the police should be "To Punish & Enslave" not "To Protect and to Serve"
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  3 months ago
        The question is what government is allowed to do in pursuance of that goal. It should certainly pass laws declaring the sanctity of life and punishments for abrogating another's right, but our entire legal system is based on commission of a crime, not merely intent.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 3 months ago
    OUTRAGEOUS!--Here the state, in effect, kidnaps children from their parents and holds them prisoner (for although the law supposedly allows parents to send them to private schools as an alternative, they are forced into "double taxation" and often cannot do it), and, having gotten them in that situation, has no duty to protect them?!!!

    That b****'s name should be changed from Bloom to Blood.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 3 months ago
    As others have posted....this is settled law due to earlier cases.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Radio_Randy 3 months ago
    I seem to recall that this stance has been taken before.

    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...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months ago
      Yup - that is one of the oxymorons of government: they want to be in control but yet not take any responsibility of the control they want to usurp when they fail!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 3 months ago
    I think I agree that its not the responsibility of the government to proactively insure our safety. I am not even sure if thats possible.

    What they are supposed to do is to stand for us when our rights ARE violated
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 months ago
    Makes me think a little Blarman. Thanks.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months ago
      That's the same thing I was thinking: that these lawyers went about this completely the wrong way.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 months ago
        Maybe they started with the criminal case to get press, aim high, get more money from the plaintiffs...
        They had to know this would fail, or perhaps they want it to go to SCOTUS and see how that turns out. New Amendment?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months ago
          Perhaps. Problem is that the lamestream media isn't going to cover this case and without that, it's going to be hard to get anything like that going.

          On a positive note, they did publish an action addendum (the school) and they recommended arming the teachers. Finally, some common sense!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by  $  Thoritsu 3 months ago
            The recommendation is interesting.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  allosaur 3 months ago
    Anyone's only "duty" in this country is "to protect and serve" the IRS.
    Just ask Nutty Nancy, Darth Schumer and The Anointed One.
    BTW, Judge Beth Bloom, you're a citizen too. Tough luck, Dem-wit!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  Olduglycarl 3 months ago
    Constitutionally, that is it's ONLY purpose...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months ago
      There is a difference in my mind on police protections (internal affairs) vs military protections (affairs with foreign nations). Assuredly the national government has a duty to proactively protect its citizens from invasion or armed threats by third-party actors. I think that the conversation changes significantly when dealing with internal affairs when most of those become reactive instead. Most law enforcement actions are in response to broken laws and rights violations rather than to try to "prevent" an individual from doing something in the first place.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by mshupe 3 months ago
        If man's life is his primary value, and if acting on his own judgment is his means of survival, and nothing can impede his ability to act on his judgment except other people, then government's sole purpose is to protect men from violence by others. The work of police and courts in this regard is no different than armies.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months ago
          I think one of the confusing words being used is "protect". Many people take it to mean a proactive approach to preventing harm when the true intent is to investigate and prosecute after action is taken.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by mshupe 3 months ago
            I guess that comes under the umbrella of good police work or military work, meaning proactively have systems in place to anticipate threats and neutralize them as they are initiated, within reason. Skilled and objective operators would have to decide what within reason means.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by  $  3 months ago
              I think it becomes a very dangerous line when trying to be "proactive", especially with police work, because that can only come at the price of freedom.

              "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.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by mshupe 3 months ago
                You are absolutely right. A corollary would be the power to tax. What are the limits, how are they decided and governed? The power ceded to authorities is a basic human conundrum.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  exceller 3 months ago
    The judge is a New Yorker, appointed by Hussein.

    What can we expect?

    I trust the plaintiffs will appeal the case to a higher Court.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  3 months ago
      I don't know. On the one hand, a "duty to protect" infers that one knows where danger is going to strike in the first place. That's a dangerous rabbit hole to go down if one is to maintain liberty - see Minority Report. This may simply be a legal nuance, but it was the response which was flawed - the deputies were there on scene and simply did nothing. (One can argue a complete failure both in policy and practicality in that officials knew the shooter was a danger and did nothing, but that is another matter.)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ZenRoy 3 months ago
        If the assumption is made that the police could react to the danger then I agree with you. However if the police were not aware of the shooter until after shots were fired, they should not react before that time. No Minority report activities are allowed.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by  $  3 months ago
          Agreed. Police should remain a reactionary force.

          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.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 3 months ago
    It would appear at least 39 states have similar doctrines regarding 'Your home is your castle, and you have the right to defend your castle'...goes back to before we were a republic.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by  $  25n56il4 3 months ago
    I do believe The Constitution gives us the 'Right to Bear Arms'....in Texas, we have the 'Castle Law'...if someone invades your property or automobile, you have the right to defend yourself.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 3 months ago
    given the judge's ruling...she is a citizen...therefore the govt has no duty to protect her...all protection for the courthouse and judges should be withdrawn..

    it's only logical
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 3 months ago
    The judge is not ruling with what most citizens believe the contract called the constitution implies but with what the government determines as its position in responsibility to the slaves it administers. It is correct in ruling that a government which enslaves is only responsible for the slaves in its direct control.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo