The citizens should have no "duty" to fund their cushy gov't pensions then.

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?

Yup. I mentioned it as well.

Consider " The Minority Report". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minorit...

That's the same thing I was thinking: that these lawyers went about this completely the wrong way.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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)

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.

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.

Yes, it has been taken to extremes.

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.

Constitutionally, that is it's ONLY purpose...

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.)

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.

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.

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.

No justice, no defense, no protection.
But all the other stuff government does is its proper role.
/s