Why a Judge Ruled the Police Have NO DUTY to Protect Citizens

[drbrumley]

Why a Judge Ruled the Police Have NO DUTY to Protect Citizens
By Martin Armstrong
Armstrong Economics
February 23, 2019

I have received a number of questions asking how the judge in the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, ruled that the police had no duty to protect the children. The judge’s decision was legally correct. The sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February 2018 Valentine’s Day massacre. That decision nullified a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the attack. A total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives and 17 others were injured.

The decision was legally correct, but it seems so strange that people are dumbfounded. The Constitution is actually NEGATIVE. It was never drafted with an intent to provide you with rights. That seems strange because people are held by judges all the time to waive their rights. It is those decisions that are unconstitutional. Why is it impossible to waive a right? Because the Constitution is NEGATIVE and that means it is a RESTRAINT upon government as opposed to being a list of positive rights you possess.

 

[drbrumley]

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Note the language. It does not bestow upon you the right to freedom of religion. Instead, it is a restraint upon the government that it “shall make no law” and in this manner, it is a deliberate NEGATIVE restraint upon government rather than being a POSITIVE right you possess.

 

[drbrumley]

Fifth Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Once again, judges have allowed people to be tortured and stripped of all rights, claiming they waived their rights. If the Constitution is negative and imposes no duty upon the government to provide you with any social program (e.g. it does not state that the police MUST come to your aid), then it also cannot be waived to allow you to be denied any right, for it is not your personal right. Waiving your right means you are constructively rewriting the Constitution so it applies differently for you than others.

 

[drbrumley]

The judge was correct in that decision that the police had NO duty to protect those children. Their actual legal duty is just to raise money for the government by giving you tickets. Therefore, it is not that the decision was wrong. Judges suddenly discovered the NEGATIVE aspect that occurs when you try to sue the government for failing to act. Yet, they flip it to a positive right that you can waive when it interferes with the government’s pursuit of its citizens.

Now you understand why I did not want to become a lawyer. There is no rule of law. He who sits on the bench makes the law at that instant and it will vary from one person to the next.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The judge was correct in that decision that the police had NO duty to protect those children. Their actual legal duty is just to raise money for the government by giving you tickets. Therefore, it is not that the decision was wrong. Judges suddenly discovered the NEGATIVE aspect that occurs when you try to sue the government for failing to act. Yet, they flip it to a positive right that you can waive when it interferes with the government’s pursuit of its citizens.

Now you understand why I did not want to become a lawyer. There is no rule of law. He who sits on the bench makes the law at that instant and it will vary from one person to the next.

Details of the lawsuit can be found in this article:

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/...vor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html

I'm torn on this one. Being employed by the school district as an armed security officer, Scot Pederson's duties involved protecting students lives.

On the other hand, it's SOP to wait for backup when going into a active shooter scene.
http://www.fau.edu/police/information/activeshooterprocedures.php
https://www.policeone.com/police-jo...-other-truths-about-active-shooter-responses/

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

.....it's SOP to wait for backup when going into a active shooter scene.....

Sounds more like CYA

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Sounds more like CYA

Unless you've attended an active shooter seminar, please don't respond to things that you know nothing about.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Unless you've attended an active shooter seminar, please don't respond to things that you know nothing about.

I beg your pardon? I have seen your insane rants about making homosexuals criminals. If there is anybody here who talks about stuff they know nothing about, it is you.

Have you attended an active homosexual seminar? If not then don't post about homosexuals.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I beg your pardon? I have seen your insane rants about making homosexuals criminals. If there is anybody here who talks about stuff they know nothing about, it is you.

Have you attended an active homosexual seminar? If not then don't post about homosexuals.

(Sigh, He just can't get his mind off of homosexuality).

Try to focus here, the subject is about active shooters in school settings and if law enforcement authorities are negligent if it's deemed that they don't act accordingly to what layman think they should.

 

[glorydaz]

(Sigh, He just can't get his mind off of homosexuality).

Try to focus here, the subject is about active shooters in school settings and if law enforcement authorities are negligent if it's deemed that they don't act accordingly to what layman think they should.

And every forum member has a right to voice their own opinion.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

(Sigh, He just can't get his mind off of homosexuality)

Who is "He". Me? You do not know me. How dare you say something like that to me. I have scanned the forum and have seen what you are all about. You are in no position to tell someone else not to give an opinion when you are so free to post your insane opinions here.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And every forum member has a right to voice their own opinion.

While I am sympathetic towards him, as I know that my 5 part thread has been extremely difficult for him to read, he is derailing this thread.

 

[glorydaz]

Sounds more like CYA

Unless you've attended an active shooter seminar, please don't respond to things that you know nothing about.

I beg your pardon? I have seen your insane rants about making homosexuals criminals. If there is anybody here who talks about stuff they know nothing about, it is you.

Have you attended an active homosexual seminar? If not then don't post about homosexuals.

(Sigh, He just can't get his mind off of homosexuality).

Try to focus here, the subject is about active shooters in school settings and if law enforcement authorities are negligent if it's deemed that they don't act accordingly to what layman think they should.

While I am sympathetic towards him, as I know that my 5 part thread has been extremely difficult for him to read, he is derailing this thread.

No, you're the one derailing the thread. He gave his opinion of "CYA" which was a good one and quite appropriate. You then proceeded to claim he didn't know what he was talking about. He then gave you an example of your own lack of knowledge. Quite well done at that.

We can all read what went on. opcorn:

 

[aCultureWarrior]

No, you're the one derailing the thread. He gave his opinion of "CYA" which was a good one and quite appropriate...

Yes, it was his uneducated "opinion", thanks for acknowledging that.

In order to find out if the armed security officer for the school district was negligent in the case, I'd have to see the school district's policy for armed security officers when it comes to active shooters. If the policy says that they are to engage without police backup, then he was negligent. Many non law enforcement organizations give their security personnel leeway, i.e. leaving it up to them to decided if they should take action before police officials arrive.

 

[glorydaz]

Yes, it was his uneducated "opinion", thanks for acknowledging that.

In order to find out if the armed security officer for the school district was negligent in the case, I'd have to see the school district's policy for armed security officers when it comes to active shooters. If the policy says that they are to engage without police backup, then he was negligent. Many non law enforcement organizations give their security personnel leeway, i.e. leaving it up to them to decided if they should take action before police officials arrive.

Are you saying that to show you know more than the rest of us on this issue? :chuckle:

No, yours is simply an opinion just as ours are opinions. Even law enforcement can't agree. There is a moral obligation, for instance, that rules simply must bow to.

 

[TrumpTrainCA]

Yes, it was his uneducated "opinion", thanks for acknowledging that.

And what exactly do you know about my education? Do you know where I grew up? Where I went to school? What I majored in at university?

You know nothing. Absolutely nothing

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Are you saying that to show you know more than the rest of us on this issue? :chuckle:

I only know more about the issue than those who haven't attended active shooter seminars.

No, yours is simply an opinion just as ours are opinions. Even law enforcement can't agree. There is a moral obligation, for instance, that rules simply must bow to.

I agree on the moral obligation, but people's morals range don't they? The OP isn't about the moral obligation, it's about the legal one. I'm surprised that the school district's policy on armed security officers handling an active shooter scene hasn't come up in the court battle.