School shooting in Parkland Florida

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Why do the state and local government officers carry guns then? Strictly for their OWN protection? Don't the police department vehicles have a "We Protect and Serve" sticker on them?

Ask the Courts, I am just the messenger.

Excerpt of majority opinion:

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that "[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Petitioners [p195] contend that the State [n1] deprived Joshua of his liberty interest in "free[dom] from . . . unjustified intrusions on personal security," see Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 673 (1977), by failing to provide him with adequate protection against his father's violence. The claim is one invoking the substantive, rather than the procedural, component of the Due Process Clause; petitioners do not claim that the State denied Joshua protection without according him appropriate procedural safeguards, see Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481 (1972), but that it was categorically obligated to protect him in these circumstances, see Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 309 (1982). [n2]

But nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security. It forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without "due process of law," but its language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means. Nor does history support such an expansive reading of the constitutional text.[emphasis added]

The State has no affirmative obligation to protect from harm.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Of course it is true. It is the well settled law of the land.

A total abomination of a decision! That decision is still controversial to this day. And this was Blackmun's scathing dissent:

Blackmun's dissent is famous due to its fourth paragraph which is as follows:

Poor Joshua! Victim of repeated attacks by an irresponsible, bullying, cowardly, and intemperate father, and abandoned by respondents who placed him in a dangerous predicament and who knew or learned what was going on, and yet did essentially nothing except, as the Court revealingly observes, ante, at 193, "dutifully recorded these incidents in [their] files." It is a sad commentary upon American life, and constitutional principles - so full of late of patriotic fervor and proud proclamations about "liberty and justice for all" - that this child, Joshua DeShaney, now is assigned to live out the remainder of his life profoundly retarded. Joshua and his mother, as petitioners here, deserve - but now are denied by this Court - the opportunity to have the facts of their case considered in the light of the constitutional protection that 42 U.S.C. 1983 is meant to provide.[7]

The above taken from Wikipedia.

Thanks for posting that info, by the way. I was not aware of that abominable decision -- decision that is right down there in the gutter with Roe v. Wade.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Another question to be asked: Is why was the cop at Parkland not brought up on charges instead of being allowed to ever-so-quietly and surreptitiously-like allowed to retire and collect his pensions after he chose to not enter the school, even though he knew a crime was in progress?

What law did he break? What rules or commands did he disobey? I don't see that there is anything they could do to him once he resigned.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Clocker

What law did he break? What rules or commands did he disobey? I don't see that there is anything they could do to him once he resigned.

They probably could have done something which is why he beat them to the punch. He probably resigned the same day it happened.

But again...since this is the case and the cops are not obligated to protect the citizens, then this argues very strongly for an armed citizenry, i.e. "militia"!

This country is more screwed up than even I imagined. And mostly everyone here knows how cynical I am of human nature.

[boxcar]

Clocker, this excerpt from Breitbart on the play-it-safe deputy:

On February 22 Breitbart News reported that one deputy resigned after it was learned that he was on scene but failed to control Nikolas Cruz. Sheriff Israel told ABC 13 that video shows the deputy, Scott Peterson, “arrive at the west side of Building 12” and “take a position” outside the school — but never go inside. The sheriff’s office moved to suspend Peterson, who resigned before the suspension could take place.

I'm thinking that if they had suspended him that might have jeopardized his pension. He certainly quit in a hurry because he knew what was coming. And all this raises other questions: If this deputy was in the right -- was in full compliance with the law, why quit so fast and why would the Sheriff want to suspend him? Suspend him for what? Not killing someone?

[fast4522]

The founding fathers knew that ultimately the individual is responsible for their own personal safety. You would be hard pressed to find a sworn person of any law organization in this country to tell you different in any decade of the last ten. The reason for such honesty other than the truth is the fact that all of them have some intention of maybe doing something different.

[Show Me the Wire]

Originally Posted by fast4522

The founding fathers knew that ultimately the individual is responsible for their own personal safety. You would be hard pressed to find a sworn person of any law organization in this country to tell you different in any decade of the last ten. The reason for such honesty other than the truth is the fact that all of them have some intention of maybe doing something different.

Correct. The government cannot protect everyone from every crime. The problem is with our socialist politicians they fully well know the government is under no affirmative duty to protect an individual and logistically cannot protect everyone, yet they limit the indivduals ability to defend themselves. The ultimate responsibility to defend lies with the individual and the government acts like it doesn't.

[jocko699]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Correct. The government cannot protect everyone from every crime. The problem is with our socialist politicians they fully well know the government is under no affirmative duty to protect an individual and logistically cannot protect everyone, yet they limit the indivduals ability to defend themselves. The ultimate responsibility to defend lies with the individual and the government acts like it doesn't.

But, but government is supposed to take care of us at every turn

[fast4522]

Originally Posted by jocko699

But, but government is supposed to take care of us at every turn

False At every turn its intention has been to usurp control of we the people and replace it with self serving pukes of the like that wanted an insurance policy against Donald J. Trump.

[Clocker]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I'm thinking that if they had suspended him that might have jeopardized his pension. He certainly quit in a hurry because he knew what was coming. And all this raises other questions: If this deputy was in the right -- was in full compliance with the law, why quit so fast and why would the Sheriff want to suspend him? Suspend him for what? Not killing someone?

His pension was vested, so it is highly doubtful anything could be done there. If he was ordered to enter the building and refused, there might be a case for internal discipline. But with no supervision on site, tough to prove that he was not acting prudently, especially if he had a union defending him at a hearing. And even more so in retrospect when 4 of his fellow officers took cover behind cars rather than go inside. They might be facing some disciplinary action.

Looks to me like he had nothing to gain but grief if he stayed, and bailing out was the smart thing for him just to get away from it all.

[lamboguy]

its like everything else these days, most cops are in business for themselves. its all about the handouts they get and the huge paychecks they receive on friday.

for the better part of my youth, i was a ticket scalper on the streets. the way the game worked is that you are either with the law or against them. if you are with them the cops would arrest the scalpers that didn't pay off, take their tickets away from them, then give the scalpers that were with the police those tickets to sell and you had to split the money with the cop. there could be some madman running around with a machine gun in some other part of town, but if they were working the streets arresting scalpers the central office couldn't find that cop with a search warrant.

i grew up in one of the wealthiest towns in America at the time, the people that lived there were the Hershey's, Dupont's, Rockefella's and everyone else that was loaded. (my little family rented an apartment and we were as broke as anyone could be). there was an entrance to the town that black people coming from what was called a "ghetto" would enter the town, some went to the doctors and hospitals. the police would hang out in that spot and tail all those people. pull them over and sometimes plant fake evidence and arrest those people to scare them away from entering the town. i believe its somewhat the same today and that police force is very highly national rated.

this is just or was the way THE WORLD TURNED. and you had to get used to it because you weren't changing anything. the cops in Broward that turned their backs is only par for the course. its better that you live your life not needing the assistance of the government, the cops, the lawyers and the doctors. because if you do, you are in a heap of trouble.

[Nutz and Boltz]

Originally Posted by Clocker

Looks to me like he had nothing to gain but grief if he stayed, and bailing out was the smart thing for him just to get away from it all.

If a trained law enforcement officer would react that way, how might a teacher, even with weapon training, react in the same situation?
I doubt many teachers would opt in, anyway. Don't forget, as some say here, they most likely went to colleges where they were taught by liberal leaning professors so would probably be gun control advocates anyway. Just sayin'.

[Nutz and Boltz]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

its like everything else these days, most cops are in business for themselves. its all about the handouts they get and the huge paychecks they receive on friday.



this is just or was the way THE WORLD TURNED. and you had to get used to it because you weren't changing anything. the cops in Broward that turned their backs is only par for the course. its better that you live your life not needing the assistance of the government, the cops, the lawyers and the doctors. because if you do, you are in a heap of trouble.

That's the way it is. Good post. I respect the "law" one-hundred percent, but as for "law enforcement officers" in general, not so much. I feel for the young officers who join the force to make a difference, and then find out in time that there is much more to being a "cop".

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Show Me the Wire

Becuase they don't have to. Supreme Court declared that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm. DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services

The flip side of that coin is that the state and local governments do have to provide outright cowards jobs - fire them all and be done with them.

And mark ther addresses in police files as - DO NOT respond.

Useless bastards. Hope the townsfolk take out vengeance on them. The deserve whatever hell they get.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

its like everything else these days, most cops are in business for themselves. its all about the handouts they get and the huge paychecks they receive on friday.

for the better part of my youth, i was a ticket scalper on the streets. the way the game worked is that you are either with the law or against them. if you are with them the cops would arrest the scalpers that didn't pay off, take their tickets away from them, then give the scalpers that were with the police those tickets to sell and you had to split the money with the cop. there could be some madman running around with a machine gun in some other part of town, but if they were working the streets arresting scalpers the central office couldn't find that cop with a search warrant.

i grew up in one of the wealthiest towns in America at the time, the people that lived there were the Hershey's, Dupont's, Rockefella's and everyone else that was loaded. (my little family rented an apartment and we were as broke as anyone could be). there was an entrance to the town that black people coming from what was called a "ghetto" would enter the town, some went to the doctors and hospitals. the police would hang out in that spot and tail all those people. pull them over and sometimes plant fake evidence and arrest those people to scare them away from entering the town. i believe its somewhat the same today and that police force is very highly national rated.

this is just or was the way THE WORLD TURNED. and you had to get used to it because you weren't changing anything. the cops in Broward that turned their backs is only par for the course. its better that you live your life not needing the assistance of the government, the cops, the lawyers and the doctors. because if you do, you are in a heap of trouble.

How many people post on this account?

Just for the record. What you describe is a big city problem. Chicago, NY and Baltimore, New Orleans etc. the majority of Police Depts in other states, especially the Midwest, are free of corruption. When I worked in SoCal and Ohio the closest extra benefit I ever got was a free Big Mac or a 50% discount at the donut shop. In 15 yrs I was offered cash only a few times and both times those were people from Chicago. They wanted to pay their traffic ticket “up front” they said.

I was doing a telephone interview in the mid 80’s with the New Orleans Police Dept when the recruiter told me I would make 17k while in the Academy and a little over 20k after graduation. I told him the interview was over. He told me I had to understand that I would make another 20k on the street and maybe more, depending on where I was posted. He was serious, but told me that was “off the record” I passed on the 2nd interview