1. The events of this week spotlight another, collateral, issue.
I have often posted my objections to the absurd rulings of an establishment that has been given far too much power, and far too much respect: the Supreme Court.
2. Everyone should be aware of this, especially those who want to deny citizens the right to bear arms:
"...a growing body of case law establishing that government agencies — including police agencies — have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general:
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out."
Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Ryan McMaken
Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and...
mises.org
3. "... it is clear that most property owners and residents will have to fend for themselves where riots have taken place. In other words, any unfortunate shopkeeper or resident who finds himself in the path of the rioters ought to just assume that police won't be around to provide any protection from the mob.
4. Another man, who was working to open a sports bar in the area later this year, saw his bar destroyed. Needless to say, with only a few exceptions, the police weren't around to "protect and serve."
Admittedly, in cases like this week's riots, the police are heavily outnumbered and unable to provide any sort of general protection from rioters. Even if individual officers were engaging in heroic behavior to turn rioters away from potential victims, there would be little they could do to confront all offenders.
5. But heroics or not, the outcome for victims is the same: they must rely on self defense, formal private security, or private armed volunteers likely to be labeled as "vigilantes."
A failure to protect taxpaying citizens from violence and crime in a wide variety of situations is standard operating procedure for police departments which are under no legal obligation to protect anyone, and where "officer safety" is the number-one priority. The lesson to be learned here is that the alleged "social contract" between citizens and the state is a one-way street: you pay taxes for police "services," and the police may or may not give you anything in return."
www.zerohedge.com
I have often posted my objections to the absurd rulings of an establishment that has been given far too much power, and far too much respect: the Supreme Court.
2. Everyone should be aware of this, especially those who want to deny citizens the right to bear arms:
"...a growing body of case law establishing that government agencies — including police agencies — have no duty to provide protection to citizens in general:
“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out."
Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Ryan McMaken
Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and...
3. "... it is clear that most property owners and residents will have to fend for themselves where riots have taken place. In other words, any unfortunate shopkeeper or resident who finds himself in the path of the rioters ought to just assume that police won't be around to provide any protection from the mob.
4. Another man, who was working to open a sports bar in the area later this year, saw his bar destroyed. Needless to say, with only a few exceptions, the police weren't around to "protect and serve."
Admittedly, in cases like this week's riots, the police are heavily outnumbered and unable to provide any sort of general protection from rioters. Even if individual officers were engaging in heroic behavior to turn rioters away from potential victims, there would be little they could do to confront all offenders.
5. But heroics or not, the outcome for victims is the same: they must rely on self defense, formal private security, or private armed volunteers likely to be labeled as "vigilantes."
A failure to protect taxpaying citizens from violence and crime in a wide variety of situations is standard operating procedure for police departments which are under no legal obligation to protect anyone, and where "officer safety" is the number-one priority. The lesson to be learned here is that the alleged "social contract" between citizens and the state is a one-way street: you pay taxes for police "services," and the police may or may not give you anything in return."
Zerohedge
ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
www.zerohedge.com
