What you need to know about the law
A thoughtful comment from firstname.lastname@example.org, who's clearly too stupid to figure out the comment section:
Thank you for your contribution to our community!
I'm confused by your logic.
So this is why we need to fund the police more and not less?
I think the history of these court cases, alongside Jordan Neely's mental health issues, proves that we need to put more money towards mental health and not more towards police.
Your afterthought seems contradictory to the cases you were explaining.
Somewhat off topic. My rose colored glasses (for the police) came off in the 1992. I was pulled over in my beat up 1985 VW, after getting out the Army. I was on my way back to Texas for school with my life savings in cash, 2600 buck. The money was meant to last me a semester or two before my GI Bill kicked in. I was pulled over for speeding, they asked me if they could take a quick look in my car. I said yes! I had nothing to hid, I said! They then tore my car apart and stole my 2600 bucks, which I had hid under my seat. I had to call my sister to wire me 100 bucks to get back home. Last day as a knee jerk, back the blue, no matter what. It is what set me on the path as a libertarian.
I think this piece should have mentioned that Florida is criminally prosecuting Scot Peterson on multiple counts, including child neglect, for not intervening that day. The trial just began.
It doesn’t nullify your point here; it’s an unusual prosecution (that may not succeed). I think it is relevant, however.
Holy dunkin' donuts. If I didn't own a bought and paid for (by my parents, RIP) home in Hawaii right now, I'd seriously be considering pulling a Tara Reade, right about now. Time was, when, no matter how bad the news got, we consoled ourselves with the reminder that America was still the land of the free and the best country to live in. That time seems to be slipping farther away, like something Grandpa always tells you, as you indulgently smile and nod. I just glanced up at the name of this substack and laughed out loud, all by myself and not a little hysterically. Into the void, indeed.
While these cases are inexcusable, there's a few factual errors.
Both Parkland and Uvalde, the larger problem is that the state or in the Uvalde case local district ensured there would be limited means for non-criminal people at the school to address the lethal threat. That was the main cause of the death toll. But larger than that is another factor being developed for decades: the mental disarmament of the people. Suggest that teachers be allowed to carry, and you are labeled a nut. Point out the obvious - "gun free zones" don't work and have become the most popular place for real nuts to commit mass murder - and you are an extreme right wing second amendment gun nut. Because too many people have been conditioned (through education) to believe they are helpless and ONLY the "proper authorities" can be trusted to be armed and to protect them. As these cases show in one dimension the extreme foolishness of that delusion.
That said, in the distant past, I worked with quite a few local law enforcement officers from various southern California departments. Most were moral people dedicated to protecting others. Most would (and some had) willingly put themselves in harms way to protect others. There were some bad officers, for sure, but those were not the majority. I don't know that the officers have changed, but for sure, department policies, politics and priorities have changed (and not for the better).
In San Jose California during the 2016 campaign, hired thugs were dispatched to assault people who had attended a political rally. The PD leadership knew the attack was planned - it was well publicized ahead of time to discourage people from attending the rally for the "wrong" candidate. To prepare, the chief of police, with full support of the mayor, ordered his officers to stand down - not to intervene. The officers did as they were ordered. I don't know if civil suits were filed. There were multiple injuries. I do know personally one person, who was assaulted but defended himself effectively. He was charged with assault. He spent several years and many thousands of dollars avoiding incarceration. Notably neither ACLU nor NAACP were willing to join in his defense. The DA was as corrupt as the mayor and police chief.
As they used to say on mythbusters, "thars yer problem".
"Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own - such as
prisons, jails, or mental institutions."
So parents having custody of their kids is the same as prison, jail, or mental institutions?! 😂
Fascinating! And very depressing.
Infuriating. In Canada, we are not allowed to protect ourselves with undue force, and certainly not weapons which we’re not allowed to carry. And the police won’t arrest the perpetrators especially if they’re black because optics and cowardice and Trudo king of woke virtue signalling has visited violent offenders and their families to show his support, ignoring the violent offenders victims. This must change no?
Dude, very well written article and I thank you for writing it. I’ve read all of the comments as well and I feel smarter, wiser, and, admittedly, more frustrated for having done so. There were a number of times when I needed to take a short break before continuing.
There’s really nothing I can add to the conversation without feeling like I’m being gratuitous other than to thank everyone who lent their voices and stories to this discussion.
Unnecessary apologies are not accepted, especially when the wait is worth it.
Not to cast aspersions on *anyone* else, but were I an Uvalde parent (or policeman, come to think of it), I am firmly convinced I'd be in jail or dead by cop. Seriously, this kinda scares me about me.
Police have no duty to protect you.
And they will prosecute you for doing the job they won't.
We have been living under anarcho-tyranny for a long-assed time. Decades. You think it's bad how the system won't prosecute Neely, but will prosecute Penny for doing the cops' jobs? That's been the case for **DECADES**.
I'm a little late to the party, but I honestly think this is one of your best pieces. I had no idea about any of this. I really want to ask someone, "So what exactly is the job of the police then?" I mean, if it's not to serve and protect, why are we spending money on them? They seem worse than useless.
I think, however, we can draw a more general conclusion from this. There are many "institutions" that we think are necessary evils: police, specifically, and government more generally. But in the end we just discover they are, well, just evils in their current state because they end up being in the way (as in Uvalde) or just downright malignant, like the fat cop that shot the two dogs running a lonely stretch of Idaho interstate because they wouldn't come (funny how scared dogs are like that) and his excuse was they were going to cause an accident. (My take was that the cop was a fat f--k who was angry at the canines because they made him go at a faster pace than a waddle.) A handful of volunteer motorists would have done better with the dogs.
So, no, we don't want to put our faith in the police or the government. We are better off putting our faith in ourselves and those right around us that we trust.
While they actively work to disarm us, we MUST remember that they are under no obligation to protect us.
Excellent. To quote Legalman, (@UScrimeReview) on the Delingpole podcast, it should be obvious by now that the fuzz are in collusion with the mobsters and hoods running government. You pay the protection money in the form of mandatory taxes, but that is no guarantee you'll be protected. This is worthwhile insight that could save you a lot of anguish.
SC - In 1981 Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled, if there is a special relationship, then LEO has an obligation to intervene viz a person in custody.
In 1989 DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled that public servants have no specific obligation to protect viz a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father.
And yet there exists LEO's duty to render medical aid to the PUBLIC, and to intervene... but only to stop tortious conduct by a fellow officer.
This is part and parcel of "qualified immunity" which is not the result of any law passed by Congress, nor written in the Constitution, but shaped by decisions rendered by the judicial branch.
What you seek can be found in §1983 + 4th Amendment claims, and in the morphing of "good faith" where the objective doctrine of qualified immunity was forged.
At the end of the day, as they are BOTH agents of a police state, law enforcement can selectively enforce the law, and a court can almost always manufacture a factual distinction viz. our justice "system" is for sale to the highest bidder.
Always remember, you have NO FUCKING RIGHTS, only temporary privileges which can be taken away at any time without cause. Don't think so? Ask any of the 110K American citizens interned on our soil by FDR during WW2.
During the pandemic, under the declared emergency in the "interest of public health", half the Democrats in this country wanted to intern the unvaccinated, and they could have done it. Old habits die hard.