Florida Lawsuit Dismissed

[Adonia]

(CNN) - "A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by 15 survivors of this year's shooting massacre at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, rejecting their argument that authorities' failure to prevent the shooting violated their 14th Amendment rights to due process".

"In a ruling last week, US District Judge Beth Bloom wrote that the school and sheriff's department had no duty under the 14th Amendment itself to protect students from Cruz, contrary to what the lawsuit contended".

So there we have it folks, while out and about in society the government has no legal duty to protect individuals from harm - we are on our own. Will this reality have an effect on the anti - gun proponents who want to disarm law abiding citizens? Don't bet on it, they will simply double down on their crusade to ensure that at some point we all could one day become victims of some type of senseless violence with no ability to protect ourselves.

 

[agedman]

(CNN) - "A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by 15 survivors of this year's shooting massacre at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, rejecting their argument that authorities' failure to prevent the shooting violated their 14th Amendment rights to due process".

"In a ruling last week, US District Judge Beth Bloom wrote that the school and sheriff's department had no duty under the 14th Amendment itself to protect students from Cruz, contrary to what the lawsuit contended".

So there we have it folks, while out and about in society the government has no legal duty to protect individuals from harm - we are on our own. Will this reality have an effect on the anti - gun proponents who want to disarm law abiding citizens? Don't bet on it, they will simply double down on their crusade to ensure that at some point we all could one day become victims of some type of senseless violence with no ability to protect ourselves.

What are we (citizens) to use to defend? Prayer and Scriptures.

As the Lord said, “...do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

 

[Adonia]

What are we (citizens) to use to defend? Prayer and Scriptures.

As the Lord said, “...do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Tell that to the people who were slaughtered at Parkland. So then, should such evil ever visit your home would you stand idly by and just pray, and allow your wife to be raped or killed?

 

[agedman]

Tell that to the people who were slaughtered at Parkland. So then, should such evil ever visit your home would you stand idly by and just pray, and allow your wife to be raped or killed?

A few days ago a child was crucified for believing in Christ. Are you as concerned?

We are as sheep lead to the slaughter - Paul.

It matters not how one dies. All die.

What matters is how we lived.

In what manner of service have we loved the Lord with ALL our heart, All our minds, All our strength?

Should the Lord allow the evil to come upon my house, I will trust that it is approved by Him.

For NOTHING comes into the life of the believer that God is not totally in control and using to His glory.


Do you not know that if the Lord is aware of the sparrows, how much more care has he for His own brothers - for are not believers the adopted children of God?

 

[Adonia]

A few days ago a child was crucified for believing in Christ. Are you as concerned?

I am concerned when anyone is the victim of such evil, but I am here in America and can only protect those around me if I had to.

It matters not how one dies. All die.

What matters is how we lived.

Very true. The mother who dies to save her child or one laying down his life for his friends are noble things to do.

 

[carpro]

Excusing the inaction of a coward by ruling that protecting the public is "not required" is always going to sound empty.

He is still a coward.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Excusing the inaction of a coward by ruling that protecting the public is "not required" is always going to sound empty. He is still a coward.

Yep. Would he be cleared by his own, if he had neglected to protect them? Of course not. When police are only obligated to protect themselves and each other, we have arrived at a police state.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What are we (citizens) to use to defend? Prayer and Scriptures. As the Lord said, “...do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

First of all, you are conflating believers with society. This is wrongheaded and leads to all manner of confusion.

Second, this is supposed to be a free society, one in which citizens have, not a say, but the say in their government. Police are a force created by society for that society. Its purpose is what society says it is. If society says police are in no way obligated to intervene, then you may be better off having ambulances and paramedics, firefighters and fire trucks on site.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

(CNN) - "A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by 15 survivors of this year's shooting massacre at Florida's Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, rejecting their argument that authorities' failure to prevent the shooting violated their 14th Amendment rights to due process".

"In a ruling last week, US District Judge Beth Bloom wrote that the school and sheriff's department had no duty under the 14th Amendment itself to protect students from Cruz, contrary to what the lawsuit contended".

So there we have it folks, while out and about in society the government has no legal duty to protect individuals from harm - we are on our own. Will this reality have an effect on the anti - gun proponents who want to disarm law abiding citizens? Don't bet on it, they will simply double down on their crusade to ensure that at some point we all could one day become victims of some type of senseless violence with no ability to protect ourselves.

Perhaps instead of disarming the citizenry, it is time to disarm "unobligated" police.

 

[Adonia]

Perhaps instead of disarming the citizenry, it is time to disarm "unobligated" police.

Perhaps. this was not the first ruling of it's kind on the subject. I believe many years ago in Philadelphia someone sued because they weren't protected by the police, and the result was the same - the suit was either thrown out or ruled in favor of the "no duty to protect" concept.

 

[agedman]

First of all, you are conflating believers with society.

Not conflating at all. Believers have hope that extends beyond what this life has to offer.

is wrongheaded and leads to all manner of confusion.

Sorry you are confused, but I am not. Was not the saying, "some put hope in chariots and swords, but my hope is in the Lord", of the psalmist and who was the political ruler and head of the police of his day?

Second, this is supposed to be a free society, one in which citizens have, not a say, but the say in their government.

.

One has a right to speak responsible and appropriate words in the appropriate place. It is called "freedom of speech."

However, such freedom is not extended to irresponsible words at inappropriate places.

Police are a force created by society for that society.

Not true. Gathered sub - groupings of a society (towns, cities, counties, states...) appoint such, but society of whole does not.

Rather, the whole society does not create nor influence nor have oversight over the national level "police." Such police are invited, approved, selected, from basic Human Resources of that particular police force (FBI, Secret Service) and are not typically answerable to society other than through courts of law.

Its purpose is what society says it is. If society says police are in no way obligated to intervene, then you may be better off having ambulances and paramedics, firefighters and fire trucks on site.

Again, the purpose of even the local level is not what society states, but what the legislative and executive branches state as laws and policies.

More often, the police (with the exception of traffic ordinances) are more concerned with state and federal laws then they contend with local ordinances, policies, and laws.

Often it is heard that the police are to protect the citizens. But actually, they are to uphold the law.

They do not prevent crime, they seek the violators of a crime.

The speeder must be speeding, the thief having stolen, the murderer committed murder...

.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps instead of disarming the citizenry, it is time to disarm "unobligated" police.

The first obligation to a policeman is self protection. They don't go where they will be killed. They go into harms way knowing (or at least hoping) that there is enough "force" for their own safety that order be restored.

The second obligation is to protect uninvolved citizens. That is, if there is harm or potential harm then those not involved are removed so that they will not become victims of the actions of either the police or the criminal.

The third obligation is to (as quickly as possible) diffuse that which has caused disorder.

Some would desire the police to be like the Wild West and go into harm's way with guns blazing.

Through the court system of which victimization of the innocent folks brought lawsuits for damages and personal injury (death) by either misconduct, overzealousness, or mishandling of an ongoing crime site, the police are no longer either willing nor permitted to engage without being responsible.

The law enforcement officer has no true support grouping other then fellow officers, yet is held responsible to the actions of not only them self, but most often the criminal and the fellow officers.

 

[agedman]

Perhaps. this was not the first ruling of it's kind on the subject. I believe many years ago in Philadelphia someone sued because they weren't protected by the police, and the result was the same - the suit was either thrown out or ruled in favor of the "no duty to protect" concept.

And rightfully so.

Personally, I don't want to be coddled, to be kept from harm, to be "protected," from the standpoint that when I give up a personal right (freedom) that allows someone to make me their subject.

For example: helmet and seat belt laws. Such restricts the freedom of expression and movement. Yet are deemed necessary to "protect."

If I am not hurting anyone else, and only I will suffer from pain or death if an accident occurs, then what right do folks have to make me conform to laws that I don't consider beneficial?

Police have no "duty" to protect, but do protect and serve because they choose.

 

[Salty]

There are some 2.2 LEO's for per thousand people. There is no way that police (at all levels)
are able to provide total protection for all. IMHO the courts are saying that police are not able
to guarantee a crime free area.

Thus we as Americians have the freedom to protect ourselves. And with that freedom, we must
have the responsibility to preform in a safe and legal manner.

 

[Reformed]

........ discretion rules.

 

[carpro]

Perhaps instead of disarming the citizenry, it is time to disarm "unobligated" police.

At the very least, they need to remove all references to "protect' from their badges, patches , and vehicles. It's a lie.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What are we (citizens) to use to defend? Prayer and Scriptures.

As the Lord said, “...do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

Not conflating at all. Believers have hope that extends beyond what this life has to offer.
Sorry you are confused, but I am not. Was not the saying, "some put hope in chariots and swords, but my hope is in the Lord", of the psalmist and who was the political ruler and head of the police of his day?

If you didn't mean "citizens," then you should not have said "citizens." The issue is not about what Christians should do, but about citizens. Your response conflates the two, even if you fail to see it. It is this conflation that leads to confusion.

Why not apply your same standards to the police? Instead of weapons or martial arts, they can just respond biblically as you suggested.

The point is that your response is a non-sequitur. It is fine for you to hold a conviction, believe God's word a certain way, etc. But thinking you can then impose your own method of self-defense on other citizens is simply nonsense.

If police are not really obligated to citizens--we'll assume your point here--then citizens should be ready at all times to defend themselves and their own, just as are the police.

There should be no self-defense difference between dealing with a criminal in the act (citizen) and after the fact (police). To argue otherwise would sound hypocritical.

 

[agedman]

If you didn't mean "citizens," then you should not have said "citizens." The issue is not about what Christians should do, but about citizens. Your response conflates the two, even if you fail to see it. It is this conflation that leads to confusion.

Why not apply your same standards to the police? Instead of weapons or martial arts, they can just respond biblically as you suggested.

The point is that your response is a non-sequitur. It is fine for you to hold a conviction, believe God's word a certain way, etc. But thinking you can then impose your own method of self-defense on other citizens is simply nonsense.

If police are not really obligated to citizens--we'll assume your point here--then citizens should be ready at all times to defend themselves and their own, just as are the police.

There should be no self-defense difference between dealing with a criminal in the act (citizen) and after the fact (police). To argue otherwise would sound hypocritical.

Not imposing anything.

But because this is an international board, I used “citizens” because it addresses the OP location.

If you don’t consider the Scripture principles valid, that is fine, but then I have stated what Scriptures present for believers who refuse to be intimidated by evil.

Was it not found, “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”


The writer of Romans stated:

9Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave iti to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
​

Such passages are instructions for believers in any society.

If one takes the Scriptures factual then one should trust and obey.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Not imposing anything.

But because this is an international board, I used “citizens” because it addresses the OP location.

If you don’t consider the Scripture principles valid, that is fine, but then I have stated what Scriptures present for believers who refuse to be intimidated by evil.

Was it not found, “But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,”


The writer of Romans stated:

9Let love be genuine. Abhor what is evil; hold fast to what is good. 10Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor. 11Do not be slothful in zeal, be fervent in spirit, serve the Lord. 12Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. 13Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality.

14Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly. Never be wise in your own sight. 17Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all.19Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave iti to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
​

Such passages are instructions for believers in any society.

If one takes the Scriptures factual then one should trust and obey.

From your responses you seem to believe Christians should not be involved in the making of any political or legal decisions. Otherwise, your responses make no sense.

I strongly agree with Scriptural principles, just not necessarily your principles, or the way you are trying to apply them.

 

[777]

Perhaps. this was not the first ruling of it's kind on the subject. I believe many years ago in Philadelphia someone sued because they weren't protected by the police, and the result was the same - the suit was either thrown out or ruled in favor of the "no duty to protect" concept.

I don't know what that particular ruling in Philly was all about, but you are right in the fact that this is not the first ruling claiming the police has no duty to protect at all - here's two I remember:

Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia
Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

kind of makes you wonder why LAPD's motto "to protect and to serve" really means. The cops don't have to protect you, so it's up to you:

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/no-right-to-police-protection-in-the-united-states-20903