Federal judge says police have NO obligation to protect citizens, proving why you MUST carry a gun for your own protection

Monday, April 29, 2019
By Paul Martin

by: JD Heyes
Monday, April 29, 2019

Our founders had many important reasons for enshrining the “right to keep and bear arms” in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, but the most notable of those was that all persons should have the most effective means of self-defense available to them.

Now, more than 230 years later, a federal judge has reaffirmed what our founders knew centuries ago: It’s foolhardy to rely on the government for protection against those who seek to do us harm.

As reported by The New York Times, that’s not what the judge sought to do, however:

The school district and sheriff’s office in the Florida county that is home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February massacre, a federal judge has said in a ruling.

The decision was made in a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the Feb. 14 attack in Parkland, Fla. A total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives; 17 others were injured.

According to U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom, even an officer who was stationed at the school specifically to protect kids from the very threat posed by shooter Nikolas Cruz in February 2018 was ‘not obligated’ to act. Meanwhile, a county judge, Patti Englander Henning, ruled “that Scot Peterson, the armed sheriff’s deputy who heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the attack, did have an obligation to confront Mr. Cruz.”

Two different interpretations of police obligations from two judges ruling on the same incident. Perfect.

However, and to the point of one intent behind the Second Amendment, historically Bloom’s decision has been the more commonly adopted opinion by courts, especially on the federal level.

“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,” Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law, told the Times. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

This is a Catch-22 that cannot be allowed to continue

The Rest…HERE

3 Responses to “Federal judge says police have NO obligation to protect citizens, proving why you MUST carry a gun for your own protection”

  1. Robert Edward Lee

    Load up on ammo while the loading’s good. Re read George Washingtons vision and start a monthly family ammo buying, gun practicing picnic weekend routine. Do it NOW !!!

  2. White Scooter Trash

    The prison cell is for you not for the career criminals:
    The Judge is the collection agency for the bank and you are the collateral.

    Police have NO obligation to protect citizens however if you are a citizen and defend yourself from APPARENT DEADLY PHYSICAL FORCE then the police could possibly incarcerate you for protecting yourself. Especially if you are white defending yourself against Hispanic or black. Even more so if you protect yourself from illegal aliens.

    And depending where the attack was perpetrated will dictate who the majority of the jury will be. It is a free for all. We could really use millions of Daniel Boone’s or Davey Crockett’s right now big time. Unfortunately the only hero we have to look up to at this given moment in time is The Tidy Bowl Man as captain of the USS Bullshit.




  3. SF Mo (in AL)

    That means they ain’t protecting his ass either. Better rethink that judge.


Leave a Reply

Join the revolution in 2018. Revolution Radio is 100% volunteer ran. Any contributions are greatly appreciated. God bless!

Follow us on Twitter