15 killed in shooting at Uvalde elementary school, active shooter killed, officials say

[ll74]

Disagree with what the Police Departments own defense statements in multiple court cases, and the courts rulings confirming that they do indeed exist solely to take a report and not do anything else, for a taxpayers provided salary and benefits package?

Identify a single court case, where the police have not used this defense its a slogan not legal responsibility, or any court case that hasn't affirmed this.

I can spare you wasting your time, there are none.

Google: "The Public Duty Doctrine."

Here is just a list of major court cases, there are over 1,000 cases with far less notoriety but the same outcomes. the cops don't exist to protect you, your family or your community.
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia
[2] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
[3] Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
[4] Thurman v. City of Torrington,
[5] McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
[6] Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
[7] Freeman v. Ferguson
[8] Keane v. City of Chicago
[9] Morgan v. District of Columbia
[10] Calogrides v. City of Mobile
[11] Morris v. Musser
[12] Davidson v. City of Westminster
[13] Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
[14] Weutrich v. Delia
[15] Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
[16] Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
[17] Silver v. City of Minneapolis
[18] Bowers v. DeVito
[19] Zinermon v. Burch
[20] South v. Maryland
[21] Hartzler v. City of San Jose
[22] Bell v Thompson
[23] Ford v. Town of Grafton
[24] Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
[25] Susman v Los Angeles
Then there is NY's special laws - That NY law dictates unconstitutionally that carrying any weapon for self-defense is illegal.
[26] Riss v. City of New York
[27] Lozito v NYPD, CIty of New York

So you post it a fourth time?

You're fucking daft

 

[dmonty]

So you post it a fourth time?

You're fucking daft

Yes because you are apparently incapable of understanding the laws, that the police do not have any "legal" requirement to come to your aid, ever.... If you had a disagreement with an opinion of mine, fine no harm to you or me if we follow our own opinions... however in this case, falling into the false opinion that the cops will actually come to your aid (they may, but probably won't) can severely impact your life very negatively, by believing in this gimmicky Madison Ave slick advertisement campaign "To protect and serve."

for some people they only learn the facts through repetition, I am assuming you must be one of those types of learners.

If you prefer let me know what type of learner you are, and I can point you in the direction of a learning resource that can explain it better than I can.

 

[jaF0]

ByeBye BB

 

[ll74]

If you prefer let me know what type of learner you are, and I can point you in the direction of a learning resource that can explain it better than I can.

It's a politics forum not a class. And you certainly are no professor. There's no reason to repeat the same thing here.....people already see what you post.

 

[RobDownSouth]

It's a politics forum not a class. And you certainly are no professor. There's no reason to repeat the same thing here.....people already see what you post.

He seems to believe that repetition somehow confers "validity" to his point of view.
(See also: Bobo, "Nuh UH!")

 

[rockcasbah]

He seems to believe that repetition somehow confers "validity" to his point of view.
(See also: Bobo, "Nuh UH!")

That’s actually a very American trait….you just did it.

I guess it’s convenient, less effort.

How’ve you been?

 

[dmonty]

He seems to believe that repetition somehow confers "validity" to his point of view.
(See also: Bobo, "Nuh UH!")

again not even a point of view or an opinion, verifiable facts.... since you apparently need the court documents hand special delivered, here are the court cases documents and citations from multiple legal court reporting services - of course you can also go straight to the Courts own reporting services to find this information as well.

Google: "The Public Duty Doctrine."

Here is just a list of major court cases, there are over 1,000 cases with far less notoriety but the same outcomes. the cops don't exist to protect you, your family or your community.
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia [Court: https://casetext.com/case/warren-v-district-of-columbia-4]
[2] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services [Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189]
[3] Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department [Court: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/656/423/1394511/]
[4] Thurman v. City of Torrington [Court: https://cyber.harvard.edu/vaw00/thurmanexcerpt.html]
[5] McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas [Court: https://casetext.com/case/mckee-v-city-of-rockwall-tex]
[6] Castle Rock v. Gonzales [Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278]
[7] Freeman v. Ferguson [Court: https://casetext.com/case/freeman-v-ferguson]
[8] Keane v. City of Chicago
[9] Morgan v. District of Columbia
[10] Calogrides v. City of Mobile
[11] Morris v. Musser
[12] Davidson v. City of Westminster
[13] Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
[14] Weutrich v. Delia
[15] Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
[16] Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
[17] Silver v. City of Minneapolis
[18] Bowers v. DeVito
[19] Zinermon v. Burch
[20] South v. Maryland
[21] Hartzler v. City of San Jose
[22] Bell v Thompson
[23] Ford v. Town of Grafton
[24] Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
[25] Susman v Los Angeles
Then there is NY's special laws - That NY law dictates unconstitutionally that carrying any weapon for self-defense is illegal.
[26] Riss v. City of New York
[27] Lozito v NYPD, CIty of New York

 

[ll74]

again not even a point of view or an opinion, verifiable facts.... since you apparently need the court documents hand special delivered, here are the court cases documents and citations from multiple legal court reporting services - of course you can also go straight to the Courts own reporting services to find this information as well.

Google: "The Public Duty Doctrine."

Here is just a list of major court cases, there are over 1,000 cases with far less notoriety but the same outcomes. the cops don't exist to protect you, your family or your community.
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia [Court: https://casetext.com/case/warren-v-district-of-columbia-4]
[2] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services [Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/489/189]
[3] Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department [Court: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/656/423/1394511/]
[4] Thurman v. City of Torrington [Court: https://cyber.harvard.edu/vaw00/thurmanexcerpt.html]
[5] McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas [Court: https://casetext.com/case/mckee-v-city-of-rockwall-tex]
[6] Castle Rock v. Gonzales [Court: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278]
[7] Freeman v. Ferguson [Court: https://casetext.com/case/freeman-v-ferguson]
[8] Keane v. City of Chicago
[9] Morgan v. District of Columbia
[10] Calogrides v. City of Mobile
[11] Morris v. Musser
[12] Davidson v. City of Westminster
[13] Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
[14] Weutrich v. Delia
[15] Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
[16] Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
[17] Silver v. City of Minneapolis
[18] Bowers v. DeVito
[19] Zinermon v. Burch
[20] South v. Maryland
[21] Hartzler v. City of San Jose
[22] Bell v Thompson
[23] Ford v. Town of Grafton
[24] Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
[25] Susman v Los Angeles
Then there is NY's special laws - That NY law dictates unconstitutionally that carrying any weapon for self-defense is illegal.
[26] Riss v. City of New York
[27] Lozito v NYPD, CIty of New York

Broken record...you're not addressing the comment at all

 

[RobDownSouth]

Broken record...you're not addressing the comment at all

"Data Dumps" are a favorite tactic of those who believe their unfettered right to high capacity Pew-Pews far outweighs the right of a school kid to have a bullet-free education.

 

[butters]

"Data Dumps" are a favorite tactic of those who believe their unfettered right to high capacity Pew-Pews far outweighs the right of a school kid to have a bullet-free education.

i'd imagine most everyone if not all here had that experience as kids. Shame on the adults that won't stand up for the same for newer generations. Those kids will NOT forget.

 

[dmonty]

"Data Dumps" are a favorite tactic of those who believe their unfettered right to high capacity Pew-Pews far outweighs the right of a school kid to have a bullet-free education.

You obviously didn't read my post, it has nothing to do with guns. It was regarding the marketing gimmick "to protect and serve," and the police actual legal function; hint it isn't to protect anyone

 

[RobDownSouth]

You obviously didn't read my post, it has nothing to do with guns. It was regarding the marketing gimmick "to protect and serve," and the police actual legal function; hint it isn't to protect anyone

You are correct, I did not see the cut-n-paste data dump you call a "post". You can post links without context in an attempt to appear relevant all day long, and maybe there are those here that will take that as a sign of your intelligence. I'm not one of those. I'm not impressed by your "wikischolarship". You come across as shrill and small-minded, like the rest of your gun cult members here. Your precious gun is important to you....we get that.

Our fundamental difference is your seeming belief that access to rapid fire semi automatic weapons trumps the right of schoolchildren to a murder-free existence. This makes you a very small person, in my opinion. You seem to be the type that NEEDS high capacity magazines to fight off your boogeymen (both real and perceived, and almost all of them non-white).

Simply put, you are a textbook definition of white trash. Wallow in your self-justification all you like, little man.

 

[jaF0]

As I've said before, school shootings were less common but not unheard of in my day. We had an armed office in my city public school during 6th, 7th and 8th grade. We'd often see a line of 10-15 'riot' cars with four uniformed officers in each lined up outside school as we got out in the afternoon. This was during a period of general civil unrest nationwide with multiple states deploying troops into cities and high profile assassinations.

Common sense would be that gun laws would be far more strict now than then.

 

[ll74]

If we have to start whittling it down to "which gun shootings should we focus on" then there are too many. Blatantly accepting that we're fine that they happen at all because people pearl clutch their revolvers is dumb.

 

[Sean Renaud]

As I've said before, school shootings were less common but not unheard of in my day. We had an armed office in my city public school during 6th, 7th and 8th grade. We'd often see a line of 10-15 'riot' cars with four uniformed officers in each lined up outside school as we got out in the afternoon. This was during a period of general civil unrest nationwide with multiple states deploying troops into cities and high profile assassinations.

Common sense would be that gun laws would be far more strict now than then.

Where the hell did you go to school that it was common to see that many police. I went to High School in a fairly good neighborhood. Like I roll up the windows on my car because I don't like bees or june bugs, not because I'm concerned I'm gonna get jacked or anything. Every so often something pops off but I'm sure that is true of absolutely everywhere.

I went to Middle school in LA however, not the worst parts of LA mind you but bad enough. I don't think I ever saw a cop on campus if you discount DARE and Gruff (Is he still around?) so there is that. This was mostly pre Columbine mind you and my high school did get a bomb threat once. I didn't take it seriously but still it happened.

Did you go to school in Hell?! Aside from having an actual shooting happen and lets face it, while they are "Common" there are how many schools in the US with kids going five days a week. Even if there was a shooting every school day somehow your individual odds of being in one would still be pretty fucking low. I would have found having that kind of police force around much scarier.

Especially when we start factoring in that police officially have no legal requirement to help people. Which to me is a damn good reason to defund em and start over from scratch. Especially in the light of this latest shooting the idea that the cops can justify waiting an hour by simply stating "Well, not my job." is pretty fucked up.

 

[jaF0]

Where the hell did you go to school that it was common to see that many police.

Did you go to school in Hell?!

Yeah, sorta.

One of the few places the 82nd and 101st Airborne were deployed into a US city. Complete with tanks.

 

[Sean Renaud]

What the actual fuck? I thought that wasn't even legal.

 

[jaF0]

Flashback: Detroit Erupts Into Race Riots in 1967 - Rolling Stone​

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/ip3/www.rollingstone.com.icohttps://www.rollingstone.com › culture › culture-news › flashback-detroit-erupts-into-race-riots-in-1967-195854
Eventually, to end the disturbance, Governor George Romney sent in the Michigan Army National Guard and President Lyndon Johnson ordered the battle-tested 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, with ...

82nd Airborne Division - Wikipedia​

https://duckduckgo.com/assets/icons/favicons/wikipedia.2x.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › 82nd_Airborne_Division
At 1:10 am, 4,700 paratroopers of the 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, under the command of Lieutenant General John L. Throckmorton, arrived in Detroit and began working in the streets, coordinating refuse removal, tracing persons who had disappeared in the confusion, and carrying out routine military functions, such as the establishment of ...

1967 Detroit riot - Wikipedia​

https://duckduckgo.com/assets/icons/favicons/wikipedia.2x.pnghttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › 1967_Detroit_riot
Governor George W. Romney ordered the Michigan Army National Guard into Detroit to help end the disturbance. President Lyndon B. Johnson sent in the United States Army 's 82nd and 101st Airborne divisions. The result was 43 dead, 1,189 injured, over 7,200 arrests, and more than 400 buildings destroyed.

 

[jaF0]

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Freuther.wayne.edu%2Ffiles%2Fimages%2F35779.preview.jpg&f=1&nofb=1



http://reuther.wayne.edu/node/13766


https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fprojects.lib.wayne.edu%2F12thstreetdetroit%2Ffiles%2Foriginal%2F458f53c0e6e4f5c3508981fdd091a5bd.jpg&f=1&nofb=1

https://projects.lib.wayne.edu/12thstreetdetroit/items/show/204

https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2012%2F07%2F23%2Farticle-0-142E935B000005DC-726_964x641.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...owerful-TIME-images-aftermath-race-riots.html

 

[dmonty]

You are correct, I did not see the cut-n-paste data dump you call a "post". You can post links without context in an attempt to appear relevant all day long, and maybe there are those here that will take that as a sign of your intelligence. I'm not one of those. I'm not impressed by your "wikischolarship". You come across as shrill and small-minded, like the rest of your gun cult members here. Your precious gun is important to you....we get that.

Our fundamental difference is your seeming belief that access to rapid fire semi automatic weapons trumps the right of schoolchildren to a murder-free existence. This makes you a very small person, in my opinion. You seem to be the type that NEEDS high capacity magazines to fight off your boogeymen (both real and perceived, and almost all of them non-white).

Simply put, you are a textbook definition of white trash. Wallow in your self-justification all you like, little man.

Not a cut and paste, all my own words (unless you count the links those I did cut and paste from my search bar to add them to the court cases).

Without Context, well now I know you didn't read anything at all, I pointed out the context "the police have absolutely no duty to protect and serve here are all the court cases affirming that" in every post of the court cases I explicitly stated the context.

Belief??? No its an inalienable civil liberty - taking away arms from citizens doesn't stop children from being murdered by criminals. However, the facts are if you arm more citizens you have less murders. And what you are calling "high capacity mags" are standard sized, and yes sometimes you do need 20+ rounds to fend off multiple attackers (See Kyle Rittenhouse, and multitudes of others who have needed a standard capacity magazine to defend themselves). Now if you don;t like the facts and the law, you're welcome to change the US Constitution, however there is only 1 wat to do it, through a ratified Amendment, nothing else would be legal or Constitutional.

For rifles, standard-capacity magazines are 20-30 rounds and for handguns a standard-capacity is 10-19 rounds.

The most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, has come standard from the factory with 30 round magazines since it was designed in 1947, and introduced in 1959.

One of the most popular handguns in America, the Glock-17, comes from the factory with a 17 round magazine.

However, the limits or definitions being proposed are entirely arbitrary of 7-10 rounds and that limit faces two practical realities. First, the 7 to 10-round limit assumes that one is only defending against a single attacker.

In 2013, a mother in Loganville, Ga. hid in an attic with her children to escape a home invader. Undaunted, the criminal came after them. She emptied all six rounds of her revolver, hitting him five times. He ran out of the house, drove a distance, crashed, and finally collapsed in a nearby driveway; police then transported him to a hospital for recovery. In the real world, one handgun round does not stop people like it does in the movies.

A restriction of 7 or even 10 rounds would have done nothing at Sandy Hook, Parkland, Buffalo, Uvalde or any other mass shooting. These evil persons all expended more than 50 rounds, they had at least three standard AR-15 magazines, though from the news reports they had far more then just three. It takes the unskilled about 3 seconds to change a magazine. So how is it that two magazine changes were not enough to stop the violence but seven would be? Breaking news underscores this reality as the Hartford Courant had reported that the Sandy Hook killer made many more than two magazine changes, leaving 15 rounds in discarded magazines. These magazine changes didn't stop the tragedy of the unconstitutionally disarmed innocent citizens being unarmed facing an armed lunatic, as usually the unconstitutional laws only disarmed the innocent, they never disarm the criminals. At the fastest, police response time is a minimum of 20 minutes for police armed with AR-15s and 30 round magazines to arrive and wait to do nothing, until the lunatic stops the violence, then and only then do the cops step in. They have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to intervene in stopping the threats.

Finally, a restriction on extremely common arms in regular use by lawful citizens is the definition of an infringement of the constitutional right to arms. Citizens own about a billion magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and the majority of widely owned firearms come standard from the factory with more than 10 round magazines. It is telling that law enforcement is excluded from these proposed restrictions. We don't issue 17 or 30 round magazines to our police to murder. If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too?

 

[ll74]

Not a cut and paste, all my own words (unless you count the links those I did cut and paste from my search bar to add them to the court cases).

Belief??? No its an inalienable civil liberty - taking away arms from citizens doesn't stop children from being murdered by criminals. However, the facts are if you arm more citizens you have less murders. And what you are calling "high capacity mags" are standard sized, and yes sometimes you do need 20+ rounds to fend off multiple attackers (See Kyle Rittenhouse, and multitudes of others who have needed a standard capacity magazine to defend themselves). Now if you don;t like the facts and the law, you're welcome to change the US Constitution, however there is only 1 wat to do it, through a ratified Amendment, nothing else would be legal or Constitutional.

For rifles, standard-capacity magazines are 20-30 rounds and for handguns a standard-capacity is 10-19 rounds.

The most popular rifle in America, the AR-15, has come standard from the factory with 30 round magazines since it was designed in 1947, and introduced in 1959.

One of the most popular handguns in America, the Glock-17, comes from the factory with a 17 round magazine.

However, the limits or definitions being proposed are entirely arbitrary of 7-10 rounds and that limit faces two practical realities. First, the 7 to 10-round limit assumes that one is only defending against a single attacker.

In 2013, a mother in Loganville, Ga. hid in an attic with her children to escape a home invader. Undaunted, the criminal came after them. She emptied all six rounds of her revolver, hitting him five times. He ran out of the house, drove a distance, crashed, and finally collapsed in a nearby driveway; police then transported him to a hospital for recovery. In the real world, one handgun round does not stop people like it does in the movies.

A restriction of 7 or even 10 rounds would have done nothing at Sandy Hook, Parkland, Buffalo, Uvalde or any other mass shooting. These evil persons all expended more than 50 rounds, they had at least three standard AR-15 magazines, though from the news reports they had far more then just three. It takes the unskilled about 3 seconds to change a magazine. So how is it that two magazine changes were not enough to stop the violence but seven would be? Breaking news underscores this reality as the Hartford Courant had reported that the Sandy Hook killer made many more than two magazine changes, leaving 15 rounds in discarded magazines. These magazine changes didn't stop the tragedy of the unconstitutionally disarmed innocent citizens being unarmed facing an armed lunatic, as usually the unconstitutional laws only disarmed the innocent, they never disarm the criminals. At the fastest, police response time is a minimum of 20 minutes for police armed with AR-15s and 30 round magazines to arrive and wait to do nothing, until the lunatic stops the violence, then and only then do the cops step in. They have no legal, moral or ethical responsibility to intervene in stopping the threats.

Finally, a restriction on extremely common arms in regular use by lawful citizens is the definition of an infringement of the constitutional right to arms. Citizens own about a billion magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and the majority of widely owned firearms come standard from the factory with more than 10 round magazines. It is telling that law enforcement is excluded from these proposed restrictions. We don't issue 17 or 30 round magazines to our police to murder. If those larger magazines have no value for self-defense, wouldn't we prohibit them for law enforcement too?

Pretty sure you're BiDudey

 

[dmonty]

What the actual fuck? I thought that wasn't even legal.

Actually American troops are deployed across the US, quite often, legally even under the 1878 Posse Comitatus Ac It is entirely "legal", they are only banned from "domestic law enforcement policies" use (The Insurrection Act of 1807, and expanded in 2005 after Hurricane Katrina) which in Section 251, 252 and 253 give the 3 exemptions; Note that if the Insurrection Act is invoked, it must be done clearly, openly and by public proclamation. The President must also precede use of the military by a “proclamation to disburse.”

 

[dmonty]

Pretty sure you're BiDudey

Who?

Again this is my only account, has been for years.

 

[ll74]

Who?

Again this is my only account, has been for years.

Sure it has.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Monty, you can rationalize things as much as you deem necessary, but at the end of the day it is the mindset of you and people like you that encourages mass murders in schools in the USA. You and people like you are a cancer on American democracy.