We all have a notion about what government is suppose to do for us, especially since we give them our hard-earned money in the form of taxes.
Yet when it comes to your protection, you will find that many times your protection comes down to being YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Because, you know:
When police are sworn in to office, they take an oath to “serve and protect.”
Yet with demorats’ current hostility toward police and their desire to abolish the police, why would one risk their life to protect you?
Did you know that police don’t have a duty to protect? (More on that below).
A resident in Seattle stuck in the middle of “CHOP,” is finding this lesson out the hard way. Watch his Daily Caller interview below:
I spoke to a resident of Capitol Hill, the area of Seattle that is now CHAZ.
He was terrified & told me that the very lawmakers he supported and elected have abandoned him.
“This is personal, because this is my home & I don’t have cops anymore.”
— Shelby Talcott (@ShelbyTalcott) June 14, 2020
A case in 1981, Warren vs. District of Columbia, went before a District of Columbia Court of Appeals which determined that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Warren vs. DC in a nutshell: Women called the Metropolitan Police Department because men broke into their residence. The police came to the residence and one drove by while another knocked on the front door and left after no answer. The officers left five minutes after arriving, without catching the intruders.
The women again called the police and for some reason, the call was not dispatched to police.
The women ended up being held captive by the intruders for 14 hours and were beaten and raped.
The decision (from Wikipedia): In a 4–3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”. The Court thus adopted the trial court’s determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
Read about the whole case here.
If the demorats and BLM keep up with demonizing the police and attacking them, we’ll soon see a lot more police exercising their legal right.
Better than Drudge Report. Check out Whatfinger News, the Internet’s conservative frontpage founded by ex-military!