|
|
|
|
|
|
by tw04
1739 days ago
|
|
|
That’s not at all what it says. It says a restraining order isn’t grounds for personal protection. Additionally it says even if it did grant personal protection there would be no monetary compensation for failure to protect. Nothing about that has anything to do with whether a law enforcement officer has an obligation to act when they see a crime being committed. > were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause. Case in point, the officer assigned to stoneman Douglas was arrested for inaction: https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/09/scot-peters... |
|
|
Case law stating that police have ZERO DUTY or LEGAL OBLIGATION to protect goes back to the 1850s. This case is merely the latest is in literally DOZENS of examples of case law saying this.
The Constitution and US case law very literally and repeated has said: "Your own protection is 100% ONLY on you"
And honestly this is why the 2nd amendment still is relevant and universal to all individuals.