If more individuals would take their own self defense as a personal responsibility, and carry a licensed firearm like this hero, we wouldn't need as many police.
The police have no obligation to defend your life. When they fail to protect you from a murderer, you die. When you take the personal responsibility to be prepared against attack, your chance of surviving violent attack increases exponentially.
The relevant case (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) had to do with the liability of a police agency or officer failing to provide protection. The court ruled that police do not have a "legal" obligation (no law, contract, etc) which infers "legal liability" in such cases. However, unlike your suggestion, that doesn't mean officers are not employed and expected to protect individuals. Ruling simply means they cannot be held liable if or when that fails.
@stewartx5 The results come out the same. If they cannot be held liable for failing to do something, then there is no obligation to do it. At my job I have several things that I am required to do. If I don't do them I am held liable by being fired. There are also many things that my employer WANTS me to do. I don't do any of them because failing to do them has no negative impact at all.
Your safety is in your own hands. Do with it as you may, but don't expect me to follow you.
You're reading more into it than is there. Ruling only addresses liability, not obligations of an officer's job. Like you, an officer can be fired from his job - a job mandating the protection of others. Ruling simply says an officer cannot be held liable (financially in a civil lawsuit, etc) if he fails to (unable to, etc) prevent a bad guy from shooting or otherwise harming you. Since an officer cannot fully control the actions of a perp, ruling is quite reasonable.
@stewartx5 Castle Rock vs. Gonzales. US Supreme Court. No individual right to protection. Your misinterpretation of Warren v. District of Columbia is irrelevant.
Your safety is in your own hands. Do with it as you may, but don't expect me to follow you.
Again, the Supreme Court's ruling in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) also only addressed liability - the woman's lawsuit seeking money. This particular ruling does not change anything I said previously.
@cnknguyen They sell really in expensive hand guns. It would be cheaper to just arm all of your employees, business owners, and neighbors than to constantly shell out the $30 per hour for the off duty cop. They could post up signs around the area that everyone is armed. I am positive that crime would drop like a rock. Criminals go for easy targets. If the threat of death is around, then it is not an easy target... I have thought about handing out Zip Guns in my neighborhood.
one less criminal they aren't always black a kid walking back from an elementary school was shot about 30 miles from my house because the attacker had a disagreement with the kids father, that man was not black not mexican not asian he was white
Wow, such a police shortage that average, not rich & famous ordinary Joes people are hiring their own protection? I've seen that in Colombia, South America, but not here. Thank God for the Second Amendment.
has black panters protested against this yet?
farerse 2 months ago
What was the fuckers name??
Lacreesha???????? what sort of girly pussy name is that?
Is that even a proper civilised actual name?
He was demanding to be shot with a name like that.
seanhennessy 2 months ago
Another Law Ading Citizen YESSSS!
me40547 3 months ago
I GOTTA get my CCW.
SphynkTorr 4 months ago
If more individuals would take their own self defense as a personal responsibility, and carry a licensed firearm like this hero, we wouldn't need as many police.
HumbleWillis 4 months ago
The cop was very pretty
moonshinegrrl 5 months ago
Visit TEXAS CONCEALED CARRY on Facebook !!!
neverpanic 6 months ago
what happened at 1:30 ?
evadful 8 months ago
@evadful He became a Zebra.
IMnotCurious 8 months ago
ushers last words" i just wanna get your attention"~ BOOM
pjicleanair420 9 months ago
thank god for guns! and sam colt
elmajiko420 10 months ago
@:46 Found Waldo...
macar6913 10 months ago
the robber said im gonna gets mine ha ha one less peice of shit
cwjarhead5 11 months ago
What's with the leprosy at the end?
ThatsMrMoronToYou 1 year ago
@ThatsMrMoronToYou xD
ChiefsFan581 1 year ago
Hey, mister reporter, your cell is ringing,
oxford14 1 year ago
I carry a gun because I cannot carry a cop.
The police have no obligation to defend your life. When they fail to protect you from a murderer, you die. When you take the personal responsibility to be prepared against attack, your chance of surviving violent attack increases exponentially.
acoow 1 year ago 2
@acoow
The relevant case (Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) had to do with the liability of a police agency or officer failing to provide protection. The court ruled that police do not have a "legal" obligation (no law, contract, etc) which infers "legal liability" in such cases. However, unlike your suggestion, that doesn't mean officers are not employed and expected to protect individuals. Ruling simply means they cannot be held liable if or when that fails.
stewartx5 8 months ago
@stewartx5 The results come out the same. If they cannot be held liable for failing to do something, then there is no obligation to do it. At my job I have several things that I am required to do. If I don't do them I am held liable by being fired. There are also many things that my employer WANTS me to do. I don't do any of them because failing to do them has no negative impact at all.
Your safety is in your own hands. Do with it as you may, but don't expect me to follow you.
acoow 8 months ago
@acoow
You're reading more into it than is there. Ruling only addresses liability, not obligations of an officer's job. Like you, an officer can be fired from his job - a job mandating the protection of others. Ruling simply says an officer cannot be held liable (financially in a civil lawsuit, etc) if he fails to (unable to, etc) prevent a bad guy from shooting or otherwise harming you. Since an officer cannot fully control the actions of a perp, ruling is quite reasonable.
stewartx5 8 months ago
@stewartx5 Castle Rock vs. Gonzales. US Supreme Court. No individual right to protection. Your misinterpretation of Warren v. District of Columbia is irrelevant.
Your safety is in your own hands. Do with it as you may, but don't expect me to follow you.
acoow 8 months ago
@acoow
Again, the Supreme Court's ruling in Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005) also only addressed liability - the woman's lawsuit seeking money. This particular ruling does not change anything I said previously.
stewartx5 8 months ago
an armed society is a polite society
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHT!!!!
LAW ENFORCEMENT IS NOT ENOUGH, YOU MUST DEFEND YOURSELF
four15z 2 years ago 2
save that 150 dollars and buy some ammo...protect YOUR OWN life...
cnknguyen 2 years ago 13
@cnknguyen They sell really in expensive hand guns. It would be cheaper to just arm all of your employees, business owners, and neighbors than to constantly shell out the $30 per hour for the off duty cop. They could post up signs around the area that everyone is armed. I am positive that crime would drop like a rock. Criminals go for easy targets. If the threat of death is around, then it is not an easy target... I have thought about handing out Zip Guns in my neighborhood.
Joell5678 1 year ago
Thank god the victim was able to fight back & save himself. One less dangerous scum bag lose on the streets.
AgoniesCreep 3 years ago 11
one less nigger on the streets
flyromeo3 3 years ago
@flyromeo3 If we can only get rid of the racists.
acoow 8 months ago
@flyromeo3
one less criminal they aren't always black a kid walking back from an elementary school was shot about 30 miles from my house because the attacker had a disagreement with the kids father, that man was not black not mexican not asian he was white
tubevideoguy762 6 months ago
Hell, even 911 got cut... they are putting more people on hold now... you better be able to be self sufficient.
cramsa 3 years ago 2
Wow, such a police shortage that average, not rich & famous ordinary Joes people are hiring their own protection? I've seen that in Colombia, South America, but not here. Thank God for the Second Amendment.
EncompassedRunner 3 years ago 4