When I heard about the cop who refused to go in and try to neutralize Nikolas Cruz, the maniac who killed 17 people at Stoneman Douglas High School on Valentine’s Day, I was fairly astonished. It’s pretty incredible that an officer who had a weapon and was on the scene showed himself to be a complete pussy, but it does illustrate a good point. The police are not actually required to protect you in instances like those. You would think they were, but that’s simply not the case. The Supreme Court has ruled no such duty exists.

From 2005

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman’s pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed. 

So, yea, that pretty much shoots a hole in the entire progressive argument about only police should have guns. I think that most people didn’t realize the salient fact above until the news yesterday concerning the Broward Coward, Scott Peterson.

Speaking of the coward, President Trump lit into him today from the CPAC stage…

I, for one, fully support these comments. Mr. Peterson may not have been constitutionally required to intervene, but that doesn’t change the fact that he’s an utter disgrace to his profession.

You May Also Like