Government has divorced itself from responsibility to protect Citizens

[C-Mag]

After many of these school shootings I've argued that the schools have a responsibility to protect students from harm and are failing. I particularly adamant about it with Parkland. Now a judge has ruled, I was wrong.
Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit

A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.
Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody

It's odd to me, because my understanding was that schools are responsible for the safety of students under there control including everything from falling off something to allowing a kid to play sports without a proper medical release. But judges are finding government entities not liable for things clearly in there control. Not just in schools either.

Much of our government doesn't think its governments responsibility to protect US Citizens from people coming here infected with diseases or with criminal intent, police aren't responsible to save you, schools now aren't responsible for the well being of your kids.

If these government bodies are not taking responsibility for the safety of your children, should you turn your kids over to them?

I think not, it's time to rethink this thing when police and school staff on site are not responsible for the safety of your kids.



https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl ... TuDH-cUfn8

[Speaker to Animals]

Then Americans should have no duty to pay for it or expose their children to the government school cancer.

[C-Mag]

Yes, why pay for security costs at a school if they are not protecting your kid ?

The other lesson here is, you have to take your own security into your own hands. Government is not going to do it. A lot of us knew that, but this is a court ruling telling you they are serious that they do not have to protect you or your kids.

[nmoore63]

Never think you will have a fair hearing when only one side picks the adjudicator.

[brewster]

Interesting reasoning, rather than just claiming sovereign immunity. If it's actually true, then schools can stop acting like terrified idiots every time they get a bomb threat. There are literally thousands of these every year for decades but there has never been a real bomb in a school where one has been threatened. The last time there was an actual bomb threat in the US at all was the early 70s. My kid is in more danger standing in the freezing cold without her coat for an hour than inside the school.

[C-Mag]

I'm a Classic Liberal, so I think the government only has a few jobs, primary amongst them is security.
So, for me, if they are legally not bound to protect me, how much do I really need them at all ?

[SuburbanFarmer]

The roads...

[DBTrek]

We can keep the road-making part of government without subsidizing the Security-Apparatus-Not-Responsible-For-Providing-Security part.
At least, we could try, if Democrats wouldn't cover their ears and scream about destroying the poor to feed the rich every time someone suggested government reform.

[heydaralon]

I'm a Classic Liberal, so I think the government only has a few jobs, primary amongst them is security.
So, for me, if they are legally not bound to protect me, how much do I really need them at all ?

That ruling is pretty sickening, I think the judge does not want to open up a can of worms. If your child was murdered by some sick fuck with a gun at school and the school was held liable for not providing security, what sort of financial award to you would be fair or reasonable for losing your child? With multiple kids being killed, we are talking about making payments to the victims' families that would bankrupt the county. I agree with you that the schools should be liable, but I think that is their reasoning in passing the buck. Typical govt.

What sort of solutions for increased security would you like to see?
Cops at schools?
Armed teachers?
More metal detectors?

The problem is, a lot of schools in shitty areas already have this stuff (except the teachers afaik) and like the TSA I suspect it is more theater than anything. I'm not sure what the solution is.

[Fife]

I'm a Classic Liberal, so I think the government only has a few jobs, primary amongst them is security.
So, for me, if they are legally not bound to protect me, how much do I really need them at all ?

Your security is not a public good, I'm afraid, Carlus. Where did you get the notion that it was somehow?

It's about as settled as settled gets, in fact.

https://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasl ... ction.html