Uvalde Texas Killing

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    Hopefully if no duty to protect is confirmed the court will at least establish that police cannot prevent citizens from protecting their own. If it’s not their jobs to protect then neither is it their jobs to hinder self/family preservation.
    Yes. Standing by idly was one thing. But to further complicate it by restraining those who were willing to face the demon was utterly reprehensible. I mean, I understand their mindset. Prevent further loss of life that might also make their jobs harder with more hostages. But the fact that they made no real effort to actually do the job, at least in my mind, means they have no right to prevent others who are willing to do their jobs from doing it. Do the damn job or let somebody else try.

    And no disrespect meant to any LEOs present.
     

    Cameramonkey

    www.thechosen.tv
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    35   0   0
    May 12, 2013
    31,688
    77
    Camby area
    They're not going to like what Castle Rock v Gonzales means for their suit.
    I wonder if they will chase the part of that suit that Gonzales was missing? So as I recall that police only have a duty to protect when you are under their care. (I assume custody) Is having a dedicated SRO close enough to "under care" for this to stick?

    Its one thing when its just a RO and you have no direct interaction with the police. But what about when your group has an officer(s) dedicated to protect you?
     

    chipbennett

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 18, 2014
    10,943
    113
    Avon
    I wonder if they will chase the part of that suit that Gonzales was missing? So as I recall that police only have a duty to protect when you are under their care. (I assume custody) Is having a dedicated SRO close enough to "under care" for this to stick?

    Its one thing when its just a RO and you have no direct interaction with the police. But what about when your group has an officer(s) dedicated to protect you?
    I'm pretty sure the Parkland lawsuits also answered that issue pretty definitively, as well - and in favor of "no specific duty to protect."

    Maybe the angle where UPD officers restrained/arrested parents attempting to save their children might gain some traction? I don't know.
     

    bwframe

    Loneranger
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    93   0   0
    Feb 11, 2008
    38,170
    113
    Btown Rural
    Sounds like there were no repercussions at all for those who stood by waiting for those kids to be killed off? All of those involved, (according to the one grandfather of a murder victim,) are still collecting govt paychecks. Some have been promoted... :n00b:

    I turned off the feed when Garland began speaking of the "rifle only meant for the battlefield" or something like that. That SOB had the gall to bring his politics into this tragedy. We should thank God every day that this activist did not make it to SCOTUS.
     

    Ark

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    25   0   0
    Feb 18, 2017
    6,735
    113
    Indy
    I’m glad Amy is on our side.


    Looks like they concluded the "propped door" was simply never locked.

    Had basic physical security been in place this idiot would have been gunned down outside the building, probably by the cop who chickened out on shooting him with the patrol rifle. Just a basic lock and safety glass would have avoided it all.
     

    Twangbanger

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Oct 9, 2010
    7,062
    113
    Sounds like there were no repercussions at all for those who stood by waiting for those kids to be killed off? All of those involved, (according to the one grandfather of a murder victim,) are still collecting govt paychecks. Some have been promoted... :n00b:

    I turned off the feed when Garland began speaking of the "rifle only meant for the battlefield" or something like that. That SOB had the gall to bring his politics into this tragedy. We should thank God every day that this activist did not make it to SCOTUS.
    In left-wing-ville, they don't believe in condemning cowardice, because they would have done no better themselves. There, but for the grace of God, go I. They don't want to make cowards rare. They want to make them safe. Gun-banners want a society where courage is optional and cowardice is normal, and in that way of thinking, the existence of weapons makes that goal harder.

    It won't work out, but that seems to be the mindset.
     
    Last edited:
    Top Bottom