Friday, May 4, 2012

Avoiding the Truth: CSGV edition

Apparently CSGV likes to tweet what they think is the truth, but when confronted with the actual truth or they have no spin, they'll drop the subject, tuck their tail and move on.

CSGV "The government's FIRST and most important duty is to protect the public. Without that, there is no government"

Bill Baldwin "LULZ, government has no duty to protect individual, only public in general per SCOTUS. get a clue CSGV"

The last time I had this argument with a representative of the anti-rights establishment, I think there were at least a half a dozen Supreme Court cases where the justices found that the government, or it's employees, have no Constitutional duty to protect the individual citizen. I'm certainly not going to cite all 6. One is sufficient without a contradictory ruling, but we'll look at two.

This case is about a child that was abused by his father. Social Services was advised of the abuse and investigated. They found that there was abuse, but failed to legally remove the child from the father's custody. The child was beaten to the point that he received brain damage and "was rendered profoundly retarded".

The mother, on the child's behalf, filed suit against the department and several of it's employees, but the court found:

A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. 

Members of the general public would be the individual citizen.

The court further stated that:

..the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.

So even if the state has knowledge that an individual is in danger of death or great bodily harm, the state has no duty to protect that person unless the state has limited the freedom of the individual to act on his own behalf.

This case was about three children that were abducted by their father in violation of a restraining order. The mother of the children called police several times over the course of several hours. The father ultimately killed the children and was subsequently shot and killed at a police station when he entered the building and started shooting.

The mother filed suit claiming that the restraining order granted her an entitlement to protective services from the state. The court, however, found that the statute regarding restraining orders did not remove the discretion of the police not to enforce the law.

It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory.

So, here we have learned that 1) the government has no duty to protect the individual citizen and B) the  government has no duty to even enforce the laws.

So, who has a duty to protect the individual citizen? The individual citizen himself. What's your opinion?

I checked twitter before publishing this post and here's what I found

@CSGV could you please cite a SCOTUS case where they state this (government has duty to protect citizen)?

CSGV "Public officials @ all levels remain accountable 2 the public & the public maintains elaborate mechanisms 2 enforce its rights."

Notice in CSGV's tweet it's in quotes. I see they just cut a paste from a script and still offer no citation. Dumbasses.

No comments:

Post a Comment