Author Topic: BB  (Read 95 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,691
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
BB
« on: March 05, 2022, 03:24:19 PM »
Quote from: 2227 3 Mar
I’m just going to throw this out, since most of the mandates are ending, I think the truckers should also push for energy independent like oil and diesel gas since that will be a huge impact to independent truckers and everyone in the country really… just my suggestion…Keep on Trucking appreciate everyone’s effort and time
Quote from: 2031 4 Mar
What about allowing law enforcement to do their jobs.........dems have blood on their hands.


Quote from: 2222 4 Mar
Sorry, You are clueless.

The same with EVERY government and EVERY police force.

Cops are not the good guys here.

No Duty To Protect

The dictionary definition claims that the purpose of the police is crime prevention, and to maintain peace, safety, and order. This dictionary definition does not account for what the law and the courts have to say on this matter.

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. 396 (1855)
⚠ Consequently we are of opinion that the declaration sets forth no sufficient cause of action.⛔

In common speech no sufficient cause of action means the suit for damages caused by the sheriff failing to protect the plaintiff is dismissed for lack of standing.

The court listed the Sheriff's legal duties in the full text. The Plaintiff did not have standing to sue the Sheriff because the Sheriff did not have a legal duty to protect the Plaintiff.

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A.2d 1 (1981)
⚠ The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well-established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.⛔

"The well-established rule"... Well, since 1855 that is.

DeShaney v. Winnebago Cty. DSS, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
⚠ 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.⛔

CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES 545 U.S.748 (2005)
⚠ We decide in this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally protected property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
[...]
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.⛔

The court ruled that Jessica Gonzales did not have a right to expect police protection for herself or her three daughters.

Statutory Law
California, Illinois, and New Jersey tell the same truth in no uncertain terms.

Stated in California Code 845:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Stated in 745 Illinois Compiled Statute 10/4-102:
⚠ Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes, failure to detect or solve crimes, and failure to identify or apprehend criminals. ⛔

Stated in New Jersey Revised Statute 59:5-4:
⚠ Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service.⛔

Do you still believe that the police force exists to protect you?

The same with EVERY government and EVERY police force.




« Last Edit: March 05, 2022, 04:02:38 PM by Dale Eastman »
Natural Law Matters

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,691
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
Re: BB
« Reply #1 on: March 05, 2022, 03:44:08 PM »
Quote from: 2226 4 Mar
There's NO DIFFERENCE between the political parties.


Quote from: 2232 4 Mar
Dale Eastman don't need your crap. Worked LEO. And DOJ in Federal prisons
You can read all you want ......the problem is those that don't follow the law. If they did all would be safe.
Quote from: 2240 4 Mar
You are just the type of person I look for. A hard core, indoctrinated statist. I'll be very pleasantly surprised of you actually address my challenge. I am going to post my 20 Points of YDOM. They are numbered. Number 20 is the conclusion from the 19 previous points. Start reading from number one. When you find one where I have made an error in logic, call it out.

You can tag me with dale.eastman.75

I also see you went and got triggered on one point of several I have posted. I'll bring the others back around later.
Quote from: 2241 4 Mar
20 Points of YDOM!
(1) YDOM! You don't own me!
(2) You do not have a "right to control" me.
(3) You do not have "authority" over me.
(4) My body; my life; my labor; the results of my labor; property received in exchange for my labor, are all my property.
(5) My rights are my property.
(6) My right to make my own choices is my property.
(7) You do not have a "right to control" my property.
(8 ) I have the highest "right to control" in regard to any of my property.
(9) Concurrent with my "right to control" my property is my right to protect, defend, and secure my property from any entity that caused harm, attempted to cause harm, or intends to cause harm.
(10) Any attempt to take my property against my will or without my permission, whether by force or by fraud, is an intent to cause harm.
(11) Any attempt to damage my property is an intent to cause harm.
(12) This highest "right to control" is the same for every human.
(13) These are the equal rights addressed in the United States' Declaration of Independence.
(14) No human can delegate a "right to control" that they do not have.
(15) Voting can not delegate a "right to control" that the voter does not have.
(16) Governments are always comprised of humans.
(17) Humans that comprise "government" do not own me; do not have a "right to control" me; do not have a right to make rules I must allegedly obey; do not have a right to violate another human's rights.
(18) Humans that comprise "government" do not have a "right to control" me just because they occupy a government office.
(19) Humans that comprise "government" can not delegate a "right to control" (that they do not have) to the reified entity called "government".
(20) YDOM means there can not be any rulers with a "right to control" any other human.
Quote from: 1611 5 Mar
It's been 17 hours.
Dear readers, I direct your attention to the big bad former gun toting cop that is too cowardly to engage in discussion with me.

I will repeat, the cops are not the good guys here. Read my original challenge. Cops are under NO DUTY to protect ANY one.

What say you, Ms. B?
Natural Law Matters