MIND YOUR WANTS BECAUSE UNCLE BROTHER WANTS YOUR MIND. MSNBC’s Laurence O’Donnell and other media hoaxed “journalists” and news entertainers continue to lie about how police in Uvalde will be held accountable for their failure to do anything to protect children during the so-called massacre. However, decades ago the Supreme Court ruled police have no legal duty to protected any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for a failure to protect citizens. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties.

The only legal question for victims such as the ones in Ulvalde is whether the students were in the “custody” of the government during the “massacre.” In other mass shootings such as Parkland where a failure to protect children was claimed, the court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims against the police for a failure to protect students.

Said legal precedent applies regardless of circumstances such as whether police were present or aware of dangers - the Supreme Court has held that police have no legal duty to protect. Numerous federal and state courts have applied what is known as “the public duty doctrine.”

Despite reality concealment by puppeticians and their Dependent Media the public duty doctrine is a legal reality that, as explained by the DC Court of Appeals, is “well established” throughout the nation. Most recently in the so-called Parkland mass shooting a failure to protect children was claimed and then dismissed without controversy. A federal court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims.

The case of Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (1981), in which police were present and should have been aware of danger to the victims, clearly articulates the public duty doctrine. Read the facts of the case below, free your mind from Dependent Media idiocy:

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" — it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Denying all claims of liability against the government and the police for a failure to protect the victims the court explained,

“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.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

The Supreme Court has also ruled that police are not liable under the Due Process clause for a failure to protect even where the police are have adopted a department policy of non-action. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Court explained that police have broad discretion to arrest people whenever they want to; even when a court’s restraining order has explicitly ordered the arrest of a violator (as it did in that case) the police have discretion as to whether they will or not arrest.

So, what the fuck is the dependent media talking about? Uncle Brother is after your mind.

The illusion of accountable police helps to sell propaganda to disarm citizens. Most importantly it sells the statist myth of a social contract between citizens and government. Said myth is the basis of all political authority. The “clogic” is ‘people don’t need guns because the police will protect them.’ Such belief is also part of other woefully ignorant “propagenda” such as ‘guns are primarily for hunting’ or primarily for self defense.  Contrary to indoctrination from freedumb advocates in the dependent media, the 2nd Amendment exists for when all other rights have failed. An armed population is necessary to check authority and tyranny. As stated by 9th circuit judge Alex Kozinski,

“tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

All too many of the other great tragedies of history—Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few—were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

. . . The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.” Silveira v. Lockyer, 328 F.3d 567, 569-570 (9th Cir. 2003) quoted in FUNKTIONARY

Sound far fetched? Brazen cops so frequently abuse their uncontrollable powers that no Black person could make a rational argument that so-called 4th Amendment rights afford any meaningful protection from cops. Cops interfere with Black people’s freedom of movement and right to be left alone any time they desire. Said situation can get worse - already, police in these white, friendly liberal run territories aren’t protecting black people, they surveil and kill them; Minneapolis, Chicago, NYC, Houston, Baltimore, Kansas City, St. Louis etc.

In reality, Citizens with no guns or less guns or inferior guns are much easier to control and dominate.

It should go without saying but criminals are criminals because they are willing to break laws/commit crimes. Laws, including gun laws, do not alter the conduct of mass murderers or prevent them from getting or using guns. Mr. X is ready to kill anybody in sight but he will obey gun laws? Gun laws simply prevent law abiding citizens from obtaining weapons, nothing more.

A responsible, capable and intelligent citizen should be ready and able to defend himself and come to the defense of others when necessary, especially because the police have no legal obligation to do so. Who would think that under the most violent terroristic circumstances such as an alleged “madman” murdering children, the police would choose not to offer protection?

Lax gun laws? How about an unaccountable government that can’t protect even the most vulnerable citizens unable to defend themselves? Rather than take guns away from people, it is rational for more people to arm themselves and be accountable for protecting themselves and their community; you should have the right to shoot back especially since vaginal cops have no legal obligation to protect you. [MORE]

Disarming law abiding Black people prevents them from being able to defend themselves against criminals and the government. As such, gun controls and gun bans disempower Black people and readily subject Black communities to police and criminal violence, rendering Blacks helpless, solely dependent and slave-like in their relations with government authorities who prey on them and control them under the pretense of protection. It is obvious that one of Uncle Brother’s goal is for all citizens to relinquish individual responsibility for defending themselves and to depend upon their public masters to do so in their provision of “public service” that cannot be refused.

Discussing such authoritarian programming, Larken Rose states,

One of the main problems that the peasants must be trained not to deal with themselves is violent conflict. It is imperative that they view you (and your enforcers) as the only protection against rob­bery, assault, and murder. In short, they must be indoctrinated in such a way that they do not even want to be able to defend them­selves. The reason is simple: if the peasants feel capable and enti­tled to "enforce justice" themselves, they might just decide to enforce a little justice against you. And that obviously won't do. 

They must be trained to give up their belief in their right to defend themselves, which is not an easy thing to do. You must attack "peasant justice" in any ways you can think of, such as: 1) '"Vigilante justice can never be as just or fair as our system"; 2) '"You can't possibly protect yourselves; let us do it"; 3) "If you have a gun. you 'II only hurt yourself: 4) "'If the peasants were allowed to use force, there would be chaos'"; 5) "Private protection agen­cies would just deteriorate into competing gangs of thugs"; and so on. Often privately-enforced justice is referred to as the people "taking the law into their own hands" which reinforces the idea that only enforcers of "the law" should ever use force, and of course the lowly peasants can't be allowed to do that." [MORE]