No. MSP's, or more accurately the secretary of the SP's, decision is not that they will provide protection from a perceived threat, it is that the individual does not have a threat in need of defense. This, to me, is where MSP will get their asses sued off at some point. Someone will make a claim to a threat and MSP will say there is no threat. Said applicant will be denied and subsequently be assaulted or worse. The applicant's family or friends will then sue the hell out of the MSP. The is no duty for LE to protect anyone, but to restrict one's right to defend themselves takes it to a civil rights and criminal level.
The courts have ruled that if someone has a "special relationship" with the police, the police do in fact have a duty to provide protection to that person.
No. MSP's, or more accurately the secretary of the SP's, decision is not that they will provide protection from a perceived threat, it is that the individual does not have a threat in need of defense. This, to me, is where MSP will get their asses sued off at some point. Someone will make a claim to a threat and MSP will say there is no threat. Said applicant will be denied and subsequently be assaulted or worse. The applicant's family or friends will then sue the hell out of the MSP. The is no duty for LE to protect anyone, but to restrict one's right to defend themselves takes it to a civil rights and criminal level.
Tagging.
You know you can do that without posting, right?
But Where's the fun in that
He is correct on the special relationship issue. This case is horrifying by the way.Please post your source for this. I can find case law in at least 3 supreme court cases that have no mention of any "special relationship" exemption. As a former LEO I know agencies have no legal or moral obligation to protect or defend citizens which is why Maryland's "May Issue" law is immoral...you aren't allowed to defend yourself but the state has no obligation to defend you...
He is correct on the special relationship issue. This case is horrifying by the way.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
The court in the above-cited case of Warren et. al. v the Washington Metropolitan District Police did NOT rule that there was no such thing as a "special relationship" that would imply a higher duty of care. The court ruled that one did not exist in this particular case.
I also remember a case out of New York City where the plaintiff/victim lost the suit. It may predate this one - I don't know. Equally horrifying, though.
I am absolutely disgusted that I do not have the legal right to CC in MD. I am a solid citizen, tax paying, law abiding guy who has a totally clean record. Yet my God given right to self defense will be prohibited by a bunch of government "officials".
And Hogan is too cowardly to defend your rights.
This is the second of your recent posts with the same language. What are you going to do to help restore your 2A rights in MD?
I'm sure you're smart enough to realize Hogan can't change law.
MSP determines what is G&S. Head of MSP works for Hogan. Connect the dots.
MGA controls the shit storm that rains down upon us if that happens now. I've connected the dots.
What are you going to do to change the make up of the GA?