MSP AT IT AGAIN! HOGAN NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.

[BeoBill]

...Eventually. The timeframe, however, is variable.

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

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.

 

[Muleskinner]

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.

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...

 

[Muleskinner]

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.

It's been tried and failed in other states. There is no reason to believe a suit would fair any better in this liberal utopia.

 

[DaemonAssassin]

Tagging.

 

[protegeV]

Tagging.

You know you can do that without posting, right?
But Where's the fun in that

 

[DaemonAssassin]

You know you can do that without posting, right?
But Where's the fun in that

So says my favorite post whore.

 

[redeemed.man]

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

 

[Abellmio]

Remember reading about that in Criminal Justice class and being totally horrified by both the case and its implications. Growing up everyone tells you the police are supposed to protect you personally, and it's just not the case. You're at the mercy of the officer in question.

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

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.

You will find an interesting discussion of this doctrine in an excellent article in the Villanova Law Journal at http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol32/iss2/5

Pertinent information regarding the doctrine is found in a particular note: "In the context of the public duty doctrine, a "special relationship" is recognized by the courts: [W]hen a citizen becomes singled out from the general population and a special duty is owed him by the governmental entity. Such a duty is established by a special relationship between the government and the citizen and the breach of that duty may result in liability for the damages suffered by the citizen."

My argument is that with appropriate widespread and ongoing public pressure this doctrine, like many others, may evidence some elasticity as it applies to the state denial of an individual's capacity to protect him/herself, and the attendant special duty that attaches to that action. As long as we throw up our hands and say it won't work we're simply demonstrating the accuracy of Henry Ford's truism: "Whether you believe you can or you believe you can't, you're probably right." In other words, if you don't ask/try, the answer will always be "NO."

 

[BeoBill]

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

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.

 

[winch]

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".

 

[hillbilly grandpa]

And the question remains: Are you so affected that you're motivated to become actively involved--over an extended period of time--in public action aimed at elevating the issue and coalescing pressure for change?

If we do that we have a possibility creating some effective push-back. If we don't we will be increasingly marginalized. In that case our strategy will be largely one of bitching, and polishing our credentials as charter members of the "Oh, Ain't It Aweful" club.

 

[redeemed.man]

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 am aware, I was agreeing with you if that wasn't clear.

 

[dblas]

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.

Gonzales v Castlerock, 2006 SCOTUS ruling "police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

 

[Bourbonstamps]

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.

 

[Stoveman]

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.

 

[Bourbonstamps]

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.

 

[Stoveman]

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?

 

[Doobie]

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?

I thought the shit storm has been going on for some time now in Maryland It has only gotten worse since 2013...haven't seen any "break" in the "storm" yet