Charlottesville: Another Nail in the Coffin of a Left Wing Lie

by Steve MacDonald

nail in the coffinOne of the professional lefts long-standing narratives in defense of gun control is that there is no need for personal firearms because the government will protect you. But Charlottesville, Virgina is the latest evidence of what the right has long maintained. The police have no obligation to protect you. They are not required to do so. And more often than not, Democrat mayors and governors, the people most likely to oppose the personal right to self-defense, have no qualms about removing their government peace keepers to leave the citizens to fend for themselves.

Leave a Comment

  • roger

    Huh…how does that oath go, “to protect and serve”…? I must have heard it wrong.

    • mer

      I don’t think the police swear an oath to do that, it’s often a departmental logo on the cars. But there have been cases going up to SCOTUS that have been decided that there is nothing that says police have to actually protect you.

      But on a more positive note, Hillary is not POTUS.

      • roger

        Yes another great Opinion by Scalia, /s That was a horrible decision.

        If you think her absence is a positive, does that mean you think Trumps presence is also a positive.

        If you answer yes, I would ask what you think he has done to effect your every day life in a positive way?

        • 175jfs

          That would be watching the democrats and their fellow travelers destroy themselves and their institutions by embracing every nut case, left-wing, hate America, socialist cause going. Thank you Trump for forcing the rats out the closet.

          • roger

            Really can you provide a source where a democratic has endorsed these groups?

            And how does that help your life?

          • 175jfs

            You asked, “. . . what you think he has done to effect your every day life in a positive way?” If didn’t want to hear an answer, next time don’t ask.
            Have you served that warrant yet or are you still looking for someone to hold hand on that too?

          • Bruce Currie

            You seem confused, given that Charlottesville afforded most Americans the opportunity to witness open expressions of anti-semitic and white-supremacist hatred by neo-Nazis and their fellow travelers.

          • granitegrok

            As well as the REAL fascism of the Left as shown by Antifa who delight in mobocracy. After all, Charlottesville wasn’t their first gig – your “inconvenient or uncomfortable facts” that you refuse to face, Bruce? Both sides are evil and seem to be the opposite sides of the same coin.

          • Bruce Currie

            There are none so blind as those who simply refuse to see. Charlottesville was an open effort at intimidation by armed white supremacists of blacks, Jews, and others by people eagerly looking forward to violence. Their march had little or nothings to do with “free speech” or Confederate statues. Those were a pretext for a raw display of hatred. Nothing antifa or BLM did or has done has risen to that degree of openly expressed bigotry and hate.
            https://news.vice.com/story/vice-news-tonight-full-episode-charlottesville-race-and-terror

          • granitegrok

            BLM marchers: “Pigs in a blanket, fry like bacon”. That’s outright hatred. And their actions support that.

            And AntiFa is all about suppressing ANYONE’s speech they don’t like – most often with violence. They call themselves anti-fascists but they label anyone that doesn’t agree with them as fascists – which would include me, Bruce. Do I deserve to have violence put upon me Bruce? I represent issues that they hate – should I beaten, batoned, maced, and stomped on? That’s what’s in the videos I’ve watched.

            Pure hatred for anyone not them. Yes, it rises to that level.

          • Bruce Currie

            As far as BLM goes: you’re condemning the entire BLM movement for the offensive actions of relatively few. That’s the same kind of thinking whoever spray-painted the word “Nazi” on GOP headquarters used. There is simply no comparison between BLM and the white supremacist and Neo-Nazi groups who marched at Charlottesville. There is nothing to suggest that the founders and leaders of the Black Lives Matter movement, or the many thousands of people of all races who marched under the BLM banner, are linked to supremacist or black separatist views. The movement’s leaders have explicitly condemned violence—in stark contrast to the hate groups at Charlottesville who looked forward to it. And don’t claim that the name, BLM, is itself racist: it was chosen because blacks have been marginalized from the beginning in the US, while white lives have always mattered more. This nation has never acknowledged the extent to which racial injustice pervades our history down to the present.

          • 175jfs

            But out Currie. This is Rogers post, he asked the question not you weatherman.

  • roger

    Honestly where is the write up here on Christopher Cantwell, who now has two warrants out for his arrest?

    • 175jfs

      Unhappy? Go serve the warrants yourself. Let us know if you need the police to protect you.

      • roger

        You wanna come with me? I’ll gladly arrest him. Based on his crying YouTube videos I don’t think I’ll be much back up.

        • 175jfs

          You’re the one complaining about the police response. You go serve the warrant. If he such a pussy as you say, it should only take one man, a set of cuffs and the gift of gab bring him in.

          • roger

            Who said I was complaining about the police response? My point was this blog has failed to write about him who is actually promoting hate,

          • granitegrok

            We all here are volunteers – NONE of us get paid. I started this blog to write about what interests ME and no one else. Ditto for the others here. We write opinions (with occassional citizen journalism thrown in) based on our interests. We are not, nor have ever been, a public utility. We write for ourselves and if others like what we read, so much the better. If not, there are millions of other places that might hold your attention. I don’t like picking on readers but we won’t be taunted to write about people, places, or things that don’t interest us. There’s already too many things we’d love to write out but we have full time jobs, families, family activities – in other words, limited time. I have no intention to write about stuff I don’t want to write about.

            Frankly, this guy doesn’t interest me in the least, nor his cohort other than to say they are despicable. End of Story.

            Don’t like it that? Go start your own blogsite and write about him to your heart’s content.

          • Bruce Currie

            Re: “Frankly, this guy doesn’t interest me in the least….”
            “Translation: don’t spend any time with inconvenient or uncomfortable facts.

          • granitegrok

            Ah yes, Bruce once again proves the stereotype that the Left has the superpowers to rightly divine the hearts and minds of others to be the opposite of their plain speech to the contrary.

          • 175jfs

            You’re the one that brought up the warrants and the subject. To you, it’s a major issue that they haven’t been served by the police. So you are whining about the lack of police response, otherwise you never would have said you’d gladly arrest him. Common sense would have told you can’t force anyone write you want them to.

  • VanHaggis

    Author’s comments about police are wrongheaded. This idea that’s become fashionable among Pro Gun writers, that the police officers “are not required to protect you”, is about 98% hogwash. They’re not required to commit suicide in the line of duty, but short of that they most certainly ARE required to protect us: officially by dept procedures, operationally by their supervisors, and most importantly, subculturally by each other.

    So I’m not sure what obscure “paragraph 9 subsection E line 17 dash 4” the author here is thinking supports this novel idea of his, but it’s not at all a helpful one to be bandying about in these trying times. And certainly not in the way that Pro Gun writers like to express it as though they’re talking about some sneaky chunk of legalese that a service provider has buried near the end of their 200-page TOS agreement.

    • granitegrok

      Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock (http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/) – Police do not have to protect you.

      • VanHaggis

        The website called The Tribunist isn’t a real news media outlet in any sense. Legitimate news outlets always tell you who they are, where they’re located and who owns them. The Tribunist tells you none of that. It doesn’t even bother to attribute its editorial commentary to some made-up writer who doesn’t exist, it just plops it down, unattributed, for gullible readers to sop up and assume it must be real “cuz I read it on the internet.”

        But the Supreme Court case you mention, Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, is real, and you can read all about it on websites owned by organizations that don’t mind if you know who they are and where they’re physically located. One such organization is Cornell University Law School, which operates one of the most extensive and heavily used free public legal resources in the US. Here’s a link to their page on Castle Rock:

        https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html

        Below is the Cornell site’s summary of the Court’s ruling in that case. You can read and reread it all you want but you will not find anything that amounts to a blanket finding by the Supreme Court that “police do not have to protect you” as you suggest.

        “Held: Respondent did not, for Due Process Clause purposes, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband. Pp. 6—19.

        (a) The Due Process Clause’s procedural component does not protect everything that might be described as a government “benefit”: “To have a property interest in a benefit, a person … must … have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577. Such entitlements are created by existing rules or understandings stemming from an independent source such as state law. E.g., ibid. Pp. 6—7.

        (b) A benefit is not a protected entitlement if officials have discretion to grant or deny it. See, e.g., Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462—463. It is inappropriate here to defer to the Tenth Circuit’s determination that Colorado law gave respondent a right to police enforcement of the restraining order. This Court therefore proceeds to its own analysis. Pp. 7—9.

        (c) Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. Cf. Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 47, n. 2, 62, n. 32. Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication than the Colorado statute’s direction to “use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” or even to “arrest … or … seek a warrant.” A Colorado officer would likely have some discretion to determine that–despite probable cause to believe a restraining order has been violated–the violation’s circumstances or competing duties counsel decisively against enforcement in a particular instance. The practical necessity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. In such circumstances, the statute does not appear to require officers to arrest but only to seek a warrant. That, however, would be an entitlement to nothing but procedure, which cannot be the basis for a property interest. Pp. 9—15.

        (d) Even if the statute could be said to make enforcement “mandatory,” that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement. Her alleged interest stems not from common law or contract, but only from a State’s statutory scheme. If she was given a statutory entitlement, the Court would expect to see some indication of that in the statute itself. Although the statute spoke of “protected person[s]” such as respondent, it did so in connection with matters other than a right to enforcement. Most importantly, it spoke directly to the protected person’s power to “initiate” contempt proceedings if the order was issued in a civil action, which contrasts tellingly with its conferral of a power merely to “request” initiation of criminal contempt proceedings–and even more dramatically with its complete silence about any power to “request” (much less demand) that an arrest be made. Pp. 15—17.

        (e) Even were the Court to think otherwise about Colorado’s creation of an entitlement, it is not clear that an individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order could constitute a “property” interest for due process purposes. Such a right would have no ascertainable monetary value and would arise incidentally, not out of some new species of government benefit or service, but out of a function that government actors have always performed–arresting people when they have probable cause. A benefit’s indirect nature was fatal to a due process claim in O’Bannon v. Town Court Nursing Center, 447 U.S. 773, 787. Here, as there, “[t]he simple distinction between government action that directly affects a citizen’s legal rights … and action that is directed against a third party and affects the citizen only … incidentally, provides a sufficient answer to” cases finding government-provided services to be entitlements. Id., at 788. Pp. 17—19.”

        • VanHaggis

          So basically what we have here is one fake news site (GraniteGrok) citing and affirming another fake news site (The Tribunist). Makes we wonder if they’re both owned by the same dooshbag sitting in his basement in his underwear making nice coin by whipping ignorant conservatives into a lather. I’m sure it’s a great job to have if you can stand to look yourself in the mirror each day. I certainly couldn’t.

Previous post:

Next post: