No Duty to Protect
After what happened in Uvalde, why on earth would anyone give up their weapons and trust to police to do anything?
By Ben Boychuk
May 28, 2022
https://amgreatness.com/2022/05/28/no-duty-to-protect/


"If I thought it would help, I would apologize."
— Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw, May 27, 2022

The May 24 massacre in Uvalde, Texas outrages the conscience, though not for the facile and stupid reasons spewed by every prominent Democratic Party politician, half-witted newspaper columnist, and vapid television talking-head.

Liberals and other simpering dunderheads make fetishes of objects, focusing on the tool rather than the tool’s misuser. “Nobody needs an AR-15,” goes the refrain, when need has nothing and right has everything to do with it. “But the tool is so easy to misuse and abuse!” comes the ovine rebuttal, when we know as a matter of fact the tool is used in a small fraction of violent crimes.

Unfortunately, it so happens that some of those crimes focus the attention of the entire nation.

With every school shooting—covered prominently, though not commonplace as they may seem—comes a demand for surrender. And with each of these demands comes the refusal of the law-abiding citizen to forfeit his rights in the name of safety. For that safety, we now know—because we saw it with our own eyes—is subject to the timorous decisions of bureaucrats with guns and badges and terrible judgment.

The real outrage is that the protectors—the “good guys with guns”—failed to protect. In fact, though they surely had the moral duty to save those 21 women and children, they did not have a legal or constitutional duty to do so, as the Supreme Court has said time and again. The police chose to hold back out of an abundance of caution—“officer safety” being the watchword. What’s worse, they prevented parents from entering the school at their own risk to rescue their own children.

All of it appeared to be by the book. If it wasn’t, we’ll know eventually.

Always view early reports with utmost skepticism because the story invariably changes. For example, in the initial hours following the killings on Tuesday, we heard the officer on duty at the school “engaged” with the shooter. That wasn’t true. In fact, the officer was off-campus when the shooting started. When he arrived, he “engaged” with the wrong man outside while the real suspect was in the building.

Then reports began to emerge from parents who were on the scene. Videos appeared on YouTube and social media showing mothers and fathers begging the police to act. “Shoot him or something!” a woman’s voice can be heard yelling on one video. Then another man says, “They’re all just fucking parked outside, dude. They need to go in there.”-- excerpt, rest at link above --

No, there's not, Tinker. None.