Shot in the Dark

The Walk

Our thorough discussion of Ryan Winkler’s tweet established that
Democrats have a strong personal belief, perhaps even a moral
conviction, that public safety is a government responsibility.

Our thorough discussion of the lawsuit against Minneapolis established
that when citizens suffer because government abandons its
responsibility, the citizens have no recourse under existing law.

You must rely on us; but you can’t rely on us. That’s Catch-22 and it’s
not a joke, it’s official policy.

So the obvious question is: When will Ryan Winkler introduce legislation
creating a right for citizens to sue the government for failing its
responsibility to protect them? And will the new law be retroactive to
cover the riots?

Ryan Winkler talked the talk, but will he walk the walk?

Joe Doakes

No point of Rep. Winkler’s career has been about “walking” any “walk”.

It’s been about pointing at others shortcomings, real or manufactured, and jumping up and down and pointing and flinging poo.

That should clarify things.

Posted

in

, , ,

by

Mitch Berg

Tags:

Comments

8 responses to “The Walk”

  1. Pig Bodine Avatar
    Pig Bodine

    As Thomas Sowell famously observed:

    “In every disaster throughout American history, there always seems to be a man from Harvard in the middle of it”

  2. bosshoss429 Avatar
    bosshoss429

    Pig;
    Classic! Well done!

  3. AllenS Avatar
    AllenS

    Bravo, Pig.

  4. Night Writer Avatar
    Night Writer

    And he likes to use a particular finger when pointing.

  5. jdm Avatar
    jdm

    You must rely on us; but you can’t rely on us. That’s Catch-22 and it’s
    not a joke, it’s official policy.

    JD, “the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens” (DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales). Would legislation change this?

  6. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    I think it could. Those were cases trying to establish a right where none existed; I’m talking about legislation creating the right at the state level.

    In DeShaney, a couple was divorced and custody awarded to father, who abused the child to death. Social workers visited several times but did nothing. After the child’s death, the mother wanted to sue the social workers for failing their duty but couldn’t. She tried a novel approach, suing on behalf of the deceased boy, on the theory that he had been deprived of his federal civil rights through the social worker’s inaction. Supremes said no. A federal civil rights case requires government action, not inaction.

    Castle Rock was a similar divorce situation with a similar result. Can’t use federal civil rights law to sue for state government action/inaction.

    Warren v. District of Columbia is a police failure-to-protect case which is closer to our situation. Washington DC is a federal territory so the court applied federal civil rights law and found that law enforcements duty to protect is to the public at large, not to an specific individual, so injured persons cannot sue.

    I’m talking about the state legislature passing a law saying, “The State of Minnesota has a duty of protection both to the public at large, and to residents in particular. Any person who suffers injury or death due to the state’s failure to protect that person has a cause of action against the State of Minnesota to recover damages including specifically, but not exclusively, property damages, lost wages, future income, attorneys fees, costs and disbursements.”

  7. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    The idea is not to try to get around existing case law by creative lawyering, it’s to create a new right where none existed.

    Yes, it’ll be obscenely expensive for the state to pay the costs of failing to protect its residents. But those losses are already being borne, by the people who can least afford to bear them, the victims. We’re all socialists now, right? Then the costs of crimes should be socialized over the whole state and borne by everybody, not the victims.

  8. Joe Doakes Avatar
    Joe Doakes

    follow up comment used the s-word. Dang it. Fixed . . .

    The idea is not to try to get around existing case law by creative lawyering, it’s to create a new right where none existed.

    Yes, it’ll be obscenely expensive for the state to pay the costs of failing to protect its residents. But those losses are already being borne, by the people who can least afford to bear them, the victims. We’re all Progressives now, right? Then the costs of crimes should be socialized over the whole state and borne by everybody, not the victims.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.