Tag: protection

Categories
crime and punishment national politics & policies property rights

Dereliction of Duty

police, riot, law, protection,

Must governments act to protect you when you or your property are attacked — for example, by rioters who vandalize and burn your store? 

Is the government liable if it willfully lets it happen?

Protection of life and property is the moral obligation of governments constituted for this purpose. But whether officials who ignore the obligation can be held to account is another question.

A Madison Avenue shop, Domus Design Center, is suing the mayor of New York City and the governor of New York State. In late May and early June, hundreds of businesses were damaged by rioters while Mayor de Blasio and Governor Cuomo refused to act to oppose them.

“Where are our tax dollars going?” asks the Center’s attorney, Sal Strazzullo. “Not protecting commercial properties is negligence of duty. Paying taxes that help pay the salary of the NYPD, we expect protection in return. Government is responsible to protect its citizens and businesses against criminals who want to do bad.”

Yes. 

But Strazzullo’s client faces the precedents of rulings in cases like Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, and a lawsuit by Parkland, Florida students against the local sheriff’s office. In these cases, plaintiffs argued that law enforcers had a positive duty to protect the plaintiffs when they were being clearly threatened. 

The courts disagreed.

We must hope that there are limits to the willingness and ability of judges to avert their gaze. Otherwise, we are paying everyone in the system to look the other way when trouble comes.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by Georgia National Guard

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard nannyism privacy too much government U.S. Constitution

Social Workers: Stop Kidnapping Kids

Michael Chambers, Belle, custody, child, protection, Mississippi, Social Worker,

Michael Chambers is living a nightmare.

His young daughter, Belle, has been taken away by social workers — without any reasonable cause or due process.

When Belle was two, her mother relinquished care to Belle’s grandmother. Then Michael accepted the responsibility. Periodically, his vindictive ex-wife would sic Child Protective Services on him. At first, the annoyance was as benign as such an intrusion could be. The social workers where he lived understood that there was a troublemaking ex-spouse in the picture.

But when Michael and Belle moved to a different Mississippi county, a new social worker, Kyra Reed, got involved. Reed seemed determined to intrude, make demands, and eventually remove Belle by force from Michael’s custody.

For example, Social Worker Reed early on demanded that Michael let her search his home. He was uncomfortable permitting it unless she obtained a warrant. Reed never did get one, or search the house — not even when accompanied by sheriffs. But somehow she didn’t need any legal authorization to steal Belle from Michael. Belle ended up in a foster home, where she was treated badly, before ultimately being forced to live with her mother, whom she hadn’t seen in four years.

The many ugly details of this case cannot be recounted briefly. Michael’s fight to get his daughter back is an expensive one. You can find out more about what happened and, if you like, contribute to Michael’s gofundme campaign to raise money for his legal expenses.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability government transparency national politics & policies responsibility

Overkill, Not Parsimony

defense, defense spending, war, budget, military, protection

Two truths: national defense is a necessity; national defense is a racket.

The latter is the case because the former is the case. Big spenders rely on “better safe than sorry” to always push the envelope, over-investing rather than under-investing.

So, we are trapped — and our new president knows this. Before Trump ran for office, he said that sequestration cuts to the Pentagon budget had not gone far enough. But when he threw his hat into the ring, he promised to “make our military so big, so powerful, so strong that nobody — absolutely nobody — is going to mess with us.”

President Trump now proposes over fifty billion dollars in new defense spending. More soldiers, more ships, more fighter jets.

John Stossel argues that Americans are not necessarily suckers for this game. At least, a majority does not support increasing military spending.

More importantly, Stossel challenges the whole “overkill always” strategy. “America is going broke, and our military already spends almost $600 billion dollars [annually],” Stossel says. “That’s more than the next seven nations spend — combined.”

Now would be a good time to not only rethink Middle East policy, but to re-consider our expensive role as world policeman (speaking of “national” defense). During the campaign, Trump was criticized for questioning our alliances and demanding more of our allies. But he was right. I hope he’ll get tough in prodding our allies to ultimately provide their own defense.

Even more basic? Demand an audit of the Pentagon before new funds are thrown into the five-sided money pit.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Printable PDF