EMERGENCY BROADCAST: SCOTUS REMOVING 4TH AMENDMENT; CASE VS MONTANA – THIS IS HORRIBLE. 4A IS GONE



Get your Trifolds and 5th Amendment Cop Cards on www.DeleteLawZ.com
Thanks,
Chille
@ChilleDeCastro PayPal
@Chille-DeCastro Venmo
$ChilleDeCastro Cashapp
ZELLE: sohi90069 AT gmail dot com

source

41 thoughts on “EMERGENCY BROADCAST: SCOTUS REMOVING 4TH AMENDMENT; CASE VS MONTANA – THIS IS HORRIBLE. 4A IS GONE”

  1. Delete cunts protect the criminal exalt criminality and beat down the American flag nobody likes you everybody hates you so you ain't getting anywhere keep going waste your time waste your effort. Absolutely somebody shoots at the police or trying to swing at the police you're going to get the f**** s*** kicked out of you or you're going to get blasted no questions just like any other country you f**** jackass old mother f***

  2. This bozo is a JACKASSHOLE 😂 I hope they kidnapped this mother f*** box HIS DUMB FUKIN ASS UP 😂 up and send HIM to China and see what THIS HORSE'S ASHOLE HAS to say LOL😂 irritating jackass WHO knows nothing about anything. Lil CUNT

  3. Listen to how calmly they are taking away our rights. You all better be sharpening your pitchforks. Stop being pussies, sitting behind your phone screens. This will take sacrifice. Semper Fi

  4. These State Supreme court lawyers are such a bunch of tongue twisting nerd twits.. anything to always cover pigs azz and sway law favors to the blue line cop suckers. Put a period on it, said the one liberal Supreme cop sucker! 😂

  5. These Supreme Judges need Firing and Replaced with Judges that Support all the Ammendments and will remove all the Crap attached to them For Officer Safety, OTVO ect, But we know that wont happen because of the Cop Sucker in the White House…

  6. Alito is a double talking Jesuit POS. Look into it. All of the "Justices" are Jesuit trained. Hpothetical after hyopthetical. This is what the founding fathers feared. Probable Cause supported by afirmation means just that! TRAITORS!

  7. This Should Do Away With ANY thoughts that it is for "OUR SAFETY" WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The legal principle that police have no duty to protect individuals from harm unless a "special relationship" exists is established in cases like DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales. These landmark Supreme Court decisions affirmed that police have a duty to the public at large, not to any single individual, and a failure to intervene does not typically create a cause of action for individuals to sue.

    Key cases

    DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989): The Supreme Court ruled that the state was not liable for failing to protect a young boy from his abusive father, even though the local social services department was aware of the abuse.

    Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005): The Supreme Court held that the police had no constitutional duty to respond to a woman's repeated pleas for help after her estranged husband abducted their three children, an act that ultimately led to the husband killing the children. The court determined that the police's failure to enforce a restraining order did not violate the woman's due process rights.

    Warren v. District of Columbia (1981): A D.C. Court of Appeals case that predates the Supreme Court's rulings but is often cited in this context. It held that police have a general duty to the public, not a specific duty to individual citizens, unless a "special relationship" exists.

    Implication of the "special relationship" exception

    These cases establish a general rule that police have no affirmative duty to protect individuals.

    A "special relationship" is an exception to this rule, which is not created by the general public calling police for help.

    This exception could apply if an officer takes a person into custody or otherwise creates a situation where the individual is dependent on the officer for protection, but it does not typically apply to general requests for assistance.

    Court Rules: Police Don't Have To Protect? – CountyOffice.org

    Dec 2, 2024 — welcome to County Office your ultimate guide to local government services and public records. let's get started court r…

    YouTube·County Office

    3m

    The Public Duty Doctrine and Its Implications for Police Officers

    Apr 4, 2023 — The public duty doctrine is a legal principle that states that government officials, including police officers, absent …

    favicon

    Savage Training Group

    What is the justification behind the no-duty-to-protect rule created by …

    Feb 13, 2024 — D) The constitution gives the government negative duties but does not assign affirmative ones: This is the core of the…

    favicon

    Course Hero

  8. If I have this Right, POS police were called to go check on this person because they said they were going to off them selves, but instead for their SAFETY, the POS police do the job for them!!!!!!!!!? WTAF are we talking about here, how the fuck is the POS police stopping someone from offing them selves BY FUCKING OFFING THEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GTFOHWTBS!! FUCK THE POS police, TWICE ON TUESDAY!!!!!!!!!!!!

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top