Here's an excerpt from the essay James Madison wrote explaining his words he wrote in the bill of rights a couple years earlier.

"Govt is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of Gov't, that is a just Gov't which impartially secures to every man whatever his own."

Are those city officials following this?

so if the punks are burning your car on the street it's ok but if they are burning in the driveway where it could catch the house on fire and you can't easily move your elderly mother from the house with her oxygen in the presence of fire?

one turns in the other in less time than it takes to make a 911 call.

if response time was already running 18 minutes as Seattle PD Chief Best stated , you were already on your own.

Do we have a lawyer among us who can explain how these cities and municipalities are going to avoid getting sued out of existence? And they shouldn't be allowed to pass their legal costs onto the insurance companies. Cities have assets. Politicians have assets. They need to be auctioned off to pay for all the damage they've caused. They want their cities destroyed? Let's help them destroy their cities through the courts.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/witness-driver-gunned-down-armed-183000377.html



who is feeding them??????????????????????????????????

Probably similar laws that's protecting them here in Georgia. Our state constitution gives state and municipal governments immunity from prosecution. We have county commissions tearing down memorials in spite of state law making that a crime. Every injunction has been denied on the grounds of immunity.
It's gotten to be such a problem that an amendment will be on the ballot in November that will strip immunity from state and municipal.

Why would any person or business want to stay in these cities? Which insurance company would be willing to insure anything in these cities? What tourist would want to visit these cities? With all this said, how can these cities survive?

Police departments are sued all the time, and they often settle out of court. So there are exceptions to their sovereign immunity - discrimination, acting in bad faith, etc. The point here is to exert massive financial pain to these municipalities in one form or another. But yeah, making a viable civil case would be tough.

Mainer , people expect that the Police have a Duty to protect when in fact it has been tested and tried by the supreme court that.

if a cop is standing in the next subway car watching your murder by being stabbed to death through the window they could choose at any time to open that door, he/she if under no Duty to Protect they can stand there and watch you be murdered , take down the description of the person stabbing you and when the stabbing finished and the danger to the officer entering the car has passed open the door and check on you and call you an ambulance. they have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the court.


simply to say , you were always on your own by legal duty.

police departments get sued and loose when , they unlawfully arrest people , charge them with crimes they did not commit and cause harm.

they don't get sued successfully when they do nothing.

doing nothing becomes safer than doing the wrong thing.

Yes, I realize all of that, but city officials have done something deliberately and with malice. They have mandated that the police ignore ongoing criminal activity so as to allow the rioting to continue. According to them, these are peaceful protesters and peaceful protesters don't destroy property - by definition.

So how does that not create huge legal liability for the city? Insurance companies should refuse to pay liability claims and then sue these cities for the millions (billions?) in property damage claims they will need to pay out due to their incitement of these riots.

I'm not simply being rhetorical here. I would like to know how city officials can legally get away with this sort of malfeasance?

I agree suits should be filed , how you defined the malice and how you prove it will be the question.

the as part is the citizens pay the suit , and the way the cities are going they could bankrupt the city.

If you think its bad now, wait till Trump is reelected, the space station will be viewing the fires.
Dennis

Then the gloves come off.

Jim, you are missing the most important part of the new rules, which is that the police can not use crowd dispersal techniques to get through the thousands of people preventing them from getting to the person needing their life protected. Without using tools like tear gas, rubber bullets, batons and fire hoses, even 100 police officers will not be able to fight through the crowds to save someone.

Keith

Thanks, Swamp Wolf. That's helpful....

If you sue the city, you are suing taxpayers. The perps don't get punished.

Not sure I agree 100% with how the SC continues to rule on this but I can see a huge mess if they ever rule differently.

The SCOTUS is wrong imo from reading what governments sole purpose is suppose to be in the constitution and Bill of rights.

I DON"T CARE ANYMORE! I don't live in those places, and anyone stupid enough to voluntarily live and work under such insanity deserves the self-inflicted punishment their tax dollars provide.