Judge Allows Lawsuit Against City Of San Jose, CA by Attacked Trump Supporters

[HAPPY2BME]

Judge Allows Class Action Lawsuit Against City of San Jose by Attacked Trump Supporters…

Last year hundreds of Donald Trump supporters were attacked in San Jose California as the local law enforcement stood back and watched.  Many attendees and victims stated the police actually facilitated the attacks by funneling the rally crowd directly into the path of an unchecked mob. Last week a judge approved the class action lawsuit continuing…



SAN JOSE (KCBS) – A federal judge is giving Donald Trump supporters the green light to pursue their lawsuit against the city of San Jose. The plaintiffs accuse the city for not protecting them during a campaign rally last year.

The Trump supporters in this case claim that San Jose police officers intentionally steered them into an angry mob of protesters, following a Trump campaign rally last June.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/03/19/judge-allows-class-action-lawsuit-against-city-of-san-jose-by-attacked-trump-supporters/

[Boudicca]

I absolutely adore this lil' nugget.  STILL on the warpath against the entire Pacifier sucking Coast because of their cucked courts and legislative bodies (my conservative SIL and her husband are living in hlish Seattle), but it's nice to find a diamond amongst the usual judicial sewerage.
Hope the residents of San Joe
Jose find themselves on the way to the poor house after the brutalized Trump supporters get through the ball sac deflating legal process.

[SVPete]

I absolutely adore this lil' nugget.  STILL on the warpath against the entire Pacifier sucking Coast because of their cucked courts and legislative bodies (my conservative SIL and her husband are living in hlish Seattle), but it's nice to find a diamond amongst the usual judicial sewerage.
Hope the residents of San Joe
Jose find themselves on the way to the poor house after the brutalized Trump supporters get through the ball sac deflating legal process.

Seriously?! Have you spoken to every resident of the City of San Jose? And know that every one of them approved of the attacks on Trump supporters? Probably not, since over 20% of Santa Clara County voters voted Trump - myself included, BTW. And I'm sure more than a few of those who voted for The SHREW nevertheless disapproved of those thugs' attacks.

Please, have the minimal decency to see and speak of the 1 million people living in San Jose as individuals, with millions of differences, not as so many identical lockstep robots. Leave that sort of "thinking" to DU-folk and their fellow Progs.

[HAPPY2BME]

Please, have the minimal decency to see and speak of the 1 million people living in San Jose as individuals, with millions of differences, not as so many identical lockstep robots. Leave that sort of "thinking" to DU-folk and their fellow Progs.

=======================

I've seen several of these occurrences in both California and Washington states where the mayors AND the INDECENT law enforcement (read: defenders of raw socialism) did NOT have the 'minimal decency' to lift a finger while people from their own town were being brutalized and terrorized right in front of them, in many cases less than five feet.

decency?

[SVPete]

=======================

I've seen several of these occurrences in both California and Washington states where the mayors AND the INDECENT law enforcement (read: defenders of raw socialism) did NOT have the 'minimal decency' to lift a finger while people from their own town were being brutalized and terrorized right in front of them, in many cases less than five feet.

decency?

I was speaking to "Boudicca", not of San Jose's Mayor or Police.

[Adam Wood]

The plaintiffs accuse the city for not protecting them during a campaign rally last year.

As much as I despise the violent Left, I have to disagree with the premise of this suit.  The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

Let me repeat that so that it sinks in, because for a lot of people it just bounces off of their heads:

The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

[HAPPY2BME]

As much as I despise the violent Left, I have to disagree with the premise of this suit.  The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

Let me repeat that so that it sinks in, because for a lot of people it just bounces off of their heads:

The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

========================

In your mind, what purpose does law enforcement have, if not to 'protect' someone?

[HAPPY2BME]

I was speaking to "Boudicca", not of San Jose's Mayor or Police.

===============================

I understand that over 2 million Californians voted for Donald Trump.  I saw the number on election night, but don't remember how many exactly it was.

There were and are many Californians of course that do not agree with the socialist/communist government in Sacramento, and that permeates every corner of that state (Darrell Issa is now trying to save his butt in San Diego by dissing himself from Trump and coming out in defense of Planned Parenthood, among other things).

Essentially, California is a completely different spiritual, political, social, and ethical, mindset from most of the rest of the country, with the exception of the minority that refuses to go along with it.  Yes, there are pockets of excellent people scattered all over the state, but they are completely outnumbered, and most likely in our lifetimes that is not going to change (if ever).

So, if you were put in the place where you were able to speak directly to the San Jose mayor, or had been there when the San Jose police department formed a police line and did not lift a finger to come to the assistance of those being physically beaten while they stood and watched it - what would you say to them?

The judge who allowed the lawsuit is from the California Northern District, and is herself based out of San Jose.

Will the mayor allow the San Jose police to 'protect' her once she starts getting threats I wonder?

District Judge Lucy H. Koh
San Jose Courthouse, Courtroom 8 - 4th Floor
280 South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113

http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/lhk

[dutch508]

As much as I despise the violent Left, I have to disagree with the premise of this suit.  The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

Let me repeat that so that it sinks in, because for a lot of people it just bounces off of their heads:

The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

Funny- the side of my patrol car says "To Protect and Serve."

[Adam Wood]

========================

In your mind, what purpose does law enforcement have, if not to 'protect' someone?

To collect evidence of crimes and present that evidence to the appropriate legal authorities for prosecution and make arrests as appropriate after a crime has occurred.

Funny- the side of my patrol car says "To Protect and Serve."

And that's a nice slogan, but it's not a valid legal argument.

It has been long-held legal doctrine that the police do not have an obligation to protect anyone.  It's nice if they do, and I highly applaud anyone who protects people, especially in the line of duty, but there's simply not a legal requirement to do so.  And it doesn't take a tremendous leap of legal perception to understand why this is: if the police, an agency of one government or another (state, city, county, etc.), have a duty to protect anyone, then they have a duty to protect everyone, and that's simply not possible.  As the old saying goes, you can't have a cop on every street corner.  If the police have a duty to protect everyone, then by extension, the police are legally liable for every crime that is committed that they failed to prevent, and that would obviously be utter chaos: people would sue the police over every crime that was ever committed, from petty larceny right up to murder.  That's just never going to work.

So, even though it sounds shocking to a lot of people at first blush, the simple fact is that the police do not have any specific duty or obligation to protect anyone.

[SVPete]

To collect evidence of crimes and present that evidence to the appropriate legal authorities for prosecution and make arrests as appropriate after a crime has occurred.
And that's a nice slogan, but it's not a valid legal argument.

It has been long-held legal doctrine that the police do not have an obligation to protect anyone.  It's nice if they do, and I highly applaud anyone who protects people, especially in the line of duty, but there's simply not a legal requirement to do so.  And it doesn't take a tremendous leap of legal perception to understand why this is: if the police, an agency of one government or another (state, city, county, etc.), have a duty to protect anyone, then they have a duty to protect everyone, and that's simply not possible.  As the old saying goes, you can't have a cop on every street corner.  If the police have a duty to protect everyone, then by extension, the police are legally liable for every crime that is committed that they failed to prevent, and that would obviously be utter chaos: people would sue the police over every crime that was ever committed, from petty larceny right up to murder.  That's just never going to work.

So, even though it sounds shocking to a lot of people at first blush, the simple fact is that the police do not have any specific duty or obligation to protect anyone.

Thank you for providing a link to the/a case to which I was alluding in my OP. And as you said, that case simply made common sense a matter of case law. What may make this case different is: police were on scene; police officers directed the people who were attacked to go where the attacks took place (negligence, not collusion); the police officers on scene did not attempt to break up the attacks. Those facts may take this case outside of the immunity recognized by Warren v. District of Columbia.

[HAPPY2BME]

So, even though it sounds shocking to a lot of people at first blush, the simple fact is that the police do not have any specific duty or obligation to protect anyone.

So, even though it sounds shocking to a lot of people at first blush, the simple fact is that the police do not have any specific duty or obligation to protect anyone.

=======================

By your own logic, those being attacked right in front of the San Jose police were fully justified in using physical force to repel their attackers - up to and including lethal.

[SVPete]

=======================

By your own logic, those being attacked right in front of the San Jose police were fully justified in using physical force to repel their attackers - up to and including lethal.

Not speaking for Adam (or as a lawyer), maybe. The law requires self-defense to have reasonable proportionality:

* If a lone attacker is using his fists (and isn't a professional boxer or trained in martial arts), blowing him away with a handgun could result in a criminal conviction of the one who used the handgun, even though it was in self-defense;

* If a lone attacker is using a knife (deadly force), blowing him away with a handgun would probably have no more consequences than the time consumption entailed in a police investigation to establish what happened (SF and Berserkeley might be exceptions, but ...).

[BlueStateSaint]

Not speaking for Adam (or as a lawyer), maybe. The law requires self-defense to have reasonable proportionality:

* If a lone attacker is using his fists (and isn't a professional boxer or trained in martial arts), blowing him away with a handgun could result in a criminal conviction of the one who used the handgun, even though it was in self-defense;

* If a lone attacker is using a knife (deadly force), blowing him away with a handgun would probably have no more consequences than the time consumption entailed in a police investigation to establish what happened (SF and Berserkeley might be exceptions, but ...).

Exactly the same in the PRNY. 

I've wondered that if said lone attacker landed two or more blows (glancing, to allow this to happen) to the head, would the defender be justified in using deadly force?  It could be reasonably argued that said attacker, by continuing to strike for the head, was using deadly force . . . Something for the lawyers to argue.

The best course of action is to emulate 'Brave Sir Robin.'

[SVPete]

Exactly the same in the PRNY. 

I've wondered that if said lone attacker landed two or more blows (glancing, to allow this to happen) to the head, would the defender be justified in using deadly force?  It could be reasonably argued that said attacker, by continuing to strike for the head, was using deadly force . . . Something for the lawyers to argue.

The best course of action is to emulate 'Brave Sir Robin.'

A situation like Trayvon pounding what's-his-name's into the concrete walkway? Deadly force in defense against deadly force is certainly proportional in this layman's eyes.

[Crazy Horse]

=======================

I've seen several of these occurrences in both California and Washington states where the mayors AND the INDECENT law enforcement (read: defenders of raw socialism) did NOT have the 'minimal decency' to lift a finger while people from their own town were being brutalized and terrorized right in front of them, in many cases less than five feet.

decency?

North Carolina, Texas, Georgia.  Many states can point to and are guilty of the same examples.

[freedumb2003b]

As much as I despise the violent Left, I have to disagree with the premise of this suit.  The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

Let me repeat that so that it sinks in, because for a lot of people it just bounces off of their heads:

The police have no duty or obligation to protect anyone.

In this case the police led them into harm's way on purpose -- an overt act.

And that is even if I buy your premise, which I do not and I have at least one court decision that agrees with me.

[HAPPY2BME]

In this case the police led them into harm's way on purpose -- an overt act.

And that is even if I buy your premise, which I do not and I have at least one court decision that agrees with me.

==================================

Pretty sure that if anyone on this thread were on the ground having their head slammed into the sidewalk or being repeatedly pummeled with no sign of it ending by several (2 or more) hostile socialists and had a weapon none of us would hesitate to use it.

As each day passes, and the more these socialist-driven mayors and police chiefs refuse to P-R-O-T-E-C-T citizens from R-I-O-T-E-R-S, the more likely law-abiding citizens are to finding out to what extremes they will D-E-F-E-N-D themselves.

[Boudicca]

Seriously?! Have you spoken to every resident of the City of San Jose? And know that every one of them approved of the attacks on Trump supporters? Probably not, since over 20% of Santa Clara County voters voted Trump - myself included, BTW. And I'm sure more than a few of those who voted for The SHREW nevertheless disapproved of those thugs' attacks.

Please, have the minimal decency to see and speak of the 1 million people living in San Jose as individuals, with millions of differences, not as so many identical lockstep robots. Leave that sort of "thinking" to DU-folk and their fellow Progs.

I have a sense of outrage that San Jose, among MANY other blue states have plenty of indecent voters who apparently approve of gangster thuggery because a majority of those bothering to vote, for example your residents of San Jose, keep re-electing political leftists who would rather appease and protect the violent demonstrators and illegal aliens than law-abiding citizens.
You, like my SIL, live in a blue state hell.  I didn't realize I was required to provide a caveat at the beginning of my rant.
Of course I didn't talk to every resident of San Jose.  I try my best to not think about CA at all.
20% of the county going for Trump you say?  That leaves 80% of people who wanted the woman responsible for allowing blood to flow in Benghazi to become president.  Not a particularly decent place to call home.  My condolences.