NO RIGHT TO SHOOT BACK? FUCK THAT. According to the Wall Street Journal, police who responded to the mass shooting at an elementary school here waited around an hour to enter the classroom where the gunman had locked himself. After the fact, the police claim that a commander on scene incorrectly thought no lives were at risk despite multiple 911 calls from children inside, the director of the Texas Department of Public Safety said Friday. The cops probably also heard the gun shots while they stood outside.

The decision was a mistake and it is unclear how many lives it may have cost, said the director, Steven McCraw, at a news conference. Ultimately 19 children and two teachers were found dead (if this event really took place).

Despite sheople’s outrage about cops standing down, the Supreme Court has ruled that police departments and their officers have no legal duty to protect any particular person. Courts throughout the nation have upheld and expanded on what is known as the “public duty doctrine.” This little known legal realism is concealed in The Spectacle by the Dependent Media and puppeticians in their emotional rants about gun control. Understanding “gun control issues” in their actual context undercuts propaghandi stances as loud and ignorant. The public duty doctrine is well known by cops as they go around surveilling and controlling us like rats.

According to the Supreme Court police have no legal duty to protected any victim from violence by other private parties unless the victim was in police custody. [MORE] and [MORE] This means that police cannot be sued for any federal constitutional claim for a failure to protect citizens. Unless a state negligence law exists allowing such a lawsuit, victims cannot hold police liable for a failure to protect from harm from private parties.

The only legal question for victims such as the ones in Ulvalde is whether the students were in the “custody” of the government during the “massacre.” In other mass shootings such as Parkland where a failure to protect children was claimed, the court ruled that students were not in “custody” and dismissed all claims against the police for a failure to protect students. Other victims such as the alleged victims in the Buffalo Supermarket were not in custody and therefore they would have no claims for a failure to protect. Said legal precedent applies regardless of circumstances such as whether police were present or aware of dangers - the Supreme Court has held that police have no legal duty to protect.

The case of Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (1981), in which police were present and should have been aware of danger to the victims, clearly articulates the public duty doctrine. The facts were as follows:

In the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her. Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" — it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Denying all claims of liability against the government and the police for a failure to protect the victims the court explained,

“the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection.

This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources. Riss v. City of New York, supra. The public, through its representative officials, recruits, trains, maintains and disciplines its police force and determines the manner in which personnel are deployed. At any given time, publicly furnished police protection may accrue to the personal benefit of individual citizens, but at all times the needs and interests of the community at large predominate. Private resources and needs have little direct effect upon the nature of police services provided to the public. Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.”

The Supreme Court has also ruled that police are not liable under the Due Process clause for a failure to protect even where the police are have adopted a department policy of non-action. In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Court explained that police have broad discretion to arrest people whenever they want to; even when a court’s restraining order has explicitly ordered the arrest of a violator (as it did in that case) the police have discretion as to whether they will or not arrest.

Despite reality concealment by puppeticians and their Dependent Media the public duty doctrine is a legal reality that, as explained by the DC Court of Appeals, is “well established” throughout the nation. A responsible, capable and intelligent citizen should be ready and able to defend himself and come to the defense of others when necessary because the police have no legal obligation to do so. Who would think that under the most violent terroristic circumstances such as an alleged “madman” murdering children, the police would choose not to offer protection? Lax gun policies? How about an unaccountable government that can’t protect even the most vulnerable citizens unable to defend themselves? Rather than take guns away from people, it is rational for more people to arm themselves; you should have the right to shoot back especially since vaginal cops have no legal obligation to protect you.

The public duty doctrine is yet another reason the social contract between government and citizens is myth. The theory is that there is a “social contract” between people and the government in which the government protects the people and enforces the laws, in exchange for citizens’ obedience and taxes. That is, people have agreed to obey the government and do so voluntarily in exchange for government services. Mutual obligations, a promise for a promise, are a necessary element of every contract. Where persons mistakenly believe they have a contract and one party fails to fulfill an obligation, the other is necessarily excused from performing her obligation. A contract places both parties under an obligation to each other, and one party’s rejection of his contractual obligation releases the other party from her obligation.

With regard to the social contract undeceiver Michael Huemer states,

‘individuals are supposed to be obligated to obey the laws promulgated by the state. Sometimes citizens violate those laws, in which case the state’s agents will punish the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. Given the wide and indefinite range of laws that might be created by the state and the range of punishments to which one might be subjected for violating them, an individual’s concessions to the state under the social contract are quite large. The state, in turn, is supposed to assume an obligation to the citizen, to enforce the citizen’s rights, including protecting the citizen from criminals and hostile foreign governments.’

Citizens are contractually obliged to obey all laws and commands and when they fail to do so the government punishes the citizen, usually with fines or imprisonment. However, authorities are bound to do whatever they want to do, whenever they want to do it and to whom they choose, but no one in particular. Dr. Blynd asks “Makes you feel like a fool, doesn’t it? ”

There is no contract between the individual and the state.” The social contract is a device or trick that is parcel to a paradigm in the citizen’s mind that enables the coercive system (government). Huemer goes on,

What of the suggestion that the state’s obligation is owed to the public at large rather than to any individual? One problem with this suggestion is that it is purely arbitrary. There is no actual evidence for the suggestion, and one might be forgiven for suspecting that the state simply declares that the social contract requires only whatever the state itself wants to do. The other problem is that the social contract theory is meant to explain why individuals are obligated to obey the state. If an individual is not a party to the social contract, then the individual has no duty to the state under that contract. If the contract somehow holds only between the state and the public at large, then perhaps ‘the public at large’ owes something to the state, but no individual does. If, on the other hand, the social contract holds between the individual and the state, then the state must have an obligation to the individual. One cannot have it both ways: one cannot maintain that the individual owes duties to the state but that the state owes nothing to the individual.

It should also go without saying but there is no magic ceremony, voting process or magic statements (oaths) which can grant certain people extra-human powers to rule over people, exempt them from morality, accountability and do things which no individual or group of individuals can do.

Why does any of this matter? If there is no social contract then there is no rational basis for the belief in political authority.

Here, we are not talking about the purpose of government or how government can be improved. Rather, authority is the belief in the government’s implied right to rule over people in the first place. Authority is the belief that some people have the legal and moral right to forcibly control others, and that, consequently, those others have a legal and moral obligation to obey.’ Huemer defines political authority as “the hypothesized moral property in virtue of which governments may coerce people in certain ways not permitted to anyone else and in virtue of which citizens must obey governments in situations in which they would not be obligated to obey anyone else.” The reason the government is said to have a special entitlement to make and enforce laws for the rest of society and citizens have a special obligation to obey is because of the social contract. However, as stated, the social contract is an illusion. In addition to the above reasons about the public duty doctrine, there is no social contract because no one has ever agreed to it. If such a social contract agreement exists, WHEN DID YOU SIGN IT? We were born into this arrangement, no one signed anything. Yet citizens are obligated to obey all laws and governmental orders regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it. Also, there is no implicit social contract agreement; the government imposes its law on everyone whether you object or not, the law will be imposed on you regardless of whether you use government services or participate in elections and there is no way to decline government service or ‘opt out’ of legal obligations owed to the government or cancel the requirement of obedience to all laws. Therefore, there are no rational explanations for the fantastic belief in authority. [MORE]

No person(s) or entity has the right to rule over other human beings. Authority is a granfalloon, an unreality. FUNKTIONARY explains Authority “has no meaning in reality,” it “is the means by which society uses to control its population.” Authority is a “cartoon” or an “image of law” because among other things the social contract is a lie told to you by your masters. Consequently, there is no rational justification for anyone to rule over others.

In real life “Authority is rule through coercion.” Coercion here means physical force. “Laws” are threats backed by the ability and willingness to use violence/force against those who disobey. Huemer explains ‘the legal system is anchored by a non-voluntary intervention, a harm that the state can impose regardless of the individual’s choices.’ The only actual choice authority presents to citizens is to obey commands and laws or go to jail. Locke states, “The lie of tyranny is that you will maintain the freedom of life by obeying authority. The choices it offers you are a lifetime of obedience or death.” FUNKTIONARY explains, “Once a man has said “yes” under “coercion,”once a man has yielded because he was forced to yield, you have destroyed his capacity to say “yes” spontaneously forever. He will say yes only when he is coerced.”As a placebo, citizens might rationalize that they voluntarily comply with authority but there really is no other choice. The only reality is to comply with the law or eventually authoritarians will place you in greater confinement. Huemer spells out the mechanics of it,

“One can choose not to pay a fine, one can choose to drive without a license, and one can even choose not to walk to a police car to be taken away. But one cannot choose not to be subjected to physical force if the agents of the state decide to impose it.” The legal system is not voluntary or consensual and there is no way to opt out or decline participation in it; we are born into an involuntary system of physical coercion where you either obey authority or go to jail.

Although all governments work this way regardless of how they are described, they are not all the same- some allow more freedoms or grant more “rights” in “their territory” than others. FUNKTIONARY defines this circumstance as “Free Range Prison” or “Free Range Slavery.” A goal of authority is to place you in greater confinement. It states, “demockery” is “a spectacle of the true nature of democracy. . . next to "monetized debt," and direct taxation (on labor) it is the biggest con-game perpetrated on a population. Democracy has proved only that the best way to gain and sustain power over people is to assure the people that they are ruling themselves. Once they believe that lie, they make wonderfully submissive and self-maintained slaves.’

Authority doesn’t need to be destroyed just like a cartoon doesn’t need to be destroyed; authority only exists in people’s minds. Rather, it is the belief in authority which is evil, a curse upon mankind. The great rebel, Larken Rose explains, “The belief in “authority,” which includes all belief in “government,” is irrational and self-contradictory; it is contrary to civilization and morality, and constitutes the most dangerous, destructive superstition that has ever existed. Rather than being a force for order and justice, the belief in “authority” is the arch-enemy of humanity.” FUNKTIONARY explains, belief in authority is no different than “Most beliefs [which] are merely the result of indoctrination, acculturation, programming and conditioning.” “Belief” itself is a cultural conditioning imposed on you by others; it is also a slavery. [MORE] Like other granfalloons, authority must be relentlessly propagandized to maintain its existence in The Spectacle. One minor example is the thousands of tv shows and movies about police, fire departments, schools, courts, politicians etc.; regardless of the content, this programming elevates obedience to authority and government into people’s minds as a real entity that solves people’s problems, like a god. Trent Goodbaudy states: “We are stuck in an illusory construct that only exists in a diseased psyche. There really are no rulers and no masters anyway; just claims of authority, and acceptance of these claims by the brainwashed. There really is no government other than what you choose to be governed by: they only have the authority that you grant them.” In other words, as Larken Rose explains, ‘millions of people have hallucinated that puppeticians have authority and then do their bidding, paying for their empires and carrying out their orders.’ [MORE]

The belief in authority must be dropped to usher in human civilization and allow humanity to mature and develop. FUNKTIONARY states, “Only you have authority over your Self...anything else. i.e.. to accept any authority external to one's Self once of discriminating age, is the very definition of irresponsibility.” Authority doesn’t have to be fought and destroyed - just dropped by people. FUNKTIONARY defines, “injustice” as the by-product of authority and its enforcement through legal fictions: the Corporate Police State and their tribunals. 2) forced obligations. Where a critical mass of individuals see authority for what it is, a farce, they will drop it the same way they would discard a wooden coin or expired coupon. As explained by FUNKTIONARY:

The real threat to "authority" is the masses overcoming info-gaps and verigaps through self-knowledge and the proliferation of symbols of opposition, not crime or destruction of property.”

According to FUNKTIONARY:

Endependence - the open declaration of the beginning of self determination, self-reliance and Self-realization that spells the end to dependence on objective truth-based truth, abstractions, reifications, granfalloons, father figures and organized religion.

government paradox - Government is men and women providing services on a compulsory basis—pay and obey or get shot. "To be legitimate they would have to drop their guns and provide their services on a voluntary basis. However, the moment they do so, they cease to be a government. That's quite the conundrum." —Marc Stevens. (See: Statism, Nations, Slavery, Standing, Jurisdiction, State, Unalienable Rights, Freedom, Predictive Programming, Education & Citizens)

"Authority-" is not a force but a farce! "Every great advancement in natural knowledge has involved the absolute rejection of authority." —Aldous Huxley. Government is the hefty price we pay for our lack of being further evolved as humans. "The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority." —Stanley Milgram Regarding obedience to authority and carrying out "orders" Milgram states, "Thus there is a fragmentation of the totai human act; no one man decides to carry out the evil act and is confronted with consequences. The person who assumes full responsibility for the act has evaporated. Perhaps this is the most common characteristic of socially organized evil in modern society." At its root, government is based on violence and coercion. Without violent authority, studies show that violent behavior will all but disappear in its wake. Authority breeds the violence that it combats and perpetuates. Violence perpetrated by individuals is learned through noxious social experiences typically suffered under some assumed "authority." "The greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own government." —Dr. Martin L. King. Jr.. 1967. Read "Obedience to Authority" by Stanley Milgram, and "Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. (See: Violence, Government. Yurugu, BOG. "The Law," Hierarchy. Obedience, Duty, Defiance, Disobedience, Compliance Priests, Preachers, Citizens, States, Involuntary Taxation, Tax Invasion, Behavior, Orders, Allegiance. Internal Revenue Service, Corporate State, Anarchy. Taxtortion, Power, Experts, Doggy & Neuropeans) [MORE]

Militia – a lawful organization outside the control of organized (and unorganized) crime under the direct control of non-merchants formed for the purpose of hands-on remedies for the prevention of violence where there is no “money” to be made (advantage). 2) the last remedy for the non-merchant denied remedy by the merchant courts and police. 3) combat shooting clubs that keep the fetid and flagituous elements (rogue agents and bad actors) in and behind “government” a tad bit nervous. Militias protect the unalienable rights of free men and women. You are more likely to be visited-upon by the “authorities” of whatever stripe more than a would-be robber. Both have the same intention—to take you and/or your property by force. While violence is never the answer, protecting yourself and defending your rights, family, dignity, property and honor is the solution for lawless encroachment by those sworn to uphold the law and those who could care less about you, the authorities, or the law to begin with. “Stop right there! Drop your weapons and let me see your hands in the air—and wave them like you’re in despair.” ~Arnecca DeWoods. Never forget Ruby Ridge. (See: Force Continuum, Gun Control, Startle, Fascism, Rights, Justice System, Unalienable Rights, Police, Law Enforcement, Authorities, Orderlies, Game Warden, Jehovah Witness Protection Program, Surveillance State, Nation- States, Political Boundaries, Free-Range Slavery, Territorial Boundaries, Waco “No-Knock,” The Greater System, WACO, Longevity, Faction, Authority, Government, Granfalloon, Legislation & Second Amendment)