And I'm quite sure Ruth Bader would uphold any disarmament law that comes down the pike (as if the scotus would take a dead nuts 2a case) - won't affect her, as she can afford as much private security as she likes, to go along with the fedgov free public security she gets. Educated beyond her intelligence. That deserves some letters to her from a few of us....
The key difference in this case distinguishing it from the long line of precedent which establishes that, absent any legislation to the contrary, police, either state or federal, have no *general* duty of care in protecting any individual member of the public, is that in this case, the reports say that there was a specific Colo. law that imposes a specific duty of care upon to police to use "all reasonable means" or some similar language, to enforce civil VPOS....the question is not what the precedent says, because that only applies to the highly distinguishable case of no specific duty. Here, a statute gives rise to a higher standard of duty. I haven't read the opinion yet, but I'll sure be interested to find out how the court concluded the police used all reasonable means to protect her in this factual scenario.
And what makes no sense whatsoever on the surface to me, given the reports of the Colo. statute, is this quote from that opinion blip:
Nor, I assume, does any Colorado statute create any such entitlement
. First, a judge never ASSUMES anything, period, especially a scotus member, one of the 9 most esteemed judges in the land, with a whole staff of researchers and law clerks each assigned to them and at their disposal. And 2nd, I thought that was precisely what WAS at issue, the Colo. statute imposing the higher duty. So wth....time to dig into this opinion and see what's going on here.
I thought the SC only takes cases where the existing case law is not clear, or where there is a possibility that an existing law will be overturned, or where the issue at stake is new territory in some other way.