Episode 255- Jasmine Isn’t Wrong… This Time. Podcast Por  arte de portada

Episode 255- Jasmine Isn’t Wrong… This Time.

Episode 255- Jasmine Isn’t Wrong… This Time.

Escúchala gratis

Ver detalles del espectáculo
Episode 255-Jasmine isn’t wrong… This time. Also Available OnSearchable Podcast Transcript Gun Lawyer — Episode 255 Transcript SUMMARY KEYWORDS Police duty, Jasmine Crockett, Trump derangement syndrome, self-protection, Warren vs District of Columbia, gun rights, carry license, New Jersey gun law, Jeff Cooper, personal defense, alertness, ruthlessness, social media, firearm regulations, gun lawyer. SPEAKERS Evan Nappen, Speaker 2, Teddy Nappen Evan Nappen 00:15 I’m Evan Nappen. Teddy Nappen 00:17 And I’m Teddy Nappen. Evan Nappen 00:19 And welcome to Gun Lawyer. So, you probably have heard of Jasmine Crockett, and I bet you rarely, if ever agree with anything she says. She’s got a serious case of TDS, which is Trump Derangement Syndrome, and she is usually off the wall on just about anything she’s ever saying. Except the one time now where we see that she’s made a statement, and the media is criticizing her. People are saying what? This is shocking. How could she say that? Well, do you know what she said? I’ll tell you what she said. She said that the police aren’t there to protect you. That’s right. And people went crazy. What do you mean? The police? You see their slogan “to serve and protect”, “serve and protect”. (https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/09/11/for-once-jasmine-crockett-gets-it-right-on-police- n1229866) Of course, they’re there to protect you. How could she be that stupid to say that police aren’t there to protect you. When in fact, she is legally 100% correct. That’s right. Police do not have a duty to protect you. Their job is essentially investigation, enforcement after the fact. Law enforcement isn’t to prevent crime. Law enforcement solves crime. This is what she said, and she is right. Evan Nappen 01:56 You may not believe it. You may think that’s crazy, but let me just tell you the law. And this is why, if she took her statement further, which she won’t, that is why we need a right enshrined. We need the ability. We need the means to protect ourselves because the police are not there to protect us. The old saying is, you know, “when seconds count, the police are minutes away”. Well, it’s more than that. When seconds count, it’s not the police job to show up at all. Now the police will try to, of course. I’m sure in all their hearts they would love to, and this is not to put police down. This is to make it clear to you something you may not be aware of, and that’s why Gun Lawyer is here. You may not be aware of the actual state of the law when it comes to the police as to whether or not they have a duty to provide protection. And the answer to that resoundingly, is a legal NO. Page – 1 – of 7 Evan Nappen 03:04 You can look at the case Warren versus District of Columbia, which is probably one of the most incredible examples of this very point. (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) In Warren versus District Columbia, a 1981 decision decided by the district court, a district Columbia Court of Appeals, what the Court held there was that police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to individuals. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia) And wait until you hear the facts and area of this case where the police had no duty to protect. It’s so bad. It’s so terrible, and the judges even felt it necessary to essentially apologize for making this decision that they had to make because it is the law. Here’s what the court said. After arguments notwithstanding, our sympathy for the appellants, who were tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal. Evan Nappen 04:06 Listen to the fact pattern of what occurred to these folks. And why they sued and why they had no cause of action against the police for their negligence, because police have no duty to protect. So, I’ll give you the facts right now of this case. In the early morning of March 16, 1975, appellants, these are the people suing over their negligence and what they experience. Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house on Lamont Street. They shared a room. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor. 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 two men entered Douglas’s second floor room where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her. Warren and to Taliaferro heard Douglas’s screams from the floor above. Evan Nappen 05:03 Warren telephoned the police and 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 that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren’s call was received by the Metropolitan ...
Todavía no hay opiniones