Who IS Responsible for Protecting You?

I read this article a couple of days ago about a suit against the U.S. government in which Jaycee Dugard claimed that if the police department and government had revoked Phillip Garrido’s parole, she never would have had to suffer this horrific nightmare. In case you don’t remember, she was abducted by Garrido and his spouse in ’91 at the age of 11. She was kept locked up for nearly 20 years. During that time, she gave birth to two children. Garrido was on parole for this same type of offense; rape and kidnapping. Despite the fact that he violated his parole, he was never returned to prison. If he had been, Dugard never would have had to endure this. However, according to a federal appeals court, the U.S. government cannot be sued because neither the government nor the police had any duty to protect her from him. There was no way they could have known that he was going to do this to her. The article also states that Dugard and her daughters have already received $20 million due to the incompetence of the state officers.

First off, how is it that you can sue a fast food establishment because you burned yourself with hot coffee or a hot pickle, but not because someone failed to return to prison a criminal that violated his parole which resulted in an abduction, rape, and who knows what else? That doesn’t seem right to me. Granted I’m no lawyer, and I realize that you can sue for anything, but come on! How is someone not at fault for this? Did they at least ATTEMPT to put his ass back in jail? If so, ok. If not, that’s negligence; failure to do your job. How is someone not held accountable for that? When people are not held accountable for their actions, or in this case inaction, they continue with that same behavior.

Second, “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled 2-1 that police or the government had no legal duty to protect Dugard from Garrido because they could not have known he would single her out as a victim.”[1] I’m hoping this is specific in that because they didn’t know GARRIDO was going to do this to DUGARD they had no duty to protect her and not that the government or the police have no legal duty to protect ANYONE from ANYONE else. What about “Protect and serve”? If that’s the case, there’s even more of a reason for legally carrying a firearm. If neither the government nor the police is obligated to protect me, then it is up to me to protect myself. Since I’m not a 6 foot, 200 pound man who is a mixed martial arts expert, how am I to protect myself from most any man who might want to cause me harm? Not that most any man would. I’m saying that most any man would be able to overpower me. Therefore, I need to be able to level the playing field. Hence, the Second Amendment. And since I, like the U.S. government and the police department, have no way of knowing who or when or where, I should legally be allowed to carry a firearm anywhere. In a church, a school, my place of employment (at the very least leave it in my car), the mall. ANYWHERE. In my opinion, any establishment that prohibits me from doing so is in violation of my Second Amendment rights. In that case, shouldn’t I be able to sue?

None of this would have mattered to her anyway. She was only eleven. Shouldn’t they have been protecting her?

[1]Court rejects suit by kidnapping survivor Jaycee Dugard
  Source: UPI Top Stories
  Publication date: 2016-03-17
  © 2016, Acquire Media, Inc.