A discussion of the legal ramifications of declaring a "Safe Space"

a reply to: Krakatoa

Deliberately spreading an infectious disease is an infringement.

Wearing a hat with MAGA on it, is not.

Here, we have the "safe haven" law where a child can be dropped off and essentially abandoned legally at designated areas. About a month ago a women gave birth in a hospital under a fake name and left the child there rather than abort him/her. I commend her. Now the state is pressing charges even though she did exactly what the law is meant for. It's certainly a gray area.

I'd rather have a child be left in a "safe haven" hospital than anywhere else. And I'd rather that child be born than aborted. But it is indeed a rough area. ...poor kid...

So in this case, the law is already in place. The citizen followed the rules. The safe space is accountable, but they're trying to sue the citizen for using the service. Shady stuff all around.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krakatoa

Deliberately spreading an infectious disease is an infringement.

To the offended, wearing a hat with MAGA on it, is deliberately spreading hate and infringement to them.

This thread poses an interesting question.

All the attacks that have happened on public property that have been made into "gun free safe spaces" should be liable for the injured. The law-abiding people that had been injured or killed in those areas were not able to defend themselves legally and the state that designated those areas were negligent in making those areas "safe".

I would like to see this tested in court.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
This thread poses an interesting question.

All the attacks that have happened on public property that have been made into "gun free safe spaces" should be liable for the injured. The law-abiding people that had been injured or killed in those areas were not able to defend themselves legally and the state that designated those areas were negligent in making those areas "safe".

I would like to see this tested in court.

Thank you for understanding my concerns and why I question these actions to create these areas. If it must be considered a "law" to have a "safe area" or "gun-free zone", then the responsibility, legal responsibility, should be put upon the creators, not any future victims. After all, it was the zone creators that setup the situation to make the defenseless people a potential easy target.

Why should they not bear the burden of that decision??

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krakatoa

Deliberately spreading an infectious disease is an infringement.

To the offended, wearing a hat with MAGA on it, is deliberately spreading hate and infringement to them.

To the moronic, the authoritarian, the evil, . . . . . . free speech is offensive.

A "safe space" exists only when everyone within that space adheres to a certain standard of behavior. All it takes is one person to mess it up. Any decent lawyer would have no trouble defending the owner of a safe space against a charge of negligence, etc., after someone commits an act of violence on another person within that space. The owner is not culpable for the actions of another because there is no express or implied warranty that everyone in the space will be protected from acts of violence. It is "safe" in name only.

The concept of the safe space is a sham; there is absolutely no way to guarantee everyone within the space will behave in a civil manner all the time.

There are only two reasons to declare a safe space; (1) make it possible to charge/prosecute a person for possession of a banned weapon on the premises of a so-called safe space, and (2) give customers/clients a nice warm fuzzy Care Bears and rainbows feeling that Everything's Gonna Be Okay.

Putting up a sign does absolutely nothing to protect people from violence, because the person intent on committing violence with a banned weapon is unconcerned with the legal aspects of illegally possessing the weapon in the first place.

A safe space is no different from a unicorn or the Land of the Teletubbies: it doesn't exist in the real world.

Peace to all

To support my views above, consider how states evade liability by relying on the ironically-named Public Duty Doctrine, which says police are duty-bound to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual.

Protecting the public means enforcing the law, not protecting the individual. The slogan you often see--To Serve and Protect--is very misleading.

Likewise, the general rule of law in the U.S. is that government is obligated to protect the public in general, but owes no statutory duty to protect any particular person from criminal behavior. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court (in Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05, 5th Cir. 1961) bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have "no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." This opinion has held since then, despite several challenges over the years.

Even if police are on the scene and you are injured or murdered by another person, the police cannot be sued for failing to prevent the violence. If I were an attorney, this is the approach I'd use to defend the owner of a safe space.

All we ask is that states and the federal government allow us to protect ourselves from armed criminals or madmen.

And not with pepper spray and a telephone.

There's only one 'best way' to stop a bad guy that has a gun.

If someone wants to hurt or kill you, what difference will a safe space make? So what else would it be for? Because you dont like what someone is wearing? What someone is saying? Jesus H man, if youre so offended by society, its time to get your head checked. I didnt get safe spaces when I grew up, and guess what, nor should anyone else. If I want a safe space I go to my house, bedroom, out in the middle of no-where where no one else is around. I dont freak out because someone said something I dont like and immediately think, OMGOMGOMG where is mah safe space?!?!?! Come on already.

I know it is human nature to find fault and place blame when bad things happen. Ultimately it comes down to the actions of the individual--because the determined person will often circumvent safeties and security measures to achieve what they intend to accomplish.

This is similar to the case presently in Connecticut wherein plaintiffs are suing a gun maker because their product was used in a crime.

Can you sue Stanley because they made the hammer that was used by a psycho to bash in the head a loved one?

Where does it stop? It stops at the individual and their actions.

originally posted by: BoscoMoney
If someone wants to hurt or kill you, what difference will a safe space make? So what else would it be for? Because you dont like what someone is wearing? What someone is saying? Jesus H man, if youre so offended by society, its time to get your head checked. I didnt get safe spaces when I grew up, and guess what, nor should anyone else. If I want a safe space I go to my house, bedroom, out in the middle of no-where where no one else is around. I dont freak out because someone said something I dont like and immediately think, OMGOMGOMG where is mah safe space?!?!?! Come on already.

Yes, exactly. Right now, it is a false sense of security. There are no serious controls in place to hold accountable the organizations that overtly decide to prevent patrons from legally defending themselves. As such, if something happens, they have no legal culpability.

That is not right IMO. If an organization says that I cannot legally defend myself in their organization, then they should be damned well responsible for ensuring that space is safe. Otherwise, it is a clear case of false advertising, which might cost people's lives. I see this as a major hole in the legal system at the moment. One that should be rectified by holding the organizations legally responsible for the safety of those in their self-described "safe space" or "gun-free zone".