Johnny and the Crossing Guard

Legal Duty to Act

Johnny walked to school every day since he was five years old. In the earlier years, as he passed Mrs. Beatrice Hatch’s house, her toy poodle would come barking at him, ready to attack. Johnny ran past her house for the first couple years. He then brought doggie treats and would toss a few on her driveway each time he passed her house. The dog would immediately turn toward the treats and forget about viciously barking at Johnny.

After a year of tossing treats on the driveway, Bea Hatch saw Johnny toss a treat to her dog. She immediately came out of the house to scold Johnny. “Do you know what you’ve done to my Precious? She has had skin allergies for the past year. She scratches incessantly and my veterinarian keeps asking me if she’s been eating different food. Now I know it’s been you all along giving her those cheap treats.”

Johnny was very upset about being yelled at and told his mother. Johnny’s mother called Bea Hatch and told her that she would file a complaint with the police department if Precious was off-leash and charged at Johnny one more time. Bea Hatch was going to retort, but Johnny’s mother hung up the phone.

Precious never bothered Johnny again.

However, when Johnny was walking to school on the first day of fifth grade, he looked at the corner and noticed that Bea Hatch was the new crossing guard. He was ten years old and felt he didn’t need a crossing guard. As he approached the corner, there were no vehicles moving toward the crossing. Johnny was about to cross the street on his own, when Bea Hatch yelled at him, “Johnny! Do not cross the street until the crossing guard tells you it’s okay!”

Johnny did not want to get into trouble, so he waited as instructed. He looked both ways several times and there were still no vehicles oncoming.

Bea Hatch sensed his frustration and said to him, “Do not look at the road, Johnny. Look at me. I am the authority here.” Johnny looked at her for a few seconds, then looked down the road again. Bea Hatch yelled at him again, “Johnny! I told you to look at me! It’s my job to tell you when to go.”

So Johnny looked at Mrs. Hatch and waited to cross the street. After about 15 seconds, he noticed a smirk on Bea Hatch’s face. She said, “Almost ready, Johnny. I’ll let you know.”

Johnny was looking at Bea Hatch and Bea Hatch was looking down the road. She saw a big truck coming at a fast rate of speed. Just as the truck was almost to them, she yelled, “Go Johnny! Go now!”

Johnny took one step into the road, then he felt pressure on his chest while his body flew backward. After landing on his back on the ground, Johnny looked up. His mother was standing over him. He realized that the pressure on his chest was from his sweatshirt that his mother had grabbed from behind as she pulled back as hard as she could. She saved his life. Johnny’s mother had caught up to him to give him is lunch that he had forgotten. She saw and heard Bea Hatch try to kill Johnny.

Johnny’s mother called the police, who took statements from all three of them. The police then arrested Bea Hatch and charged her with attempted murder of Johnny in the first degree.

---

Author’s Commentary

A legal duty to act arises from a statute, contract, close relationship, or voluntary assumption of responsibility.

You will be happy to know, I just deleted more than 2,000 words of explanation. It’s not necessary. Here’s the short version.

You just read an hypothetical story about a 1st degree murder situation. Bea Hatch, after deliberation and premeditation, acted to kill Johnny. It was a purposeful act. Even if she was not under contract as the crossing guard, she still had a legal duty to act. Why? Bea Hatch, if she was not the official crossing guard, voluntarily assumed the position of crossing guard for Johnny’s care when she told him to look at her and wait. Then she told him to go. If Johnny died, she would still be guilty of 1st degree murder even if she was not the crossing guard.

If Bea Hatch knew the car was coming and told Johnny to cross, but was not necessarily intending that he die or be injured, then she would be in a knowing state of mind and that would definitely be 2nd degree murder if she was the crossing guard and perhaps still 2nd degree murder if she was not the crossing guard. It depends on what was said and how much she assumed the responsibility of crossing guard.

Imagine Johnny approaches the crosswalk. Bea Hatch knows that cars have been whizzing by at a frequency of several per minute all morning. Johnny walks in front of a car without any action from Bea Hatch. She does not say anything to him. She does not do anything to stop him or stop traffic with her little stop sign. Bea Hatch is acting recklessly. She has a legal duty to act for Johnny’s safety because she took the job as the crossing guard. She could be charged with reckless murder or perhaps involuntary manslaughter. However, if Bea Hatch was not a crossing guard under contract and was simply standing at the corner, then she has no legal duty with regard to stopping Johnny or the traffic.

Public health employees, especially those at the higher ranks, have a legal duty to act in the public health interest of the citizens. The agents of public health took that job and have that duty. They are in a contract with The People and are paid for their work. We count on them to do their jobs.

If a state official or public health agent knows that some product in the stream of commerce is deadly or injurious to a reasonable number of people, then the agent has a legal duty to immediately investigate based on reasonable belief of imminent harm to the public. An unlawful act would be to ignore the situation. And if someone is subsequently harmed or dies in a reasonable time after the omission of required conduct under a legal duty to act, then the agent is guilty of a knowing murder. The agent knew that people were dying. She had a legal duty to act. She did not act. And people died as a result of her inaction concurrent with her legal duty.

THE CDC MEMORANDUM - NOTICE OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY, THE MINNESOTA MEMORANDUM, THE VERMONT MEMORANDUM, and THE CONNECTICUT MEMORANDA SERIES Vol. I & Vol. II are notices that put the recipients in a knowing state of mind. These publications provide to agents of government the official state records that evince hospital homicides and Covid vaccine deaths. To ignore this information and continue to promote deadly medicaments and protocols is murder if people subsequently die from their omission of required conduct.

Officials from Vermont, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, FDA, CDC, and NIH received easily readable documents, compiled from official government records at the expense of thousands of hours of work. The evidence is conclusive. Medicaments and procedures promoted by government brought death and maim to The People. The notice puts them all in a knowing state of mind. They have a legal duty to act. Omission of investigation is a criminal act. There is no statute of limitations for homicide crimes. There is no sovereign or qualified immunity for criminal acts.

Omission of investigation is malpractice, malfeasance, disinformation propaganda by omission, and if someone subsequently dies, it is murder.