Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre, Judge Rules

[livingston]

Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre, Judge Rules
police officers, in fact, generally are not under any legal obligation to protect citizens who are not in their custody
Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre, Judge Rules

 

[Podmonkey]

Not suprised. Frankly I think it is extremely unethical for you to demand or simply expect another to endanger their lives to protect yours.

 

[dwa12479]

Not suprised. Frankly I think it is extremely unethical for you to demand or simply expect another to endanger their lives to protect yours.

Even if its voluntary? They signed up for the job. Same as the military.

 

[@thewheels]

Not suprised. Frankly I think it is extremely unethical for you to demand or simply expect another to endanger their lives to protect yours.

That's not the case here.

I wouldn't expect another to endanger their life to protect my life but I would expect them to attempt to protect my child that was left under their supervision. Especially in light of the fact that they were actually hired to do so.

An SRO isn't hired to teach PE or Spanish.

 

[Doc8404]

But the crossing guard does?
There are exceptions, Mr. Hutchinson said, as when a crossing guard who is specifically assigned to protect children traveling across a street allows a child to get run over while, say, the guard is being distracted by a smartphone. The crossing guard is in a “special relationship” with the children, in legal eyes.

 

[@thewheels]

But the crossing guard does?
There are exceptions, Mr. Hutchinson said, as when a crossing guard who is specifically assigned to protect children traveling across a street allows a child to get run over while, say, the guard is being distracted by a smartphone. The crossing guard is in a “special relationship” with the children, in legal eyes.

One government goon covering for another.
Crossing guards are generally volunteers so no special protections. Explain it away with some made up bullshit about a "special relationship"
Do these fucks actually believe the shit they're peddling?

 

[Dr. Evil]

Well, there goes the whole, "You don't need a gun because the police will protect you" argument liberals make.

 

[GOPerfect]

It is absolutely not the job of police to take a bullet for another citizen. Sorry.

 

[camper4lyfe]

Legally, there's no duty to protect. Morally and ethically there's a whole other argument.

 

[GOPerfect]

Legally, there's no duty to protect. Morally and ethically there's a whole other argument.

100% agree. Mist that I know on the job would have entered that school without a thought of their own safety.

 

[camper4lyfe]

100% agree. Mist that I know on the job would have entered that school without a thought of their own safety.

Especially when it's a school you signed up to protect.

 

[Doc8404]

Especially when it's a school you signed up to protect.

THAT is more of the issue with me.

This was his post.


Driving around protecting? Fine. Then take it off your fucking car.


Serve and protect.
Not.
Unless of course you just arrested a crackhead that murdered somebody and they are in the back of your car. Now you have an obligation to protect that scumbag.

 

[@thewheels]

It is absolutely not the job of police to take a bullet for another citizen. Sorry.

And? Duty to protect and taking a bullet are the same?

 

[GOPerfect]

And? Duty to protect and taking a bullet are the same?

Sometimes, yes.

 

[@thewheels]

Sometimes, yes.

Right, so it's not a given.

A simple search turned up this Ashland PD and Ashland School District SRO MOU with this wording:

SECTION 6. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. SRO. The responsibilities of the SRO will include but are not be limited to:
1. Enforce criminal law and protect the students, staff, and public at large against criminal
activity.

 

[oc shooter]

if memory serves the scotus ruled a long time ago the leo's are not to protect individuals but just the general public

 

[GOPerfect]

Right, so it's not a given.

A simple search turned up this Ashland PD and Ashland School District SRO MOU with this wording:

SECTION 6. DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

A. SRO. The responsibilities of the SRO will include but are not be limited to:
1. Enforce criminal law and protect the students, staff, and public at large against criminal
activity.

Hell, I said a while back that this guy is an asshole and a coward.

 

[camper4lyfe]

Hell, I said a while back that this guy is an asshole and a coward.

I think that's one thing that everyone can agree on

 

[Podmonkey]

Even if its voluntary? They signed up for the job. Same as the military.

Your safety is your responsiblity.

 

[Doc8404]

if memory serves the scotus ruled a long time ago the leo's are not to protect individuals but just the general public

Correct.

So how is the school not general public

 

[Doc8404]

Your safety is your responsiblity.

Yes. In a gun free zone

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Preface: respect LEO's.
Statement: Barring what laws and the courts rule, isnt the concept of having to face down a potentially life threatening situation sort of a "given" as part of not only a police officers job but others as well? Border patrol agent, EMT, firefighter, etc.? These people know they have a job that puts them up against risks the average citizen wouldn't encounter as a function of their job.

I dont believe this is about "legality", or shouldn't be. This to me is a moral obligation. If the people that called 911 didnt expect police to "stop the bad guy" then why did they call them? If teachers in some districts are willing to be armed, will people expect them to risk their lives to protect their children? After all, theres no law making them responsible to do so. If I had an opportunity to help save others from harm, I'd do so. It's not my job, I'm not obligated to do so, and there's no law that says I should.

I dont think theres many LEO's that believe "to protect and serve" means "I protect myself, and serve you up defenseless". Pod has a point that "safety is everyones responsibility" but not everyone has the means to ensure their own safety.

 

[Modean]

It is absolutely not the job of police to take a bullet for another

Your safety is your responsiblity.

In the case of adults, I would agree. In the case of officers failing to attempt to protect school kids, not so much. At that point I question why we are paying police at all.

 

[Podmonkey]

Yes. In a gun free zone

I find "gun free" zones to be equally unethical.
I find any social construct that allows or encourages a lack of accountability or personal involvement to be the most unethical thing of all.
Everybody knew this child was a problem in the making and nobody did anything about it. Partly due to lackadaisical attitudes and practices of mental health and partly for the advancement of obama era political agendas. The law enforcement individuals certainly behaved in an extremely cowardly manner but in this country you have the right to be a coward.
Frankly I am alarmed by the aggressive policies of modern law enforcement agencies most of which are driven by fear. Placing legal obligation for officers to place themselves into mortal danger would only lead to further tragedy and increased anti LE sentiment.
Simply put cops need to do less and law abiding citizens need to do more. A whole fuck load more.
That Parkland kid should have been brought into treatment long before those tragic events occurred. The school should have done much, much more prior to these tragic events. And even the students themselves who somehow joked about that kid being a school shooting waiting to happen share some of the blame too.
Turning a blind eye, not taking action, politicizing action that does occur, its all the festering problem here.
Quite frankly liberal social attitudes and policies are at fault.

 

[Doc8404]

In summary, the last two sentences need to become the norm.

 

[Marine Cpl]

This is how I see it. You are responsible for your own protection. The police aren't.

But when they disarm you like in a government building for example, they should be responsible for your safety and take a literal bullet for you since they aren't letting you protect yourself.

In private businesses, the same should apply with the business owner. If he or she doesn't want guns in their establishment, then they should be held responsible to hire someone or a team of someones that will take a bullet for it's customers.

 

[Doc8404]

Agreed

 

[Podmonkey]

This is how I see it. You are responsible for your own protection. The police aren't.

But when they disarm you like in a government building for example, they should be responsible for your safety and take a literal bullet for you since they aren't letting you protect yourself.

In private businesses, the same should apply with the business owner. If he or she doesn't want guns in their establishment, then they should be held responsible to hire someone or a team of someones that will take a bullet for it's customers.

Simpler than that. Business owners should be held legally liable should anyone be injured either physically or financially by criminal activity on the premises. Insurance companies should charge higher premiums on the basis of reduced safety and security increasing their risk, especially in light of their client's increased liability for damages.

 

[Acer-m14]

Correct.

So how is the school not general public

its just one building with people in it .. .. its not the whole town or city or a neighborhood .. ..

the bitter part to grasp is they kept the shooter in that building .. protecting the rest of the area .. neighborhood . town . ect ..

they contained it .. even tho a bunch of chickens ..

flip it .. do i ( we the the people ) have a duty to protect a LEO getting his ass beat on the side of the road ? ..

but we know good guys with a gun do stop and cap that asshole and help

 

[Tisto]

As Acer says that the school building and the people inside it DOES NOT constitute the GENERAL PUBLIC, does that then mean that had the shooter stepped outside and announced that he then intended to lay waste to the rest of the town, THEN the police would have had a duty to protect ? My best guess is that the cop would have found a better hiding spot.

As I understand it, and I'm no legal scholar, but the "duty to protect" is not necessarily to protect any certain individual, but to protect the population at large. The key phrase being 'AT LARGE'. In legal terms, as far as I know, the term 'at large' in this context is meant to provide for the protection of any mass of people that are engaging in non-criminal activities during the normal course of daily life. The people inside the school in this case, constitute the population 'at large' and should expect protection.

[ My definition of 'at large' above comes to me by way of a lawyer, but his explaination of it was more in deapth , so my translation may be lacking some. That said, the idea behind it remains solid. ]

I fail to see where the officer had no duty to protect in this case, especially since he was hired specifically for this reason.

Explain where I'm wrong. I'd like to know.