Current Events > Judge ruled officers had no duty to protect students in parkland shooting.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Damn_Underscore posted...

Tmaster148 posted...

I mean. If cops don't have to protect people then what's the point in paying for them with our taxes.

Seems like wasteful spending.

You really think we shouldn't have police forces?

Well, when they standard motto is "to serve and protect" and they apparently don't have to protect, I say slash their funding by 50%.
---

eston posted...

The idea that a lone police officer should have rushed into the building when he did not know where the shooter was or even how many shooters there were is completely ludicrous and flat out unreasonable.

This. I will certainly fault the response, but I'm not going to keyboard warrior it up and bemoan individuals not being willing to rush into an active shooter situation.
---

Offworlder1 posted...

Here it is as plain as day, police are not obligated to protect people not in their custody, the fact that:

neither the constitution or state law impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect induvidual persons from harm even when they know the harm will occur is proof people should not and can not depend on the police to keep them safe.

Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the constitution is one huge so you really think only cops should have guns now ? question I ask everyone now when those police are not there to keep anyone safe.

With these facts there is no reason at all to oppose self defense and owning firearms. Unless you can hire a bodyguard owning a gun is the best way to keep your loved ones and yourself safe since you clearly cant depend on the police to save you or keep you from harm.

Self defense against a cop will get you executed, tho
---

There needs to be gun control whether you like it or not. Some people are not stable enough to own one.

Background checks and waiting periods are fine tools to make sure we aren't just handing over a gun to the next mass shooter.

We also need to punish irresponsible behavior for cases where a parent leaves their gun unsecure and unsupervised so their kid gets a hold of it and hurts someone or themselves.
---

butthole666 posted...

It make sense for a lone cop to not run in to an active shooter situation. It make them a shit cop, but its a human response. The problem here is making that legal precent.

This

Offworlder1 posted...

neither the constitution or state law impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect induvidual persons from harm even when they know the harm will occur

Is an absolutely terrifying and abhorrent thing to have on the books and this judge should be ashamed for his gross incompetence and irresponsible ruling

The officer was being sued for not going in and directly confronting the killer, what was the judge supposed to do?
---

OprahJimfrey posted...

This is what the 2nd amendment is for by the way.

New User
User Since: Dec 2018
Karma: 3
Active Posts: 122
Total Badges: 0

found another one
---

JustMyOpinion posted...

I don't think cops have a constitutional duty to protect others (I don't see that amendment anywhere) but I do think in terms of their job there is the whole protect and serve thing.

I agree, but within reason. I can't expect a police officer to sacrifice his life for me.
---

Let's use a lifeguard analogy.

If a lifeguard sees someone struggling in a pool or in the ocean, there is an obligation for them to try to save the person. And ignoring such a situation has been held to be a situation where they are liable for damages for dereliction of duty.

If a lifeguard sees someone struggling in a raging whirlpool with debris in the water during a hurricane, you can't force them to be courageous in that circumstance and jump in.

Same goes for cops. If the police just sat and watch someone beat someone else to death, that's an incompetent liability. A cop not wanting to rush into an active shooter situation? Police have a right of self-preservation as well and you can't force the to be courageous above and beyond the call of duty.
---

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job
---

CreekCo posted...

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job

No it isn't
In fact that statement doesn't even make sense
---

CreekCo posted...

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job

No, that's why that phrase exists, to recognize exceptional bravery and sacrifice. It's not a soldier's duty to jump on a grenade to save their squad mates' lives, which is why when it does happen it's so extraordinarily conspicuous.

Rushing into an active shooting is the same thing for a random cop or security guard as well.
---

Someone try to defend the lockdown order? If he didn't have enough info to try to stop the shooter he doesn't have enough info to lock down the school.
---

Actually a police officer can see a person getting their ass beat and still not be obligated to help which is the problem. A lifeguard is actively trying to save people as it is their job, the police are NOT obligated to help you which is why people are not happy.

Lifeguards are suppose to help, police dont have to and can actually just watch you get hurt or killed based on the facts given in the original post.
---

So basically cops are just here to swindle money from drug users, shoot innocent people, and not protect civilians. Got it.

Webmaster4531 posted...

Someone try to defend the lockdown order? If he didn't have enough info to try to stop the shooter he doesn't have enough info to lock down the school.

That simply isn't true. He knew there was an active shooter on campus, which means it gets locked down. He did not know where specifically on campus the shooter was, and he could not confirm the number of shooters. That does not mean he didn't have enough info to initiate a lockdown.
---

The police were not there to help or protect anyone once they got rid of the To protect and serve slogan.
---

K181 posted...

CreekCo posted...

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job

No, that's why that phrase exists, to recognize exceptional bravery and sacrifice. It's not a soldier's duty to jump on a grenade to save their squad mates' lives, which is why when it does happen it's so extraordinarily conspicuous.

Rushing into an active shooting is the same thing for a random cop or security guard as well.

That's the point of civil service. Man, we are in trouble during the next major war if this is how a lot of people think.
---

eston posted...

He knew there was an active shooter on campus, which means it gets locked down.

Why? The article sites it as negligent and not as standard protocol.
---

CreekCo posted...

That's the point of civil service.

It absolutely is not. How old are you?
---

To Protect Our Own Asses and Serve Our Own Interests
---

eston posted...

CreekCo posted...

That's the point of civil service.

It absolutely is not. How old are you?

Probably older than you. If we were ever in war together, you are getting first watch.
---

K181 posted...

CreekCo posted...

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job

No, that's why that phrase exists, to recognize exceptional bravery and sacrifice. It's not a soldier's duty to jump on a grenade to save their squad mates' lives, which is why when it does happen it's so extraordinarily conspicuous.

Rushing into an active shooting is the same thing for a random cop or security guard as well.

THIS SO MUCH

When you make these brave actions "just the norm", you take away what's so special about them. Suddenly, actual heroes are just doing what they should've done, and aren't anything special.

Yikes
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

eston posted...

He knew there was an active shooter on campus, which means it gets locked down.

Why? The article sites it as negligent and not as standard protocol.

That was the argument put forth by the lawyers of the people suing. It was not part of the ruling, and I'm honestly not sure how they can argue that it was negligent to lock a school down when there was a confirmed shooter on campus. That is one of the specific scenarios lockdowns exist for.
---

eston posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

eston posted...

He knew there was an active shooter on campus, which means it gets locked down.

Why? The article sites it as negligent and not as standard protocol.

That was the argument put forth by the lawyers of the people suing. It was not part of the ruling, and I'm honestly not sure how they can argue that it was negligent to lock a school down when there was a confirmed shooter on campus. That is one of the specific scenarios lockdowns exist for.

Darren L. Hutchinson said it supports the cop's liability. That implies it's not standard protocol.
---

Here's the quote:

They also argued that he enhanced the risk of death, or injury, by Mr. Cruz by negligently ordering a lockdown, which prevented escape from the building, Mr. Hutchinson said. Either of these assertions could support liability for Peterson. But I would not be surprised if the state case was reversed on appeal. It is very difficult to establish liability in this area of law.

He was explaining the argument being used by the lawyers.
---

eston posted...

Here's the quote:

They also argued that he enhanced the risk of death, or injury, by Mr. Cruz by negligently ordering a lockdown, which prevented escape from the building, Mr. Hutchinson said. Either of these assertions could support liability for Peterson. But I would not be surprised if the state case was reversed on appeal. It is very difficult to establish liability in this area of law.

He was explaining the argument being used by the lawyers.

Who do you think said the last quote?
---

Hutchinson said the whole thing, but he did not say what you are claiming he said.
---

It's also worth noting that school security protocol doesn't exactly fall under his field of expertise. He is commenting on the legal implications of those arguments.
---

eston posted...

Hutchinson said the whole thing, but he did not say what you are claiming he said.

Break this down for me then.

Either of these assertions could support liability for Peterson."
eston posted...

It's also worth noting that school security protocol doesn't exactly fall under his field of expertise. He is commenting on the legal implications of those arguments.

Now it's school protocol? Before you implied it's just what police are trained and supposed to do.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Break this down for me then.

Either of these assertions could support liability for Peterson."

Yes, he is explaining the legal implications of those arguments if the arguments are successful. He is a legal scholar. This is his area of expertise. He does not have any particular insight on when it is or is not appropriate to initiate a lockdown, nor is he claiming to.

Webmaster4531 posted...

Now it's school protocol? Before you implied it's just what police are trained and supposed to do.

I don't think I did, but do I really need to explain to you why school lockdowns fall under school protocol? The officer in question is a SRO. He receives special training for this role that other officers do not, and initiating a lockdown is his responsibility, not some random patrol cop responding to the scene.
---

Its ok trump would have ran in there without any weapons. Thats what he said anyways.
---

This has been the case for decades. See Warren v DC and Gonzales v Castle Rock.
---

protect and serve
---

eston posted...

He does not have any particular insight on when it is or is not appropriate to initiate a lockdown

Professor of law not knowing about law enforcement. That doesn't make sense especially since they're asking him because he should know.
---

Yet cops will beg for help if they're the ones getting their asses kicked or whatever.

They're just gangs at this point. They shake people down and punish those that resist.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

Professor of law not knowing about law enforcement. That doesn't make sense especially since they're asking him because he should know.

School protocol =/= law enforcement. They are asking the guy what would happened if the claims were true, not whether or not the claims are true.

Freddie_Mercury posted...

protect and serve

To harass and collect

amirightguys
---

JE19426 posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

Professor of law not knowing about law enforcement. That doesn't make sense especially since they're asking him because he should know.

School protocol =/= law enforcement. They are asking the guy what would happened if the claims were true, not whether or not the claims are true.

What?
---

Literally the only saving grace of the police state, and it's ruled to be not constitutionally necessary. If that's not an argument for abolishing the police I don't know what is.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

What?

What are you confused about? Darren L. Hutchinson isn't going to know the schools protocol for school shootings, nor is he claiming to do so.

JE19426 posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

What?

What are you confused about? Darren L. Hutchinson isn't going to know the schools protocol for school shootings, nor is he claiming to do so.

He knew that a crossing guard is liable to people crossing. It's his job to know school protocol because it's police protocol.
---

K181 posted...

CreekCo posted...

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job

No, that's why that phrase exists, to recognize exceptional bravery and sacrifice. It's not a soldier's duty to jump on a grenade to save their squad mates' lives, which is why when it does happen it's so extraordinarily conspicuous.

Rushing into an active shooting is the same thing for a random cop or security guard as well.

Running into an active shooting at a school is exactly what every random cop is trained to do, and has been standard protocol since Columbine. They are LITERALLY taught not to wait for backup, and to intervene in the shooting as soon as they are able. Not when they feel safe doing so, when they are able.
---

Not to whine, but what do they do then!?

ThePrinceFish posted...

K181 posted...

CreekCo posted...

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job

No, that's why that phrase exists, to recognize exceptional bravery and sacrifice. It's not a soldier's duty to jump on a grenade to save their squad mates' lives, which is why when it does happen it's so extraordinarily conspicuous.

Rushing into an active shooting is the same thing for a random cop or security guard as well.

Running into an active shooting at a school is exactly what every random cop is trained to do, and has been standard protocol since Columbine. They are LITERALLY taught not to wait for backup, and to intervene in the shooting as soon as they are able. Not when they feel safe doing so, when they are able.

No offense, but [citation needed].

I think you're vastly overstating your case if you believe that police officers are specifically taught to run into active shooting situations without backup. And even if it's something that they're taught to do, it's hardly shocking if self-preservation instincts cause a random guard or patrolman to free under the pressure.
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

He knew that a crossing guard is liable to people crossing.

Which is a general rule applied to all crossing guards.

It's his job to know school protocol because it's police protocol.

Are you seriously telling me you think this one proffesor is expected to know every single schools protocol? If so what have you been taken?

JE19426 posted...

Webmaster4531 posted...

He knew that a crossing guard is liable to people crossing.

Which is a general rule applied to all crossing guards.

It's his job to know school protocol because it's police protocol.

Are you seriously telling me you think this one proffesor is expected to know every single schools protocol? If so what have you been taken?

He's a professor of law. He works in a school too so he probably advises it's SROs.
---

K181 posted...

ThePrinceFish posted...

K181 posted...

CreekCo posted...

Going "above and beyond the call of duty" is literally the job

No, that's why that phrase exists, to recognize exceptional bravery and sacrifice. It's not a soldier's duty to jump on a grenade to save their squad mates' lives, which is why when it does happen it's so extraordinarily conspicuous.

Rushing into an active shooting is the same thing for a random cop or security guard as well.

Running into an active shooting at a school is exactly what every random cop is trained to do, and has been standard protocol since Columbine. They are LITERALLY taught not to wait for backup, and to intervene in the shooting as soon as they are able. Not when they feel safe doing so, when they are able.

No offense, but [citation needed].

I think you're vastly overstating your case if you believe that police officers are specifically taught to run into active shooting situations without backup. And even if it's something that they're taught to do, it's hardly shocking if self-preservation instincts cause a random guard or patrolman to free under the pressure.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-shooting-columbine-lessons/index.html

"You're going to the sound of the guns," he said. "The No. 1 goal is to interdict the shooter or shooters. In the old days, you took land. You went in. You clear the room. Then you slowly and methodically move to clear the next room. In this instance ... get to the shooter as quickly as possible and that's what they clearly did here."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2018/02/23/police-are-trained-to-attack-active-shooters-but-parkland-officer-didnt-would-armed-teachers-help/?utm_term=.4385bd9f4465

In American policing, confronting active shooters is divided into two eras: before Columbine, and after Columbine. Before the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Colorado, police strategy was to wait for the SWAT team to arrive and then attack en masse with precise force. But after the two shooters in Columbine roamed the school for nearly 50 minutes, killing 13 and wounding 21, the police approach changed: Enter now. Whoever is there with a gun, whether a school resource officer or the first patrol officer to arrive, should go after the shooter.

We teach that the first priority when you come on scene is to stop the killing, said Pete Blair, executive director of the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center at Texas State University and one of the nations top experts on active shooter training. The number one driving force is gunfire. If theres gunfire, we teach the officers to isolate, distract and neutralize. We want people to go directly to the sounds of the gunfire.

etc
---

Webmaster4531 posted...

He's a professor of law. He works in a school too so he probably advises it's SROs.

He works in a total different school from the one the shooting happens in. Being a professor of law doesn't require you to learn thousands of school protocols.