Posted on Dec 19, 2018
Outrage erupts over judge's stunning ruling in suit brought by Parkland victims. Her words...
475
20
20
3
3
0
Forgive me if someone else has already posted this. I've looked quickly and can't find it, and it's too important to allow to pass unnoticed. Pay careful attention to the judges conclusion: Law enforcement officers do not have an obligation to protect anyone not in their custody. Now, what does that tell you?
Outrage erupts over judge's stunning ruling in suit brought by Parkland victims. Her words...
Posted from bizpacreview.comPosted in these groups: 
Gun Control
Gun Control
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 6
2
2
0
The bottom line is as it has always been. You are responsible for your own safety and that of your family and friends. If you drop you kids off at school, the mall, the movies, the park etc. you are reliant on the good will of others or, if the shit hits the fan, a cop with a sense of duty to serve and protect.
Why do schools have put LEO's in them? They lead us to believe the schools are safer but there is no obligation to protect the students not in their custody (under arrest). This is another misdirection by politicians, educators and the courts. They make parents think they have taken real action but they are still not accountable to the very people they are there to protect and serve.
While I do agree the lawsuit would set a precedent that law enforcement and the state would become responsible for every victim in every shooting is a bridge too far, I think in this case, the lack of action by the Sherriff Deputies on the scene was negligent and there is an obligation law enforcement has to act to protect those in their area of responsibility. In this case it was a school, it could have been a mall, theater etc.
Why do schools have put LEO's in them? They lead us to believe the schools are safer but there is no obligation to protect the students not in their custody (under arrest). This is another misdirection by politicians, educators and the courts. They make parents think they have taken real action but they are still not accountable to the very people they are there to protect and serve.
While I do agree the lawsuit would set a precedent that law enforcement and the state would become responsible for every victim in every shooting is a bridge too far, I think in this case, the lack of action by the Sherriff Deputies on the scene was negligent and there is an obligation law enforcement has to act to protect those in their area of responsibility. In this case it was a school, it could have been a mall, theater etc.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
I expect that some smart shyster will pick up on this and they'll file an appeal on the principle that the schools do have "custody" of the children. After all, they are not there voluntarily (school attendance is legally required) and, thus, it may be inferred that the school stands in loco parentis (in place of the parents) and owe a duty to protect those in its care. However, I can't see how this could be extended to the police and other governmental officials. I'm not sure about the "lack of action by the sheriff deputies". It seems that standard police procedures around the nation call for first responding officers to secure the scene (not allow anyone in or out) until specially trained personnel arrive to take further action. Now, I have read that others argue the first to arrive should dive right in on the theory that shooters will take their own lives when confronted by effective resistance.
(0)
(0)
SGT Damaso V Santana
Jeff and Jack, thanks for your very much in point comments, I would like to add that "to serve and protect" either totally disappears from our language or makes those heroes who died protecting school children (or regular civilians) heroes who died in vain. Liberals would love to promote those two thoughts, sickening political correctness has eroded basic principles on which our nation was founded, the left behind "snipers" make sure it continues eroding.
(0)
(0)
Cpl Jeff N.
CPT Jack Durish - Jack, More and more police departments are training for officers to engage in shootings as soon as they can. We no longer are dealing with hostage situation where we have time to get negotiators and SWAT teams on the scene. These incidents are usually over pretty quickly if someone engages the shooter. They want to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Lack of engagement equals higher casualty counts.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
Jack found this very interesting and disconcerting article written in Jan 2012.
https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/4913117-Addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
"Interesting"? Absolutely. Should be required reading for all. Thanks for ferreting it out of the billions and billions of webpages. "Disconcerting"? Hardly. More like reality. As I responded to MSG Clifford below "...Now, let's say that Florida legislates a duty for law enforcement officers to defend everyone in Florida, I assume 24/7. They're going to need a helluva lot more personnel, aren't they? A cop at every door of every public place, every school, every private business, every home, every street corner, and most likely, every several yards between intersections. Again, all 24/7. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. So, what about 'self protection'?" That's the practical reason why the duty to protect and serve is a commitment to the public in general rather than to everyone.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Unfortunately the Judge is correct. Nowhere in the Constitution does it require them protect anyone not in their custody. "...dismissed the entire suit on the basis that none of the defendants had been constitutionally obliged to protect them." HOWEVER, they are in my book, ethically and morally duty bound to protect, hence "to serve and protect". Failure to do so, is malfeasance in office.
(2)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
Many people seem to think that the Constitution is an instruction book on how to govern. You seem to want it to include some provisions on how appointees should serve. I think we need a bigger Constitution if we're going to meet all those expectations. It is, after all, nothing more than a blueprint for a limited, very limited government. Now, let's say that Florida legislates a duty for law enforcement officers to defend everyone in Florida, I assume 24/7. They're going to need a helluva lot more personnel, aren't they? A cop at every door of every public place, every school, every private business, every home, every street corner, and most likely, every several yards between intersections. Again, all 24/7. I could go on, but I think you get the idea. So, what about "self protection"? BTW, I highly recommend that you check out the comment by Samantha S and my response to her (above)
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google