• Federal judge rules that police, school had no duty to save children
    36 replies, posted
Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shoo.. A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina. Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody. “The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor,” she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz. “As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody” — for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote. Kristoffer R. Budhram of Jacksonville, who represented the students, said in an emailed statement: “We respectfully disagree with Judge Bloom's decision to dismiss our clients' case. This case is about protecting the Constitutional rights of individuals who were the victims of one of the worst mass shootings in this country’s history. “We are exploring all of our options for ensuring that they get their day in court, including appealing Judge Bloom's decision," Budhram wrote. how fucking absurd what a useless institution the american police forces are
No duty to protect and regularly shoot the wrong person. Perfect combination.
Holy shit that's awful. This is such a surprise to me because in the UK the police would have a contractual duty of care, I'm pretty sure.
I can't access the full article, but here's what I gather. As horrible as this event was, I actually see the point of the judge. Those kids tried suing the school district and whatever else for something a 3rd party did, which makes absolutely no sense to me. As I see it, It's like suing a police officer because you were mugged and the officer didn't prevent it in time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia Don't forget this.
I thought the police had to protect and serve? Isn't that written on every cop car?
Why sre people surprised that the pigs are showing their true colors?
The issue isn't that they had no legal duty to be on constant watch for a school shooter, but that they reported this kid's irrational and frightening behavior multiple times and the police dept. made a deal with the school to NOT log these reports because if they did, the school would get less funding.
"June 28, 2005" the tl;dr The Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - The court ruled that a municipality cannot be sued for failure to enforce a restraining order. During divorce proceedings Jessica Lenahan-Gonzales petitioned for and was granted a permanent restraining order against her husband, requiring him to stay at least 100 yards from her and her children. He then kidnapped their three daughters. Ms Gonzales called the police at 7:30PM, 8:30PM, 10:10PM, and 12:15AM and went to the police station at 12:40AM. The police refused to take action each time. At 3:20AM her husband turned up at the police station, where he was killed in a shootout. The bodies of his daughters were discovered in the trunk of his car. Ms. Lenahan-Gonzales sued the Town of Castle Rock for damages. The court ruled that enforcement of restraining orders was not mandatory under Colorado law, and that even if it was mandatory it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement. Even more posted here, such as great examples like "the court has ruled that the police can knowingly allow their police dog to attack an innocent man — the police have no duty to stop their own dog from mauling an innocent man.". "The appeals court ruled that the homeless man could not sue the officer, the dog, not the department. They ruled that he had to pay for his medical bills himself." "The court ruled that police do not have a specific duty to provide police services to individual citizens."
God bless America.
We truly are more free than any country in the world free to not be protected
Police do no wrong god bless cops, only BLM thugs criticize police
Wow, so apparently court precedent in this country states that police aren't obligated to anything other than arrest and/or shoot innocent black people for no good reason. (I'm half joking, but for real though: "tough on crime" has always been a dogwhistle for "arrest more niggers." As a policy advocated by politicians, It's never had anything to do with actually making the country safer, just like "stopping voting fraud" has never been about anything other than rigging elections in favor of Republicans.)
These are actually sickening
No duty to protect anyone, not responsible for enforcing legal protective orders, not culpable for harm caused by their negligence or malice, so what are they here for? What do your taxes pay for the police to do? Why do the courts never fail to determine that they're explicitly not for the things the citizens they allegedly serve say they need from them? If not from those citizens, then from whence does their mandate come?
Get your shit together, America. This is ridiculous.
Here are the things police officers are traditionally beholden to protect, from most to least important: Themselves Their fellow officers and institutions The law The average citizen A "criminal"
I feel like most of the time this sort of thing is really just incredibly sinister sounding legalese.
This is so dumb I feel like I'm missing something. Or is this just a technicality of the way American police handle protection/duty of care?
The US law enforcement, penitentiary system, and judicial system, are heavily biased against the rights of the common people.
No one should be legally required to jump in front of the president to take a bullet or run into a collapsing building filled with smoke and flame, but people still sign up for those jobs and are expected to do those actions if necessary. The job in question here not having a good enough reward for the actions possibly required is it's own issue, but the best answer to it would probably be to fix how poorly they're paid and not to essentially mandate that a firefighter never has to fight fires.
Police are called first responders for a reason. As I've read in this thread, and that previous court proceeding, they obviously don't have an obligation to act to take preventive measures, and when they do arrive at a situation and try to resolve it with the best intent, they're hamstrung by laws like these. I'm not advocating that someone in this specific school shooting case, that having someone on campus with a firearm would have made things better or resolved the situation in a more amicable way. But what I am saying is that with the previous facts established on how police can and can't behave in "serving the community,' I feel much more comfortable being properly trained to defend myself with my own personal firearm than waiting for a police force that, when eventually arriving to the crime that may already be too late to stop, might not even step in to help in the first place.
Then don't be a cop?
??? You're signing up for a job that you know can be dangerous, if you're too much of a coward to help people, children no less, then you don't need to be a cop
isn't providing police services the exact function of the police? The original article here made sense in the context of the case, but that there is saying the police have no obligation to do anything for anyone. That's not ok
They Protect capital but not us
I may be a civilian, but I've stared death in the face three times already. If you're not willing to accept that you might have to lay down your life in the line of duty, don't become a policeman, simple as that. Same goes for if you think of joining the army in anything but a noncombatant role.
I remember this wretched twat of a kid.. Weren't there DOZENS of house calls that raised massive red flags that the police/school just ignored completely? Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoneman_Douglas_High_School_shooting#Suspect CNN used a public records request to obtain a sheriff's office log, which showed that from 2008 to 2017, at least 45 calls were made in reference to Cruz, his brother, or the family home.[88][89] The calls included an anonymous tip on February 5, 2016, that Cruz had threatened to shoot up the school, and a tip on November 30, 2017, that he might be a "school shooter in the making" and that he collected knives and guns. On September 23, 2016, a peer counselor notified the school resource officer of his suicide attempt and intent to buy a gun; the school indicated it would do a "threat assessment". The system definitely failed these victims, but blaming only the police is clearly incorrect.
Michael and others v The Chief Constable of South Wales Police a.. Nope
Its literally part of the profession. You are a servant to the community and in charge of keeping the peace and safety of the community at any cost. Don't like it? Get a different profession.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.