Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Judge rules police have no duty to protect school children from shooters.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judge rules police have no duty to protect school children from shooters.

    Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit

    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.

    https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...217-story.html

    (Remember this was the Parkland shooting where the school cop was too afraid to do his job and enter the school to try to stop the shooter? and then when the other cops got there they stood around too?)


    So they do have a duty to protect criminals they have arrested but not the public or the school children?

    Wow.

    This is why we need the 2nd amendment. If the police are not obligated to protect you, you need to be able to protect yourself.


  • #2
    This is unbelievable! You are correct, that is why we need to arm ourselves!
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #3
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      - Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #4
        I think the error is that the Federal Judge is saying they have no CONSTITUTIONAL duty to protect other people. That is true, there is nothing in the constitution about police at all or any duty to protect.

        But the police do have a contractual and sworn duty to protect and serve the public to the best of their ability don't they?

        Asking CP or Myth or any other police officers: What kind of contract or oath did you have to take to become an officer?

        It would seem to me that the very job description of a police officer is to enforce laws and to protect the public and property.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          I think the error is that the Federal Judge is saying they have no CONSTITUTIONAL duty to protect other people. That is true, there is nothing in the constitution about police at all or any duty to protect.

          But the police do have a contractual and sworn duty to protect and serve the public to the best of their ability don't they?

          Asking CP or Myth or any other police officers: What kind of contract or oath did you have to take to become an officer?

          It would seem to me that the very job description of a police officer is to enforce laws and to protect the public and property.
          AFAIK, this is pretty much standard. I know it's the one we use...

          I (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and defend them against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge, the duties of a peace officer, to the best of my ability, so help me God.
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit

            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.

            https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...217-story.html

            (Remember this was the Parkland shooting where the school cop was too afraid to do his job and enter the school to try to stop the shooter? and then when the other cops got there they stood around too?)


            So they do have a duty to protect criminals they have arrested but not the public or the school children?

            Wow.

            This is why we need the 2nd amendment. If the police are not obligated to protect you, you need to be able to protect yourself.
            Seems in line with the 1981 SCOTUS District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision, Warren v. District of Columbia where the court ruled that neither the city nor police could be held liable for failure of police to respond properly to a request from victims for protection from attackers. It was cited in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services which was a SCOTUS decision.

            As Seer said, this is why we need to be ready and able to protect ourselves.



            ETA: From the New York Times in 2005:


            Source: Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone


            The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

            The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

            For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

            Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

            The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

            The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

            A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

            But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

            Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

            But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

            "The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the dissenting justices said.

            Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and the states should now act to give greater protection.

            In another ruling on Monday, the court rebuked the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Cincinnati, for having reopened a death penalty appeal, on the basis of newly discovered evidence, after the ruling had become final.

            The 5-to-4 decision, Bell v. Thompson, No. 04-514, came in response to an appeal by the State of Tennessee after the Sixth Circuit removed a convicted murderer, Gregory Thompson, from the state's death row.

            After his conviction and the failure of his appeals in state court, Mr. Thompson, with new lawyers, had gone to federal district court seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that his initial lawyers had been constitutionally inadequate. The new lawyers obtained a consultation with a psychologist, who diagnosed Mr. Thompson as schizophrenic.

            But the psychologist's report was not included in the file of the habeas corpus petition in district court, which denied the petition. It was not until the Sixth Circuit and then the Supreme Court had also denied his petition, making the case final, that the Sixth Circuit reopened the case, finding that the report was crucial evidence that should have been considered.

            In overturning that ruling in an opinion by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the majority said the appeals court had abused its discretion in an "extraordinary departure from standard appellate procedures." Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O'Connor joined the opinion.

            In a dissenting opinion, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said the majority had relied on rules to the exclusion of justice. Judges need a "degree of discretion, thereby providing oil for the rule-based gears," he said. Justices Stevens, Ginsburg and David H. Souter joined the dissent.



            Source

            © Copyright Original Source

            Last edited by rogue06; 12-18-2018, 02:11 PM.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              AFAIK, this is pretty much standard. I know it's the one we use...

              I (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and defend them against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge, the duties of a peace officer, to the best of my ability, so help me God.
              And what describes your duty as a peace officer? Is there a job description or manual?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                And what describes your duty as a peace officer? Is there a job description or manual?
                Yes, generally there will be a field manual or patrol guide.

                And since, as you said, the actual name is "peace officer", you would expect that the officer would do whatever is necessary to keep the peace.

                I'm thinking the ruling is not so much "it's not his job" but "he can't legally be held liable for not acting".
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit

                  A federal judge says Broward schools and the SheriffÂ’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 SheriffÂ’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.

                  https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...217-story.html

                  (Remember this was the Parkland shooting where the school cop was too afraid to do his job and enter the school to try to stop the shooter? and then when the other cops got there they stood around too?)


                  So they do have a duty to protect criminals they have arrested but not the public or the school children?

                  Wow.

                  This is why we need the 2nd amendment. If the police are not obligated to protect you, you need to be able to protect yourself.
                  It's really not surprising at all. This is pretty well established in the courts. Basically, if a constitutional duty to protect existed, then law enforcement agencies and individual offers would be subject to penalties for every bad thing that happens to anyone in their jurisdiction. That really isn't a sustainable model.

                  There are, of course, other compelling reasons for cops to protect people. But the U.S Constitution isn't the driving force.
                  "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                  Comment

                  Related Threads

                  Collapse

                  Topics Statistics Last Post
                  Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                  16 responses
                  96 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post One Bad Pig  
                  Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                  53 responses
                  282 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Mountain Man  
                  Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                  25 responses
                  109 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post rogue06
                  by rogue06
                   
                  Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                  33 responses
                  195 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post Roy
                  by Roy
                   
                  Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                  84 responses
                  356 views
                  0 likes
                  Last Post JimL
                  by JimL
                   
                  Working...
                  X