« Article arguing that gun permit delays should be treated the same as protest and parade permit delays | Main | ATF withdraws interpretative rule on "wrist braces" »
Police have no legal duty to protect
Even at the Parkland school shooting. The 11th Circuit notes,
"The students allege that the Parkland tragedy was exacerbated by government blunders before and during the shooting. The Broward County Sheriff's Office failed to act on the "many dozens of calls" it received that warned of Cruz's dangerous propensities. Although Sheriff Scott Israel and Superintendent Robert Runcie knew that Cruz might be dangerous and Runcie was warned that the school had inadequate security, neither official attempted to improve school security. And Scot Peterson, the police officer in charge of school security, was nicknamed "Rod"--short for "retired on duty"-- for his "lackadaisical . . . approach[]."
On the day of the shooting, Andrew Medina, a school security guard, recognized Cruz as a potential school shooter but permitted him to enter the school anyway. Medina radioed and texted other security officials that Cruz--a suspicious person--was present, and he drove a golf cart toward Cruz. But he did not directly approach Cruz or call in a code to put the school on lockdown. Medina later explained that he was ordered not to call in a code unless he saw a gun, so he did not call one in even after he heard gunshots."
13 Comments | Leave a comment
What they called Hornbook Law when I was in school. Police have no duty to protect individual citizens - a rule that is NOT unique to the US, it's found in almost all societies.
So short version?
Cops can't be sued for incompetence.
If students (this would include college students) and teachers are prohibited from carrying defensive firearms, and the police have no duty to protect, where does that leave us?
It leaves us as unarmed combatants in the democrat's culture war, so they can dance in the blood and call for creating more criminals with additional gun regulations. It's all about control and enduring your death serves the machine.
...There is a trade off for having civil service instead of at will political appointments for public employees. That trade off is you have a percentage of whining, sniveling malcontents you can't fire or make them work. If you worked in civil service you've seen that. A fact of life.
...Most Police agencies bury these culls in " Special Duty " jobs. Stuff that has to be done. Watching prisoners, transportation, etc.
...Sheriff Scott Israel sent one of his to be a school officer. A backwater job of low expectations. Lightening struck and he lived down to expectations.
..This is not a " Problem " to be fixed, it's a condition to be managed. The cure ; the spoils system, has been tried and is worse than civil service. And, it produces culls even more than civil service.
....This monkey is regularly chased around the table with much wailing and renting of garments. It leads to nothing. Nada. It's not fixable because it's not a problem.
I believe they have a duty to stop a crime in progress if possible, so once the shooting started they should have gone in.
....I agree Geoff, but they also have a duty to obey their superiors. The Deputy was told not to go in by his supervisor. It was fish or cut bait time. He waited.
Qualified immunity is a court-created monstrosity and we're seeing the unintended consequences of such a piss-poor policy.
I know no one goes into the police with the idea that they will give up their lives but somewhere that ha to e part of the job description. To actually think that wow they are shooting kids I can't do anything because my supervisor said not too just baffles me.
I teach at a college and all our doors have a magnetic strip over the jamb to keep them from locking. The idea is that we take the strip off and hide behind the desks while they can't get in.
I do not know what Our campus cops would do, they are full law enforcement and I would hope that they would protect but...
...Well Scott, qualified immunity might have saved that deputy the consequences, had he done anything. But he didn't need or use it so it's superfluous to this event.
The Deputy followed the law and Departmental policy. That's why he got his job back.
...Old Guy, I'm going to guess you are a civil service college prof. So I know you saw your share of culls and worthless POS's . Not all, but some. I believe in the 20/80 rule. Twenty percent of your employees cause eighty percent of your problems. I was a cop for 32 years. Twenty as a Sergeant. Hundreds of officers worked for me. Most pretty good, some outstanding. But about 1/5 were , shall we say, a disappointment. If they didn't violate the law at a level they could be fired, then I was never given the tools to make that disappointment all theirs. They stayed.
...Your college doesn't trust you to defend your students or yourself with anything more powerful than a door lock and an alarm button. Colleges now are succumbing to a movement to disarm their police. Let's hope that's not where you work.
...As long as you guys focus on this Florida deputy and not possible solutions, you chase the monkey. Righteous indignation is beguiling but not fruitful. Emotions are not your friend here. You can't get rid of the slackers and that is the problem.
It really doesn't matter whether the police have a duty to protect an individual or not. It is simply impossible. The court decisions reflect this reality.
I find it slightly amusing that anyone might be surprised by this ruling. Numerous ourts' rulings such as Warren vs. DC (1981) should have left absolutely no doubt that, except for those special members of the nomenklatura, you and I are guaranteed absolutely nothing but contempt from the police and government in general.
See Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2nd 1 (1981)
Good to know that gross cowardice and leaving school children and teachers defenseless against an active threat does not shock the conscious.