Judge: Cops/school had no constitutional duty to protect Parkland students (Read 4872 times)

punaperson

It's well establish law that law enforcement has NO "duty to protect" anyone that is not in their custody. They can be called to your home via 911 on a hostage and murder threat call and stand idly by and watch as you and your family are murdered one by one and suffer absolutely no legal consequences... they are not required by law to do anything to help you. However, if a cop is in a courtroom "guarding" an alleged criminal on trial for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl and the father of the girl attempts to assault the alleged criminal, that cop IS required by law to protect the rapist murderer from harm by the aggrieved father. Funny how that works, huh? They want you disarmed. They have no requirement to protect you, unless you are in their custody (as a criminal). And they expect people to comply with their laws (disarming people)? Fuck them.

https://www-sun--sentinel-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story,amp.html?usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sun-sentinel.com%2Flocal%2Fbroward%2Fparkland%2Fflorida-school-shooting%2Ffl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html

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.

changemyoil66

We all knew this already because of Warren vs. DC.  But I guess good to try again.

zippz

I see it all the time where people expect the police to protect them and ignore their own preparedness.  Victims on Stolen Stuff Hawaii on Facebook, my friends and family, employees at work, the media, legislators.  Even when they are victims of crime many blame others for not helping them.

Expectation should be you have to protect yourself until help arrives, if it arrives.  I've been in instances where a person collapses in a large group of people and everyone just stares at each other instead of helping.

zippz

We all knew this already because of Warren vs. DC.  But I guess good to try again.

I see it as a good reinforcement.  A lot of people don't know about Warren because it wasn't a well known case and happened almost 40 years ago.  Everyone knows about Parkland and can relate.  It's a good talking point when you talk to your legislator and educating others.

Flapp_Jackson

Hmmm. I guess it helps to know the meaning of "the public at large", which is what the police have a duty to protect from danger.

"At large" means "most of", not "some of". The school is "some of" the residents of the jurisdiction. The whole jurisdiction would include "most of" the residents.

Completely ambiguous. Perfect. Might as well just say the police NEVER have a duty to protect unless the victim is detained and unable to flee or protect themselves.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world;
the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
-- George Bernard Shaw

tillamook

I see it all the time where people expect the police to protect them and ignore their own preparedness.  Victims on Stolen Stuff Hawaii on Facebook, my friends and family, employees at work, the media, legislators.  Even when they are victims of crime many blame others for not helping them.

Expectation should be you have to protect yourself until help arrives, if it arrives.  I've been in instances where a person collapses in a large group of people and everyone just stares at each other instead of helping.

Not a big fan of the mafia, but they have an interesting saying:

"Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without police protection is both"

Kuleana

It's well establish law that law enforcement has NO "duty to protect" anyone that is not in their custody. They can be called to your home via 911 on a hostage and murder threat call and stand idly by and watch as you and your family are murdered one by one and suffer absolutely no legal consequences... they are not required by law to do anything to help you. However, if a cop is in a courtroom "guarding" an alleged criminal on trial for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl and the father of the girl attempts to assault the alleged criminal, that cop IS required by law to protect the rapist murderer from harm by the aggrieved father. Funny how that works, huh? They want you disarmed. They have no requirement to protect you, unless you are in their custody (as a criminal). And they expect people to comply with their laws (disarming people)? Fuck them.

https://www-sun--sentinel-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story,amp.html?usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sun-sentinel.com%2Flocal%2Fbroward%2Fparkland%2Fflorida-school-shooting%2Ffl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html

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.


All 100% true.

However, it is funny to see that there are some people on this forum who believe that law enforcement has a Constitutional right to become Judge, Jury, and Executioner as long as they can find/create/manipulate an excuse.

hvybarrels

deleted because I'm trying to not be a dick
« Last Edit: April 23, 2019, 11:57:09 PM by hvybarrels »
The problem governments are trying to solve is the existence of your freedom.

eyeeatingfish

It's well establish law that law enforcement has NO "duty to protect" anyone that is not in their custody. They can be called to your home via 911 on a hostage and murder threat call and stand idly by and watch as you and your family are murdered one by one and suffer absolutely no legal consequences... they are not required by law to do anything to help you. However, if a cop is in a courtroom "guarding" an alleged criminal on trial for the rape and murder of a 7-year-old girl and the father of the girl attempts to assault the alleged criminal, that cop IS required by law to protect the rapist murderer from harm by the aggrieved father. Funny how that works, huh? They want you disarmed. They have no requirement to protect you, unless you are in their custody (as a criminal). And they expect people to comply with their laws (disarming people)? Fuck them.

https://www-sun--sentinel-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story,amp.html?usqp=mq331AQECAFYAQ%3D%3D&amp_js_v=0.1#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sun-sentinel.com%2Flocal%2Fbroward%2Fparkland%2Fflorida-school-shooting%2Ffl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html

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.

I wonder how liberals would try to rebut this point? I have never heard someone argue against this justification for an armed public.

tillamook

I wonder how liberals would try to rebut this point? I have never heard someone argue against this justification for an armed public.

They would say that you are required to be a victim.  I've seen people say that if "someone raped and killed me and I didnt shoot back I'd know I'd die with a good conscience." 

punaperson

They would say that you are required to be a victim.  I've seen people say that if "someone raped and killed me and I didnt shoot back I'd know I'd die with a good conscience."
Yeah, but what about people who are NOT in mental institutions?

zippz

I wonder if the City will bring up no duty to protect for the other officers in the Cachola lawsuit.  Though they could claim conspiracy and corruption and the case will certainly be settled to avoid bad PR.

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/04/26/hawaii-news/estranged-wife-sues-honolulu-police-officer-and-hpd/?HSA=69a3401c12d1a712a86359b0bdcd79b2d25fac53

punaperson

I wonder if the City will bring up no duty to protect for the other officers in the Cachola lawsuit.  Though they could claim conspiracy and corruption and the case will certainly be settled to avoid bad PR.

https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/04/26/hawaii-news/estranged-wife-sues-honolulu-police-officer-and-hpd/?HSA=69a3401c12d1a712a86359b0bdcd79b2d25fac53
Oh the cops know they have a duty to protect... to protect their corrupt criminal asshole brothers in blue... the infamous "thin blue line". The chief, the union, the entire force is on board with that kind of duty to protect... it's blatantly obvious and disgusting.