Parkland--LEO fallout

1
This will be an objectively interesting case that tests when LEO is expected to protect (subjectively, it is fucking nauseating). Warren v. DC determined that LEO has no duty to protect. Petterson, the school resource office at the Parkland shooting did nothing while kids were slaughtered and defends his action with the no obligation to protect argument. Obviously, I differ on his moral obligation, but it will be interesting to see how this plays out in court. So if LEO has no obligation to protect those of us in areas where "bear" is heavily and/or subjectively infringed, just what are we to do to protect ourselves and families?
A Florida judge has refused to dismiss a negligence lawsuit filed by the parent of a slain Parkland school student against a former deputy who failed to confront the shooter.

The judge on Wednesday rejected arguments by attorneys that ex-deputy Scot Peterson had no legal duty to rush into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School during the Feb. 14 massacre that killed 17 people. Peterson remained outside the entire time.
https://www.njherald.com/article/20181212/AP/312129879#

more here: https://www.policeone.com/legal/article ... -shooting/

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

2
I have never expected the Police to protect me or mine despite the "Serve and Protect" BS. They are people/human and subject to all of the strengths and failings. The only one who can protect me and mine is me....that responsibility falls on my shoulders and it's why I am so adamant about keeping my arms free from any infringement. It is the right of every human to protect himself. I do wonder how these cops could have not intervened but I'm not sure I can condone persecuting them because of the way it all went down.

More tragedy upon tragedy. It never ends, this looking for someone to blame or some way to stop this kind of thing from happening.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

3
Don't know what the Parkland family is basing their case against Peterson on, but Peterson's attorney can always appeal the circuit judges decision to the FL appellate court in hopes of blocking this and further lawsuits.
“To Protect and to Serve” – the ubiquitous creed emblazoned across millions of police cars throughout Los Angeles and indeed the United States. This motto is consistent with the common belief that police officers as well as other law enforcement officers are here to protect us. After all, we are all taught to dial 9-1-1 when we need help. Subject to narrow exceptions, the United States Constitution does not require law enforcement officers to protect you from other people, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. This notion contradicts our engrained perceptions, but it’s still the law today.
https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/polic ... ed-protect
"Special Relationship" Liability

"A special relationship exists when the state assumes control over an individual sufficient to trigger an affirmative duty to provide protection to that individual (e.g., when the individual is a prisoner or involuntarily committed mental patient)." (Uhlrig v. Harder) In other words, when you assume custody of a person, you also assume the responsibility to take reasonable steps to provide for his or her care and safety and to ensure the person's protection against foreseeable risks.

This kind of claim is primarily made against corrections officials, but it may also be made against local police in their operation of a jail or even while a person is under arrest and in the custody of an officer. For example, if you arrest and handcuff a person and place him into the back seat of the police car for transportation to the station but you fail to secure him with a seat belt, any injuries he sustains if someone rear-ends your police car could make you and your employing agency liable for a due process violation. Since your prisoner was unable to put on his own seat belt, you had an affirmative duty to belt him in before driving away.
Wood v. Ostrander.

Washington troopers stopped a car at 2:30 a.m., arrested the driver for DUI, and impounded the car, leaving the passenger/wife to walk away alone in a high-crime area. She was later picked up by a man who drove her to a secluded spot and raped her. The Court of Appeals ruled that these allegations created potential liability based on state-created danger, since the police actions placed the wife at greater risk of being assaulted than she had faced before police intervention.
http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol ... otect.aspx
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

4
My issue on moral grounds is that the officer was the only permissibly armed and trained presence at the school. If anybody has a moral obligation to protect our kids, it's the armed officer at the school that is entrusted (let alone paid) to do so. I fully realize that LEO can't be everywhere in the general public and should not be liable for protection of everyone at all times. That's ridiculous. But when specifically assigned to a certain population/place for a specific duty that includes protection of children.... Well, that's why I'm objectively interested.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

5
Reading the previous posting. Would the students fall into the Special Relationship? They have a forced relationship with the school authorities when they are in school. Would the School District have liability for the protection of the students from injury or death by others action at the school?
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

6
TrueTexan wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:14 pm Reading the previous posting. Would the students fall into the Special Relationship? They have a forced relationship with the school authorities when they are in school. Would the School District have liability for the protection of the students from injury or death by others action at the school?
This lawsuit may address all of those questions.

It is very much worth noting that 3 teachers died that day trying to save students. Several students died that day trying to save others, using their bodies as shields. None of them carried guns. None of them had training. None of them had body armor. None of them hunkered down in a safe place for over 30 minutes like Peterson. None of them had an obligation to protect beyond the morality of being kind and brave human beings.

In fairness to Peterson, the 8 other earliest responding LEOs did not enter, either. One even drove past the school. This despite current understanding and training that the best way to save lives during an active shooter incident is to engage ASAP. Resistance tends to make the shooter kill themselves and allows faster bleeding control of the victims who don't have 30 minutes to wait for SWAT.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/brow ... story.html

The number of failures prior to and during the incident in this particular case are just jaw dropping.

Edited to add: Here's the link to an article on the draft investigation report. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/brow ... story.html

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

7
They hired the wrong guy. It's all well and good to pay someone who is supposed to put his Life on the back burner to protect our children at school *but* when it is no longer rhetorical or hypothetical did they really think this guy was going to walk into a hail of gunfire and lay his Life down for the kids? It takes a highly trained and powerful individual to run *into* a deadly gunfire situation. Did they pay him and recruit him specifically to this eventuality? I'm skeptical.

They hired a cheap, fat old cop near retirement to watch over the kids. And then when a fiasco and deadly confrontation occurred he quailed. Sucks to be him. I mourn for the dead but shudder for those who couldn't run in when others were running out. We are not all heroes. :no: :weep:

He certainly was not. I hope he does not harm himself when all this progresses.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

8
We are not all heros, that is true. I'd argue that any LEO who doesn't ask himself if he's willing to take a bullet in the line of duty aught to reconsider the profession. No need to run down a hallway of bullets to engage, either. Obviously, I have no idea if I'd react better or shit my pants (kids lives 9n the line though and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least try). But then, I am also self aware enough to not take a job where that is part of the risk, however remote. And he was not cheap with a pension above 8k a month.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

9
This goes back up the line - Peterson was a sworn officer under the control and supervision of the Broward County Sheriff so the Sheriff failed to supervise Peterson. Andrew Pollack the father of the victim has said he's not looking for a monetary settlement, just to show Peterson as a coward. Pollack is a Trump supporter and a concealed carrier so the lawsuit isn't a liberal thing. Interesting in depth New Times article on Pollack.
"The deputy [Peterson] is my main target [in the lawsuit] because he's just a piece of shit," Pollack says. "My daughter was covering a girl on the third floor...They've got her on the camera covering the girl, and that deputy piece of shit hid behind the wall. She covered the girl, and that piece of shit hit her five more times. Right at point blank. Nine times total. All while this guy hid with his bulletproof vest on and his gun at the wall."
https://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/andr ... g-10555773
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

10
highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:54 am This goes back up the line -
That it most certainly does. Reading about it is stomach turning at just about every level.

Here's my take away from my area. LEO has no obligation to protect. California has made open carry of firearms illegal in all but the most remote places. California has made concealed carry licenses subjective based on "good cause" and "good moral character" as determined by either the city police chief or the county sheriff. The most heavily populated areas of California don't issue concealed carry permits. Even with a concealed carry permit, school grounds are off limits. So, who is responsible for protection of the children? Yes, I realize that school is generally the safest place kids will be all day. However, schools are most definitely on the "soft target" radar of nutters.

In practice, I believe most LEO will willingly eat a bullet to save a kid. It's what they signed up for. But there is no legal requirement for them to do so. In my state, there is no ability for any other person to act beyond the heroics of using your body as a meat shield. I am not really a fan of the idea of "arming teachers" but am coming around to the notion that someone(s) on the campus who are willing, trained and permitted could make a difference when the no duty to protect mentality rises again. Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect even the best trained and bravest school resource office to be everywhere at once. An additional armed responder or two already on campus would benefit that situation. And it simply must become common training and practice to engage an active shooter immediately.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

11
featureless wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:12 am
highdesert wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 10:54 am This goes back up the line -
That it most certainly does. Reading about it is stomach turning at just about every level.

Here's my take away from my area. LEO has no obligation to protect. California has made open carry of firearms illegal in all but the most remote places. California has made concealed carry licenses subjective based on "good cause" and "good moral character" as determined by either the city police chief or the county sheriff. The most heavily populated areas of California don't issue concealed carry permits. Even with a concealed carry permit, school grounds are off limits. So, who is responsible for protection of the children? Yes, I realize that school is generally the safest place kids will be all day. However, schools are most definitely on the "soft target" radar of nutters.

In practice, I believe most LEO will willingly eat a bullet to save a kid. It's what they signed up for. But there is no legal requirement for them to do so. In my state, there is no ability for any other person to act beyond the heroics of using your body as a meat shield. I am not really a fan of the idea of "arming teachers" but am coming around to the notion that someone(s) on the campus who are willing, trained and permitted could make a difference when the no duty to protect mentality rises again. Additionally, it is unrealistic to expect even the best trained and bravest school resource office to be everywhere at once. An additional armed responder or two already on campus would benefit that situation. And it simply must become common training and practice to engage an active shooter immediately.
You're asking the right questions, what is the role of a school resource officer? One sworn officer and maybe 2000 students plus a few hundred faculty and staff,the person can't protect everyone. Lawsuits like this can be a wakeup call for law enforcement and school districts to take another look at security and personnel. Peterson was a coward who was looking towards retirement, but was that how the sheriff saw these jobs, a place to put low performing officers before they retired?

Found Pollack's lawsuit, Peterson was just one of many he's suing.
https://www.browardclerk.org/Web2/WebFo ... =Anonymous
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

12
I know (and have trained) with a number of Police officers for whom advanced training with firearms and an intimate knowledge of tactics and strategies against armed attackers is not on the radar. They are cops and serve warrants and patrol the streets but they are not really all that interested in firearms except to proficiency with them. They are not "gun aficionados" nor are they proficient in clearing a house or building under attack.

I feel that if we are going to hire guys to "guard" the school and possibly engage hostiles with intent we need soldiers or combat specialists. A soon to be retired cop is a bad choice if his primary function is as a combatant. Same reason we don't hire soldiers in their 40'/50's. My point is that we are hiring cops to do a soldiers duty and hoping they will "step up" if it comes to engaging possibly multiple shooter armed with a plan and automatic/high capacity weapons. That's a job for SWAT guys according to my CCL teacher who was a cop, trained cops, and trained SWAT snipes/was lead sniper in the areas SWAT team.

I would no more expect an ordinary cop to prevail against an armed and determined gunman who came to that location prepared and looking for combat than I would expect a local night watchman to do that.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

13
featureless wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:00 pm My issue on moral grounds is that the officer was the only permissibly armed and trained presence at the school. If anybody has a moral obligation to protect our kids, it's the armed officer at the school that is entrusted (let alone paid) to do so. I fully realize that LEO can't be everywhere in the general public and should not be liable for protection of everyone at all times. That's ridiculous. But when specifically assigned to a certain population/place for a specific duty that includes protection of children.... Well, that's why I'm objectively interested.
School acts in loco parents as in a place of the parent
While sheriff s deputy failed as an human being and officer he legally had no obligation to protect anybody
Officer safety first your then everyone else safety comes

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

14
featureless wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:39 pm We are not all heros, that is true. I'd argue that any LEO who doesn't ask himself if he's willing to take a bullet in the line of duty aught to reconsider the profession. No need to run down a hallway of bullets to engage, either. Obviously, I have no idea if I'd react better or shit my pants (kids lives 9n the line though and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least try). But then, I am also self aware enough to not take a job where that is part of the risk, however remote. And he was not cheap with a pension above 8k a month.
Guy put 20 years or so for that reason it is 8k a month

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

15
VodoundaVinci wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 11:58 am I would no more expect an ordinary cop to prevail against an armed and determined gunman who came to that location prepared and looking for combat than I would expect a local night watchman to do that.

VooDoo
VooDoo,

I respect your opinion and, to large degree, share it. However, there are two underlined assumptions you make above that have been proven to be untrue in the majority of school shootings. We're talking school shootings here, not active shooters/terrorists in other venues where SWAT is more likely the final answer.

Determined gunman: The majority of these school shootings are carried out by either kids or young adults with questionable mental health/stability and little to no training in firearm use or tactics beyond "call of duty" (not to bring video games up as a causality, just as an example of experience level) and youtube videos. Determined they may be, but proficient gunmen and tacticians they most certainly are not. A 50-year old trained and armored LEO should always have the upper hand on them, even if they only shoot once per year to qualify.

Looking for combat: No, they are not. They are looking for fame, glory, distribution of misery, payback, easy targets, etc. (hard to know since most kill themselves). Combat? Absolutely not. Almost all of the cases of school shooters where the shooter is engaged end in the shooter turning the gun on himself (yes, I keep using him since the vast majority are male). Again, trained police officers, even those that are not enthusiasts, should have the advantage. Find/use cover and return fire. You are wearing your hot and heavy vest, right? There is no need to go toe to toe, only to provide suppressive fire to interrupt the shooter's program and prevent them from the continued killing of innocent children and give those children the opportunity to GTFO. Hell, even pulling a Biden and putting some rounds into the ceiling above the shooters head would give him pause. Threat interruption (or whatever it's called) should be basic training for all LEOs as a matter of making it through the academy.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

16
hondo2K0 wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:23 pm
featureless wrote: Thu Dec 13, 2018 7:39 pm We are not all heros, that is true. I'd argue that any LEO who doesn't ask himself if he's willing to take a bullet in the line of duty aught to reconsider the profession. No need to run down a hallway of bullets to engage, either. Obviously, I have no idea if I'd react better or shit my pants (kids lives 9n the line though and I couldn't live with myself if I didn't at least try). But then, I am also self aware enough to not take a job where that is part of the risk, however remote. And he was not cheap with a pension above 8k a month.
Guy put 20 years or so for that reason it is 8k a month
Precisely, Point was, he wasn't the cheap guy for the assignment.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

17
I actually agree more than you think I do...I'm just of the opinion that most cops I know (I have seen it happen) simply are not of the mindset to engage. I'm not implying that school shooters are competent combatants but facing even a kid who is firing at high speed (even randomly) is simply beyond what many cops are capable of doing. They call for backup and wait for it. I'd like to think I'd have done as you suggest and would hope that most human men, faced with the same situation, could/would react and at least try to save a Life or distract the shooter or make him put his head down.

Sadly, when bullets start flying, thing just don't work the way we want them to. Anyone who has been shot at likely will never forget the feelings....it's why most people will not kill or attack/counter attack. They simply are not built that way. Most cops I know (a lot of cops) consider themselves competent and *are* competent at doing 90% of what cops actually do but we have seen video of what some of them do when the shit really hits the fan......some freeze, some run, some stand there and shuffle from foot to foot, and some make bad decisions in the blink of an eye. A precious few, like that pilot who landed the airliner in the Potomac, make all the right choices seamlessly.

I simply think if we hire people to function as a combatant we should hire specialists who are trained to engage a gunman. Cops have basic training but most of them will never pull their gun in the line of duty. I have several retired police officers in my extended family who *never* pulled a gun nor witnessed gunfire off of a range/training session. My FIL was a cop and some of his friends were involved in shootings and were very frank about it 20 years after retirement that *nothing* in police training can prepare you for what these guys are supposed to deal with.

I'm just saying that cops are people and most people will probably not react to deadly force situations the way they'd like to nor the way others might expect them to. Some of us (few of us) focus on the threat and our training, hours and hours of training, kicks in. Most of us will do something else.....no matter who has paid us to engage, we simply may not be capable of it. Some of the baddest of tough, bad asses I saw in the Dojo went absolutely to pieces when stuff "got real" on the street and several of them were police officers and had seen military duty. I think we have entered a phase, like Israel, where we need security people who are specialists.

VooDoo
Tyrants disarm the people they intend to oppress.

I am sworn to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

18
VodoundaVinci wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:56 pm I'm just saying that cops are people and most people will probably not react to deadly force situations the way they'd like to nor the way others might expect them to. Some of us (few of us) focus on the threat and our training, hours and hours of training, kicks in. Most of us will do something else.....no matter who has paid us to engage, we simply may not be capable of it. Some of the baddest of tough, bad asses I saw in the Dojo went absolutely to pieces when stuff "got real" on the street and several of them were police officers and had seen military duty. I think we have entered a phase, like Israel, where we need security people who are specialists.

VooDoo
I agree with all of this. Adding in the lack of clear policy and shitty training to human nature, are we surprised that the Parkland scenario went down the way it did? Not really. My disgust is around those issues as much as with Peterson's inability to act and the fact that the students and teachers were left for 30 minutes to deal with it sans weapon, armor or training. That is inexcusable, even if legal.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

19
Yeah, it’s a tough thing. I understand what Voodoo has written which pits basic human desire to live against the necessity to face mortality for a job. I agree that you cannot really train for it. It’s in you or not. The alternative, training officers for combat, is actually a horrible idea. It’s breaches the fundamental reason we separate the military from civilian police. You cannot risk losing something humane about society when you start militarization of the police. Which is what we are are already seeing with equipment and glamorizing SWAT teams.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

20
Here's an example, also from Florida, of a single security guard responding to three armed attackers.



He'll likely never see $8K/month even when working. A military O5 (AF Major) at 20 years just hits $8K/month active duty pay - retirement is half that. To retire around $8K/month after 20 years in the military one has to be a General officer, or someone between an O6 and O10 with about a 50% service-connected disability. The jurisdiction paying this excuse for a human being $8K/month is getting screwed. Again.

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

21
One of the perks of the leo jobs is retirement @ 50 % of your highest paying 2or 3 years aka shitton off the ot and special details like sro to pump up your paycheck + a lot of vacation time especially on the last few years on the job while doing bare minimum aka retired on the job

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

22
featureless wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 2:19 pm
VodoundaVinci wrote: Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:56 pm I'm just saying that cops are people and most people will probably not react to deadly force situations the way they'd like to nor the way others might expect them to. Some of us (few of us) focus on the threat and our training, hours and hours of training, kicks in. Most of us will do something else.....no matter who has paid us to engage, we simply may not be capable of it. Some of the baddest of tough, bad asses I saw in the Dojo went absolutely to pieces when stuff "got real" on the street and several of them were police officers and had seen military duty. I think we have entered a phase, like Israel, where we need security people who are specialists.

VooDoo
I agree with all of this. Adding in the lack of clear policy and shitty training to human nature, are we surprised that the Parkland scenario went down the way it did? Not really. My disgust is around those issues as much as with Peterson's inability to act and the fact that the students and teachers were left for 30 minutes to deal with it sans weapon, armor or training. That is inexcusable, even if legal.
When my grandfather was a cop in Chicago, the general expectation according to him was you'd probably die on the job in some sort of violent event. He had some very close calls, but ended up retiring and died at 72 from heart disease common in my family. Now days everyone wants to have a full career and enjoy a long retirement no matter how risky their occupation. Law enforcement will always be a risky occupation that generally pays well for someone with a high school diploma, sometimes risks can be variable.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

23
Meanwhile:
Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit
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.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

24
highdesert wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:37 pm Law enforcement will always be a risky occupation that generally pays well for someone with a high school diploma, sometimes risks can be variable.
Rank Occupation Fatal Work Injury Rate
(Per 100,000 Full-Time Equivalent Workers) Total Deaths
1 Logging workers 135.9 91
2 Fishers and related fishing workers 86 24
3 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers 55.5 75
4 Roofers 48.6 101
5 Trash and recycling collectors 34.1 31
6 Iron and steel workers 25.1 16
7 Truck and sales drivers 24.7 918
8 Farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural managers 23.1 260
9 First-line supervisors of construction trades and extraction workers 18 134
10 Grounds maintenance workers 17.4 217
from herethey get the data from the 2016 Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries published in late 2017 by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to Business Insider, Police and Sheriff patrol officers were a tie with Electrical power-line installers and repairers at #14, just behind Construction laborers at #13.
"Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.” Matt. 25:40

Re: Parkland--LEO fallout

25
I see a dilemma created by liberals, conservatives, and a law that says a LEO is not obligated to try to stop a crime. I will stereotype here to over-simplify the situation. Please realize that:
1) The Liberal mindset is disarm everyone, and depend solely on the cops to protect us. Many state have severely limited the right to self-defense, even if you are unarmed.
2) The Conservative mindset is that everyone (except POC) have a right to carry anything anywhere anytime, fighting a national background check, registering EVERY firearm, which means schools, courthouses, malls, and airports, not to mention planes should ALL be open for people to carry weapons. So there would be NO way to keep guns out of the hands of the Parkland or Newtown or Southerland Springs or Charleston shooters.
3) If LEOs aren't required to engage shooters, WTF are we paying them for? Ticketing speeders and jay-walkers? Arresting shooters AFTER they've murdered?

Under 1), if 3) is true, the children at Parkland, indeed everyone, has no more right to not be murdered than chickens in a poultry slaughterhouse!
Under 2), if 3) is true, we risk turning all our public spaces into Wild West shoot outs with all kinds of innocent bystanders killed, and firearms capable of spitting out far more rounds than the old-fashioned 6-shooters and lever-action rifles.

I realize my descriptions in 1) and 2) are over-exaggerations but Law is made at the "what if?" region of the margins--where do exceptions occur and not occur?

The Parkland teens, whether you agree with the solutions they are pushing for or not, don't want to be shot, in school, or anywhere. Who does? And who wants to depend, for security, on a trained LEO who balks at trying to stop a killer?

With tools and skills comes an obligation. If you're unwilling to take on that obligation, you shouldn't have the tools or take on the training.

When I was 16, I postponed training for my Red Cross Senior Life Saving certification. My eldest brother, in college, had pulled a guy out of lake or river, worked on him for 45 minutes doing CPR and mouth-to-mouth only to learn the poor guy was already dead. I wasn't ready to face that and knew I'd be obligated to. When I was, at 17, I went through the training.

I didn't seek martial arts training, being aware that, for many decades, like boxers, your hands would be considered deadly weapons if you hit someone (I have no idea if that's still true).
But after 9/11, we all started training, and both my son and I got our black belts (lowest level). My wife reached the brown belt level.

I didn't want or seek the risk of guns until Trump was elected and, as cultural Jews, realized that all forms of violent racism, including anti-Semitism, was exploding across the nation, including New Jersey.

You don't have to quote Cliff Robertson as Uncle Ben to realize his comic book truth: With great power comes great responsibility.

This coward cop took on the great power: the badge, the training, the vest, and, of course, the firearm. He totally reneged on his great responsibility--to protect the children at the Parkland school. He didn't do the job he agreed to do, and represented himself as capable to do.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Amazon [Bot], Semrush [Bot] and 3 guests