Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre
If this is a re-post, please delete
Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html
The school district and sheriff?s office in the Florida county that is home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February massacre, a federal judge has said in a ruling.
The decision was made in a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the Feb. 14 attack in Parkland, Fla. A total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives; 17 others were injured.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Nikolas Cruz, 20, the former Stoneman Douglas student who is accused of opening fire at the school on Valentine?s Day. He has pleaded not guilty, but his lawyers have said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence.
The Dec. 12 ruling, by Judge Beth Bloom, came on the same day that a county judge, Patti Englander Henning, came to the opposite conclusion. Judge Henning found that Scot Peterson, the armed sheriff?s deputy who heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the attack, did have an obligation to confront Mr. Cruz.
The two decisions in rapid succession highlight an assumption often made: the belief that the public has a right to receive protection from police officers.
But police officers, in fact, generally are not under any legal obligation to protect citizens who are not in their custody.
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
?Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm ? even when they know the harm will occur,? said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. ?Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are ?in custody,? he pointed out.
?Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,? Mr. Hutchinson said. ?Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own ? such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.?
There are exceptions, Mr. Hutchinson said, as when a crossing guard who is specifically assigned to protect children traveling across a street allows a child to get run over while, say, the guard is being distracted by a smartphone. The crossing guard is in a ?special relationship? with the children, in legal eyes.
When an officer has a ?special relationship? with people, or acts to ?enhance the risk? of harm, the officer can be liable for any resulting injury under state negligence laws, Mr. Hutchinson said.
This is likely how Judge Henning found that Mr. Peterson did have a duty to protect those inside the school and refused to dismiss the negligence lawsuit filed by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed.
The county lawsuit argued that Mr. Peterson had a ?special relationship? with students and staff members at the school because he was specifically assigned to offer them protection.
Video footage and other evidence shows Mr. Peterson, the only armed officer at the school, staying outside while shots could be heard exploding from inside the school. Mr. Peterson also launched a ?code red? to put the entire school on lockdown.
?They also argued that he enhanced the risk of death, or injury, by Mr. Cruz by negligently ordering a lockdown, which prevented escape from the building,? Mr. Hutchinson said. ?Either of these assertions could support liability for Peterson. But I would not be surprised if the state case was reversed on appeal. It is very difficult to establish liability in this area of law.?
The federal decision is expected to be appealed.
A state commission that has been investigating the attack found last week that there was a multitude of failures on the part of the school and law enforcement officials in the response to the shooting.
At least eight sheriff?s deputies who raced to the school and heard gunshots stayed outside the building, the commission wrote in a 400-page draft report, and officers lost even more time scrambling to retrieve bulletproof vests from their cars.
Officers Had No Duty to Protect Students in Parkland Massacre
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html
The school district and sheriff?s office in the Florida county that is home to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February massacre, a federal judge has said in a ruling.
The decision was made in a lawsuit filed by 15 students who said they suffered trauma during the Feb. 14 attack in Parkland, Fla. A total of 17 students and staff members lost their lives; 17 others were injured.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Nikolas Cruz, 20, the former Stoneman Douglas student who is accused of opening fire at the school on Valentine?s Day. He has pleaded not guilty, but his lawyers have said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence.
The Dec. 12 ruling, by Judge Beth Bloom, came on the same day that a county judge, Patti Englander Henning, came to the opposite conclusion. Judge Henning found that Scot Peterson, the armed sheriff?s deputy who heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the attack, did have an obligation to confront Mr. Cruz.
The two decisions in rapid succession highlight an assumption often made: the belief that the public has a right to receive protection from police officers.
But police officers, in fact, generally are not under any legal obligation to protect citizens who are not in their custody.
You have 4 free articles remaining.
Subscribe to The Times
?Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm ? even when they know the harm will occur,? said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. ?Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.?
The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are ?in custody,? he pointed out.
?Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,? Mr. Hutchinson said. ?Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own ? such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.?
There are exceptions, Mr. Hutchinson said, as when a crossing guard who is specifically assigned to protect children traveling across a street allows a child to get run over while, say, the guard is being distracted by a smartphone. The crossing guard is in a ?special relationship? with the children, in legal eyes.
When an officer has a ?special relationship? with people, or acts to ?enhance the risk? of harm, the officer can be liable for any resulting injury under state negligence laws, Mr. Hutchinson said.
This is likely how Judge Henning found that Mr. Peterson did have a duty to protect those inside the school and refused to dismiss the negligence lawsuit filed by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed.
The county lawsuit argued that Mr. Peterson had a ?special relationship? with students and staff members at the school because he was specifically assigned to offer them protection.
Video footage and other evidence shows Mr. Peterson, the only armed officer at the school, staying outside while shots could be heard exploding from inside the school. Mr. Peterson also launched a ?code red? to put the entire school on lockdown.
?They also argued that he enhanced the risk of death, or injury, by Mr. Cruz by negligently ordering a lockdown, which prevented escape from the building,? Mr. Hutchinson said. ?Either of these assertions could support liability for Peterson. But I would not be surprised if the state case was reversed on appeal. It is very difficult to establish liability in this area of law.?
The federal decision is expected to be appealed.
A state commission that has been investigating the attack found last week that there was a multitude of failures on the part of the school and law enforcement officials in the response to the shooting.
At least eight sheriff?s deputies who raced to the school and heard gunshots stayed outside the building, the commission wrote in a 400-page draft report, and officers lost even more time scrambling to retrieve bulletproof vests from their cars.
0
-
When I took the oath to ?protect and serve? the risks were evident, but, in doing so, one not only assumes a legal but also a moral obligation to go in harms way if the situation calls for it. To cower in safety while others are being harmed or worse while one has the means and training to stop further bloodshed is simply unthinkable to me. 0 -
Perhaps they should read the side of the patrol car.
Probably has the job description written right there.0 -
This has been to the supremes in DC vs Warren.
Should be a perfect argument to restore all of our 2nd amendment rights. Not compromise as some organizations are so willing to do.0 -
Have a very good Police Force in village I live in, however would rather have a locked and loaded firearm in my hands than a whole Police Force on the phone. 0 -
Despite the PR 'to protect and serve,' the courts have ruled repeatedly in lawsuits, that the police have no obligation to protect.
Obviously why a lot of us carry.0 -
On the other hand if you see a police officer being attacked and you don't try to help you can go to jail. Ain't that special? 0 -
It is my opinion that police officers carry weapons to protect themselves.
Much the same as we should be allowed to do.
If they can carry weapons to protect themselves
- but are not required to protect us with those same weapons
- and we are not allowed to carry weapons to protect ourselves
exactly who is supposed to protect us - and with what?0 -
This has to do more with financial liabilities to localities. Parkland parents lawyers would love to break the bank with lawsuits. Taxpayers would lose in the end. The other side is that law enforcement like soldiering is tough. No one signs on cause they want to die, Its a job and certain situations are extremely problematic and deadly. 0 -
DEMOCRATs solution as always is to ban guns. Bet judges decision was based on such dogma and group think.
Thank goodness we still have the Second Amendment.
In a DEMOCRAT utopia there is no Second and they don't like police, rather sheeple might as well just sit around and let the bad guys shoot them.
BTW: I wonder how long it will be before a DEMOCRAT judge issues an edict to have "To serve and protect" removed from the tens of thousands of police cars here in the USA.0 -
US Military Guy wrote:It is my opinion that police officers carry weapons to protect themselves.
Much the same as we should be allowed to do.
If they can carry weapons to protect themselves
- but are not required to protect us with those same weapons
- and we are not allowed to carry weapons to protect ourselves
exactly who is supposed to protect us - and with what?
Don't ask so many questions. Geeez, it's like you don't trust the police or government. Do you not realize that a person with a badge and costume is to be fawned upon just for their very existence? They are constantly putting their lives in danger every day for you and me dont ya know!0 -
sometimes i wonder what the hell we have a judiciary for ?????? they do not seem to protect anyhting but their pay checks 0 -
During the 70's, NYC had the "policy" of denying to issue concealed carry permits, because
"It's the job of the police to protect you".
Totally BS.0 -
If all the BS is true then how the heck is their motto "To Protect and serve"? 0 -
I am aware of the court case where it was held that the police have no duty to protect any one person.
HOWEVER- there is another issue in the Parkland case- nonfeasance. C&P from the Merriam Legal dictionary:
Definition of Nonfeasance
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines nonfeasance as the failure to do what ought to be done. Legally, it goes a step further by recognizing that this intentional inaction caused harm. While this statement may seem simple, tort law requires three different criteria be met to be recognized as nonfeasance:
a) the person who is responsible for not acting would be the person expected to act,
the same person who did nothing is the one expected to do something
b) the person did not act as expected, and
there was an appropriate action expected by that person, and it did not occur
c) not acting caused harm.
because the action did not occur, there was an injury.
I am not a lawyer- Mom & Dad were married, so I'm not qualified- but it damned sure looks to me like that mess sure met the definition of nonfeasance.0 -
In spite of all the hoopla, the police are an "after the fact" organization. After a crime happens, it is good TV publicity to have lots of flashing reds and blues, vests and ARs all over the scene after it is way to late to do anything about it. 0 -
11b6r wrote:I am aware of the court case where it was held that the police have no duty to protect any one person.
HOWEVER- there is another issue in the Parkland case- nonfeasance. C&P from the Merriam Legal dictionary:
Definition of Nonfeasance
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines nonfeasance as the failure to do what ought to be done. Legally, it goes a step further by recognizing that this intentional inaction caused harm. While this statement may seem simple, tort law requires three different criteria be met to be recognized as nonfeasance:
a) the person who is responsible for not acting would be the person expected to act,
the same person who did nothing is the one expected to do something
b) the person did not act as expected, and
there was an appropriate action expected by that person, and it did not occur
c) not acting caused harm.
because the action did not occur, there was an injury.
I am not a lawyer- Mom & Dad were married, so I'm not qualified- but it damned sure looks to me like that mess sure met the definition of nonfeasance.
Spot On Sir.
I Concur.0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:11b6r wrote:I am aware of the court case where it was held that the police have no duty to protect any one person.
HOWEVER- there is another issue in the Parkland case- nonfeasance. C&P from the Merriam Legal dictionary:
Definition of Nonfeasance
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines nonfeasance as the failure to do what ought to be done. Legally, it goes a step further by recognizing that this intentional inaction caused harm. While this statement may seem simple, tort law requires three different criteria be met to be recognized as nonfeasance:
a) the person who is responsible for not acting would be the person expected to act,
the same person who did nothing is the one expected to do something
b) the person did not act as expected, and
there was an appropriate action expected by that person, and it did not occur
c) not acting caused harm.
because the action did not occur, there was an injury.
I am not a lawyer- Mom & Dad were married, so I'm not qualified- but it damned sure looks to me like that mess sure met the definition of nonfeasance.
Spot On Sir.
I Concur.
Proving a negative, hmm, haven't we all had this discussion before?
Should he be fired?
But lets say the sky is falling and the police are supposed to protect you. What can they do to protect you?
So, you can call the cop chicken, or call his boss chicken for not allowing him to do his job, but there was no guarantee that if he did enter and engage the results would have been any better or any worse, all 20/20 hindsight.0 -
1942 book from Issac Asimov...
""A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.""
Where's robocop when you need him???0 -
For decades the Courts have ruled the Police do not have the duty to protect the individual, they serve and protect Society. 0 -
BPost- fully agree with you. No duty to protect any ONE student. But a duty to protect STUDENTS- in general, in THAT school- I think that case can be made.
The legalese of this is the civilian equivalent of dereliction of duty.0 -
11b6r wrote:BPost- fully agree with you. No duty to protect any ONE student. But a duty to protect STUDENTS- in general, in THAT school- I think that case can be made.
The legalese of this is the civilian equivalent of dereliction of duty.
I'd agree with that. As the assigned "School Resource Officer," what did he think he was supposed to be doing? My guess is a couple years from retirement, riding out a cushy assignment.
"Special Relationship," pretty much established I would think.0 -
mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:11b6r wrote:I am aware of the court case where it was held that the police have no duty to protect any one person.
HOWEVER- there is another issue in the Parkland case- nonfeasance. C&P from the Merriam Legal dictionary:
Definition of Nonfeasance
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines nonfeasance as the failure to do what ought to be done. Legally, it goes a step further by recognizing that this intentional inaction caused harm. While this statement may seem simple, tort law requires three different criteria be met to be recognized as nonfeasance:
a) the person who is responsible for not acting would be the person expected to act,
the same person who did nothing is the one expected to do something
b) the person did not act as expected, and
there was an appropriate action expected by that person, and it did not occur
c) not acting caused harm.
because the action did not occur, there was an injury.
I am not a lawyer- Mom & Dad were married, so I'm not qualified- but it damned sure looks to me like that mess sure met the definition of nonfeasance.
Spot On Sir.
I Concur.
Proving a negative, hmm, haven't we all had this discussion before?
Should he be fired?
But lets say the sky is falling and the police are supposed to protect you. What can they do to protect you?
So, you can call the cop chicken, or call his boss chicken for not allowing him to do his job, but there was no guarantee that if he did enter and engage the results would have been any better or any worse, all 20/20 hindsight.
You are certainly entitled to your view Sir.
However wrong it may be.
(By the way,) I do not count on Anyone "Protecting" me. I am capable of that on my own.
Kid's at school being shot, while the "School Resource Officer" cowers outside, you good with that?
I'm not.0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:
Spot On Sir.
I Concur.
Proving a negative, hmm, haven't we all had this discussion before?
Should he be fired?
But lets say the sky is falling and the police are supposed to protect you. What can they do to protect you?
So, you can call the cop chicken, or call his boss chicken for not allowing him to do his job, but there was no guarantee that if he did enter and engage the results would have been any better or any worse, all 20/20 hindsight.
You are certainly entitled to your view Sir.
However wrong it may be.
(By the way,) I do not count on Anyone "Protecting" me. I am capable of that on my own.
Kid's at school being shot, while the "School Resource Officer" cowers outside, you good with that?
I'm not.
Unlike you, I don't have all the details.
I did however think the topic was about parent suing people who may or may not have been able to "protect" people who should never had been in such a situation.
I find it quite interesting how Hollywood lies seem to permeate real life. It don't work that way, we are not all the "A" team with unlimited lead and bad guys not ever hitting the target.
Easy as hell to second guess decisions made in the heat of battle while comfortably sitting in the safety of home.
I for one am not willing to keep paying higher taxes to feed ambulance chasing lawyers and greedy "victims". If the guy did not do his job, fire him.
Suppose the guy went in guns a blazing and hit a kid? Suppose he got killed before he effected any change? Why didn't a teacher (babysitter) pull out their own personal protection device and control the situation?
Knee jerk reaction will not solve the deeper problem, and the NRA isn't helping.0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:11b6r wrote:BPost- fully agree with you. No duty to protect any ONE student. But a duty to protect STUDENTS- in general, in THAT school- I think that case can be made.
The legalese of this is the civilian equivalent of dereliction of duty.
I'd agree with that. As the assigned "School Resource Officer," what did he think he was supposed to be doing? My guess is a couple years from retirement, riding out a cushy assignment.
"Special Relationship," pretty much established I would think.
Let's just take this to an absurd level. Suppose the threat was a nuclear device? One cop is supposed to save the world I suppose. I will remind you, I do not know the details of what really happened. I do know that this isn't Hollywood--- real bullets are flying.
As far as I know, only the secret service are required to put themselves in the path of a bullet...and that is to save the President.
Your precious little darlins aren't worth my life, that is your job as a parent. Snowflake indoctrination centers. Safe spaces, gun free zones, no bullying, hate speech, there is no end to the stupidity being taught.
Just like those protestors. They protest the police and want the police to protect them when they break the law. Same with the schools.0 -
Your past couple responses, are indicative of your "knee jerk," responses to inquiries made of your intellectual mind set.
How do you get "Nuclear Device," out of any of this? (Yes, that is taking it to "an Absurd Level.")
By the way, I never said I had "all the details." Merely enough to make a somewhat informed decision.
In that the "School Resource Officer," assigned to that School had a "Special Relationship," and duty to intervene when the School he was assigned to (and the Kid's he was assigned to protect) were getting shot to pieces while he took cover outside.
As I asked before, Are you Okay with that? "Your Precious Little Darlings are not worth my Life." Apparently you are.
I'm Not. (Nor would I have cowered outside while Students/Kids were getting shot.)0 -
IMO, the resource officer and any other cop who chose to puss out at the sound of gunfire makes me sick. First,they are obligated to put their lives on the line in order to preserve the lives of others especially innocent people being randomly executed, that's why they took the job... or did they? It also bothers me to think that some cops are willing to put their lives in danger for revenue collection for the state yet unwilling when it comes to children being slaughtered? 0 -
99% of the people on this forum would run into a burning building that's ready to blow in order to save children. To do any less is pure CS! 0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:Your past couple responses, are indicative of your "knee jerk," responses to inquiries made of your intellectual mind set.
How do you get "Nuclear Device," out of any of this? (Yes, that is taking it to "an Absurd Level.")
By the way, I never said I had "all the details." Merely enough to make a somewhat informed decision.
In that the "School Resource Officer," assigned to that School had a "Special Relationship," and duty to intervene when the School he was assigned to (and the Kid's he was assigned to protect) were getting shot to pieces while he took cover outside.
As I asked before, Are you Okay with that? "Your Precious Little Darlings are not worth my Life." Apparently you are.
I'm Not. (Nor would I have cowered outside while Students/Kids were getting shot.)
Armchair warrior.
:roll:
I didn't see or read about you riding up on you white steed rescuing them all, what's your excuse, you coward? ...
Keep in mind that whatever that school cops excuse was, wasn't good enough for you, so whatever excuse you give won't be good enough for me...
Again, it is you who did not comprehend my response, I guess that is my fault for not dumbing it down for you. :ugeek:
You need to realize that TV shows are not real life.0 -
mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:Your past couple responses, are indicative of your "knee jerk," responses to inquiries made of your intellectual mind set.
How do you get "Nuclear Device," out of any of this? (Yes, that is taking it to "an Absurd Level.")
By the way, I never said I had "all the details." Merely enough to make a somewhat informed decision.
In that the "School Resource Officer," assigned to that School had a "Special Relationship," and duty to intervene when the School he was assigned to (and the Kid's he was assigned to protect) were getting shot to pieces while he took cover outside.
As I asked before, Are you Okay with that? "Your Precious Little Darlings are not worth my Life." Apparently you are.
I'm Not. (Nor would I have cowered outside while Students/Kids were getting shot.)
Armchair warrior.
:roll:
I didn't see or read about you riding up on you white steed rescuing them all, what's your excuse, you coward? ...
Keep in mind that whatever that school cops excuse was, wasn't good enough for you, so whatever excuse you give won't be good enough for me...
Again, it is you who did not comprehend my response, I guess that is my fault for not dumbing it down for you. :ugeek:
You need to realize that TV shows are not real life.
Your response, (as well as your last couple.) are beyond Stupid.
"My excuse, was I was not there." Nor was I the "School Resource Officer" assigned to Protect that School, Nor was I any one of the several Armed LEO Officers assigned to that district. (That pretty much covers it.)
You have shown me all I need to know/hear from you, with your "Not one of your precious darlings are worth my Life." (Your Quote.)
Simply Pathetic.
But , by all means keep posting your pathetic rhetoric.
Do you really think anyone here agrees with this Pathetic BS? (A School Resource Officer,) with an obvious "Special Relationship," to that school and the Students therein, has no Duty to protect the Students in that School? (Maybe in your little mind.) Pretty sad. (Again) Pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.
5 years Active Duty Army. I had no problem stepping up to the plate when required to do so. ( I guess that makes me an "Armchair Warrior.") You?
Maybe you should go back to your fallback - "We should re-name the United States of America." Equally Pathetic. (That was the BS, you rejoined the Forums with, after an 8 year hiatus.)
I do not ever remember you referencing "Your Time in Service."
Your Sheeit is beyond Weak.
IF you wish to continue with this, I will be happy to oblige you.0 -
0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
50 comments