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
-
IMO many people are handicapped by their preconceptions. When you go into the military or have LEO training, your training gives you a set of options. Policy tries to give you a by the numbers response. And as one of my trainers once said you aren't really in trouble until you run out of options.
Even thinking about trying to pick off one person in a crowd gives me the willies. Preconception says you run in and shot the bad guy. The reality is anybody's chances of making that shot, under those circumstances, is near zero, unless you are lucky and the shooter is separate from the crowd.
IMO the only option at the time was sneak and peak and hope to get lucky. Waiting for back up may be SOP, but you have to be flexible. There are only really three options in a situation like that, freeze, flee or fight. And seriously anybody who wasn't there really doesn't know for sure how they would react.0 -
"All That is Necessary for Evil to Triumph, is for Good Men to do Nothing." 0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote: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.
All you can prove about that security guard is that he WASN'T a HERO, that day.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, easy from your rocking chair.
I still haven't heard how your excuse is any more valid than his excuse. Maybe the parents can name you in the lawsuit too.
0 -
Really?
Is that the best you can regurgitate?
You must be "dumbing it down." (And) Who better to do so?
It is a long way from NE TN. to Parkland, FL. I know I should have rode up on my "White Steed," but it was impractical at the time of the incident. Given the time/distance contraints and all. Do I really have to explain all that to you?
But yes, that makes me a "Coward." No? I must have missed where you volunteered to pull any type of Active Duty Service to this Country. (You neglected to answer that little question.) Not surprising.
Your stance on this matter is quite illuminating, and laughable on it's face. (Not that I need to point that out.) Pretty much everyone here, that I have heard from - agrees with me.
Please,............................................... Crawl back in the hole you came from, prior to your "8 Year Hiatus."0 -
mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:mag00 wrote:
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.
All you can prove about that security guard is that he WASN'T a HERO, that day.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, easy from your rocking chair.
I still haven't heard how your excuse is any more valid than his excuse. Maybe the parents can name you in the lawsuit too.
"Security Guard," really?
Where do you get that Crap from?
Your responses go from the merely Stupid, to the absolutely Ludicrous.
(But) By all means, Carry on.
If you wish to continue Showing your A$$, I will be your Huckleberry.0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:
Your response, (as well as your last couple.) are beyond Stupid.
"My excuse, was I was not there." Nor was I the "School Resource Officer" assigned to Protect that School, Nor was I any one of the several Armed LEO Officers assigned to that district. (That pretty much covers it.)
You have shown me all I need to know/hear from you, with your "Not one of your precious darlings are worth my Life." (Your Quote.)
Simply Pathetic.
But , by all means keep posting your pathetic rhetoric.
Do you really think anyone here agrees with this Pathetic BS? (A School Resource Officer,) with an obvious "Special Relationship," to that school and the Students therein, has no Duty to protect the Students in that School? (Maybe in your little mind.) Pretty sad. (Again) Pretty much tells me all I need to know about you.
5 years Active Duty Army. I had no problem stepping up to the plate when required to do so. ( I guess that makes me an "Armchair Warrior.") You?
Maybe you should go back to your fallback - "We should re-name the United States of America." Equally Pathetic. (That was the BS, you rejoined the Forums with, after an 8 year hiatus.)
I do not ever remember you referencing "Your Time in Service."
Your Sheeit is beyond Weak.
IF you wish to continue with this, I will be happy to oblige you.
All you can prove about that security guard is that he WASN'T a HERO, that day.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, easy from your rocking chair.
I still haven't heard how your excuse is any more valid than his excuse. Maybe the parents can name you in the lawsuit too.
"Security Guard," really?
Where do you get that Crap from?
Your responses go from the merely Stupid, to the absolutely Ludicrous.
(But) By all means, Carry on.
If you wish to continue Showing your A$$, I will be your Huckleberry.
More flailing like a fish, what I expected from you.
Answer the question please.
What makes your excuse more valid than his? His excuse or reason was valid to him and to you he is a coward.
You produced your own excuse for not saving the precious little dahlins, and that is valid in your eyes. What gives you the moral high ground to look down your nose when you didn't save them yourself?
Why is your hindsight armchair quarterback opinion so much superior to his (jack boot thug baby sitter) and then when asked about your reason to belittle him about his choice, you then try to belittle and disparage me?
I feel sorry for you :ugeek:0 -
mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:mag00 wrote:
All you can prove about that security guard is that he WASN'T a HERO, that day.
Woulda, coulda, shoulda, easy from your rocking chair.
I still haven't heard how your excuse is any more valid than his excuse. Maybe the parents can name you in the lawsuit too.
"Security Guard," really?
Where do you get that Crap from?
Your responses go from the merely Stupid, to the absolutely Ludicrous.
(But) By all means, Carry on.
If you wish to continue Showing your A$$, I will be your Huckleberry.
More flailing like a fish, what I expected from you.
Answer the question please.
What makes your excuse more valid than his? His excuse or reason was valid to him and to you he is a coward.
You produced your own excuse for not saving the precious little dahlins, and that is valid in your eyes. What gives you the moral high ground to look down your nose when you didn't save them yourself?
Why is your hindsight armchair quarterback opinion so much superior to his (jack boot thug baby sitter) and then when asked about your reason to belittle him about his choice, you then try to belittle and disparage me?
I feel sorry for you :ugeek:
Yes.
I can understand that, from your (obviously) limited point of view.
Can I not make you realize the time/distance constraints involved? My "Excuse" was I was about a thousand miles away, when the incident took place. Yes, perhaps I could have prevented the Oklahoma Bombing as well. :roll:
(Still an Imbecile, I see.)
Still no answer to the "I Volunteered , at some point to Serve our Country, on Active Duty? Question.
Who is the "Armchair Quarterback," Here?
Hypocrite.0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:As the assigned "School Resource Officer," what did he think he was supposed to be doing? My guess is a couple years from retirement, riding out a cushy assignment.
With a title like that, there seems to be no implied protection. Only a resource... not saying it's right. Just saying it's not "school protection officer."0 -
KenK/84Bravo wrote:mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:
"Security Guard," really?
Where do you get that Crap from?
Your responses go from the merely Stupid, to the absolutely Ludicrous.
(But) By all means, Carry on.
If you wish to continue Showing your A$$, I will be your Huckleberry.
More flailing like a fish, what I expected from you.
Answer the question please.
What makes your excuse more valid than his? His excuse or reason was valid to him and to you he is a coward.
You produced your own excuse for not saving the precious little dahlins, and that is valid in your eyes. What gives you the moral high ground to look down your nose when you didn't save them yourself?
Why is your hindsight armchair quarterback opinion so much superior to his (jack boot thug baby sitter) and then when asked about your reason to belittle him about his choice, you then try to belittle and disparage me?
I feel sorry for you :ugeek:
Yes.
I can understand that, from your limited point of view.
(Still an Imbecile, I see.)
Still no answer to the "I Volunteered , at some point to Serve our Country, on Active Duty? Question.
Who is the "Armchair Quarterback," Here?
Hypocrite.
You haven't earned my respect, and you haven't answered the first question of what gives you the moral high ground. When you are man enough to answer honestly, I may indulge a question or two from you.
But your basic liberal scare tactics, name calling and harassment mean nothing and do not add to your character, but rather just show the ugly side of bravo. So Sad0 -
mag00 wrote:KenK/84Bravo wrote:mag00 wrote:
More flailing like a fish, what I expected from you.
Answer the question please.
What makes your excuse more valid than his? His excuse or reason was valid to him and to you he is a coward.
You produced your own excuse for not saving the precious little dahlins, and that is valid in your eyes. What gives you the moral high ground to look down your nose when you didn't save them yourself?
Why is your hindsight armchair quarterback opinion so much superior to his (jack boot thug baby sitter) and then when asked about your reason to belittle him about his choice, you then try to belittle and disparage me?
I feel sorry for you :ugeek:
Yes.
I can understand that, from your limited point of view.
Still no answer to the "I Volunteered , at some point to Serve our Country, on Active Duty? Question.
Who is the "Armchair Commando," Here?
Hypocrite.
You haven't earned my respect, and you haven't answered the first question of what gives you the moral high ground. When you are man enough to answer honestly, I may indulge a question or two from you.
But your basic liberal scare tactics, name calling and harassment mean nothing and do not add to your character, but rather just show the ugly side of bravo. So Sad
Do you Seriously, think I give a Rats A$$ whether you think, I have earned your "Respect," or not?
You can keep bringing your weak S*** forward, it does not make it any more viable. (I am enjoying this.)
You are seriously Laughable.0 -
While accept that "For decades the Courts have ruled the Police do not have the duty to protect the individual, they serve and protect Society." then that begs the question of why the officer was even there. Perhaps the best thing to do was issue all the kids a 9 since nobody else is there to protect them. 0 -
cbxjeff wrote:While accept that "For decades the Courts have ruled the Police do not have the duty to protect the individual, they serve and protect Society." then that begs the question of why the officer was even there. Perhaps the best thing to do was issue all the kids a 9 since nobody else is there to protect them.
No,..........no.
You are not allowed to Carry on School grounds.
Only the People not willing to follow the Laws, are allowed to do that.0 -
Like the School teacher BS we reap what we sow, you want a PC world you go it. 0 -
cbxjeff wrote:While accept that "For decades the Courts have ruled the Police do not have the duty to protect the individual, they serve and protect Society." then that begs the question of why the officer was even there. Perhaps the best thing to do was issue all the kids a 9 since nobody else is there to protect them.
Well, at least let them use their "finger" guns. :ugeek: pew pew pew, that'll work right? They were so dangerous they had to ban em right?0 -
The Israel model for school protection from terror works. Seems that the killers of school kids dont like it when folks really shoot back with anger...
Its odd that a country like ours with such a strong support for millitary and spending for armed forces here and around the world. Thinks little of it here at our own ground zero.0 -
All they needed was an "Armchair Commando, on a White Steed?"
Using their "finger guns, yelling pew, pew, pew."
Right?
You seem to ride both sides of this issue. It is difficult to see where you stand on this matter. (I will attempt to be clear, on my stance.)
I believe the "School Resource Officer"assigned to that School, had a moral and Legal obligation to go in and do Something. (Anything.) It has been shown time and time again, when these Cowards perpetrate such an attack, (on first encounter with force) - they Off themselves.
Is this concept seriously so difficult to understand? You do not need to actually "Shoot Them," just Stand up to them, with equal threat of force.
Yes, yes, I know.....................................I did not ride up on my "White Steed and Save everybody." We get back to that whole time/space/distance reality thing. Such a pesky thing. (Reality.)
Your quote, if I am not mistaken, ( and I am not.) was - " Not one of your little Darlings, Is worth my Life."
Sums up your entire contribution to this matter.0 -
wpageabc wrote:The Israel model for school protection from terror works. Seems that the killers of school kids dont like it when folks really shoot back with anger...
Its odd that a country like ours with such a strong support for millitary and spending for armed forces here and around the world. Thinks little of it here at our own ground zero.
This begs the question of the legality of posse comitatus. It was passed by democrats, and may very well be in violation of the US constitution.
Then the other thing that might work is actually letting the military school the little dahlins. Get rid of the liberal public indoctrination centers all together.0 -
I like the idea of something similar...mag00 wrote:wpageabc wrote:The Israel model for school protection from terror works. Seems that the killers of school kids dont like it when folks really shoot back with anger...
Its odd that a country like ours with such a strong support for millitary and spending for armed forces here and around the world. Thinks little of it here at our own ground zero.
This begs the question of the legality of posse comitatus. It was passed by democrats, and may very well be in violation of the US constitution.
Then the other thing that might work is actually letting the military school the little dahlins. Get rid of the liberal public indoctrination centers all together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Its a old rule. The concept from the Israel model is new from Palestine terror attacking school children.. Since the armed presence in Isreal schools zero terror...0 -
wpageabc wrote:
I like the idea of something similar...mag00 wrote:wpageabc wrote:The Israel model for school protection from terror works. Seems that the killers of school kids dont like it when folks really shoot back with anger...
Its odd that a country like ours with such a strong support for millitary and spending for armed forces here and around the world. Thinks little of it here at our own ground zero.
This begs the question of the legality of posse comitatus. It was passed by democrats, and may very well be in violation of the US constitution.
Then the other thing that might work is actually letting the military school the little dahlins. Get rid of the liberal public indoctrination centers all together.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Its a old rule. The concept from the Israel model is new from Palestine terror attacking school children.. Since the armed presence in Isreal schools zero terror...
Yes, but would that not be where the "School Resource Officer," comes in to play?
If he is not going to do anything, why is he there, to begin with?0 -
Ken, your guess is as good as anyones. It comes to this. Security comes down to individuals. There are heroes and villans..
Justice is another matter. There is politics and tax payer monies that play into court decisions.
As things get tighter budget wise. Expect that going forward couts and prosecuters will try even harder to protect local, county, state and fed from big payouts,0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
50 comments