5 ms·
Judge Sides with Police in Parkland Slaying: LEO Has No Duty to Protect Students
- tomohawk 8y agoYou have to be able to protect yourself.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- threatofrain 8y agoIn general the police show up long after the fact and are there to write reports for insurance. We are safe by the peace of those around us, and not by whether the cops can show up on time.
- apostacy 8y agoThis is correct. In many places, the police actively avoid "hot calls", where if there is shooting, they will hang back until it is over before moving in.
- wallace_f 8y agoPolicing as an institution and career field needs to go through a revolution to make it more like medicine. Officers with militarized equipment shouldnt exist. Police with guns should need more-serious training and credentials, but at the moment, police departments across the country actively discriminate in favor of stupidity[1]. And this would not increase budgets. We dont need more governnment thugs. We need zero government thugs, and more public servants accountable to the public. 1 - https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/story?id=95836 https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-barring-high-iqs-cops/st...
- darkerside 8y agoI'd rather this then police come in hot, shooting first and asking questions later. Mass violence is the exception, not the rule, and police should be deescalating situations, not causing trouble.
- apostacy 8y agoSo, if you are being robbed, you would rather that the police wait a few blocks away?
- darkerside 8y agoI'd rather nothing bad happen to anyone ever, given the option.
- apostacy 8y agoSure, we'd all like nothing bad to ever happen. But, if you were being attacked by someone, would you prefer that the police "de-escalate" things by not engaging your attackers, or would you want them to come in "guns blazing"? You have to pick one or the other. Life doesn't give you a convenient third option.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> But, if you were being attacked by someone, would you prefer that the police "de-escalate" things by not engaging your attackers, or would you want them to come in "guns blazing"? You have to pick one or the other. Life doesn't give you a convenient third option. De-escalation is still active engagement; there is, in fact, a third option, and it was demonstrated in Parkland.
- darkerside 8y agoIf they can walk over and deescalate, then of course I want them to deescalate. This isn't an action movie. Once bullets start flying, my odds of survival are likely going down, not up. Do you think a policeman's job is to be a hero, or a public servant? Because I think they should be public servants. If one shows heroism while in the line of duty, it's because he is a hero and a good person. Not because of a paycheck and a badge.
- c3534l 8y agoThis sounds worse than it is. You could have phrased it as "police not obligated to go on suicide missions." Or "police lives not automatically expendable."
- phd514 8y agoThis is disappointing, but not as much as Warren vs. District of Columbia.
- xkcd-sucks 8y agoLooks like teachers really do need guns
- threatofrain 8y agoIMO, teachers who have guns and are interested in keeping the peace should go through a state licensing program, and have special badges (maybe brass) so we can identify them. They could be called peacekeepers.
- vernie 8y agoI like "peacekeeper" but it's lacking kick. Maybe "holeblasters"?
- SllX 8y agoWith you up until the badge bit. That would just make them the first target in an actual shooting.
- village-idiot 8y agoWoosh.
- CompanionCuuube 8y agoYeah, post pointed out a gap in public safety that is caused by only having police be armed, especially when they have no obligation to use those arms to protect your community. This should be especially obvious to the people who talk about police originating from slave patrols.
- lj3 8y agoThis already exists. It's called a concealed carry permit. Giving somebody who has no law enforcement powers a badge is a bad idea.
- chapium 8y ago
- vernie 8y agoI guess cops at schools are just armed in case students mouth off to them.
- wallace_f 8y agoThis reads like a joke, but it is more literally true than most would think: https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/new-hampshire-police-arrested-man-being-mean-them-internet https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/new-ha...
- dlbucci 8y agoJesus Christ, what the fuck is the point of having a security guard at a school if they aren't obligated to protect those inside? They say exceptions to the "in custody" rule exist, such as a crosswalk guard being responsible for kids in the crosswalk. How is a security guard for a school substantially different from that? I just don't get it. Guess it's just another reason why having guards or arming teachers is not the solution to school shootings...
- apostacy 8y agoThis is nothing new. It has already been ruled on that the police have no obligation to protect you. They can simply say "no" if you ask them to protect you. It certainly means that they can de-prioritize your call and only show up after getting lunch. Which makes it all the more awful when someone says "If you feel unsafe just call the police! It's what I would do." That's great. I'm glad you live in a place with a good police force. But it is frankly evil to disarm people who have no other means to protect themselves.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- pennaMan 8y agoLE, as far as the oficial legal standpoint, are nothing more than goverment thugs and enforcers. The notion that their basic duty is to protect the public is absurd but at the same time it is widley belived to be true, including by some naive LE agents themselves. And I'm not talking about the US, this is true virtually anywhere.
- mpweiher 8y agoAs far as I know, this is US-specific. For example in Germany, it is very specifically duty of the police to protect the rights of citizens, which includes their right to not be harmed (which also comes from the duty to uphold the law, which is typically being broken when people are harmed).
- ebcode 8y agoNot just US-specific, but anywhere where the police force believes themselves to be separate from the folks they are policing. The police force in the US arose from "slave patrols." So in Germany, you might have "Germans policing Germans", but in the US it's basically "Whites policing Blacks".
- mpweiher 8y agohttps://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in-the-united-states/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-origins-of-policing-in...
- mpweiher 8y ago> "Germans policing Germans" vs. "Whites policing Blacks". The German constitution is also very clear on this: "Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. 2Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt." https://dejure.org/gesetze/GG/1.html https://dejure.org/gesetze/GG/1.html "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority." https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0022 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h... So human dignity is inviolable. Not "citizens", not "Germans", but "humans".
- exabrial 8y agoWas the rumor of "we cant enter unless we have bodycams" ever proven true or false?
- was_boring 8y agoWhile disappointing, it's not out of line with other court decisions. At this point, I believe the only function of the police is to execute state violence.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- ve55 8y ago>At this point, I believe the only function of the police is to execute state violence. It would be best to form your opinion based on overall statistics rather than the most sensational news articles that have the most virility.
- devwastaken 8y agoGiven non-compliance violence is the step taken. Most people comply.
- LyndsySimon 8y agoThis is what the “force” part of “law enforcement” means. It should be evident.
- gweinberg 8y agoIf the police have no duty to protect you, they also have no right to prevent you from carrying to protect yourself.
- koenigdavidmj 8y agoNot sure why this is controversial. If a state lets thugs get away with anything, and then is ruthless with vigilantes, they are taking the side of the criminals. They are enablers of rape and murder.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 8y agoHeadline obscures that there were two decisions. A federal judge said the "school district and sheriff’s office...had no constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February massacre" [1]. A county judge, meanwhile, found "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 [the shooter]." The New York Times speculates the county judge found Scot Peterson had a "special relationship" with the students, like a crossing guard. That goes above a normal citizen-police relationship to one approaching custodianship. Both decisions are likely to be appealed. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-laws...
- fzeroracer 8y agoIt should be incredibly obvious that America desperately needs to completely tear down and rebuild the entire police institution. They don't exist to protect and serve outside of themselves. They exist to harass minorities, get away with murder by pretending they were scared for their lives and then have the complete gall to act like they're the real heroes in this mess. There are some individuals I'm sure that try to do their best and actually help people. But the institution as a whole is corrupt and a sham.
- gwright 8y agoThe problems you point out support the rationale for the decentralized nature of US police authority. In the US, federal, state, and local police authorities are for the most part independent from each other. I believe this is quite unusual if you were to survey the structure of police authority in other countries. This is one way to mitigate the "blast radius" of corrupt officials. While I agree that there are some structural problems with policing (militarization, over-reliance on guns, prioritizing officer safety over citizen safety), I don't think "completely tear[ing]" it down is a wise course.
- wallace_f 8y agoDemocratization and decentralization go hand in hand. I dont know how people forget that. If you read about Hitler's rise, at the time one of his problems was the democratization in Germany of policing. They were basically independent throughout the country, and many signalled independence, and even disobedience. He needed control of them through an authoritarian hierarchy so that's what he did, he centralized policing.
- DannyBee 8y agoFWIW: This is not new law, this decision is in line with most other courts to examine the issue, including the supreme court[1]. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The federal court would definitely be bound by Castle Rock.
- lsiebert 8y agoThat's an important point. I'd caution people getting upset about this (especially getting upset with the judge) to recognize that judges are bound to consider higher court decisions. There is arguably good reasons why police (and fire fighters, and social workers, and meterologists) and the governments they work for can't be sued for not protecting people from the bad actions of others, or disasters. It's not their fault that bad stuff happens (and when it is, that's a different legal situation). That said, state constitutions can be more restrictive, and it would be interesting to consider the effect of creating such a duty would have. Perhaps it could be created as a duty to the state government rather then individually harmed people, such that the state attorney general would be the one who sued (or more likely settled with a consent decree that created policy changes).
- Rumperuu 8y agoConsider this story about a man stabbed on the NYC subway and the police who locked themselves in the train cabin whilst a bystander provided first aid [0]. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- anigbrowl 8y agoThen what are we paying them so much money for? People often fail to realize what a huge proportion of their local budget is eaten by policing.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]