Parkland Shooting: Police Do Not Have a Responsibility to Save Students

Judge issues a stunning ruling in lawsuit against police and school officials by Parkland victims

www.theblaze.com...

"The claim arises from the actions of [the attacker], a third party, and not a state actor," she wrote in the decision.

"Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of [the shooter]," she explained.

She found that such a responsibility pertained to officials when they had other persons in custody - as with prisoners, or patients in a mental facility. But she said this responsibility does not pertain to students.

Once again, US courts have ruled that there is zero obligation for police and first responders to defend innocence. It is up to the innocent to defend themselves.

The left won't defend you. The right won't defend you.

However, there is a stark difference between right and left philosophy on the matter.

The left is doing all it can get away with to leave us defensless, while the right demands we have access to the tools we individually deem necesary to defend ourselves,and the innocent around us, when criminals, madmen, and tyranny raise their evil heads.

Also, the Florida school system has decided, or atleast advised, that teachers recieve gun training and carry to work.

The state safety commission organized to investigate the Parkland massacre announced that they will recommend some teachers be trained and allowed to carry guns in a report to be released in January.

There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.

As a human you should want to help if you can, especially if you are able to meet force with force.

Otherwise your just a giant pussified douche who shouldn't apply for such jobs but whatever I'm sick of bitch #s.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.

Have talked to my daughter, she is a teacher or special needs kids in a middle school, she says Dad Im not leaving any of my students behind, and there would be no easy way to to evacuate anyway. Ive told her be prepared to blockcade the door we bought a couple of wedges that might work slowing the opening off the door. Have told her stand to the side of the door and be ready be to hit them with anything big and heavy, not sure what she can and can not have. Sucks to have to live in a world where you have to do that, but if they offer training she would definitely be one to get that training, so she could have one in the classroom. She already is pretty good with her .38 at home, can load quickly and has a good consistent pattern at 3o feet.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.

Have talked to my daughter, she is a teacher or special needs kids in a middle school, she says Dad Im not leaving any of my students behind, and there would be no easy way to to evacuate anyway. Ive told her be prepared to blockcade the door we bought a couple of wedges that might work slowing the opening off the door. Have told her stand to the side of the door and be ready be to hit them with anything big and heavy, not sure what she can and can not have. Sucks to have to live in a world where you have to do that, but if they offer training she would definitely be one to get that training, so she could have one in the classroom. She already is pretty good with her .38 at home, can load quickly and has a good consistent pattern at 3o feet.

I appreciate your daughters sentiment. And as a volunteer for the Special Olympics for multiple years, I agree with the sentiment. But ideals are not reality in a crisis situation.

Once again, the training is to get yourself to a safe space.
My wife more recently than I worked at a HS. Her training was to lock everyone in certain rooms.

Not sure of your post. I agree, firearms for those trained in a classroom might help.
Schools have no interest in having firearm on campus. Which is a big difference from my time in school.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.

you need to work on your reading comprehension. she found they do in fact have an obligation to protect certain people, CRIMINALS and mental patients in a facility. as was even part of the quote in the OP, you didn't even need to read the story to see that.

She found that such a responsibility pertained to officials when they had other persons in custody - as with prisoners, or patients in a mental facility. But she said this responsibility does not pertain to students.

.

originally posted by: generik

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.

you need to work on your reading comprehension. she found they do in fact have an obligation to protect certain people, CRIMINALS and mental patients in a facility. as was even part of the quote in the OP, you didn't even need to read the story to see that.

She found that such a responsibility pertained to officials when they had other persons in custody - as with prisoners, or patients in a mental facility. But she said this responsibility does not pertain to students.

.

As do you, as per my comment.

I wish I could get paid by tax dollars to say it's not my constitutional duty to do my job...

This is why I own firearms and everyone in my house is trained to use them. Those students wanted to ban guns, assumably for everyone but police and military. Guess what, those professions both take oaths to protect and serve.

a reply to: sine.nomine

All you can do is hope you are in a position to help your fellow ATSer. As some have decided they cannot survive without someone guiding/ protecting them.

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.

Actually as far as police officers, yes they are

This is actually from the code of ethics for law enforcement in florida:

AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.

Now I do agree that it is up to individuals to be prepared, and their personal responsibility to take it upon themselves to protect themselves.

However these were also KIDS, being taken out by a shooter, while police officers were present, sad all the way around

a reply to: GenerationGap

So according to the Judge ruling. Its not the job of a police officer to "serve and protect?" so whom are the police serving and protecting?

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: GenerationGap

So according to the Judge ruling. Its not the job of a police officer to "serve and protect?" so whom are the police serving and protecting?

the police are protecting themselves...if the perp was running away from them and preferably not armed.

originally posted by: odzeandennz

originally posted by: AtlasHawk
a reply to: GenerationGap

So according to the Judge ruling. Its not the job of a police officer to "serve and protect?" so whom are the police serving and protecting?

the police are protecting themselves...if the perp was running away from them and preferably not armed.

UM well yes self preservation is high on the list, but they are primarily protecting the corporations and ruling class.

What's in it for me?

If they won't protect your most vulnerable, why do they even exist?

a reply to: Lysergic

Not quite how I'd have phrased it, but yep.

a reply to: putnam6

Good for her!

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.

Actually as far as police officers, yes they are

This is actually from the code of ethics for law enforcement in florida:

AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all men to liberty, equality and justice.

Now I do agree that it is up to individuals to be prepared, and their personal responsibility to take it upon themselves to protect themselves.

However these were also KIDS, being taken out by a shooter, while police officers were present, sad all the way around

Laws vs ethics.

Many, many problems in this world stem from the difference.

"To Protect, and Serve...……..unless you are a student."

Let me get this straight... a law enforcement officer has no obligation to protect children from an active shooter, but they would be required to protect the shooter if/when he was in custody?

Really?

So the next logical question is, why do we need police any more? Can't we just get rid of them and save all those taxpayer dollars?

While we're at it, do we really need judges either?

I get that a police officer cannot always protect others. Their first obligation is to make sure they survive, because if they don't survive there is no one left to protect others in the first place. I have no issue with that. But to say there is no obligation to protect others, in direct contradiction to the gun control argument about "just call the police," and worse, in the same breath to say that they do have an obligation to protect criminals, is so wrong I can't wrap my head around it. If there is no obligation to protect the innocent, there is no job they do for society. The laws are (supposedly) in place to protect the innocent, and the job of the police is to uphold the law. Driving around harassing people while eating doughnuts and wanting to go home is not a job and they shouldn't be getting paid if they are not doing a job.

TheRedneck

a reply to: GenerationGap

A pathetic ruling from a pathetic judge. What should people expect, you want protection and justice, you better do it yourself.