Taurus Firearm Forum banner
1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,960 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Reconfirming, once again, the police have no duty to protect you and me. I guess they are truly, law enforcement officers.
So, does this beg the question: Do we have an obligation, a duty to protect ourselves? Will they "allow" us to protect ourselves and our loved ones?

In part:

South Florida Sun Sentinel

A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

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.

* Judge Beth Bloom is an obama appointee.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/...vor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
35,714 Posts
I think a finding like this does confirm that ultimately, you are responsible for you and your family's well being. Now, they should investigate what it would take to arm teachers and provide them proper training.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,919 Posts
I have always known this and have always taken measures to protect me and mine.

In the above case though, the Judge makes no mention of exactly WHO is supposed to be protecting our children while in the custody of our school system.

Would they be upset if 4 or 5 armed Dad's came to school each day and walked around the campus?

Heck, get a couple of golf carts and let them patrol the perimeter.

Two armed dad's on a golf cart that had kids in the school would be a force to be reckoned with. At least if I was one of the dads and it was my kid's school.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,565 Posts
It's misleading to blame the finding on an "Obama" judge. The precedent has long been established. The unfortunate effect of this precedent is the determination of, is there a duty to protect and if so, who or what agency has that duty. The legal system just rules (allegedly) according to established law. They won't tell you how to get around it. That's for you to find out. And that's why I am so glad to finally be living in a state where, if faced with difficult circumstances I have a reasonable expectation that I can legally defend myself.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
23,204 Posts
It's misleading to blame the finding on an "Obama" judge.
Yeah, those "facts" can be sooo misleading.

The precedent has long been established.
I knew the police couldn't be successfully sued for not preventing crime, but not holding them accountable for doing nothing while shots were being fired is sinking to a new depth as far as I know. If that isn't dereliction of duty, then I guess I don't understand English.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,735 Posts
If you want to blame a Judge, go with Scalia.

https://www.insidesources.com/police-not-protect-supreme-court-side/

"Lenahan-Gonzales attempted to sue the police department for its failure to enforce the restraining order that was in place, but the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 against her, with Antonin Scalia writing for the majority. The opinion held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law. Even if it were, Scalia wrote, it would not create an individual right to enforcement. And even if it did, he continued, that entitlement would have no monetary value."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,377 Posts
Hopefully this judgement will help the fight.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,210 Posts
I agree that we need to do something...

Some states have programs where they recruit teachers who want to be armed. They go through a rigorous training program and have regular sessions for follow up training. They carry concealed on the job. No one knows who they are. I think its a good program. One of the guys on another forum I frequent does just that. He comments on it on occasion- but doesn't give away info that could harm the program- don't know what state.

A few schools here in Alabama have had some "active shooter" drills. I don't know how good it is?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,723 Posts
It makes sense. The Sovereign protects the Sovereign. The subjects are there to meet the Sovereigns needs.

That aside, we really don't want our law enforcement agencies sued every time someone is hurt by a nut-job. This is just trying to lay blame on someone other than where the blame should be lain. There are shootings everywhere, and suing law enforcement because someone got shot would be ludicrous. The next step would be suing law enforcement for a traffic accident, because they should have prevented someone from speeding through an intersection. There's a label for people who blame those who pick up the pieces rather than those who scatter the pieces.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,623 Posts
I don't care much about what the judge said, anyone that could standby and not act while children are being murdered is the worst kind of coward in my book. I can understand that police can never insure the lives of everyone all of the time, but to say they had no duty to act when the lives of children could have been saved is insane. When the next school shooting occurs, God forbid, don't bother calling for police just call the coroner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
24,960 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
What was Peterson's purpose for being at the school? The students are really subjects in that in environment, aren't they?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
20,082 Posts
I thought he was an assigned school resource officer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,952 Posts
Since a child and the child's parents can be charged with truancy for the child skipping school, then it would seem that students are, in fact, being forced to be on the school campus. That should make the school district responsible for their safety.

If a kid fell and broke their arm on school property, the school could be held liable if they had failed in their duty to provide a safe environment.

But as far as law enforcement goes, it's true that LEOs have no constitutional requirement to provide protection, even to an individual who is facing a known threat. I've used SCOTUS info on that fact to convert more than a few anti-Constitutionalists over to our side of the argument.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,723 Posts
I don't care much about what the judge said, anyone that could standby and not act while children are being murdered is the worst kind of coward in my book. I can understand that police can never insure the lives of everyone all of the time, but to say they had no duty to act when the lives of children could have been saved is insane. When the next school shooting occurs, God forbid, don't bother calling for police just call the coroner.
The Coronor, on the other hand, DOES have a legal duty to take custody of dead bodies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,058 Posts
I have always known this and have always taken measures to protect me and mine.

In the above case though, the Judge makes no mention of exactly WHO is supposed to be protecting our children while in the custody of our school system.

Would they be upset if 4 or 5 armed Dad's came to school each day and walked around the campus?

Heck, get a couple of golf carts and let them patrol the perimeter.

Two armed dad's on a golf cart that had kids in the school would be a force to be reckoned with. At least if I was one of the dads and it was my kid's school.
That's what school security is supposed to do or are they hired to protect school property only? ;)

I think that's a great idea to have some dads or moms armed and patrolling the school. I know dads are tough but moms are tougher (never mess with cubs with momma bear around)! :D

It's hard to believe but we are constantly reminded that police aren't obligated to protect you or your property. You are your own first responder and they are second! :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,942 Posts
Much of this recent gun control debate has been fueled by the Florida High School shooting and in a way rightly so. Question now is how much has this ruling turned the narrative? Or which direction will it go next? All children have a right to be safe just as we have a right to be able to defend ourselves and our children. I don't see either right being any lessor or any greater only equal.

Sorry but guns are not the cause of violence in this country. Humans are the cause of violence in every country.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,702 Posts
Reconfirming, once again, the police have no duty to protect you and me. I guess they are truly, law enforcement officers.
So, does this beg the question: Do we have an obligation, a duty to protect ourselves? Will they "allow" us to protect ourselves and our loved ones?

In part:

South Florida Sun Sentinel

A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

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.

* Judge Beth Bloom is an obama appointee.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/...vor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html
With a ruling like this the Florida gun right groups should be filing suites against the State of Florida for restricting our gun rights. Perfect example of why there should be no restrictions. I am the only one that I can count of to defend myself.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,723 Posts
Since a child and the child's parents can be charged with truancy for the child skipping school, then it would seem that students are, in fact, being forced to be on the school campus. That should make the school district responsible for their safety.

If a kid fell and broke their arm on school property, the school could be held liable if they had failed in their duty to provide a safe environment.

But as far as law enforcement goes, it's true that LEOs have no constitutional requirement to provide protection, even to an individual who is facing a known threat. I've used SCOTUS info on that fact to convert more than a few anti-Constitutionalists over to our side of the argument.
You make a good point here. The school district could be held liable if they have failed (breached) their duty to provide a safe environment. The Sheriff could be held liable if he failed his duty. The court says he didn't. Textbook defense to negligence--if you have no duty to breach, you can't be negligent!
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top