Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#6,126
#6,126
#6,127
#6,127
And even more...

Now we have conflicting rulings. Or do we?

Judge rules cops, schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting lawsuit

A federal judge on Monday ruled that Broward County schools and the sheriff’s office were not legally obligated to protect and shield students in the shooting that occurred at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., last February, according to a report in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

The outlet reports that U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom tossed out a lawsuit brought by 15 students who survived the school shooting that argued the sheriff’s office and the Broward school district had a legal duty to protect them during the massacre.

Bloom, however, reportedly ruled that the defendants were not constitutionally obligated to protect students who were not in custody.

“The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor,” she wrote in the ruling last week. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz.”

“As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody,” she continued.
Click to expand...
 
#6,130
#6,130
Grand Vol said:
I don't.

What are the schools paying an SRO for if they aren't there to stop such a thing from happening or to take action during the occurrence?
Click to expand...

IMO, the police, schools or government in general are not obligated to protect us from crime. Great if they do but I don't think they should be held liable if they don't.
 
#6,131
#6,131
hog88 said:
IMO, the police, schools or government in general are not obligated to protect us from crime. Great if they do but I don't think they should be held liable if they don't.
Click to expand...

I understand this line of thinking as it regards things like Warren v DC but kids in school, IMO, are very much wards of the state. If you can enforcethese lunatic zero tolerance rules and since school attendance is in fact compulsory then yeah...an expectation of protection seems completely fair to me.
 
#6,132
#6,132
hog88 said:
IMO, the police, schools or government in general are not obligated to protect us from crime. Great if they do but I don't think they should be held liable if they don't.
Click to expand...

I think this is a unique situation where they had the ability to respond and potentially put an end to it, but failed to do so by cowardice or negligence.

Not stopping someone from stealing your lawnmower is one thing and they shouldn't be held liable for preventing it. Hearing the crime go on, knowing you were in a position to potentially do something and not making an effort to stop it is another in which they should burn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and davethevol
#6,133
#6,133
hndog609 said:
I understand this line of thinking as it regards things like Warren v DC but kids in school, IMO, are very much wards of the state. If you can enforcethese lunatic zero tolerance rules and since school attendance is in fact compulsory then yeah...an expectation of protection seems completely fair to me.
Click to expand...

How often have schools invoked In Loco Parentis in the past when it suited their needs?
 
#6,134
#6,134
hndog609 said:
I understand this line of thinking as it regards things like Warren v DC but kids in school, IMO, are very much wards of the state. If you can enforcethese lunatic zero tolerance rules and since school attendance is in fact compulsory then yeah...an expectation of protection seems completely fair to me.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's a very valid point.
 
#6,135
#6,135
Grand Vol said:
I think this is a unique situation where they had the ability to respond and potentially put an end to it, but failed to do so by cowardice or negligence.

Not stopping someone from stealing your lawnmower is one thing and they shouldn't be held liable for preventing it. Hearing the crime go on, knowing you were in a position to potentially do something and not making an effort to stop it is another in which they should burn.
Click to expand...

I think hndog made an excellent point, if the government is compelling you to be somewhere at a certain time and prevents you from protecting yourself then it's on them to protect you.
 
#6,137
#6,137
hog88 said:
I think hndog made an excellent point, if the government is compelling you to be somewhere at a certain time and prevents you from protecting yourself then it's on them to protect you.
Click to expand...

So, you agree the ruling is BS?
 
#6,138
#6,138
2paex6.jpg
 
#6,139
#6,139
Grand Vol said:
So, you agree the ruling is BS?
Click to expand...
I think its BS or you are setting a very dangerous precedence. as you said its not their job to prevent crime in general. no future crime bs. but when in the area I think cops are obligated to do something to protect citizens.

if the judge is saying they have no duty whatsoever to protect citizens/children you are going to have a large number of very upset people. It also ruins ANY anti-gun argument. as its turning out you do need guns to protect yourselves, the courts have ruled the cops don't have that duty. if this stands I can see support for cops eroding incredibly fast. that was their trump card, yeah we beat/arrest innocent people but we also save innocent lives. now that that saving part is gone, why do we have cops?
 
#6,142
#6,142
LouderVol said:
I think its BS or you are setting a very dangerous precedence. as you said its not their job to prevent crime in general. no future crime bs. but when in the area I think cops are obligated to do something to protect citizens.

if the judge is saying they have no duty whatsoever to protect citizens/children you are going to have a large number of very upset people. It also ruins ANY anti-gun argument. as its turning out you do need guns to protect yourselves, the courts have ruled the cops don't have that duty. if this stands I can see support for cops eroding incredibly fast. that was their trump card, yeah we beat/arrest innocent people but we also save innocent lives. now that that saving part is gone, why do we have cops?
Click to expand...

Now, this I do disagree with. If you are out bee-bopping around in public I don't think the state has any obligation to protect you.
 
#6,144
#6,144
hog88 said:
Now, this I do disagree with. If you are out bee-bopping around in public I don't think the state has any obligation to protect you.
Click to expand...
well not from yourself or any nanny state thing. but I don't think the state should be able to sit by during a crime, which a shooting would count. why have 911? If in the area and alerted to the situation they should have to respond.

again, if the idea is to maintain some level of functioning society the state can't sit by and let crime happen and just be there to clean up.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top