Judge rules cops, schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting lawsuit
Source: The Hill
A federal judge on Monday ruled that Broward County schools and the Sheriffs 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 Sheriffs 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.
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.
Read more: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/421823-judge-rules-cops-and-schools-had-no-duty-to-shield-students-in
marybourg
(12,633 posts)IronLionZion
(45,451 posts)because they've played Call of Duty video games, same diff. Regardless of the question, the answer is always more guns.
AlexSFCA
(6,139 posts)cstanleytech
(26,293 posts)reduce the risk.
I do not say prevent because that's not possible due to how easy it is for people to get guns so until we can change that precautions are needed.
For example installing security doors that section off the schools as well as reinforced steel doors for all school rooms that can be secured from the inside are things that schools should look at doing.
Some areas might also might want to look at installing police sub stations inside or near the schools.
Calista241
(5,586 posts)flor-de-jasmim
(2,125 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,208 posts)hatrack
(59,587 posts)Just wondering . . .
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)And have it stand in a window in the front lobby.
Kind of like those plastic owls people use to keep pigeons off the roof.
Drahthaardogs
(6,843 posts)The police on the other hand I find strange
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,924 posts)Its been repeatedly held by Federal courts, including SCOTUS, that the Police have absolutely no duty to protect you.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,862 posts)So in the end, everyone is responsible only for him or herself.
Guess arming teachers isn't what to do, but arm the students. And I'm not even being sarcastic here.
alwaysinasnit
(5,066 posts)Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)They can protect you if they're on scene when things start popping off, but the courts have determined that they're not liable if they fail to do so. Their purpose is to enforce the law, investigate crimes, and (ideally at least) prevent crimes. As a practical matter, I think most LEOs will at least attempt to protect people who are in danger.
There's that old saying, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." Similarly, there's, "Order a pizza and call a cop, then see which one arrives first."
Speaking as a former police dispatcher, you'd be surprised how thinly they're spread out there sometimes. When I was on the job, there was a very large housing development to the southeast of the main part of the city. When it was built in the late 90s, the developers were assured that a substation would be built in or near the neighborhood. That never wound up happening, so it was entirely possible that if something bad had gone down in that area, it might've taken officers 5-10 minutes to arrive. I hated working that frequency for that exact reason.
alwaysinasnit
(5,066 posts)the dumb-ass "war against drugs" policy, by prioritizing "drug crimes," has definitely skewed law enforcement priorities. Incentivizing drug-related arrests/convictions has had some unintended consequences, including not investigating crimes deemed low/no priority.
jayfish
(10,039 posts)The police exist to arrest people and extract payment. Nothing more, nothing less.
pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)"Policing Mandate. The function of the EPS is to provide protection of life and property, preservation of public peace, prevention and detection of crime, regulation of non-criminal conduct as required by law, and perform services incumbent upon police as a social and community agency." Seems to me this covers what police should be doing.
marybourg
(12,633 posts)as saying they have a duty to protect every person in every situation, such that a failure to do so gives rise to a right to compensation.
Sudsy
(58 posts)the judge had little choice other than to rule the way she did. Ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would have set a precedent that public institutions are liable for loss from all crimes within their jurisdictions.
ripcord
(5,408 posts)I don't want to see kids attend what would in effect be a reverse prison, a hardened facility with armed guards designed to keep people out.
Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)Precedent has already been set by SCOTUS that police have no obligation to protect individual people. If the judge had ruled otherwise here, it would've been overturned on appeal eventually.
LoisB
(7,206 posts)school. I would argue that in effect they were "in custody". Of course, I'm not a lawyer but this ruling makes no sense to me.
catrose
(5,068 posts)sarisataka
(18,663 posts)Not the police, therefore the police had no duty to protect the students.
Courts have ruled several time police are only obliged to protect those whom they have under arrest.
ananda
(28,866 posts)The police aren't there to protect innocent citizens
from crimes?
Sheesh
christx30
(6,241 posts)A criminal could stab you in front of a cop, and the cop is under no obligation to protect you. As long as the cop arrests the criminal after you are killed, hes fulfilled his obligation to society.
This is why some people want to own guns. The only person that is invested in keeping you from getting killed by some meth addict wanting money, is you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/7ezca3/why_the_cops_wont_help_you_when_youre_getting/
metalbot
(1,058 posts)A police officer is not criminally or civilly liable for failing to protect you. He isn't going to be prosecuted, and you can't sue him.
However, police departments absolutely do have policies that obligate police officers to protect. In your scenario, a police officer might not be legally obligated to protect you, but his department policy says he is, and he's going to be fired for failing to act.
As a concrete example, after the Columbine shooting, most departments completely rewrote the protocols for dealing with active shooters, and police officers are trained and instructed to engage the shooter. Armed police officers who elect to shelter in place during a shooting are generally fired, as was the police officer who failed to act during the Parkland shooting.
mickswalkabout41
(145 posts)The implications of this ruling. The path of office I took to serve and protect just went down the shit hole. Police officers are no longer obligated to save lives. And are now protected from doing so by precident.
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,924 posts)The SCOTUS ruling that effectively said there is no duty to protect dates back to 1981 with Warren v DC.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)Cocking v. Wade (1896)
Riss v. City of New York - 1967
http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york
akraven
(1,975 posts)Our cops here rock. So do our State Troopers.
Most cops are there to serve. You can't read minds; protect is a given IF you know the area. Locals do.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)is to investigate crimes after they occur and arrest the suspects for trial.
This is how the police protects society as a whole. The protection of the individual members of society is the job of the individuals themselves. There is nothing new here.
AJT
(5,240 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)stickers off their vehicles.
GeorgeGist
(25,321 posts)again.
sarisataka
(18,663 posts)If one is familiar with past case law on this subject.
SpankMe
(2,957 posts)If I'm in a courthouse or a social security office or a post office, I can understand not being able to sue the government if I'm shot by another citizen.
But in this particular case, school is compulsory and these are minor children. It's effectively a form of custody.
We need more job killing regulation to fix this.
ancianita
(36,071 posts)"public" schools -- a public institution -- at their own risk.
What the fuckin' FUCK.
How is LAW ENFORCEMENT exonerated -- and immunized -- from enforcing public safety.
Legally, this absolutely cannot stand.
Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)The precedent has already been set in a SCOTUS ruling a long time ago. The only way it'll change is if SCOTUS hears another case and reverses the precedent set in the earlier ruling. I doubt they'd even take up the case, let alone overturn established precedent.
ancianita
(36,071 posts)over the interests of those who define "security" in schools.
There is no practical reason for "security" personnel if they exist only to keep property safe, or to enforce obedience training (order) through crowd control of juveniles.
Parents should demand to see written disclaimers by school districts, citing Supreme Court decisions you note, about the limits of "security" personnel re the protection of their children.
Parents should at least use recourse to refuse school district use of their property tax money for security services that say parents have no reasonable expectation for their children's constitutional right to life to be secured by such "security."
Even if education itself is not a fundamental constitutional right, students, as citizens, should not lose their constitutional rights, especially their right to life, at the school door.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)ancianita
(36,071 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Therefore, the concept doesn't exist (in law-of course the *idea* exists)
ancianita
(36,071 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...and how it might apply to this case.
ancianita
(36,071 posts)Are you saying it's never been used in any court decision re people being deprived of their right to life?
Really?
The question addressed by the court, as I understand it, is what are "security" personnel obliged to secure. If it's any thing, and not people, then I ask what good are security to the people who pay for the schooling of their children.
In every state, every principal's duty, first and foremost, is the safety of all people within their school. And so I ask what they justify the cost of security personnel for, if not for the safety of the children in their charge. Public schools are run by states which are subject to constitutional law.
If you don't like what I'm asking, just back off with the no-content snark, since it's apparently not a constitutional question to you.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Your points about the uselessness of school 'security' in this case are good, but other posters have pointed
out multiple cases where there is found to have been no 'duty of care':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."
Legally, this is long settled law.
ancianita
(36,071 posts)"Long settled" can also equal unjust law, as MLK said.
We're trying to have a civilized society here.
It's human development.
Just because the social contract is down, doesn't mean it's out.
I have a right to not be killed, which is unprotected in the state of nature but can be protected under a social contract which establishes a government that would punish someone who killed me.
So when the Declaration of Independence refers to the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" (a paraphrasing of Locke's life, liberty and property) what it is saying is you have a right to not be killed by other people.
That we create just governments, deriving their powers from the consent of the governed, to protect that right -- to stop other PEOPLE from taking it away.
We no longer exist in the state of nature, where people can do what they want; we have a government which protects those rights that are supposed to be guaranteed to everyone which includes the right to continue living.
Lots of "your-children-are-your-lookout-not-ours" societies are perfectly legal, too, where human development is simply an industry, not an institution.
What got ruled on applies less to the human development of children and more to employees in a training center in some fascist jungle, or barrio where legal rights in the public domain are no better than the natural rights of survival of the fittest. So when the 2A Big Hunters show up, all bets are off.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)The fourteenth amendment, as you've quoted elsewhere, is a protection from the government, not from each other- just like the rest of the bill of rights.
The government shall not deprive you of life without due process. That doesn't 'grant' you shit.
See the preamble to the bill of rights:
The whole document is a 'the government shall not' document, not a 'the people can' document. Abuse of whose powers? Declaratory and restrictive clauses against whom? The government. Fucking duh. At first it only applied to the federal government, then was applied to the states. It doesn't apply to you and me, dear.
I don't owe you a right to practice religion. I can tell you to get the fuck out of my house when you start proselytizing. I can tell you that you have to empty your pockets before coming into my house. That isn't an infringement of the fourth amendment. Facebook could say that they don't want their paltform used by people who believe in communism, or people with red hair, or men, or methodists. They don't have an obligation under law to protect freedom of expression, or religion.
DU could say that they don't want people from Zanadu. Zanadu'ians couldn't raise a case of discrimination- DU isn't the government, or an arm of the state. DU can (and does!) kick people out, depriving them of 'liberty' to post, without due process. So not a violation of the 14th.
You won't find a case where a (non-laughable) argument is made that one person violated another's rights as protected by the bill of rights.
JDC
(10,129 posts)christx30
(6,241 posts)And its no more true than GEs we bring good things to life.
Well, the job of the police is to protect and serve society as a whole, and not the individual. When someone is murdered, society is protected and served by arresting, prosecuting, and jailing the perpetrator. But the individual that was murdered is not more important than society.
exboyfil
(17,863 posts)I live in a state with very liberal homeschooling laws. My kids are grown, but I sure would consider schooling them at home.
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)They agreed after Sandy Hook that if they had a child they'd homeschool them. And they have.
They do meetups with other home school parents at parks and Chuck-E-Cheese, etc. for socialization.
This is part of why I get so ticked when people paint all homeschoolers as ultra-fundie nutjobs.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)....of the car, not school.
Statistically speaking the school is way safer then the auto the parents drove them to school in.
There are over 98,000 public schools and over 34,000 private schools, with about 51 million students enrolled K-12.
Three students were killed in 2016; four in 2017.
About 2,000 children under 16 die every year in traffic collisions.
Even if you avg it at 10 killed a year in school, that is still 200 times less then the traffic deaths.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,862 posts)We should arm the students.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)Scruffy1
(3,256 posts)The judge is correct. I was amzed the case was ever filed. Most police departments have some pretty strong rules about waiting for back up in a potentially violent situation. As far as I know the policman only had a pistol, anyhow. No match for an AR-15.
FiveGoodMen
(20,018 posts)And the students -- who were left to fend for themselves -- what were they carrying?
mickswalkabout41
(145 posts)pazzyanne
(6,556 posts)"The police officer assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School resigned Thursday, under investigation for failing to enter the building as a gunman opened fire and killed 17 people.
Sheriff Scott Israel said Deputy Scot Peterson should have went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer. Video footage showed Peterson did none of that, Israel said
Maybe everyone needs to have the same information. And just to be clear, if this is the case, why do we have armed police on our streets? Street dressing?
EX500rider
(10,849 posts).....but the school cops job IS protecting the students.
Jedi Guy
(3,193 posts)When I was a police dispatcher, we were trained to offer a backup unit unless it was something completely innocuous, like responding to a traffic accident (though sometimes those went south, as well). When dealing with any potentially violent/dangerous situation, it was always at least two officers. If one of them arrived before the other, he or she would stand off and wait until their backup arrived.
ansible
(1,718 posts)nt
NickB79
(19,253 posts)Protect and serve applies to the citizens of the city they work for, but not to any SPECIFIC citizen.
Cold War Spook
(1,279 posts)The average wage for a police officer working the usual school year is $25,000 that is $2.5 billion a year for one police officer per school. One police officer is probably not going to stop a person with an AR-15 since the officer would probably the first to die, at least that is the first person I would kill. So how many police officers would be the correct amount to have?
DetroitLegalBeagle
(1,924 posts)Alone or not. Has been this way since Columbine. The reason being that the majority of active shooters kill themselves or surrender as soon as they face "credible resistance", that is guns aimed or firing at them. The remaining few typically get killed by responding officers. Facing down a person with a rifle with just a handgun isnt ideal, but it's not the death sentence many here make it out to be. Most active shooters have little to no training. Shooting into a crowd of unarmed people doesn't take any skill or competence and very little precise aiming. Taking on another armed person, one with training, is entirely different. This is why most give up one way or another when facing armed resistance.
Response to left-of-center2012 (Original post)
geralmar This message was self-deleted by its author.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)In multiple states, at the local, state, and federal level, police have not been held accountable for failing to protect individuals. Let's examine some of the cases.
South v. Maryland (1858)
Cocking v. Wade (1896)
Riss v. City of New York - 1967
http://lawschool.courtroomview.com/acf_cases/10107-riss-v-new-york
Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.
Rule of Law and Holding
The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.
Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)
Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974)
Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)
Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
...
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, § 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."
Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102
Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)
Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)
Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)
Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)
Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11611213653413829948&q=Davidson+v.+City+of+Westminster&hl=en&as_sdt=2,44&as_vis=1
Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)
Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)
Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845
Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)
...
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that, "absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers." Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
...
The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.
Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)protecting them.
Police do shield and protect people everyday, they just arent responsible to protect in this context.
As we see too often, there are also police who go out of their way to hurt people, usually based on race. They ought to be indicted and sued.
Gun-lovers cite this interpretation police are required to protect to rationalize their guns and toting in public. Of course, they cant even correctly interpret the language in the Second Amendment.
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)You mean the interpretation shared by the US Govt, the Supreme Court and the Democratic Party? They all agree it is a individual right not based on any membership in a militia.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)EX500rider
(10,849 posts)I have a Relics & Curios collection of WWII and pre bolt action rifles, don't see them going anywhere.
Just pointing out your interpretation is very much in the minor and not held by any branch of our govt or major political party.
demigoddess
(6,641 posts)My opinion.