Interested in the NWT boards opinions

[VakAttack]

https://www.wspa.com/news/national/florida-deputys-legal-team-says-he-didnt-have-an-obligation-to-stop-parkland-school-shooter/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co

 

Lawyers for the fired cop in Parkland say he has no duty to protect the students?  Does he?  Should he have a LEGAL [not moral] duty?

[Wrestleknownothing]

I think, no. Creating a legal liability if someone does not risk their life is problematic. It would also making it much harder and prohibitively expensive to find people willing to be a police officer.

[jross]

What is the consequence in the military for running away from a fight?  (Discharge and prison are possible). What is the reasoning for it?

Why it different for the school shooting scenario?

https://www.police1.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine-SDnVxWnDhgenqAXO/

 

[VakAttack]

36 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

I think, no. Creating a legal liability if someone does not risk their life is problematic. It would also making it much harder and prohibitively expensive to find people willing to be a police officer.

Interesting!  Playing devil's advocate, isn't that part of this SPECIFIC job?  Part of the reasons why they are given special powers and protections?

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Interesting!  Playing devil's advocate, isn't that part of this SPECIFIC job?  Part of the reasons why they are given special powers and protections?

Do not take anything I say to imply I have any idea what I am talking about on this topic, or that I have carefully thought any of this out.

But it seems to me it is a question of degrees. If the special powers and protections are the right compensation for the liability, then sure. It seems historically that has not been deemed to be the case. Though I am not sure why. I would be curious to know the reason the laws are written that way.

[Wrestleknownothing]

1 hour ago, jross said:

What is the consequence in the military for running away from a fight?  (Discharge and prison are possible). What is the reasoning for it?

Why it different for the school shooting scenario?

https://www.police1.com/police-jobs-and-careers/articles/addressing-cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine-SDnVxWnDhgenqAXO/

 

Interesting read. Thanks.

I am no expert on the difference between military and police, but there certainly is one. So I am not surprised that their rights and responsibilities differ.

[GreatWhiteNorth]

The military are trained to kill, while the police are trained to seek peaceful solutions.

They both carry weapons but are not very much alike once you get past that first part.

The MP's - they are a different animal altogether.

 

[GreatWhiteNorth]

1 hour ago, VakAttack said:

Interesting!  Playing devil's advocate, isn't that part of this SPECIFIC job?  Part of the reasons why they are given special powers and protections?

No, not at all.

Protecting civilians is very much the focus of their specific job. And special powers and protections exist to assist in achieving that goal. No doubt, they are at risk, every minute and every hour of every day they work. 

Putting their lives at high risk isn't part of the job description. Yet some do anyway.

It is above and beyond the call of duty - the kind of thing that earns medals and awards 'hero' status.

But, no, not the kind of thing that they should be expected to do for a paycheck.

We need an awful lot of police officers to serve the people and keep the peace in this country.

Not all of them need to be heroes.

[WrestlingRasta]

Did he take an oath, and was ‘protect’ part of that oath?

[WrestlingRasta]

 I believe he SHOULD have a legal authority. Yes it is a high risk situation but that is what you took on, especially when you take on the responsibility for the protection of children.  If you’re going to say the police aren’t the military…..then why isn’t the military called in when a violent crime with guns is taking place? Police aren’t obligated to put themselves in the line of fire….right?  
 

But unfortunately at the time he did not have a legal obligation. which baffles me. The position is specific to protecting the school and its people. 
 

I will say one thing. After some of the things he said, I wouldn’t step foot in Florida again. 

[Plasmodium]

I doubt there is a legal obligation to risk (e.g. give) your life.  He is a disgraceful guy.

Post intersection of the internet and smart phones/ubiquitous video, the honor of the police has taken a pretty big hit.  Some criticism is accurate and warranted, some not and some shamefully inaccurate.   This guy does a big, big disservice to the police in that regard.  I often look at video of a mortal police interaction and think the police officer shouldn't be prosecuted but shouldn't be retained either.

[Bigbrog]

This is a tough one, except for the fact that that guy shouldn't have ever been a police officer.  

Seems to me that every cop I know or have ever known swears by the moto "To Serve and Protect"...and they do it at all costs...especially when it comes to children.

[mspart]

4 hours ago, Bigbrog said:

This is a tough one, except for the fact that that guy shouldn't have ever been a police officer.  

Seems to me that every cop I know or have ever known swears by the moto "To Serve and Protect"...and they do it at all costs...especially when it comes to children.

What are they there for if not to serve and protect?   That is the job of a police officer.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

11 minutes ago, mspart said:

What are they there for if not to serve and protect?   That is the job of a police officer.  

mspart

Particularly an SRO who's position is specific to protect and serve the school staff and children.  If that were not the case, there would not be an elevation of SRO's in response to an elevation in school shootings. 

[Ohio Elite]

I think we can all agree the cop was a coward, wouldn't want him working in my town that's for sure.

[mspart]

Can we agree he had no obligation to serve and protect the people inside the school?  

mspart

[jross]

The cop is shame.  Bring out the scarlet letter.

I might remember later... to ask a marine and retired cop his opinion tonight.

That discussion may change my mind.

[Husker_Du]

my take is that the guy is a coward.

but i also think it's an insane precedent to prosecute cops if someone should die on their watch. isn't that the slippery slope we'd end up with?

i mean i guess i could be on board with it if they would have to prove clear excessive dereliction of duty.

[Offthemat]

It is a tough one.  He is a coward, but even worse, I believe he knew he was a coward and by taking the job he prevented someone who wasn’t from filling the position.  While it may not be actionable for him declining to react to the shots, if he is found to be derelict in preventing the shooter from entering the school, that may be.  

[mspart]

1 hour ago, Husker_Du said:

but i also think it's an insane precedent to prosecute cops if someone should die on their watch. isn't that the slippery slope we'd end up with?

Someone(s) already died and he did nothing to stop more from being killed.   It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch, it is that he allowed it to happen by taking no action.   I don't think that is an insane precedent.

mspart

[mspart]

I need to amend what I said and I can't edit it.   

It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch in the first instance, it is that he allowed it to continue by taking no action.  

The underlined items are the changes. 

mspart

 

[Wrestleknownothing]

25 minutes ago, mspart said:

I need to amend what I said and I can't edit it.   

It's not that someone was killed or died on his watch in the first instance, it is that he allowed it to continue by taking no action.  

The underlined items are the changes. 

mspart

 

It is an interesting question. Read the article jross posted above. It is about the strange concept of having a duty to the community but not to the individual. So when do the individuals become the community? Are 2 enough? 3? 10? 100?

[Plasmodium]

11 minutes ago, Wrestleknownothing said:

It is an interesting question. Read the article jross posted above. It is about the strange concept of having a duty to the community but not to the individual. So when do the individuals become the community? Are 2 enough? 3? 10? 100?

A school is a community.

[WrestlingRasta]

Having a legal obligation does not mean automatic prosecution if in violation of that obligation. Contracts are legal bindings. Every breach of contract is not a means for prosecution.  In this instance this individual entered into a contract, where he was payed by the people of that community in exchange for the specific obligation of protecting their children. 
 

it’s seems like violating that contract with the public in such a horrific and impactful way should have some legal remedy. 

[Wrestleknownothing]

22 minutes ago, Plasmodium said:

A school is a community.

Agreed. They sum it up as duty to all, duty to none. Very nonsensical.

Edited December 19, 2023 by Wrestleknownothing