Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit 

| December 18, 2018

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom ruled that the schools and sheriff aren’t responsible for people traumatized at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School because the students weren’t in custody.

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.

“The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor,” she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. “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” — for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.

“His arbitrary and conscience-shocking actions and inactions directly and predictably caused children to die, get injured, and get traumatized,” the lawsuit claimed.

Medina knew Cruz and saw him arrive on campus, but did not confront him.

The lawsuit argued that the Sheriff’s Office and School Board “either have a policy that allows killers to walk through a school killing people without being stopped. Alternatively, they have such inadequate training that the individuals tasked with carrying out the polices … lack the basic fundamental understandings of what those policies are such that they are incapable of carrying them out.”

The entire article is at the link below.  I will let you good people sort out this mess.  This Peterson person is what we used to call a Coward, back in the days when you could openly express yourself.

 

Source: Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit – Orlando Sentinel

Category: Breaking News, Crime, Guns, Liberals suck

Comments (85)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Sites That Link to this Post

  1. Cops Have No Duty to Protect You | 357 Magnum | December 20, 2018
  1. Hondo says:

    Absolutely predictable, given the precedent set by the SCOTUS in Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The police have a duty to enforce the law, not protect individuals.

    And yes: IMO Peterson is indeed a coward.

    • AW1Ed says:

      SCOTUS finding here: Duty to Protect

      Peterson: The Coward of Broward.

    • SFC D says:

      “The police have a duty to enforce the law, not protect individuals.”

      Peterson and the rest of the Broward County cowardly cocksuckers failed to enforce the law by allowing multiple murders and assaults to take place right in front of them.

    • A Proud Infidel®™ says:

      WTF was Peterson there for, just to check Students’ Hall Passes? He wussed when the SHTF and IMHO he has a place in hell awaiting his arrival!

    • BlueCord Dad says:

      Send him and the rest of the SO a batch of white feathers…

      • LRRP2 says:

        Forget the White Feathers . Carlos Hathcock wore a white feather with honor . Peterson is what we used to call a “fucking coward” . BCSO needs to remove the “Protect and Serve” motto from their uniforms , vehicles , etc . I retired after 36 years of carrying a Badge and a gun . I would hate to think that anyone was injured or died because I didn’t act like a man .
        Wonder how peterson shaves in the morning ? Surely he can’t look at himself in the mirror .

  2. The Other Whitey says:

    That kinda shoots the “only cops should have guns” argument right in the ass, don’t it?

  3. HMC Ret says:

    So what was the purpose of his being there? Children were killed and wounded b/c he did not do his JOB. Crap, this is just legaleze at its finest. Had I been he officer on site, I would rather have died doing my job than to be known as a coward for eternity. I would need to be placed under suicide watch had I performed as this officer did.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      I don’t think I’m particularly brave. There’s just some things that scare me worse than death. I would rather die giving my wife and children a reason to be proud of me than live to make them ashamed.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        You are hitting on all cylinders today, TOW.

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        ^this^ and ^that^ and all of the above and below. I mean just…damn, dahell, and daphuque.

        Here is some hate speech. I hate that this chicken shit coward cop is stealing oxygen because he was too much of a chicken shit coward to do the damn job he signed up for and took an oath for. YHGTBSM

        I really got to get my Baby Girl (a teacher in FL) and my Grandchildren the hell out of that state.

        • E4 Mafia For Life. says:

          It could be worse. I have 12 years left until retirement in The People’s Cesspool Of Kalifornistan.
          I hate Kalifornia more today than yesterday… and I started hating it 27 years ago at a level 11 (that’s out of 10. 10 being the max).

  4. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    The perils of dealing with this issue are many. It is true that police, despite “To Serve and Protect” slogans painted on their cars, have no legal duty to protect anyone. That they sometimes do does not create a duty to do so. And that slogan is not an enforceable promise. So, how did another judge come to find that a duty existed? Dunno. Until the case is appealed to a court that publishes a decision, we won’t know. It could be a few things, including that there was found a contractual duty somewhere. I just don’t know. What we do know is that no legal decision can protect a coward from being labeled a coward.

    • Hondo says:

      Different courts and jurisdictions, 2/17.

      The court referenced above was Federal, and named six defendants (Peterson was one of the six). Presumably the suit was based on some tortured reasoning involving a claimed “violation of civil rights”. As I understand it, Castle Rock v. Gonzales rather clearly establishes controlling precedent for such Federal suits involving protection of individuals by LE. So IMO the Federal lawsuit being dismissed was eminently predictable.

      The other suit against Peterson was filed in a Broward County Circuit Court (presumably a Florida state court). Florida law and/or established Florida case law may allow Peterson to be sued successfully there. As I understand it, state law can create duties and define torts beyond those recognized under Federal law.

      • 2/17 Air Cav says:

        If you’re interested, read Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981): “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

        Also, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)). The court in DeShaney held that no duty arose as a result of a “special relationship,” and concluded that Constitutional duties of care and protection only exist as to certain individuals, such as incarcerated prisoners, involuntarily committed mental patients and others restrained against their will and therefore unable to protect themselves.

        The Supreme Court decisions, of course, control. At one time. at least, Florida police did have a statutory duty to render aid to ill, injured, and distressed persons, who were not in police custody, during an emergency. That may be the source for the FL judge’s decision or that may be bad law. We just don’t have enough info on this right now.

        • Hondo says:

          Agreed. Wasn’t clear from your original comment that you picked up on the fact that we were talking about multiple lawsuits – and the original article commingled them, making that easy to miss on a quick read. Obviously you caught that. (smile)

        • Perry Gaskill says:

          Although the quotes from the court decisions make it sound like the cops can just sit around and eat jelly donuts all day, the actual reality is a bit different. Ultimately, at least in theory most of the time, law enforcement is held responsible by civilians who can control hiring, firing, and funding. Such a system might not always work well down at the granular level of a Peterson, but it’s probably better than having the courts determine every single instance of whether a victim was “inadequately” protected.

          • 2/17 Air Cav says:

            Perry. You are right. The legal aspect of duty and the lawsuit business generally are what this is about. This has nothing to do with departmental policies and what becomes of cowardly cops otherwise. Like the Broward Coward, one way or another, they find the exit door.

            • 11B-Mailclerk says:

              If one orders folks to be inside a particular structure’s perimeter, and mandates that they be unarmed and obedient, and penalizes unauthorized departure

              In what way is that -not- “in custody”?

              In what way are people who declare and demand the power of “in loco parentis” not also duty bound to protect their charges as are the “parentis”?

              Can’t have it both ways, folks, without a -huge- injustice.

              And some maniacs want to apply “die quietly and obediently” to everyone else.

              • 2/17 Air Cav says:

                Custody is a legal status where one is an involuntary ward of the state, wholly dependent on the custodian for food, clothing, medical care and all other necessaries. The penalty for departure, as you put it, is administrative for school kids and criminal for the others.

                What the Broward Coward did was inexcusable. He actually agreed to one interview by NBC and, in it, said that he had no idea where the shooting was coming from. He lied. Radio calls later establish he not only knew what building but which floor the shooter was on.

                • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                  I realize the state and I differ on “custody”. But they do run the schools like little short-term minimum-security reformatories, eh?

                  Feature, not bug. Accusomize the popuation to life in a police/prison state.

                  Cynical, probably. But every turn of the loony-screw further persuades me.

                  Well past time to privatize the whole mess, and if we are as States to educate our young, issue vouchers so parents can ensure education in decent schools. (And starve the cesspits into non-existence.)

                  • 2/17 Air Cav says:

                    Find a traditional religious school of the non-Muslim variety. If not feasible, home school. If not feasible, stay all over the kids’ homework, textbooks, and handouts. If that’s not feasible, Houston, we have a problem.

                    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

                      I should say what’s pretty obvious: that what the schools do to the kids’ minds and world view is much more frightening to me than the statistically insignificant, but horrific, school shootings.

                    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

                      I have spent, oh rather. a lot of money putting my Niece through a Montessori. While still left of center, that one at least does a good job of teaching the three Rs.

        • Roger in Republic says:

          Are not students confined in a Gun Free Zone not the very definition of those not able to defend themselves?

    • rgr769 says:

      As 2/17 and I were taught long, long ago in law school, law enforcement agencies, specifically, and the government in general have no legal duty to protect citizens from the criminal acts of third parties, unless there is the creation of some special relationship between the LEO and the injured party. That is the case here. In addition, in some states LEO agencies have statutory immunity from tort liability for failure to enforce any law.

  5. Ex-PH2 says:

    I think that ‘base coward’ is lower than just ‘coward’.

    Gee, should he end up in a ditch with an alligator trying to get into his vehicle, is he worth the bother it took to get rid of the alligator?

    He looks awfully smug for someone who doesn’t have an ounce of simple decency.

  6. OWB says:

    Might be able to grudgingly agree that the cops outside the school were/are not in a position to necessarily protect because there are just too many variables. However, the schools take your kids out of your home and are therefore in charge of their well being under ALL circumstances, no exceptions. (That concept is called in loco parentis.)
    These same schools want to also command what you do with your kids while they are at home, but shirk responsibility for their safety while they are at school? That makes no sense.

    • 2/17 Air Cav says:

      “That makes no sense.” Schools are the government, so that line was really unnecessary!

    • The Other Whitey says:

      If the school is not obligated to ensure the safety of my child, then they have no basis to object if I choose to accompany my child to school armed.

      • Hondo says:

        Unfortunately, that would appear to run afoul of 18 USC 922(q)(2)(A) – which generally appears to prohibit “us peons” (and teachers and non-LE staff as well) to be armed with a loaded weapon while in a school zone.

        • The Other Whitey says:

          I may be wrong here, Hondo, and please correct me if I am, but aren’t those two statutes contradictory? Would I not have a case if I argued accordingly? In fact, in light of this federal court ruling, wouldn’t I be derelict if I didn’t take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of my children? They can take my children away if I do not provide for their safety, but I am compelled to send them to a school that is not obligated to protect them from violence. It seems to me that the logic is flawed there.

          You know quite a bit more about the law than I do. Could that case be made?

          • Mason says:

            There’s also laws that your kids have to be schooled.

            Home school seems like a better and better option every year.

  7. gitarcarver says:

    “As previously stated, for such a duty to exist on the part of defendants, plaintiffs would have to be considered to be in custody” — for example, as prisoners or patients of a mental hospital, she wrote.

    While not in “custody” for the sake of violating a crime, the kids are forced to be at the school under state law. At school, under the doctrine of “loco parentis,” the school takes the place of and acts as the parents in regards to the students.

    If the state has no constitutional duty to protect the kids when the state is acting like a parent, the state has no duty or right to “protect” kids when they are in the custody of their biological parents. Goodbye CPS.

    I am not one of those people who thought that Peterson should have gone charging into the building and taking on a shooter armed with a long rifle. The real issue to me was that Peterson did nothing. He didn’t track the shooter. He didn’t recon where the shooter was. He was lost when it came to the video equipment, etc, etc, etc.

    It’s not that he didn’t do enough. It is that he did nothing.

    • The Other Whitey says:

      “It’s not that he didn’t do enough. It is that he did nothing.”

      Yep.

    • Hondo says:

      See my reply to 2/17 AC above, gitarcarver. Multiple lawsuits are in play, and only one Federal lawsuit was dismissed – IMO correctly, given the precedent set over 30 years ago in Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

      State law (statutory and/or case) may create additional duties and responsibilities under Florida law, and at least one state lawsuit against Peterson is continuing. The quote you use above is from the Judge presiding over that Florida state lawsuit, not the Federal case. She allowed the suit in state court to continue; the Federal judge dismissed a different Federal case.

      • rgr769 says:

        Unless there is something different in Floriduh law, there is no duty by LEO’s to protect anyone not in “custody” from the criminal acts of a third party. That protect stuff in the “serve and protect” logo only applies to the public at large and is largely bs with regard to the protect part. That is why you can be killed in seconds if you can’t defend yourself, when the cops are minutes away from arriving at your crime scene.

  8. USMC Steve says:

    In fact, this is valid. Waaay back in the late 1970’s I believe, two women were held, robbed, raped, beaten, over more than 16 hours in their own home in Washington DC. Two calls to the cops at the outset resulted in shitty “police work”, and the cops found nothing going on because they didn’t bother to actually look. The back door of the house, in a good neighborhood in DC, was completely off its hinges, and the cops just drove by, looked at it, and continued to fuck off. The women sued the cops and DC government, and it went up to the Supremes if I recall correctly. Ruling was that cops have a duty to protect “the citizenry at large”, not any particular citizen. In short, the cops don’t have a duty to do shit for you, even though we are all extorted to pay for them. And the Supremes said so. This ruling comes as absolutely no surprise.

    • Hondo says:

      That was a Federal case, USMC Steve; so was the case dismissed in Federal court that’s discussed in the article above. However, state law may create other duties and responsibilities. See my reply to 2/17 AC above.

      There are multiple lawsuits in play, and only one Federal lawsuit (hopefully the only Federal lawsuit) was dismissed.

      • gitarcarver says:

        Hondo,

        The quote is from the Federal ruling of Judge Beth Bloom – not the state case that is proceeding. I recognize the difference.

        The Castle Rock decision deals with a case where the police failed to protect a woman and her three children from an ex husband who violated a restraining order and killed the three kids (and was later killed by the police.) The wife claimed that she was entitled to police protection from the ex. The court ruled otherwise basically based on this statement:

        Our cases recognize that a benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.

        The Court is not saying that there is never a duty to protect but there is no duty to protect when the benefit of “protection” is discretionary.

        Attending school is not “discretionary.”

        In Prince v. Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court declared: “Acting to guard the general interest in youth’s well being, the state as parens patriae may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor, and in many other ways”

        I am not sure that compulsive education which the state has no statutory authority to end on a discretionary basis is the same thing as a restraining order which by its very nature is discretionary.

        The idea that there is no duty to protect is not an absolute, but according to the Supreme Court, situational dependent.

  9. Poetrooper says:

    The problem I have with these types of lawsuits is that in terms of dollar damages sought, the plaintiffs are suing themselves and their fellow taxpayers. The defendants may be insured for a portion of the damages but even in that case the taxpayers will pay remainder plus the increased premiums.

    Now if the lawsuits were seeking specific actions such as the removal of certain public officials, I’d be behind that totally but I’m not sure that’s even possible.

    I assuredly agree with all the others here that the school security officer is a cowardly disgrace and I’m in total agreement with Whitey’s observation,”That kinda shoots the “only cops should have guns” argument right in the ass, don’t it?”

  10. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    BTW, the Browrad coward reportedly pulls in nearly $9,000/month in pension. He also filed suit himself. Let’s hope his atty is Avenatti.

  11. DD877 says:

    Obama Appointee… Voted in By the RINO’s
    On February 6, 2014, President Obama nominated Bloom to serve as a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, to the seat vacated by Judge Donald L. Graham, who took senior status on December 15, 2013.[4] She received a hearing before the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on April 1, 2014.[5] On May 8, 2014 her nomination was reported out of committee by voice vote.[6] On June 19, 2014 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a motion to invoke cloture on the nomination. On June 23, 2014 the United States Senate voted 53–31 on the motion to invoke cloture.[7] On Tuesday June 24, 2014 the United States Senate voted 95–0 in favor of final confirmation.[8] She received her judicial commission on June 25, 2014.[3]
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Bloom

  12. Old Trooper says:

    Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman’s three children by her estranged husband.

    The same thing was said in this case as was said in the one above.

    I don’t agree with it, because then the saying “to protect and serve” is false to begin with, but the SCOTUS has ruled it that way, so it is that way. That’s why I carry, because the cops don’t have a requirement to prevent me from being killed by someone else.

    • gitarcarver says:

      The underlying reason why police have no duty to protect is important. Castle Rock is not an absolute statement of “no duty.”

      The Court ruled that in situations where the entitlement of protection was discretionary by state law, there is no duty. Where the entitlement is mandated by law (ie an arrest or incarceration) there is a duty to protect.

      Attending school is not discretionary. It is mandated by state laws. The state effectively takes control of your children when they are in school.

      The reasoning and underlying facts of the Castle Rock case are important.

  13. GDContractor says:

    I’m no academic intellectual like Dave Hardin, so someone needs to break it down for me… If the police have no duty to protect me and my family, then OMG, WHO DOES? I mean, a sport pilots license and a 99 cent iPad app only takes out the low hanging fruit. Should I consider buying a 223mm gun with a big clip?

    • OWB says:

      You might be able to find some real cheap at the bottom of the rivers/lakes/ponds where those infamous boating accidents occurred over the past few years…

    • Dave Hardin says:

      I can’t do everything for you. Ok, this once I will give you the break down.

      ‘Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.’

    • Ex-PH2 says:

      See if you can find used portable anti-aircraft stuff at a cheap price. Always carry a spare.

    • Reverend Pointyhead says:

      Whoa whoa whoa. That nomenclature is atrocious. I believe you meant a LARGE clip.

      • 5th/77th FA says:

        What are these “clip” things that he speaks of?

        Is this a device to close up a Cheetos Bag?

        As for me, I have followed Dave’s theory for decades.

  14. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    So what is the function of the police then?

    Asset seizure for profit on behalf of the state? Over enforcement of civil infractions for revenue increases to local municipalities?

    Violating the flag code with their thin blue line flags?

    No duty to protect, but perfectly okay to shoot anyone who frightens them into fearing for their lives, including dogs under 25 lbs….

    It’s time for a conversation about what a free people expect from the police it employs to serve their interests and it’s long past due for a discussion on why we keep electing assclowns whose only purpose in life seems to be writing more laws to constantly restrict more of our personal liberties. We aren’t supposed to elect leaders and rulers, we’re supposed to be electing representatives of our wishes.

    We’ve become so fucking lazy we prefer the illusion of safety to actual freedom.

    It has to be a tough time to be in law enforcement, for a host of reasons.

    • Geetwillickers says:

      VOV – I have said it before, and I’ll most likely say it again: Sometimes you piss me off to no end. Other times, like now, I want to be the one to stand and start the slow clap.

      Amen, Amen, and Amen.

      That is all.

      • Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

        Sorry my friend I have that effect on everyone at times, including my poor dear wife…s

        There’s no accounting for what I’m thinking on a particular day, but of late I’m very disappointed in our government and its minions.

    • GDContractor says:

      VOV, I agree. And do the calculus if the plaintiff had won this case.
      1. Plaintiff already pays (taxes) for police to “act like” police.
      2. Police don’t “act”.
      3. Judgment awarded to plaintiff from (presumably) additional taxes.
      4. Plaintiff feels like justice was served.

      Meanwhile, it’s just BOHICA, and insanity.

    • SFC D says:

      A good chunk of the population aren’t so much lazy as they are ignorant of just how much of the “safety” they enjoy truly is an illusion.

    • Poetrooper says:

      VOV, I think that governments view the function of the police as being to protect the overall welfare of the community at large, not individual citizens and to serve that community as a whole through enforcement of the laws that elected community leadership has promulgated to ensure the community at large is a safe place for its citizens to live.

      Police serve and protect by response to and resolution of both civil and criminal violations. They respond with the unwritten understanding that they will risk their own lives and employ such force as is necessary, up to and including deadly force, to resolve the situation. If, in the course of such resolution, individual citizens are harmed it is similar to collateral damage in military action, highly regrettable but unfortunately unavoidable.

      When you try to impose a finer responsibility on the police of a duty to protect individual citizens, you’re getting down into the legal weeds where governments, and courts are branches of those governments, do not wish to go due to the impossible liability it places upon them.

      As I said up the thread, such plaintiffs are only suing themselves and their fellow citizens. And as I believe you’ve said here previously, governments create no wealth, they simply confiscate ours and redistribute it. Do you really want to see your property (school) taxes or your county sales taxes increased so that a few families who have suffered a huge and very regrettable personal loss can be enriched? The money won’t bring back their loved ones and it’s certainly not punitive to the defendants. Do you really think that losing such a suit will change the hearts and minds of liberal educators who permeate the system when there is no personal capital loss to them; ditto police departments.

      The obvious answer to part of the problem is armed security guards in our schools which will lead future shooters to other soft, unarmed targets, nursing homes come to mind, but at least away from helpless children who have their lives ahead of them. Police shootings as discussed above will only be resolved by policy changes. As one of our LEO brothers pointed out higher in the thread, the early-morning raids ensure the perp will be home making the cops jobs easier. Well, change the damned rules so that such dawn raids must be highly justified and not just for routine activities such as weapons confiscations. If it makes the Job a bit harder, so be it.

      Speaking of weapons confiscations, can you imagine the public response if liberal government entities like New Jersey should begin to employ them to confiscate outlawed weaponry from their citizens? It ain’t gonna be pretty.

    • rgr769 says:

      The primary function of the police, after they draw the chalk outline of your corpse, is to arrest the dumb bastard that killed you and gather the evidence to convict him.

  15. E4 Mafia For Life. says:

    I was asked by a co-worker years ago what I would do if a gunman came in to the office and either threatened to shoot everybody or started to. She knows I am a combat veteran.
    I responded, “I would probably exit out the rear door if I could or pop up a ceiling tile, call the police and give them as much details as possible so they could come up with a tactical plan.
    The CHP are just a block away and there are probably 50+ officers in walking distance.
    If I were unable to, I would go on the offensive since I would most likely get killed anyway. Use cover, concealment, distraction, deflection.
    But you are no good dead if you immediately try to be a “hero.” All you are doing is depleting the bad guy’s ammo by one bullet.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      Consider. The scenario is essentially “near ambush”.

      If the attacker has any skill at all, any forethought at all, you are probably in the kill box and dead meat.

      The tactical answer to “near ambush” is to attack with as much savagery and enthusiasm as your glands and brain can generate.

      If you happen to be clear of the primary zone, withdrawal may work.

      Maybe.

      But if you are in immediate range? You already have the bullet coming. You might get to him before he can fire it.

      And you will distract him from killing some less capable person(s), so there is that.

      Tough call. If you can see the shooter, and have nothing -solidly- bullet- stopping between you, probably not going to get away.

  16. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Every school day, millions of kids climb onto those yellow monsters called school buses. In the overwhelming majority of states (some 42) there is no law requiring that the buses have seat belts. Most of the handful of states that do require seatbelts have laws that either allow school districts to say no or make the seat belts contingent upon funding which isn’t then available. Effectively, only a few states have districts with buses that have seat belts. Why is this? I thought the schools cared about the kids. I mean, the schools replaced candy bars and soda in their vending machines with apples and spring water. And whenever teachers strike or threaten to, they don’t want more money for themselves. Hell no. It’s for the children. So, legal niceties aside, why would a school give a shit if children are shot up? They know the law, They know the risks. And yet, most are only too willing to put kids at risk by not allowing teachers to carry.

  17. 11B-Mailclerk says:

    I was told by a person with a strong LE background that “to Serve and Protect” actually means

    To serve their political masters and protect the status quo.

    That is … harsh.

  18. MustangCryppie says:

    When I was in the Honolulu police academy, had a sergeant instructor tell us this exact thing when discussing use of force. We Ricky Recruits were beside ourselves in indignation, but he didn’t budge.

    Then, after we got into the field and went through periodic training, our direction in active shooter incidents was to immediately go in. Wait for one more cop if possible, but if back up is taking too long (probably wouldn’t happen), then go in alone.

    The important thing was to stop the threat.

    I was never in an active shooter situation, but was in quite a few intense use of force scenarios. Just like the military, the training kicks in and you don’t think about how it could have all gone to shit in a millisecond until after the event. That’s when the butt starts puckering.

    That scumbag Peterson screwed the pooch and I’m sure he regrets it every second of every day. I hope it eats him alive.

    • 11B-Mailclerk says:

      There may be a good glandular reason to have “immediately attack the shooter” as doctrine.

      The responders willl not have a whole bunch of time to psych themselves out of responding. The selfish/rational “are you out of your mind?” part of the brain won’t have time to get its arguments going.

    • Poetrooper says:

      Cryppie, are saying it’s not like those Hawaii 5-0 reruns Miz Poe watches all the time?

      Tell me it isn’t so…

  19. HMC Ret says:

    I would lose my desire to live if I were this officer. We all do ‘what if’ scenarios in our mind, trying to imagine what we would do in various circumstances. I know one thing:

    If ever a scenario developed in which my wife or daughter were in danger, and they were harmed b/c I chose to do nothing, I would consider myself a coward and would lose my desire to live. I could not live with myself under those circumstances.

    Only slightly removed from this scenario is if I were responsible for the well being of these kids and any of them were harmed b/c I failed to enter the danger zone. Bottom line: Almost certainly kids died or were wounded b/c I chose to do nothing. Again, I could not live with myself.

    Yeah, I know, this is ‘what if’ stuff, but I know myself and my set of values well enough to know I could never again look them in the eye. I would honestly have no reason to live. I’m almost certain I would have to be placed under a suicide watch 24/7. I would not want to live.

    This officer? Jeez, every waking moment of his life must be riddled with guilt. I don’t know how he can go on. I do hope he doesn’t take himself out. I really wish him no harm. He is being ‘harmed’ enough simply by having to live with himself. I couldn’t do it.

  20. timactual says:

    I guess they will be changing th mottos on the sides of all those police cars to “Enforce and Serve (Warrants)”