Or somehow manage to shit on the floor or toilet seat instead of the bowl.
The worst tangent, ever.
Thanks for that, needed a laugh today. :)
I mean, he wasn’t convicted of a crime and the police aren’t required to protect you, so it makes sense.
The thing that sticks out to me is… cops get a $100k a year from pension in Florida? What the fuck?
They shouldn’t be able to take away his pension unless he was convicted of a crime or some other wrong doing that also leads to the loss of a pension. We can’t even get cops tried for killing people. I don’t see how cowering would make the top of the list.
I’m sorry for their loss, but they’re not thinking this through.
I disagree with the the police not required to protect you though. His role there was exactly that, for protection.If he didn’t do his job, the answer is he should be fired, but he’d already earned his pension.
I think people here agree with the sentiment, but the law isn’t on our side. Several court cases argue the cop does not have the obligation to protect.
I don’t mean police in general per say, although in spirit yes. These police officers assigned to actual schools, is that role/job not more narrowly defined? Isn’t their purpose on these campuses largely for security?
Likely depends on the state or locality. In mine, resource officers are very restricted in how they can carry out their duties. They can respond to an active shooter, but their primary responsibility is actually making their presence known and holding ground until reinforcements arrive. Honestly, I could see the exact situation unfold like it did down in Florida; “secure” a location and hold until help arrives (although I’d imagine they’d at least secure a position INSIDE).
Hell no. You think police unions are going to put cops in a situation where they’re legally obligated to do more?
Fairly sure security isn’t legally obligated to do anything either. If you’re running security for some place and a dude with a shotgun walks in and you decide it’s time to find a new job, legally you’re mostly in the clear. If you’re a police officer, you’re 100% in the clear since cops can legally eat a sandwich and watch a dude kill you with a power drill and a blowtorch while on duty in the middle of main street if they wanted.
Yeah I am not sure what the arrangements are.
I’m not talking about security though.
So when the police are assigned to a campus, they’re still real police. This isn’t a security company. They maintain their police status… happens on universities all the time. Like they’re assigned to the campus, real cops. I am assuming the k-12 have a similar set-up, but I am not sure.
Not sure what the arrangement is, but I know they’re assigned so there must be an arrangement of some kind.
Sure. But police aren’t obligated to do anything. That’s not even remotely in question.
Well you can italicize all you want. The SRO programs, however, are not national. They’re at the city and school level so… I don’t know how you can know what everyone is doing anymore than I do.
You’re confusing several issues.
First of all, the primary responsibility of a law enforcement officer is … law enforcement. It’s right there in the name. Their main job is to prevent people from breaking the law and/or arrest those who do. They aren’t personal bodyguards.
In practice, that means that if a police officer fails to protect a member of the general public, the police department is free of liability. That was established by Warren v. District of Columbia.
That doesn’t mean that police officers have no “obligation” to protect the general public. They often do, and if they fail they might very well be fired. It just means that the police department itself is protected from lawsuit.
However, there are certain situations when police departments can be held liable for failure to protect someone. This only occurs in special situations. For example, they can be sued for failing to protect someone in their custody, or possibly a police informant. Does it also apply to a school officer? We’ll find out eventually, as this is currently being litigated.
And he got fired. So… I fail to see where I’m wrong. He’ll also be immune to prosecution because he’s a cop.
No, why would it? It’s not some magical duty. It’s on par with sitting in a patrol car at Denny’s 99.9999% of the time. Again: This. Dude. Was. A. Cop. See Warren v DC someone linked above.
Because they’re cops. They cannot be held liable for this. Someone already linked the Supreme Court case that said so. If they were some private schmuck? Maybe? Probably not though because confronting armed men with rifles isn’t anything we expect any civilian to ever do (assuming they aren’t cops doing the job).
I don’t see why this is suddenly contentious. They’re police, they cannot legally be held accountable for not doing anything. Like it cannot happen. It doesn’t matter if SRO programs aren’t national, because the SCOTUS said they can not be held liable. Period. I mean he can be fired, and was. Now he’s pulling in six figures while watching television till the day he dies.
If they’re private contractors… they probably still can’t be, because that scenario was a suicide mission and I can’t imagine suing someone for not doing it would ever be realistic. The scenario for a non-cop would be “call the police and maybe barricade a room with kids in it till they show up” at best.
The link you provided is about a lawsuit. It doesn’t say they can’t be fired. There is a huge difference between what you are responsible for doing at your job, and getting fired for it, to a lawsuit trying to get millions. Did you catch this analysis of that case:
The long and short of it is that the highest court in the land has said that police have no obligation to protect citizens beyond that which the police themselves decide, either individually or at the departmental level.
There must be crossed wires, because nothing I linked involved a lawsuit. Hell, it specifically says there is no legal recourse.
Yes, the department decided to fire him. And… that’s all they could do. There is literally no other alternatives, as the article mentions.
He gets to keep his pension because of state law and he can’t be held accountable in civil court or otherwise because of federal rulings and qualified immunity.
And he’s getting over $100k a year forever for being fired. Which was the original thrust I was trying to point out. Legally that’s the end of it.
I mean the article even spells it out:
Here is a government employee who we know for a fact failed to act to protect innocent lives — there’s no question what he did during the shooting; video surveillance confirms it — and there is no legal way to revoke or even reduce his six-figure pension until he is convicted of a crime?
Nothing has been filed because there is nothing to file. State law says his pension is safe.
Federal law says you can’t sue him for what he did or bring charges against him.
The article talks about voting to change the rules for police pensions so he isn’t making six figures for this, but that wouldn’t likely apply retroactively anyway, so it’s more like dealing with future issues. Assuming anyone could get it past the police unions (they can’t).
I don’t know why you’re talking about pensions at all. We’re not discussing pensions here. We’re talking about the responsibilities of an SRO. I already made a remark about pensions, and it isn’t actually in opposition to what you’re saying.
This is about his responsibilities and your claim that they’re not obligated to do, and I quote, anything. This Parkland case, despite the remarks about his cowardice, it’s not 100% clear what he thought was going on. I don’t think many expect police officers to just go commit suicide, but there is an expectation that they act when they can.
Not really.
The only way he could be sued is if they could prove this was a special duty, which seems pretty unlikely since that tends to be rather specific.
God help me, but the Federalist has the best breakdown of it and nothing I read there sounds like anything that would gain traction.
In the case of the Parkland shooting, that would mean the school would have to prove the officer assigned owed the students and faculty there a special duty, above and beyond what the government owes the public generally.
I mean anything is possible. Juries convict people for a lot less, but I don’t see it surviving appeal assuming it ever went to a jury, which it probably wouldn’t since judges are more likely to know the law and not make themselves look bad, so he probably wouldn’t want a jury trial anyway.
But if precedence says anything, it’s that he’s fine and wont lose his pension since he didn’t break any laws.
If anything your comment:
Basically kills any case against him anyway. He’s been pretty consistent in his version of events and it would nearly impossible to prove otherwise. Which is why they get qualified immunity to these sorts of things in the first place, at least in theory.