School shooting in Florida


#1368

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.


#1369

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.


#1370

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).


#1371

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.


#1372

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.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/23/could-the-police-legally-do-no-wrong-in-the-parkland-shooting/

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.


#1373

I don’t care about his pension. He’s entitled to it. Do you lose your 401K if you’re fired? No, you don’t. Even if you are fired for gross negligence. Well, a pension is just deferred compensation, and so it should be treated the same way.

I don’t know why you think it’s unlikely. Your linked article suggests the same thing I did: it’s quite possible that a special duty does exist for school officers, and this issue remains to be litigated.

In the case of this Parkland shooting, it will be important to discover what is meant by the officer being “assigned” to the school. He reportedly had been a school resource officer at Stoneman Douglas since 2009. An investigation may support the argument that the police had undertaken a special duty to students, faculty and staff at the school.


#1374

I mean… by that logic they’re paying cops in Broward County around $200k a year.

Seems a bit high to me, but whatever.

As far as special duty, that’s a very legalese term. I mean it’s possible it applies here, but it seems unlikely given every example I’ve seen. It seems far more like a witness protection scenario. Like you’re supposed to protect your informant and decide you’d rather go have a beer and he gets shot when you were supposed to be protecting him, you’re in trouble because you had a special duty to him. If he was just some random member of the public you’d be fine, but you have a special duty to him that you agreed to.

I don’t see how that would be the case here. What he was doing was akin to sitting in a squad car at the mall. He was assigned there like he would’ve been assigned to go to the corner of 5th and Main and make sure nothing was going on.

He was a stationed officer at the school, he didn’t have some special assignment or contract, it was just his beat. Plus his story of events is reasonable enough to get out of it anyway. You can’t prove he knew where the shooter was and was hiding.


#1375

I think you’re kind of stuck on the lawsuit angle here. When someone is obligated to do something, and they don’t do it, that next step isn’t always a lawsuit. It’s a firing. They’re still civilians so this isn’t like the military.

So if I understand your position correctly the only way you consider the police being obligated to do something is if that something can lead to them being successfully sued and has nothing to do with whether or not they get to remain a police officer?


#1376

By your logic, if you make $100K and plan to convert your 401K at retirement to an annuity that pays $80K a year, then your company is actually paying you $180K.


#1377

In both cases, assuming the 401K is entirely funded by employer contributions (ha!), the true present value of yearly compensation would be the current salary plus the present value of the yearly share of the annuity seed for both the pension and the 401K. So in the examples, depending on age and life expectancy you would probably be looking at a current total compensation of $120K to $140K or thereabouts (rough back of the envelope calculation).


#1378

I mean… he’s already out of a job.

So I’m not sure what the hell we’re even talking about at this point. I feel like you’re talking about some hypothetical scenario and ignoring what is actually going on or something.

The reason I was talking about a lawsuit is because that’s the only thing there was to talk about. He is no longer a cop and he gets his pension unless found guilty of a crime. That’s the entire story, there isn’t anything else to even talk about.

I don’t even know what this is supposed to mean. Hell, I feel like I’ve been rope-a-doped by this whole conversation since you were apparently having a completely different one and didn’t bother to mention it while we were discussing it, so I’m just done.


#1379

I don’t know what you’re deal is. You made a general statement about police. I mentioned SRO programs… and then the conversation went to expectations and responsibilities about the police and the SROs. It had nothing to with pensions or lawsuits. You brought up the lawsuits but whatever.

And just to be clear, you made a general statement about police and I made a general statement about SROs. You just fell back to the single case because of… reasons. But I took issue with your general statement and your claim about police not being responsible for anything.


#1380

Everyone knows he is out of a job. You were the one who brought him into this thread, and implied he needed even more punishment. Even though he was already punished in pretty much the same way as everyone else who fails at their job.


#1381

I was specifically talking about a specific thing and then things became general because we started talking about how laws work.

Whatever, this was the dumbest shit ever. It’s great this dude gets six figures for life for letting a bunch of kids die. I’m done.


#1382

I like how you said we started talking about laws when it was, you know, you.

We’re talking about jobs and responsibilities.


#1383

He is being sued, so we will see. He would normally be immune, but there are exceptions in Florida, based on degree of conduct. I’m sure the duty issue will be a factor. If I was the lawyer for the Plaintiffs I would argue he has a special relationship to those at the school, over and above that owed to the general public…Don’t know if there is case law on this particular special duty,


#1384

I’m thinking and praying real hard that no one died today in the Texas school shooting. Reports are that the shooter used a shotgun.


#1385

Not looking good. Multiple deaths confirmed but no full report yet.


#1386

Just saw that it’s at least 8 according to this:


#1387