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.
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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,
What´s happening in the school halls
What´s happening with dead kids
I want to know
What´s happening with uncontrollable fear
What´s happening with parasitic capitalism
I want to know
I watch you on TV every single day
Those eyes make everything OK
I was impressed by Andrew Gillum after Parkland but he was way behind in the polls. Now that he won the Gov. primary, at least I can vote for him! Polling is approaching meteorology in its complete failure of accuracy.
Polling is approaching meteorology in its complete failure of accuracy.