harley1955 Posted March 6, 2018 at 09:38 PM Share Posted March 6, 2018 at 09:38 PM Knew this was going to happen.... http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/06/florida-high-school-shooting-survivor-gearing-up-to-be-first-to-sue-broward-county-officials.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted March 6, 2018 at 09:45 PM Share Posted March 6, 2018 at 09:45 PM Good. Very freaking good. They are also going after the School District for their idiotic policy of not arresting teens. Only way to stop these stupid Uber progressive BS policies, is make them pay for them when the ultimately fail and cause problems. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
111G2 Posted March 6, 2018 at 10:37 PM Share Posted March 6, 2018 at 10:37 PM Good! Sue the pants off of the Broward County Sheriff Department. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkhalil61 Posted March 6, 2018 at 11:31 PM Share Posted March 6, 2018 at 11:31 PM Sounds like a winnable lawsuit. Good luck kid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted March 7, 2018 at 12:00 AM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 12:00 AM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody. I kinda hope the lawsuit fails. If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDW Posted March 7, 2018 at 12:03 AM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 12:03 AM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody. I kinda hope the lawsuit fails. If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that. But Davey, they'll do a great job, just like they did in Parkland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio24 Posted March 7, 2018 at 02:36 AM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 02:36 AM Should probably be suing the FBI for having multiple tips about Nicholas Cruz being a threat and yet not providing any course of action....but when you're busy with Russian collusion... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted March 7, 2018 at 03:10 AM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 03:10 AM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody. I kinda hope the lawsuit fails. If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that.Very short sighted, if I might say. The law suit will be about their inability to arrest the shooter in the numerous times before, and the adherence/complicity to/with the school districts official policy to not arrest teens that break the law. All of which not only kept the shooter from being incarcerated, and thus unable to shoot, but allowed him to purchase the weapons he used, as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chicagoresident Posted March 7, 2018 at 04:26 AM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 04:26 AM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody.I kinda hope the lawsuit fails.If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that.Yup, once again it will be ruled law enforcement has no obligation to serve and protect. Watch the county countersue the victims for legal fees like the Aurora theater did when they got sued for being a gun free shooting gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chislinger Posted March 7, 2018 at 05:06 AM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 05:06 AM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody. I kinda hope the lawsuit fails. If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that.Actually the ruling was the police have no duty to protect any particular individual. In this case they failed to protect a school of over 3000 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoadyRunner Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:00 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:00 PM It’s not about failing to protect the kids. It’s about stuff they did that made the kids less safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILhunter Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:21 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:21 PM It will be interesting to see how this one comes down. Posters above are correct that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect the individual. However, in this case one of the first failures was by the school resource officer. It may be that having a school resource officer creates a special duty to protect, since that is how such expenditures are justified. This is a case of first impression for the Court. Will be fun to follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jacksinthe Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:43 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:43 PM Let all of this be aired out in a carnival of stupid ending with a settlement or loss that shows the rest of the anti-gunners cops won't friggin save you and have no duty to when you need it. This is why we carry. This is why good people want to be armed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jake8267 Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:44 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 01:44 PM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody. I kinda hope the lawsuit fails. If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that.There is an exception when the government has established a prior "special realtionship." I'd like to see it argued (and won) that creating schools as "Gun Free Zones" implicitly creates such a relationship. That way, any and all incidents that occur in legislated gun free zones become the responsibility of the government. Give them something to think about with the laundry list of gun free zones we've got here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spu69 Posted March 7, 2018 at 02:30 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 02:30 PM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody. I kinda hope the lawsuit fails. If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that.There is an exception when the government has established a prior "special realtionship." I'd like to see it argued (and won) that creating schools as "Gun Free Zones" implicitly creates such a relationship. That way, any and all incidents that occur in legislated gun free zones become the responsibility of the government. Give them something to think about with the laundry list of gun free zones we've got here. That I would like to see as well. Most GFZ's will disappear, and the remaining will be staffed by armed security or police. Would be great if the GFZ in a private business created a special relationship between the business and the customer for safety. All GFZ's would all evaporate overnight and instead there would be signs that say your safety is your responsibility, act accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted March 7, 2018 at 02:41 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 02:41 PM Once again, the School District in question, had a policy to not have teens/students arrested when they broke the law, "to not stigmatize them", and a bunch of other SJW BS reasons. The Sheriff's department signed on and agreed to said policy. It is said policy that allowed the shooter to break the law (multiple times), like bringing ammo and other contraband to the school and NOT be arrested for it, as he should have been. That alone (and a bunch of other incidents that the policy kept him from being arrested for), would have made him ineligible to buy a firearm, at a minimum, and served time, possibly. They will likely go after THESE policies, that directly led to the shooting of their son NOT the Officers stating outside, because of said precedents above. These policies, by both the District, and the Sherriff's Department, directly led to the shooter's ability to arm himself AND freedom to use them. They were negligent, and a direct cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harley1955 Posted March 7, 2018 at 03:19 PM Author Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 03:19 PM Once again, the School District in question, had a policy to not have teens/students arrested when they broke the law, "to not stigmatize them", and a bunch of other SJW BS reasons. The Sheriff's department signed on and agreed to said policy. It is said policy that allowed the shooter to break the law (multiple times), like bringing ammo and other contraband to the school and NOT be arrested for it, as he should have been. That alone (and a bunch of other incidents that the policy kept him from being arrested for), would have made him ineligible to buy a firearm, at a minimum, and served time, possibly. They will likely go after THESE policies, that directly led to the shooting of their son NOT the Officers stating outside, because of said precedents above. These policies, by both the District, and the Sherriff's Department, directly led to the shooter's ability to arm himself AND freedom to use them. They were negligent, and a direct cause. I agree. This is going to be interesting to follow and see where it goes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WitchDoctor Posted March 7, 2018 at 04:28 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 04:28 PM Any vet, any, would have gone in that school and did what was needed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkhalil61 Posted March 7, 2018 at 04:36 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 04:36 PM Any vet, any, would have gone in that school and did what was needed +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybermgk Posted March 7, 2018 at 05:27 PM Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 05:27 PM Any vet, any, would have gone in that school and did what was neededMost real LEOs would have as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harley1955 Posted March 7, 2018 at 06:09 PM Author Share Posted March 7, 2018 at 06:09 PM Any vet, any, would have gone in that school and did what was neededMost real LEOs would have as well. And a lot of people who carry would have went in as well.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Pucker Posted March 8, 2018 at 05:07 PM Share Posted March 8, 2018 at 05:07 PM It will be interesting to see how this one comes down. Posters above are correct that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect the individual. However, in this case one of the first failures was by the school resource officer. It may be that having a unarmed school resource officer creates a special duty to protect, since that is how such expenditures are justified. This is a case of first impression for the Court. Will be fun to follow. FIFY. The only protection the guy could offer was his body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tkroenlein Posted March 9, 2018 at 03:06 AM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 03:06 AM Really depends on what the suit is. If it is merely "they failed to go in," it might be unlikely to prevail. But, if it is one of the several fumbles by LE to act on some of the psycho's threats, it may be that someone, somewhere failed to follow the law, and for that reason the event happened, well, might be a sure thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomKoz Posted March 9, 2018 at 03:47 AM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 03:47 AM DEMOCRATIC / LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE PC policies ALLOWED this to happen.Plain & Simple !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geomick Posted March 9, 2018 at 05:58 AM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 05:58 AM It will be interesting to see how this one comes down. Posters above are correct that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect the individual. However, in this case one of the first failures was by the school resource officer. It may be that having a unarmed school resource officer creates a special duty to protect, since that is how such expenditures are justified. This is a case of first impression for the Court. Will be fun to follow. FIFY. The only protection the guy could offer was his body. The School Resource Officer was the Broward County deputy who hid behind the concrete pillar. He was armed, but did nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CILhunter Posted March 9, 2018 at 01:09 PM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 01:09 PM It will be interesting to see how this one comes down. Posters above are correct that the US Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect the individual. However, in this case one of the first failures was by the school resource officer. It may be that having a unarmed school resource officer creates a special duty to protect, since that is how such expenditures are justified. This is a case of first impression for the Court. Will be fun to follow. FIFY. The only protection the guy could offer was his body. The School Resource Officer was the Broward County deputy who hid behind the concrete pillar. He was armed, but did nothing. Beat me to it. Certainly the unarmed coach was a hero, but the armed deputy, on duty at the school, likely had an affirmative obligation to protect the kids, beyond the general obligation of the police to the public at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 9, 2018 at 01:51 PM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 01:51 PM Doesn't sound winnable at all. Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect anybody.I kinda hope the lawsuit fails.If he wins that means that government is responsible for our protection. I don't want that.No duty to protect but they do have a duty to do their jobs. At all. They didn't do that. They did the opposite of their jobs. You take this much recklessness and carelessness, it's not like they tried to do their best. They ignored everything. And as mentioned above, the "special relationship" exception to the rule likely applies here as NO ONE ELSE could have protected those men, women, and children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted March 9, 2018 at 01:56 PM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 01:56 PM It will be interesting if his lawyers take the approach that the government created a duty to protect by making a gun free zone and not allowing the minor any means to protect himself. As it has been pointed out that SCOTUS in a case concerning an OP ruled that police had no duty to protect. Yet, here the government created a place that an individual is unable to protect him/herself and thus has a responsibility to provide for the protection of the individual when in these zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted March 9, 2018 at 02:28 PM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 02:28 PM Yet, here the government created a place that an individual is unable to protect him/herself and thus has a responsibility to provide for the protection of the individual when in these zones.This will likely be decided by (at very least) go up to CA11 as the exception only applies to those in custody (of the government) or they are somehow restrained from defending themselves. However, if SCOTUS wants to extend the exception to GFZ, a de facto ruling that GFZs are killing fields, it would be wonderful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmyers Posted March 9, 2018 at 02:39 PM Share Posted March 9, 2018 at 02:39 PM Yet, here the government created a place that an individual is unable to protect him/herself and thus has a responsibility to provide for the protection of the individual when in these zones.This will likely be decided by (at very least) go up to CA11 as the exception only applies to those in custody (of the government) or they are somehow restrained from defending themselves. However, if SCOTUS wants to extend the exception to GFZ, a de facto ruling that GFZs are killing fields, it would be wonderful. Since they ban you (restrain a person) from using the most common acceptable tool (the law enforcement officers don't respond with rubber band guns) to defend themselves, the government has created a place they are responsible for the protection. I'm in agreement that it would be great to hold those responsible for creating these death traps liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.