Jump to content

1st Lawsuit


harley1955

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...