[bubbacluck]

I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled on this already. Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm.

He still should have gone in as that was his job.

[fwdude]

Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm.

That's the way it's been moving the past few decades.

But be sure that if we protect ourselves with any level of serious force we'll be run through the wringer, if not jailed.

[Chainmail]

"Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm."

Which is why we have AR-15s, 30-round magazines, and plenty of practice.

[MilesVeritatis]

Even with the SCOTUS decision in mind, there may be issues with not following sheriff department guidelines/protocol in place at the time.

Even Broward Sheriff Israel stated as much:

New York Times (2/21/2018) “In School Shooting’s Painful Aftermath, Sheriff Faces Questions Over Police Response”

Excerpt:

“That’s exactly what we’re examining,” Sheriff Israel said, noting that active shooter protocols require confronting suspects as quickly as possible. “You don’t wait for SWAT, you get in, and you push toward the shooter.”

[Leaning Right]

> I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled on this already. Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm. <

But I wonder how broad that ruling was. Is there a difference between the cops not responding for whatever reason, and a cop being on-scene, but doing nothing?

Because the Supreme Court ruling was about the former. Cops didn’t respond to a plea for help. But in the Parkland case, the cop was right there. And he knew for an absolute fact that his help was needed. That’s depraved indifference in my book.

Here’s an article about that Supreme court ruling.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

[fruser1]

” pretty sure”

You’re correct. I think the only thing they can claim is that he didn’t follow the department’s procedure.

[Valpal1]

This is true of the general public at large.

But a school is not the general public. It is minors in a government facility where they are required by law to attend, making the government “in loco parentis” and therefore responsible for their safety and Mr. Peterson was specifically tasked as a school security officer.

Mr Peterson now has a large legal problem because there is an argument to be made and this may wind up in front of the supreme court.

[Honest Nigerian]

I think the SC ruling ruled that no individual person was owed protection. But this case has many unique characteristics.
This will be an interesting trial: it seems to me that Deputy Peterson is guilty of gross negligence. Well, lots of gross negligence by others up the chain. And that will be a very important finding.

[Ladysmith]

Yep, at least two, if not three, times that I can recall.

[Freedom4US]

SCOTUS ruled the police have no duty to protect any one individual. They have a duty to keep the peace and protect the public. For an attorney to claim that an armed school security guard has no duty to confront a school shooter, to try and stop mass slaughter, is absurd. For starters, why are we paying these people? Funding pensions? Can save a crapton of money. Notice it's always and ever "Heads We Win, Tails You Lose." School isn't optional, it is mandatory. Parents have to send their kids there. And yet, many school systems reject the principle of in loco parentis that is, the school acts as the child's parents in their absence. This isn't a matter of opinion. The schools are liable and responsible for what happens to the kids in their charge.