Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit
orlandosentinel ^ | 12/17/18 | Lisa J. Huriash

Posted on 12/19/2018 9:50:09 AM PST by blueyon

A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.

“The claim arises from the actions of [shooter Nikolas] Cruz, a third party, and not a state actor,” she wrote in a ruling Dec. 12. “Thus, the critical question the Court analyzes is whether defendants had a constitutional duty to protect plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz

(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: banglist; blackrobedclown; broward; clownbammyjudge; dncjudicialactivist; education; fedjudgepresident; florida; guncontrol; guns; jailforjudges; juckthefudge; obamajudge; parkland; protection; secondamendment; selfdefense; skidmarkjudge; thelawisinmymouth; theskidmarkjudge; trump; unfitforthebench
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last
To: JBW1949
Let’s see what happens early next year.

To levy and collect fines.

41 posted on 12/19/2018 10:21:42 AM PST by itsahoot (Welcome to the New USA where Islam is a religion of peace and Christianity is a mental disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

So if the police have no duty to protect you, then the left’s often stated phrase “You don’t need a gun, the police will protect you” holds no bearing or ground. Suck it lefties!


42 posted on 12/19/2018 10:22:12 AM PST by Mr. Mohasky (Common sense in a world lacking any, will be perceived & construed as an extreme point of view.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Cops do not protect us. Do not ever expect it.

As for judges, this was a MI rat gal governor appointed judge: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3713913/posts


43 posted on 12/19/2018 10:22:27 AM PST by polymuser (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged today. - Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

It is the same reason that you cannot sue First Responders.

Say ‘the fire fighters did not immediately rush into the burning building to try to save my baby’

If the law shits are allowed, the end result will be the loss of all emergency response.


44 posted on 12/19/2018 10:22:37 AM PST by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

This couldn’t be true anyhow... what police department was ever sued for failing to do right unto “the public at large”?


The police are tasked with many things but they are under no obligation to risk their lives to protect an individual.


45 posted on 12/19/2018 10:23:44 AM PST by outpostinmass2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Why do a lot of police departments use the motto “To Serve and Protect” or some such???????????


46 posted on 12/19/2018 10:26:56 AM PST by JBW1949 (I'm really PC....PATRIOTICALLY CORRECT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Nay, there have to be some canons of honor, or these agencies WILL become useless drones.


47 posted on 12/19/2018 10:28:31 AM PST by HiTech RedNeck (May Jesus Christ be praised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: outpostinmass2

We have a different means of redress for a bad police department. We can fire them and replace them with a more effective force... or elect politicians to do the same.


48 posted on 12/19/2018 10:29:48 AM PST by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

If police have no legal duty to protect the public, then take their weapons away from them.

I believe they have such a duty, so they should keep their weapons, but progressives want to have both no responsibility and weapons to defeat their enemies.


49 posted on 12/19/2018 10:30:14 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949
..In this judge’s eyes, why do we even have police departments????

To mark the chalk outlines.

50 posted on 12/19/2018 10:32:34 AM PST by Professional Engineer (Looks like I'll have to buy the White Album again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Didn’t Pam Bondi promise to get to the bottom of this scandal and prosecute those responsible quickly? She seems to have disappeared.


51 posted on 12/19/2018 10:33:16 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

Fair enough. You’re right. I guess I meant to say “examine the crime scene for evidence” but used sloppy language. My main point was that their job is to catch people after the fact, they have no duty to prevent a crime.


52 posted on 12/19/2018 10:40:17 AM PST by monkeyshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949

53 posted on 12/19/2018 10:43:14 AM PST by Bonemaker (invictus maneoFormer FBI SA outs Mueller and McCabe over their “unethical” tactics used against Mi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: JBW1949

The police are not here for our protection. As near as I can figure, they are revenue agents who, occasionally, record the facts about crimes. They may make a case. They may make arrests, but their primary function appears to be revenue.

Here is the case that the judge in this case is probably referencing.

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


54 posted on 12/19/2018 10:43:56 AM PST by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn
New change says OK if I am in vehicle BUT once I step out of vehicle if weapon in my possession or not COMPLETELY secured in vehicle, the law is being broken

Usually secured means "in the trunk" as most new cars don’t have lockable glove compartments or center consoles and I wonder how they reconcile getting out to secure your gun in the trunk with stepping out of the vehicle? Is there a safe area around your vehicle in which you can carry legally to get to the trunk or are you momentarily in violation while you transport you weapon to secure it?

Here in California one cannot carry concealed or openly even an unloaded firearm. I ask how do you get your newly purchased firearm from the gun store to your trunk. If the gun is in its box or bag it’s concealed, if it’s not, it’s Illegal to carry openly. Damned if you do or don’t. Either way, you are committing a crime by the letter of the law. Should we back up our vehicles to the door of the store, open the trunk and the store’s door, and then throw the newly purchased gun into the trunk, thus avoiding the action of carrying at all? If one doesn’t live in a house with an attached garage, how does one get your legally owned, but illegal to carry, firearms from the trunk of one’s car into your house without violating these idiotic laws? It is true that an innocent person unknowingly commits three felonies every day just by living their life due to the state of our idiotic laws and regulations.

"Show me the man, and I’ll find you his crimes."— Lavarenty Beria, Joseph Stalin’s head of the Soviet Union’s Secret Police.

55 posted on 12/19/2018 10:47:43 AM PST by Swordmaker (My pistol self-identifies as an iPad, so you must accept it in gun-free zones, you hoplaphobe bigot)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

Pull all security off the courts


56 posted on 12/19/2018 10:47:47 AM PST by BookmanTheJanitor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bonemaker

That “Serve and Protect” simply means we serve ourselves and protect each other.

Having left Chicago I know what it really means.


57 posted on 12/19/2018 10:50:22 AM PST by JayAr36 (Organized Crime is now in charge of the District of Corruption)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: blueyon

It’s totally insane. I read that a lower court said they did have a duty to protect (and not just stand outside listening to the screaming) but obviously the leftist judicial establishment strikes again. This should be appealed, if there’s the money to do so.

Otherwise, do a go fund me. I’d contribute...


58 posted on 12/19/2018 10:51:22 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No Socialist
, but why have security on campus if they aren’t going to protect the kids?

So that cops who have outlived their usefulness as street cops and are too stupid to become detectives can work out their last few years doing nothing on the taxpayer’s dime and maximize their pensions.

59 posted on 12/19/2018 10:52:22 AM PST by P-Marlowe (Freep mail me if you want to be on my Fingerstyle Acoustic Guitar Ping List)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: BookmanTheJanitor

I disagree with many posters on this thread who claim this is long-settled law. School is mandatory and students have been arrested for truancy. That fact is not consistent with a decision that claims stidents “are not in custody”. Either you have to be in school (which brings back a constitutional duty to protect) or you don’t (which vacates all truancy charges).


60 posted on 12/19/2018 10:53:12 AM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson