Judge in Parkland shooting lawsuit rules police have no duty to protect students

[DenverGP]

Judge in Parkland shooting lawsuit rules police had no duty to protect students

This isn't a surprise, but it's going to get a lot of attention.

Another judge had made a similar ruling a few years ago regarding a woman who was murdered by a person she had a restraining order on.

In the earlier case, there was even more evidence of a duty to protect since she had a court order that the defendant was to be arrested if he violated the restraining order..

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/12/19/outrage-erupts-over-judges-stunning-ruling-in-suit-brought-by-parkland-victims-her-words-shocked-everyone-704820

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

[Irving]

Anti police groups will love this.

[drew890]

This should come as no surprise. There is plenty of case law supporting that the police have no legal duty to protect people.
So let us all remember that the Left only wants the police to possess guns, but they have no obligation to protect us.
Hmmmmmmmmm.......

[Irving]

Seems like it would be too easy to make the argument that without a duty to protect the people, no police activity can be justified. That's not really what anyone wants. Unfortunately this is a convoluted enough mess that I don't see it changing any time soon.

[buffalobo]

Judge in Parkland shooting lawsuit rules police had no duty to protect students

This isn't a surprise, but it's going to get a lot of attention.

Another judge had made a similar ruling a few years ago regarding a woman who was murdered by a person she had a restraining order on.

In the earlier case, there was even more evidence of a duty to protect since she had a court order that the defendant was to be arrested if he violated the restraining order..

https://www.bizpacreview.com/2018/12/19/outrage-erupts-over-judges-stunning-ruling-in-suit-brought-by-parkland-victims-her-words-shocked-everyone-704820

Link to a story about the earlier ruling:
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.htmlImagine that...

[Bailey Guns]

People try to sue the police for failure to protect on a frequent basis and the result, baring very special circumstances, is always the same. It doesn't work. Not only are they not required to protect individuals, they couldn't even if they wanted to. It's an impossible standard to meet.

[Zundfolge]

This has long been the precedent (which was first formalized in 1989 in the DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. case).

When you say it fast it sounds bad but if you think about it, if they ruled the other way then we'd see all levels of government bankrupted overnight as tens of millions of crime victims would sue for damages. Furthermore the purpose of the police has never been to protect the people, only to augment the people's own collective defense and to investigate crimes after they happen. A police capable of protecting you would have to be more oppressive than the guards in a maximum security prison to come close to doing their job.

I have no problem with this ruling as long as government doesn't also interfere with our ability to defend ourselves.

That said this deputy in Florida should hang his head in shame for the rest of his miserable life (which frankly should be shortened by his own hand if he had even a modicum of honor left). He should be treated worse than a child molester or someone who talks in the theater by society at large.

[Gman]

So, again, it's our duty to protect ourselves.

...and yet, there are those trying to prevent us from doing that. That's messed up. [sheepshagger]

[DavieD55]

So, again, it's our duty to protect ourselves.

...and yet, there are those trying to prevent us from doing that. That's messed up. [sheepshagger]




No...that's communism.

[O2HeN2]

This has long been the precedent (which was first formalized in 1989 in the DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. case).
Even earlier, 1978 Warren vs. DC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia).

"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists".

I would not be surprised of cases even before that.

O2

[Erni]

Even earlier, 1978 Warren vs. DC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia).

"the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists".

I would not be surprised of cases even before that.

O2
I think the judge is full on wrong. The cop had a special relationship, he was the SRO!

I think there is a bunch of people in Coward county that should suck start their service guns.

[Ridge]

Anti police groups will love this.

Pro gun folks should, too. This further supports the argument in favor of private gun ownership, as it reinforces that nobody is responsible for their protection, except themselves.

[BPTactical]

Garcia v Castle Rock

[roberth]

So, again, it's our duty to protect ourselves.

...and yet, there are those trying to prevent us from doing that. That's messed up. [sheepshagger]

Not only b/c of the lack of obligation but 911 response times.

Police write after action reports, we need to be prepared to hold out for 10 minutes or more then risk some 'crat or defense attorney suing us on behalf of the perp afterward.

[Rucker61]

Garcia v Castle Rock

Gonzales v Castle Rock.

[BPTactical]

Gonzales v Castle Rock.

I wuz close.....it started with G and was hispanic.

[SideShow Bob]

I wuz close.....it started with G and was hispanic.


https://youtu.be/FHjfC780Mm4