While that's true... if that is how the department defends itself, then they should all be kicked out (Sheriff voted out at the next election, new incomer fires the captain and deputies).
School shooting Florida
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
- Status
While that's true... if that is how the department defends itself, then they should all be kicked out (Sheriff voted out at the next election, new incomer fires the captain and deputies).
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 27,487
But he is not suing Nikolas Cruz?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Baa, next time having armed police officers on the scene of a mass shooting will matter. Sure. Just like Pulse would prove the last time the armed guard at the venue would run away then too.
When will people learn that having armed police officers on premises just doesn't work. It didn't work at the Pulse shooting and it didn't work here.
Finster
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 1,208
Just because it's not a constitutional duty does that mean it can't be a state or local legal, or job requirement?
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Maybe but I am sure no state would ever dream of holding police accountable for their refusal to protect people.
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
I can't research it ATM, but I think the court's ruling(s) was to head off suits regarding response times.
The cops can't protect everyone, everywhere, all the time.
Once you're on the scene however... that's a whole other kettle of fish.
Jim_MDP
Philosopher
eta: I seem to recall this goes back a couple of decades.
(I picture it as a predominately rural issue, but it could apply to dense urban areas as well. Or I could be mis-remembering the entire thing.
)
(I picture it as a predominately rural issue, but it could apply to dense urban areas as well. Or I could be mis-remembering the entire thing.
)LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I have never heard of any explanation of why the off duty officer at Pulse who "engaged" Mateen before he got into the club, was unable to kill him. They exchanged gunfire with apparently no result on either side. Gruler must have failed to hit Mateen, an all too common occurrence with police officers.
Gruler was joined by two other officers, and all three fired at Mateen, also apparently without hitting him. Mateen apparently also could not hit them.
One wonders what their bullets were hitting?
If the security guards can't hit a man at 10 yards, I guess they might as well not be there to defend the place.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
I can't remember it ever being put down as a state or local law.
I would guess that you would lose in a state court as well if you argued that the police did not do their jobs.
Maybe you'd win a civil trial.
https://www.policeone.com/police-jo...cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
lobosrul5
Philosopher
Well, not if a state wrote a statute stating such. I don't think such a law would contradict the US Constitution. I'm sure there are plenty of other civilian jobs where refusal to go into danger would lose them their job. Smoke jumpers comes to mind.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Oh sure you can fire someone for refusing to shoot a fleeing suspect in a car to protect police cars from body damage. That goes with out saying. But the issue is can a victim of say stray rounds fired by police in the above situation have any suit. Of course not.
I'm pretty sure that they could here, and Health and Safety laws.
lobosrul5
Philosopher
But but, we can't hold police accountable for anything or they might not respond when its dangerous, except they have no duty to put themselves in danger
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
But you are unlikely to open fire on someone during a low speed chase anyway.
That's not the point. I am pretty sure that in any circumstances the police can be sued (or at least be required to pay compensation) if they endanger the life of innocent non-participants.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
But but, we can't hold police accountable for anything or they might not respond when its dangerous, except they have no duty to put themselves in danger
They can also get fired for failing to gun someone down when they had a chance, instead of talking them into surrendering peacefully.
As far as drunk shootings (accidental or deliberate), I think it is pretty important.
Loaded guns are obviously a problem for accidental shootings - for example when toddlers shoot people.
I'd guess that they'd make impulsive shootings - someone drunk loses their rag and picks up a gun. The act of stopping to find ammunition would probably stop some people.
When I described US gun owners as ordinary citizens who are allowed to keep guns and bullets in their own home, I did not of course mean that all these people must actually "own" that property in the sense having completely paid for it.
If & when I described them as "US homeowners", then that was just a shorthand way of talking about all the private US citizens who are living continuously in some relatively fixed address/building where they they also keep their guns in that same home building (and by "continuously" I just mean as distinct from homeless, or relatively homeless, or itinerant people, who for whatever reason have no fixed place in which they normally live from one day to the next ...
... when & if described them as "homeowners", I am just using that single word, “homeowner”, to avoid spelling out the above description every time that I want to talk about citizens in the USA who own guns and bullets that they have paid for and which they keep year-in-year out in the same building where they live each day & night in the same rooms of that same building.
And when I just said above (twice) "when & if" I described them as "homeowners, I am just highlighting the fact that if you have read my posts here (as I'm sure you have), you will see that I have also refereed to the same people as "US gun owners who keep their guns and bullets in their own private homes" (where of course I mean the homes or accommodation where they live).
You might just as well question my terminology when I call them "private citizens" or "ordinary citizens" - you might ask in a critical way "in what way are they private or ordinary?" ... and again I just mean normal members of the US public, as opposed to individuals who may be required to carry or keep firearms for some legal reasons or some reasons of specific specialised employment. It's just a shorthand expression to avoid spelling it out every time, to call them "private ordinary citizens".
- Status