Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

[Ernie M]

SuburbanTurkey: Good, valid points.

ponderingturtle: If police actions were "discretionary," there would be no actionable items against the police. But...police failed to follow explicitly spelled-out doctrine in the *required* "Active Shooter Response for School-Based Law Enforcement" course by TCOLE (Texas Commission on Law Enforcement).

That doesn't matter. In the court case that everyone cites as the basis for police having no duty to act to help you, there was a state law required the police to enforce domestic violence restraining orders. They blew off this one woman who was complaining about her ex abducting their kids against a restraining order. Ended up with him killing their three daughters and engaging in a gunfight with the cops.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales

By the standards of that case it is still discretionary. We had the dead kids from cop inaction before and it did not create an active requirement for cops to do anything.

ponderingturtle, Thank you for the correction. I believed police or their governmental agency would be held accountable for failing the public duty doctrine. While certain police failed to act on explicitly spelled-out issues in their police training doctrine, doctrine isn't law.

I inferred there could have been instances of negligence due to promise of protection and failure to administer aid to the injured.

I (wrongly?!) believed an exception to the public duty doctrine was created because I believed there was failure to enforce the law (not 'just' failure to follow active-shooter training doctrine), failure to act on the rescue doctrine, and failure to protect a specific person due to "special relationship."

For me, one example of "special relationship" I though could be if a student called 911 for help, saying they were shot, (by Salvador Rolando Ramos)...and there was a negligent response.

Another example for me is if police on site yelled out to ask if someone needed help or where they were, and a (child) student replied back to the police–and Salvador Rolando Ramos knew it–which resulted in Ramos shooting that specific student dead.

I will find it appalling if there's no accountability for flawed police actions/inactions. I'm having a hard time digesting the finding in the case you cited "Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales," that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. (I cut and pasted a lot of that from Wikipedia).

Police and government agencies generally 'enjoy' a form of sovereign immunity. Granted, a full report has yet to be made public of what happened May 24, 2022, involving the Robb Elementary School shooting.

 

[Stellafane]

I don't get the point of "the door was propped open" discussion. Is that the NRA equivalent of "she was asking for it"?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I don't get the point of "the door was propped open" discussion. Is that the NRA equivalent of "she was asking for it"?

Pretty much. It sits sort of halfway between that and reaching for anything to counts as a distraction.

 

[shemp]

I don't get the point of "the door was propped open" discussion. Is that the NRA equivalent of "she was asking for it"?

The school was such a filthy slut.

 

[shemp]

"I was hired as a cop to write tickets, eat doughnuts, and shoot black men. Nobody told me I might have to risk my life!"

 

[JoeMorgue]

"I was hired as a cop to write tickets, eat doughnuts, and shoot black men. Nobody told me I might have to risk my life!"

"Why did you shoot the unarmed black men the second he reached for his wallet after you pointed a gun at him and demanded he show you his ID?"
"Well I feared for my life!"
"Okay then why didn't you do... like anything while an entire room full of school children were gunned down."
"Well I feared for my life!"
"Okay then what good are you?"

 

[Beelzebuddy]

"Why did you shoot the unarmed black men the second he reached for his wallet after you pointed a gun at him and demanded he show you his ID?"
"Well I feared for my life!"
"Okay then why didn't you do... like anything while an entire room full of school children were gunned down."
"Well I feared for my life!"
"Okay then what good are you?"

He's alive, ain't he?

 

[Rolfe]

Someone posted an image on twitter of a press release sent out by the police in which I failed to see any expression of regret or sympathy or horror that 21 people had been shot dead, but ended with the complacent comment that the department was very gratified that no policeman had sustained life-threatening injuries.

 

[shemp]

Someone posted an image on twitter of a press release sent out by the police in which I failed to see any expression of regret or sympathy or horror that 21 people had been shot dead, but ended with the complacent comment that the department was very gratified that no policeman had sustained life-threatening injuries.

Is this the one you saw, or is there another one?

 

[crescent]

It feels like several of those people could sell a few of those guns and buy some actual furniture for the insides of their houses.

Also, this photo:

[qimg]https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FT1tpgAWYAErWC9?format=jpg&name=medium[/qimg]

...just feels incredibly sketchy, it looks like one of those clearly photoshopped 3D renders you see on Zillow listings for high-rise condos.

The gun fetish, for many, is essentially religious in nature.

Way back when people with money and space would build chapels into their houses. That guy is in his chapel showing off his religious icons.

After the Stoneman-Douglas shooting, some activists made videos of themselves destroying their guns. The Gundamentalists went absolutely bonkers over that, exactly as one would react to the desecration of a religious object. Pooping on a Koran would not upset Muslims as much as a woman cutting apart a gun upset the gun nuts.

 

[Rolfe]

Is this the one you saw, or is there another one?

It seems to me that is not the same one, but I acknowledge that my memory may simply be faulty. My memory is of a shorter missive, with little to nothing about the victims, and the thing about the lack of police casualties was nearly at the end of the text.

But I could be wrong.

 

[shemp]

It seems to me that is not the same one, but I acknowledge that my memory may simply be faulty. My memory is of a shorter missive, with little to nothing about the victims, and the thing about the lack of police casualties was nearly at the end of the text.

But I could be wrong.

You could be right, there's three different police forces involved, one for the county, one for the town and one for the school district. The one I posted was from the Uvalde Police Dept., you probably saw one from the school district department.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I will find it appalling if there's no accountability for flawed police actions/inactions. I'm having a hard time digesting the finding in the case you cited "Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales," that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband. (I cut and pasted a lot of that from Wikipedia).

Keep in mind that Colorado had a specific law that required police to enforce restraining orders. This is from the supreme court decision.

"The critical language in the restraining order came not from any part of the order itself (which was signed by the state-court trial judge and directed to the restrained party, respondent’s husband), but from the preprinted notice to law-enforcement personnel that appeared on the back of the order. See supra, at 2–3. That notice effectively restated the statutory provision describing “peace officers’ duties” related to the crime of violation of a restraining order. At the time of the conduct at issue in this case, that provision read as follows:

 “(a) Whenever a restraining order is issued, the protected person shall be provided with a copy of such order. A peace officer shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order.

 “(b) A peace officer shall arrest, or, if an arrest would be impractical under the circumstances, seek a warrant for the arrest of a restrained person when the peace officer has information amounting to probable cause that:

 “(I) The restrained person has violated or attempted to violate any provision of a restraining order; and

 “(II) The restrained person has been properly served with a copy of the restraining order or the restrained person has received actual notice of the existence and substance of such order.

 “(c) In making the probable cause determination described in paragraph (b) of this subsection (3), a peace officer shall assume that the information received from the registry is accurate. A peace officer shall enforce a valid restraining order whether or not there is a record of the restraining order in the registry.” Colo. Rev. Stat. §18–6–803.5(3) (Lexis 1999) (emphases added)."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278

As a side note the other big case that involves establishing you can't sue public officials for being derilict in their professional duties also involves a dead child, one that CPS failed to remove from an abusive father.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeShaney_v._Winnebago_County

Again the police and other law enforcement agencies can not be held accountable for failing to do their job.

 

[Stellafane]

I don't think one needs to "hate all cops" to recognise a huge problem in this case. Conversely, shouting "you only say that because you hate all cops" at people rightly pointing out the huge problem is not a good look.

And neither is "you haven't done this yourself, Keyboard Warrior, so you have no right to criticize." I frankly don't know how I would react if thrust into a situation so unlike anything else I've ever experienced. But that shouldn't prevent me from comparing how trained law enforcement reacted in this case to how similarly trained professionals previously acted in similar situations.

 

[Rolfe]

And neither is "you haven't done this yourself, Keyboard Warrior, so you have no right to criticize." I frankly don't know how I would react if thrust into a situation so unlike anything else I've ever experienced. But that shouldn't prevent me from comparing how trained law enforcement reacted in this case to how similarly trained professionals previously acted in similar situations.

I strongly suspect I would take what cover I could and stay there. However I did not voluntarily take a job I knew might require me to do something else, and in fact to exhibit bravery and put my life on the line to save someone else. I have never had any training about doing that either. These cops did.

It's not just a comparison with other similarly trained professionals either. There are numerous examples of untrained civilians caught up in such events who have displayed extraordinary courage and selflessness. Even children have risked their iives to try to save classmates. If a salaried cop can't manage a level of courage that a brave civilian will display, they should not be in that job.

 

[JoeMorgue]

And again "Then what the points of paying you and funding you if you aren't going to do anything" isn't exactly the same as "shame."

Even with the "I don't care that children die and I'm better than you because of it" swagger from some our more colorful characters you can look at it simply as an objective, cold, logical question of are using our resources wisely.

 

[Andy_Ross]

seeing pictures of people displaying their arsenals suggests that one of the arguments against gun regulation is wrong, namely that we can never reduce the amounts of guns in the country because there are too many already.
But it's not the case that every man, woman and child has a least one gun, it's that tiny minority buys themselves a new gun every opportunity they get.
my guesstimate is that if we were to limit the number of guns allowed to the number of adults in a household, we would get rid of 80% of all guns or more.

Why do you hate America?

 

[plague311]

I strongly suspect I would take what cover I could and stay there. However I did not voluntarily take a job I knew might require me to do something else, and in fact to exhibit bravery and put my life on the line to save someone else. I have never had any training about doing that either. These cops did.

The chief, Pete Arredondo, had just recently taken\completed classes in school shooting drills too, as in within a few months. So he should have had the most up-to-date information. There was no reason at all for him to chicken **** out and leave those kids all alone in there.

It's not just a comparison with other similarly trained professionals either. There are numerous examples of untrained civilians caught up in such events who have displayed extraordinary courage and selflessness. Even children have risked their iives to try to save classmates. If a salaried cop can't manage a level of courage that a brave civilian will display, they should not be in that job.

I wouldn't hold it against any civilian, ever, if they **** their pants and ran. I don't know what I'd do, I've been in a lot of terrible situations over my time and I think we'd all like to say we'd do something. As you said, though, these aren't regular civilians. They are specifically trained for situations just like these, and the fact they tucked tail is pathetic.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Worth pointing out that school shooters have already found a workaround for any such system.

One shooter pulled the fire alarm to get people out of classrooms. Even if you turn every school into a fortified bunker, you're just moving the shooting from inside to outside. A single entry point sounds like the perfect choke point to start blasting at while kids accumulate at the beginning or end of the school day.

https://fox8.com/news/live-video-officials-update-florida-school-shooting-investigation/

Because tomorrows school shooters are in school today, learning active shooter drill.
They know where the kids will hide, where the doors and alarms are.
They know what the drill is in their school, where the 'resource officer' is stationed and what he is armed with.

The enemy is already inside and the USA has chosen to arm them.

 

[Rolfe]

The chief, Pete Arredondo, had just recently taken\completed classes in school shooting drills too, as in within a few months. So he should have had the most up-to-date information. There was no reason at all for him to chicken **** out and leave those kids all alone in there.

I wouldn't hold it against any civilian, ever, if they **** their pants and ran. I don't know what I'd do, I've been in a lot of terrible situations over my time and I think we'd all like to say we'd do something. As you said, though, these aren't regular civilians. They are specifically trained for situations just like these, and the fact they tucked tail is pathetic.

Not just specifically trained, but they voluntarily took a job (and are taking the salary for that job) in which exhibiting courage in that situation was a job requirement.