Armed school officer didn't engage shooter...but teachers would have, right?

[richard_daily]

man you all are wild how is me saying that there shouldnt be more guns and more pwerful guns giving anything up?

I asked what you believed, you said you had to go.

See you later.

 

[Rightguide]

Truth is Sheriff Israel ought to resign instead of trying to cover up the incompetence in his Office. 39 contacts with the shooter and nobody thinks about investigating his background, his weapon purchases or possession, and the fact that he was kicked out of school for bringing ammunition onto the school grounds? The bell was ringing but nobody was listening.

 

[Dribble]

Police are under no obligation to protect you.

This is the same across the country. Case law has established this.

Your protection is in your own hands. Would you prefer to have a book to protect you, or a gun?

But...teachers....they are? Holy fuck...think. Here little sarah...I know you are only 5, but here is your gun. Just shoot bad guys now OK?

 

[richard_daily]

But...teachers....they are? Holy fuck...think. Here little sarah...I know you are only 5, but here is your gun. Just shoot bad guys now OK?

You are ascribing positions to me that are not mine.

I have never stated that we should arm teachers. I do believe that those legally allowed to carry firearms should be allowed to do so in school, but I do not believe there should be any concerted effort to arm teachers.

I have stated my solution: universal health care, including comprehensive mental health care.

That is the thing that will most effectively stop a massacre like this one.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

I asked what you believed, you said you had to go.

See you later.

you asked questions that made no sense to what i said man. cops need to carry guns but the ar is too much.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

You are ascribing positions to me that are not mine.

I have never stated that we should arm teachers. I do believe that those legally allowed to carry firearms should be allowed to do so in school, but I do not believe there should be any concerted effort to arm teachers.

I have stated my solution: universal health care, including comprehensive mental health care.

That is the thing that will most effectively stop a massacre like this one.

Teachers are some unstable motherfuckers. Not sure giving them guns would work out well for anyone.

 

[BobaFetaCheese]

you asked questions that made no sense to what i said man. cops need to carry guns but the ar is too much.

Why? SWAT teams at the very least need them and often need bigger than that. Those teams are made up of street cops.
Gotta have 'em.

 

[richard_daily]

you asked questions that made no sense to what i said man. cops need to carry guns but the ar is too much.

Why do cops need to carry guns?

 

[ChinoMoreno]

Why do cops need to carry guns?

youre right you just convinced me that they dont

 

[ChinoMoreno]

i guess people from shit hole countries fear powerful weapons more than americans. could be from watching what that looks like.

 

[HisArpy]

Are you still pushing this bullshit distortion of state sovereign immunity and the public duty doctrine? If police are under NO obligation to protect you, then what was the legal basis for suspending the officer for "inaction" who subsequently retired?

Read this. Pay attention to page four, and by all means look up the state where you reside and compare it with the laws of other states. The absence of the right of an individual citizen to sue and recover monetary damages for police officer malfeasance DOES NOT equate to "NO obligation" to protect. (https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/STATE-GOVERNMENTAL-LIABILITY-IN-ALL-50-STATES-CHART-GLW-00211981.pdf)

Otherwise, the officer who failed to do his duty as an officer could have flipped off you, CNN and his chief and gone right back out to work collecting his paycheck.

I believe you're incorrect. This is a leading case on the subject:

Warren v. DC

Here's an article which runs along the top of the waves o the subject but is very good at explaining how/why the courts have stated there is no duty to protect.

NY times article

Contrary to your authority, there is also no legal liability for failing to do what they are not required to do.

 

[richard_daily]

youre right you just convinced me that they dont

I'm sorry that conversations are so hard for you.

Good luck in the future.

 

[HisArpy]

But...teachers....they are? Holy fuck...think. Here little sarah...I know you are only 5, but here is your gun. Just shoot bad guys now OK?

Little Sarah is a teacher? At 5 years old?

 

[ChinoMoreno]

I'm sorry that conversations are so hard for you.

Good luck in the future.

you cant put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend those words man

 

[richard_daily]

you asked questions that made no sense to what i said man. cops need to carry guns but the ar is too much.

Why do cops need to carry guns?

 

[HisArpy]

you cant put words in my mouth and then ask me to defend those words man

He's not. He's just wishing you good luck in your future endeavors. Hopefully they will be more fruitful than your current ones.

Quick, the short bus is already at your stop! You better hurry or you'll miss your turn to ride in the back seat.

 

[ChinoMoreno]

enjoy your police state! it works so well in other shit holes lol

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I believe you're incorrect. This is a leading case on the subject:

Warren v. DC

Here's an article which runs along the top of the waves o the subject but is very good at explaining how/why the courts have stated there is no duty to protect.

NY times article

Contrary to your authority, there is also no legal liability for failing to do what they are not required to do.

You're making EXACTLY the same mistake Richard Daily is making. You're confusing the lack of governmental and police legal FINANCIAL liability to INDIVIDUALS with a GENERAL "DUTY TO PERFORM" owed to the community as a whole and for which the officer can be disciplined up to and including termination from the government entity employing him. That is the only legal premise your cited case endorsed.

That distinction is not inconsequential.

 

[afriendg]

As a retired educator, I've worked with some of the best and brightest, and some of the woefully dull and lazy. Most of my colleagues were great people, and I can imagine quite a few of them shielding students with their own bodies, if that ever came to be. But you're talking about the large educational circus that is most schools in America today. Even if you carefully train a select few ( who do you choose?) for this duty, the extra responsibility they would have to carry all day would be enough to wear them down to an early retirement.
Educators are hired to educate, target practice shouldn't go along with those required Professional hours. All I know is, there will always be heroes, and many times they will be teachers. I'm proud to have been among them, but giving them guns is one of the worst ideas of all.

 

[richard_daily]

Why do cops need to carry guns?

enjoy your police state! it works so well in other shit holes lol

Cool story, bro.

 

[richard_daily]

You're making EXACTLY the same mistake Richard Daily is making. You're confusing the lack of governmental and police legal FINANCIAL liability to INDIVIDUALS with a GENERAL "DUTY TO PERFORM" owed to the community as a whole and for which the officer can be disciplined up to and including termination from the government entity employing him. That is the only legal premise your cited case endorsed.

That distinction is not inconsequential.

Did the officer get disciplined?

From what I've read, he retired with full benefits.

So no, there was no obligation to protect.

 

[HisArpy]

You're making EXACTLY the same mistake Richard Daily is making. You're confusing the lack of governmental and police legal FINANCIAL liability to INDIVIDUALS with a GENERAL "DUTY TO PERFORM" owed to the community as a whole and for which the officer can be disciplined up to and including termination from the government entity employing him. That is the only legal premise your cited case endorsed.

That distinction is not inconsequential.

You're trying to fit a generic premise into reality without actually doing the math.

The gov owes no duty of performance to any individual. They are liable for damages ONLY IF the gov allows it and/or the gov employee has been negligent in performing his duties.

There is NO negligence or liability to the public or any member of the public if the employee doesn't act and has NO OBLIGATION to act.

The officer in Parkland had no obligation to act for any individual's safety at the school. There is no liability for his inaction. That he could be disciplined does not impose liability. Discipline is an internal matter between the employee and the employing entity. The officer chose to resign rather than face that discipline. That resignation does not create ANY liability on the part of the employing entity because they chose to accept his resignation in lieu of discipline.

The Gov doesn't have to protect you. If they don't, they are NOT liable for not protecting you. Not legally, not financially, not morally. The ONLY person or entity who has a legal, financial, and moral obligation to protect you; is you.

 

[HisArpy]

As a retired educator, I've worked with some of the best and brightest, and some of the woefully dull and lazy. Most of my colleagues were great people, and I can imagine quite a few of them shielding students with their own bodies, if that ever came to be. But you're talking about the large educational circus that is most schools in America today. Even if you carefully train a select few ( who do you choose?) for this duty, the extra responsibility they would have to carry all day would be enough to wear them down to an early retirement.
Educators are hired to educate, target practice shouldn't go along with those required Professional hours. All I know is, there will always be heroes, and many times they will be teachers. I'm proud to have been among them, but giving them guns is one of the worst ideas of all.

Selection would be based upon training criteria. Everyone would be welcome to apply, but the training is not simple or easy. Those who don't make the cut, don't get certified. Simple selection on who does, and who doesn't.

There is no "extra responsibility" to carrying a weapon for someone who does so outside of his job already. The ONLY reason these individual don't carry on the job is because they are being prevented from doing so. By the very people who are now screaming for more protection for the kids yet STILL will not let these teachers have the tools to do just that.

You trust teachers to educate your kids. You trust them to discipline your kids when the kids deserve it. You trust them to engage in after school activities with your kids. You trust them to help you guide your kids to adulthood. You trust them.. Until they need to protect those same kids. At that point those EXACT SAME TEACHERS become "incompetent" and "dangerous" and "untrustworthy". What's that say about your logical thinking?

Teachers are either worth your trust or they are not. Those who aren't worthy, shouldn't be teachers.

 

[OldJourno]

Suuuuure.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...urce-officer-never-went-school-during-n850441

Union rep says the school cop did a good job.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You're trying to fit a generic premise into reality without actually doing the math.

The gov owes no duty of performance to any individual. They are liable for damages ONLY IF the gov allows it and/or the gov employee has been negligent in performing his duties.

There is NO negligence or liability to the public or any member of the public if the employee doesn't act and has NO OBLIGATION to act.

The officer in Parkland had no obligation to act for any individual's safety at the school. There is no liability for his inaction. That he could be disciplined does not impose liability. Discipline is an internal matter between the employee and the employing entity. The officer chose to resign rather than face that discipline. That resignation does not create ANY liability on the part of the employing entity because they chose to accept his resignation in lieu of discipline.

The Gov doesn't have to protect you. If they don't, they are NOT liable for not protecting you. Not legally, not financially, not morally. The ONLY person or entity who has a legal, financial, and moral obligation to protect you; is you.

And you and Daily are prostituting the math of a very specific legal equation to fit a generic legal premise.

Why do you keep pretending I am making an argument I am NOT making? I've never said that the generic duty to the public as defined by the police department's training and policies CREATES LIABILITY TO AN INDIVIDUAL. IT DOES NOT. PERIOD. Yes, case law on this subject is clear.

But you're nuts if you think "discipline [as an] internal matter" strips it of any legal significance. If someone can fire you from your $50,000 a year job, wouldn't it matter to you whether or not your employer's action in so doing was LEGAL? What if discipline at your company consisted of your supervisor stopping by your desk and ramming a pipe up your ass every time you fucked up? Would the fact that it was "an internal matter" remove the legal consequences of the act he was performing?

Police are hired to protect the community as a whole and individuals within that community. The fact that that duty and obligation does NOT take the form of financial liability to those same individuals when they fail does NOT obliterate every reasonable understanding of the words "duty" and "obligation." It ONLY obliterates it in the form of generic civil financial liability.

And I've never said anything different. No matter how many times you rephrase the same argument.