Law Enforcement and Duty to Protect

[Matt Landfair]

"Judge rules LEOs, schools had no duty to protect students during Parkland shooting"

There seems to be some people upset with this and many jump to the conclusion "no duty to protect" removes the ability or desire for cops to respond and protect. It was established in 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court that law enforcement officers do not have a duty to protect others or plainly - risk their lives for others. That doesn't mean you can say all law enforcement officers will not protect others or risk their lives. There are still officers (I would venture to guess a good percentage) that will still run to the sound of gunfire.

In the current atmosphere we live, everything is safe and everyone gets a safe space - the 2005 ruling gave that safe space to cops who choose their own safety over the oath they took and the opportunity to serve in a greater capacity.

Our society is changing, our citizens are changing, naturally law enforcement and the officers themselves are also changing (yes, cops are citizens) - the job and officers are very different now compared to 20 years ago. Law Enforcement needs stronger leadership now to help the newer officers understand their roles as public servants and the importance of protecting those who can't protect themselves. There is nuance (positives and negatives) with our newest generation of police officers, and they have the potential to be far better than any of us ever have been. Don't give up hope for law enforcement. There are still good examples that lead and set positive standards for other officers.

-Matt

 

[PartyHardyMarty]

Is the current controversy stemming from the lack of accountability LEOs enjoy have experience in the courts? Referring to the shield govt employees have (sovereign immunity?)

When no one is held accountable for bad officers or bad acts, negative reactions are allowed to fester.. sometimes rightfully so, and sometimes not.
eg. the harris county sheriffs who stripped and cavity searched a college student on the side of the road.

 

[Matt Landfair]

Most I hear are complaining that cops are cowards and won't respond to anything dangerous due to this.

 

[PartyHardyMarty]

Oh yeah that's definitely true. Especially now that they have this arbitrary court ruling to rest on. I mean you yourself are already starting to sound more and more effeminate since you've taken on your new job..

 

[Phil Sturm]

In my opinion, accepting a paycheck to do the job of a police officer is tantamount to a legal contract. I would absolutely love a P&S episode on qualified immunity and duty to act. Also, my state has a statute for Failing to Render Aid to Law Enforcement. Maybe a DA could try to make that charge stick for an LEO who refused to obey an order.

 

[Hush]

I would be more comfortable with this acknowledgement by government if it meant they wouldn't also actively hinder the abilities of citizens to defend themselves as they currently do.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

 

[MaxwellSmart]

I can buy that the public at large, i.e. free to come and go, is not in any specialized relationship with police, and so there's no constitutional duty to protect there. So be it. Leave it up to the PDs or Sheriff departments to deal with an officer who chooses not to act.

But kids in a school are legally mandated to be there and if of appropriate age, legally required to disarm. What else is required to acknowledge a special relationship between those kids and the the local school district and their resource officers?

 

[Gypsy EDC]

Most I hear are complaining that cops are cowards and won't respond to anything dangerous due to this.

None of the cops I know personally could be called anything close to cowardly. However they tell me about a decent amount of leos that are in it for the check and bene's. Most people who are going to solve problems don't need a law telling them to do it, and most people who are buck passers would have figured out a way to avoid any responsibility taking or consequences.

I find it sobering that it was even a wake-up call for some people to find out cops don't have a legal obligation to protect you.

In my world we call that common sense. You are responsible for you...

 

[Gypsy EDC]

I can buy that the public at large, i.e. free to come and go, is not in any specialized relationship with police, and so there's no constitutional duty to protect there. So be it. Leave it up to the PDs or Sheriff departments to deal with an officer who chooses not to act.

But kids in a school are legally mandated to be there and if of appropriate age, legally required to disarm. What else is required to acknowledge a special relationship between those kids and the the local school district and their resource officers?

My kids go to school in their living room, their teachers are rolling heavy and would merrily burn the f@#king world down to save them...
I don't worry much...

 

[Gypsy EDC]

"Judge rules LEOs, schools had no duty to protect students during Parkland shooting"

There seems to be some people upset with this and many jump to the conclusion "no duty to protect" removes the ability or desire for cops to respond and protect. It was established in 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court that law enforcement officers do not have a duty to protect others or plainly - risk their lives for others. That doesn't mean you can say all law enforcement officers will not protect others or risk their lives. There are still officers (I would venture to guess a good percentage) that will still run to the sound of gunfire.

In the current atmosphere we live, everything is safe and everyone gets a safe space - the 2005 ruling gave that safe space to cops who choose their own safety over the oath they took and the opportunity to serve in a greater capacity.

Our society is changing, our citizens are changing, naturally law enforcement and the officers themselves are also changing (yes, cops are citizens) - the job and officers are very different now compared to 20 years ago. Law Enforcement needs stronger leadership now to help the newer officers understand their roles as public servants and the importance of protecting those who can't protect themselves. There is nuance (positives and negatives) with our newest generation of police officers, and they have the potential to be far better than any of us ever have been. Don't give up hope for law enforcement. There are still good examples that lead and set positive standards for other officers.

-Matt

One of my good friends dad is writing a book about the difference in his generation and his sons generation of law enforcement. He started on the job in the early 70's in the Bay area and raised 2 cops out of 3 boys.

 

[Fatboy]

While the ruling states police have no obligation to protect a single person (absent a special relationship), I would say that being an SRO at a school is the definition of a special relationship. And along with that are several responsibilities that are inherent.

As far as qualified immunity, that's a crock. There are several factors for QI to apply, chief among them is acting within the law, department policies, and scope of training/ employment. Violate those guidelines and you get no QI.

 

[davel501]

This whole mass shooter response thing is a mess.

I do not expect an LEO to jump in front of a bullet for me or any member of my family. I do expect them to locate the threat, direct other officers in and engage in a non-suicidal manner.

I believe that whatever authority declares a gun free zone should be liable for the safety of everyone that is within it. If a particular state says no weapons on school property they should have to provide enough security to prevent anyone from being harmed or be subject to civil suits.

The impression I get from news articles (https://abc7chicago.com/midlothian-police-officer-shoots-bouncer-at-robbins-night-club/4667261/ and https://www.denverpost.com/2018/11/24/hoover-alabama-mall-shooting-wrong-man-killed/) and training is that LEOs responding to a shooting see it as a free fire zone where everyone with a gun gets a bullet. It seems there is a bit of chest thumping in the gun community where people say they will take on an active shooter even though they know responding officers will "burn them down". There was actually a great post shared the other day (sorry no link at the moment) that actually talked about telling good guys from bad and how some officers are being trained to distinguish the two. There ought to be some procedure for handling this that is clear and pushed out to everyone via police training, concealed carry courses, the NRA media channels, social media, etc. so there is no excuse for not knowing. I'm not the guy to say where the right balance of safety for all parties lies, but that article did a pretty good job of saying "these people should not be shot" and "act like this if you don't want to be shot". Right now there is minimal training out there available to the concealed carry community short of cowboy up and prepare to be shot.

I guess through all of this, the underlying question is when did self defense become someone else's job? We should look at things from the perspective of self defense is your own job first and govern accordingly. Right now we expect people to sit patiently and wait for rescue, condemning a certain percentage of the population to death every year.

 

[Ryan St.Jean]

"Judge rules LEOs, schools had no duty to protect students during Parkland shooting"

"Judge rules LEOs, schools had no duty to protect students during Parkland shooting"

There seems to be some people upset with this and many jump to the conclusion "no duty to protect" removes the ability or desire for cops to respond and protect. It was established in 2005 by the U.S. Supreme Court that law enforcement officers do not have a duty to protect others or plainly - risk their lives for others. That doesn't mean you can say all law enforcement officers will not protect others or risk their lives. There are still officers (I would venture to guess a good percentage) that will still run to the sound of gunfire.

In the current atmosphere we live, everything is safe and everyone gets a safe space - the 2005 ruling gave that safe space to cops who choose their own safety over the oath they took and the opportunity to serve in a greater capacity.

-Matt

I am pro cop unless they are doing bad stuff. The reality is cops are almost always reactive. They show up after events happen, take a report and to some degree or another try to find the bad guys.

It’s not that cops don’t want to help people, the vast majority do. It’s simply a numbers game, there are only so many cops and it takes time for them to respond. So while cops, with very few exceptions, do their best normal folks have to protect themselves.

I don’t think this perspective makes me anti law enforcement it is just recognizing reality.

 

[Erick Gelhaus]

The "no duty to protect" issue did not start with the egregious failures at Parkland. A 2005 SCOTUS ruling off of a 1999 event is discussed here: https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

And there is the 1981 ruling in Warren v. Distict of Columbia, ruling here: https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1981/79-6-3.html

PartyHartyMarty, I think the phrase you're looking for is Qualified Immunity and then there is its cousin Qualified Immunity. There is a significant difference is how they are applied from one circuit to another.

Very rarely will everyone be on the same about an event. There's a SCOTUS ruling on a use of force case that resulted in a parapelgic suspect. Dash cam video was involved. SCOTUS ruled for the cop. A major university's law review took the video and did a pretty decent study on it. Based on demographics, there were significant differences in how the public viewed what they saw.