Armed Officers at Schools?

seven

New Member
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel on Thursday said he has suspended without pay the school resource officer who was at the Parkland school where 17 people were shot dead.

Israel said school resource officer Scot Peterson took a position outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School but "never went in" as the onslaught occurred, citing security footage.

"In the case of Scot Peterson, our school resource deputy, I want to clarify any rumors, conjecture or stories that may have been out there," Israel said.

Israel said Peterson was "absolutely on campus," adding that he was armed and in uniform during the shooting.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...-474889753.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand
 

black dog

Free America
Like I have said here before, The police are here to uphold the law after the fact. They have no Duty to Protect you.
Read Warren v. District of Columbia
 

black dog

Free America
Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel on Thursday said he has suspended without pay the school resource officer who was at the Parkland school where 17 people were shot dead.

Israel said school resource officer Scot Peterson took a position outside of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School but "never went in" as the onslaught occurred, citing security footage.

"In the case of Scot Peterson, our school resource deputy, I want to clarify any rumors, conjecture or stories that may have been out there," Israel said.

Israel said Peterson was "absolutely on campus," adding that he was armed and in uniform during the shooting.

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/...-474889753.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand

Some men Saddle Up when its Show Time, Others stay outside... But understand that he had No Duty to go inside and face the shooter.
 

3CATSAILOR

Well-Known Member
Some men Saddle Up when its Show Time, Others stay outside... But understand that he had No Duty to go inside and face the shooter.

I don't know of anyone that can live with themselves to know that "children" are being shot to bits because you are too much of a "coward". You would be a discredit to the uniform and the profession you are in. Law Enforcement wears guns because they know they may need to use it one day. If they are too scared they don't need to be in this line of work. This guy resigned. I hope he can't still get his retirement even if he resigned. And I hope no other agency will hire this COWARD.
 

transporter

Well-Known Member
Some men Saddle Up when its Show Time, Others stay outside... But understand that he had No Duty to go inside and face the shooter.

Seems his boss disagrees with you:

The police officer assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School resigned Thursday, under investigation for failing to enter the building as a gunman opened fire and killed 17 people.

Sheriff Scott Israel said Deputy Scot Peterson should have “went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.”

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...g/fl-florida-shooting-sro-20180222-story.html

Seems the NRA disagrees with you as well:
Let’s get this straight. To protect our children at school, we recommend a trained professional with a gun.
(oh wait that is from 2013...oh well doesn't matter he gave the same damn speech today) http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/15/cpac-nra-wayne-lapierres-full-speech/2/

I was under the impression that the NRA's slogan for the ignorati was "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"...maybe Gilligan can enlighten us how that "good guy" stops the bad guy while cowering outside the building!?

Of course this is the same story we have seen played out over and over again. At a shooting in Wash state...two concealed carry "heroes" hid behind a stone wall while their fellow students were getting shot...in TX when that other 2A advocate was executing cops on the street....all the other law abiding 2a advocates were running away with their weapons strapped to their backs...

The only instance I am aware of where a civilian had any impact was at the church shooting in TX last fall...of course the shooter was already done slaughtering everyone...and the shooter should not have had the ability to buy the guns because he should have been flagged on the background check.

As for the idiotic idea of filling the school full of armed teachers (our incompetent President today advocated for 10-40% armed teachers), you morons don't want your tax dollars used to fix the heat in schools...your going to pay to have armed guards, teachers, or police marching down the halls of the schools? Come on...

This is idea is nothing more than an the ever present pitch by the NRA to boost the sales for those it really advocates for...gun manufacturers. It really is that simple...naturally this makes it beyond the comprehension level of those on here. Advocating the arming of everyone is the best way to support continued gun sales...continued high gun sales supports donations from gun manufacturers to the NRA...and good ole Wayne gets to continue to travel in first class and chauffer driven SUVs with the windows so dark he won't see the graveyards that are filling up with the bodies of the victims of his advocacy...after all, Wayne is just following Gilligan's mantra...who gives a sh1t about the consequences as long as I get my piece of the pie...
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Warren v. District of Columbia....
If you want someone to protect you, you hire someone that will engage if and when its necessary..
But understand its not the police or sheriff's responsibility to protect you.
I didn’t say anything about protecting anyone. He is a law officer and there is an active crime being committed. He has a duty to stop an ongoing crime if he is aware of it.
What if he just peed his pants and hid? Like you would...or seven would..

You got an awful big mouth for such a pussy
 

black dog

Free America
I don't know of anyone that can live with themselves to know that "children" are being shot to bits because you are too much of a "coward". You would be a discredit to the uniform and the profession you are in. Law Enforcement wears guns because they know they may need to use it one day. If they are too scared they don't need to be in this line of work. This guy resigned. I hope he can't still get his retirement even if he resigned. And I hope no other agency will hire this COWARD.


Does this include any officer that calls for backup before engaging in any and all uncomfortable situations? Because that happens alot..
Does that include hiding behind a solid object when you are being shot at? Or should they just walk down the middle of the street like Detective Callahan?
Maybe this was the first time in his carrier that he encountered a shooter situation? And he decided this #### ain't for me.. I don't know...
 

black dog

Free America
I didn’t say anything about protecting anyone. He is a law officer and there is an active crime being committed. He has a duty to stop an ongoing crime if he is aware of it.

Ill say it again, No he doesn't... LE has No Duty at all.. So many folks believe that, Its on the side of so many LE cruisers... To Protect and Serve.... Its Bull#### and just not true..
 

black dog

Free America
Seems his boss disagrees with you:



http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...g/fl-florida-shooting-sro-20180222-story.html

Seems the NRA disagrees with you as well:
(oh wait that is from 2013...oh well doesn't matter he gave the same damn speech today) http://dailycaller.com/2013/03/15/cpac-nra-wayne-lapierres-full-speech/2/

I was under the impression that the NRA's slogan for the ignorati was "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun"...maybe Gilligan can enlighten us how that "good guy" stops the bad guy while cowering outside the building!?

Of course this is the same story we have seen played out over and over again. At a shooting in Wash state...two concealed carry "heroes" hid behind a stone wall while their fellow students were getting shot...in TX when that other 2A advocate was executing cops on the street....all the other law abiding 2a advocates were running away with their weapons strapped to their backs...

The only instance I am aware of where a civilian had any impact was at the church shooting in TX last fall...of course the shooter was already done slaughtering everyone...and the shooter should not have had the ability to buy the guns because he should have been flagged on the background check.

As for the idiotic idea of filling the school full of armed teachers (our incompetent President today advocated for 10-40% armed teachers), you morons don't want your tax dollars used to fix the heat in schools...your going to pay to have armed guards, teachers, or police marching down the halls of the schools? Come on...

This is idea is nothing more than an the ever present pitch by the NRA to boost the sales for those it really advocates for...gun manufacturers. It really is that simple...naturally this makes it beyond the comprehension level of those on here. Advocating the arming of everyone is the best way to support continued gun sales...continued high gun sales supports donations from gun manufacturers to the NRA...and good ole Wayne gets to continue to travel in first class and chauffer driven SUVs with the windows so dark he won't see the graveyards that are filling up with the bodies of the victims of his advocacy...after all, Wayne is just following Gilligan's mantra...who gives a sh1t about the consequences as long as I get my piece of the pie...

Thats Not the Law of the Land..Warren v. District of Columbia... If you want to be protected you hire someone that will walk forward... Like I have posted already, Some men saddle up, and some wait for others to arrive.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Warren v. District of Columbia....
If you want someone to protect you, you hire someone that will engage if and when its necessary..
But understand its not the police or sheriff's responsibility to protect you.

Ill say it again, No he doesn't... LE has No Duty at all.. So many folks believe that, Its on the side of so many LE cruisers... To Protect and Serve.... Its Bull#### and just not true..

I’ll say it again, no one is taking about protection, I am talking about a police officers duty to stop an ongoing crime.
 

black dog

Free America
Well then what's the point of having an ARMED officer then, if it's not his duty?

If he is there and is getting paid for it, that is his job.

Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.
 
Is this guy a police officer, or a rent-a-cop with a fansy title? If the latter, he does whatever his contract stipulates.
 

Midnightrider

Well-Known Member
Because the police have no general duty to protect individuals, judicial remedies are not available for their failure to protect. In other words, if someone is injured because they expected but did not receive police protection, they cannot recover damages by suing (except in very special cases, explained below). Despite a long history of such failed attempts, however, many, people persist in believing the police are obligated to protect them, attempt to recover when no protection was forthcoming, and are emotionally demoralized when the recovery fails. Legal annals abound with such cases.

Warren v. District of Columbia is one of the leading cases of this type. Two women were upstairs in a townhouse when they heard their roommate, a third woman, being attacked downstairs by intruders. They phoned the police several times and were assured that officers were on the way. After about 30 minutes, when their roommate's screams had stopped, they assumed the police had finally arrived. When the two women went downstairs they saw that in fact the police never came, but the intruders were still there. As the Warren court graphically states in the opinion: "For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of their attackers."

The three women sued the District of Columbia for failing to protect them, but D.C.'s highest court exonerated the District and its police, saying that it is a "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [4] There are many similar cases with results to the same effect. [5]

In the Warren case the injured parties sued the District of Columbia under its own laws for failing to protect them. Most often such cases are brought in state (or, in the case of Warren, D.C.) courts for violation of state statutes, because federal law pertaining to these matters is even more onerous. But when someone does sue under federal law, it is nearly always for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 (often inaccurately referred to as "the civil rights act"). Section 1983 claims are brought against government officials for allegedly violating the injured parties' federal statutory or Constitutional rights.

Warren does not apply to this case. The officer was on the scene and aware a crime was being committed. This has nothing to go with protecting anyone.
 
Top