Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Yes, talking out your ass. Your cop buddy told you, you didn’t believe him?
The cop in question was fired, that should tell you something.
Armed Officers at Schools?
- Thread starter seven
- Start date
Yes, talking out your ass. Your cop buddy told you, you didn’t believe him?
The cop in question was fired, that should tell you something.
While 'the police' as a whole are under no obligation to protect any particular person, most agencies make it a requirement of the job. After Columbine, tactics with school shootings changed and the expectation is that the first arriving unit searches out and engages the shooter rather than waiting for backup. As this deputy found out, his boss expected him to do just that, and at the end of that day that's all that matters for his future employment.
black dog
Free America
Back to what I said, post up some oaths from different departments in the US instead of your narrow opinion. Post how many Dept have to wait until a total of three officers are on the scene before they start to clear and engage a known shooter.
Post the dept that require the one Officer to enter the building with a shooter in progress... I posted law... You haven't posted sh!t..
Lots of discussion and info here..
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the%20police%20response%20to%20active%20shooter%20incidents%202014.pdf
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the%20police%20response%20to%20active%20shooter%20incidents%202014.pdf
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
You posted a decision, not a law, and it doesn’t apply in this case. No one is talking about litigation.
Since you are so interested maybe you can post up the BSO oath or training that says ‘cower until the crime is over’
Like I said, they guy getting canned SHOULD tell you all you need to know.
actually he resigned.
seven
New Member
Forcefully
That may have come in time, however for right now he was only being threatened with suspension.
black dog
Free America
Obviously you didn't read Warren,. And I certainly can't help you understand it.
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
black dog
Free America
But for some reason you still haven't posted any LE oaths that have what you say in it.
One would think that it would be very easy to produce..
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
Again, warren is not applicable as the police in that case were not actually witness to the crime.
Hey dumbass, even your own police buddy told you I am right. Your buddy told you they take an oath. Are you calling your friend a liar?
black dog
Free America
Dumbass.... Lol...
Took a oath? I took a oath in the boy scouts but it had nothing about running into gunfire. I took another oath at meps and I don't recall it having a part where you run up the hill charging a machinegun nest.
What I posted is within the oath that's taken with our huge police force of 11 officers.
That's including the Asst chief and the chief of the dept..
What happens at this Dept certainly doesn't happen at all departments.
If you believe that all departments have the same oaths and code of ethics you're narrower between the ears than I think.
PsyOps
Pixelated
I'm not sure what sort of hairs you're splitting here, but to one degree you're right that police are not charged to protect us, in the sense of what a bodyguard does. But they are charged to protect society in enforcing the law. Here is an example of the mandate/code of ethics demands of our police:
I would imagine this is consistent across our police forces nationwide. Through responding to crimes, they are protecting the innocent from those criminals. Our police are the wall of protection from the criminal elements.
Addressing cops' confusion over 'the public duty doctrine'
Proper training on the principles of the public duty doctrine and how it applies to police officers is essential to avoid liability on the part of the department and officers
Confusion and Conflict
As a general rule, an individual has no duty to come to the aid of another. A person who has not created, by his words or deeds, a danger to another, is not liable for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act.2 The application of these general principles in the area of law enforcement and other police activities has produced some confusion and conflict. The confusion is further exacerbated by widely-held misconceptions concerning the duty owed by police to individual members of the general public.3
By becoming a police officer, an individual does not give up his right to the protection of these general principles. A police officer does not “assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.”4
Following these general principles, “California courts have found no duty of care and have denied liability ‘for injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.’”5
The concept of a lack of any special duty owed to any individual member of society who is in need of assistance often flies in the face of law enforcement professionals who have taken an oath of office to “protect and defend.” The oath of office for law enforcement officers, however, as required by the California Constitution, does not mandate duty to an individual.6 Rather, the oath cites the support and defense of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California “against all enemies foreign and domestic.”7
An officer’s misconception of his duty owed to the individual, however, may cause that officer to believe he has no choice but to provide assistance in the matter. While the officer is under no legal obligation to render aid to any one individual, once that officer decides to render aid to a victim, a special relationship may be established that produces a duty to an individual.
Examples from Case Law
Federal and State case law provide, for example, that:
Proper training on the principles of the public duty doctrine and how it applies to police officers is essential to avoid liability on the part of the department and officers
Confusion and Conflict
As a general rule, an individual has no duty to come to the aid of another. A person who has not created, by his words or deeds, a danger to another, is not liable for failure to take affirmative action to assist or protect another unless there is some relationship between them which gives rise to a duty to act.2 The application of these general principles in the area of law enforcement and other police activities has produced some confusion and conflict. The confusion is further exacerbated by widely-held misconceptions concerning the duty owed by police to individual members of the general public.3
By becoming a police officer, an individual does not give up his right to the protection of these general principles. A police officer does not “assume any greater obligation to others individually. The only additional duty undertaken by accepting employment as a police officer is the duty owed to the public at large.”4
Following these general principles, “California courts have found no duty of care and have denied liability ‘for injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.’”5
The concept of a lack of any special duty owed to any individual member of society who is in need of assistance often flies in the face of law enforcement professionals who have taken an oath of office to “protect and defend.” The oath of office for law enforcement officers, however, as required by the California Constitution, does not mandate duty to an individual.6 Rather, the oath cites the support and defense of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California “against all enemies foreign and domestic.”7
An officer’s misconception of his duty owed to the individual, however, may cause that officer to believe he has no choice but to provide assistance in the matter. While the officer is under no legal obligation to render aid to any one individual, once that officer decides to render aid to a victim, a special relationship may be established that produces a duty to an individual.
Examples from Case Law
Federal and State case law provide, for example, that:
• a police officer’s failure, upon stopping an automobile, to advise the passenger to leave the vehicle and find other transportation was not an actionable breach of duty to the passenger10
• an officer owed no duty of care to a tow truck driver struck by a passing vehicle while working an accident scene because the officer did not create or increase the risk of harm that led to the injuries11
• no duty existed where a police officer, upon responding to a disturbance, confiscated a gun that was later returned to the individual through department procedure and was used sometime thereafter to shoot the complainant because the initial seizure of the weapon did not establish a special relationship with complainant that would continue indefinitely12
• a police officer owed no duty to order an accident victim who had sustained a spinal injury not to leave the scene13
• police officers who recognized an assailant as a likely perpetrator of a prior assault, and conducted surveillance of assailant in a Laundromat in which the victim was present, did not establish a special relationship between the officers and the victim to impose a duty on the officers to protect the victim from the assailant14
• a police officer, who stopped a motorcyclist for speeding but did not perform field sobriety test, had no legal duty to use due care to recognize signs of intoxication and prevent the motorcyclist from continuing to drive, and therefore, was not liable when the driver was involved in an accident ten minutes later15
• an officer owed no duty of care to a tow truck driver struck by a passing vehicle while working an accident scene because the officer did not create or increase the risk of harm that led to the injuries11
• no duty existed where a police officer, upon responding to a disturbance, confiscated a gun that was later returned to the individual through department procedure and was used sometime thereafter to shoot the complainant because the initial seizure of the weapon did not establish a special relationship with complainant that would continue indefinitely12
• a police officer owed no duty to order an accident victim who had sustained a spinal injury not to leave the scene13
• police officers who recognized an assailant as a likely perpetrator of a prior assault, and conducted surveillance of assailant in a Laundromat in which the victim was present, did not establish a special relationship between the officers and the victim to impose a duty on the officers to protect the victim from the assailant14
• a police officer, who stopped a motorcyclist for speeding but did not perform field sobriety test, had no legal duty to use due care to recognize signs of intoxication and prevent the motorcyclist from continuing to drive, and therefore, was not liable when the driver was involved in an accident ten minutes later15
black dog
Free America
Just making the simple case that LE is under NO Obligation to run towards gunfire.
Just because some oaths and code of ethics state like you posted " and the peaceful against violence " doesn't mean that's going to happen with all officers.
How many times every week on Cops and Live PD do officers not engage until at least another cruiser or four show up to back them up?
But yet no one is outraged about it.. how many bar fights or domestic calls are on TV just this week where multiple officers stage outside or next door until there is a gaggle of police to take control of the call.
Are there loads of officers that would have run into that school... Certainly there is.
But it takes a special person to do that... Alone...
One would think that's why their are response teams for situations just like this..
Midnightrider
Well-Known Member
The example you posted supports what I am
Saying. So does the information I posted earlier about what police are trained to do in the event of a school shooting like this.
black dog
Free America
It certainly doesn't represent anywhere near Nationwide LE.. And we still don't know what training this Deputy has been given.. we have no clue at all.
He very easily could have been taught to wait until the boys in the black Kevlar arrive.
It very well could be the Sheriff tossing this Deputy under the bus to keep the witch hunt off himself.
And to think that all departments teach and train the same is disingenuous at best.
Our new officers don't go to a academy at all, all field officers are qualified for different parts of training a new recruit. All of them are FTO... Not many Dept do that..
Last edited:
PsyOps
Pixelated
I'm beginning to get your point. Every circumstance has to be weighed to determine if it's even feasible to rush in. But, if a cop decides not to act, he better have a good reason not to, or he'll be serving fries at McD's. The security guy at this school was going to be fired. He resigned. He knew he did it wrong. He's going to have to live with the burden of doing nothing, which was counter to the purpose he was there, for the rest of his life.
It's does no good quibble over the minute details over how police react to a situation, but they are obligated to do something when a crime is committed. Whether it's to rush into the gun fire alone or wait for backup, they are required to do something to protect the innocent. They cannot simply walk away from a crime. In that frame, they are hired to protect us.