
Judge Sides with Police in Parkland Slaying: LEO Has No Duty to Protect Students - wallace_f
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-ruling-police.html
======
JumpCrisscross
Headline obscures that there were two decisions.

A federal judge said the "school district and sheriff’s office...had no
constitutional duty to protect the students there during the deadly February
massacre" [1]. A county judge, meanwhile, found "Scot Peterson, the armed
sheriff’s deputy who heard the gunfire but did not run in and try to stop the
attack, _did_ have an obligation to confront [the shooter]."

The _New York Times_ speculates the county judge found Scot Peterson had a
"special relationship" with the students, like a crossing guard. That goes
above a normal citizen-police relationship to one approaching custodianship.
Both decisions are likely to be appealed.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-
laws...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/parkland-shooting-lawsuit-
ruling-police.html)

------
fzeroracer
It should be incredibly obvious that America desperately needs to completely
tear down and rebuild the entire police institution. They don't exist to
protect and serve outside of themselves. They exist to harass minorities, get
away with murder by pretending they were scared for their lives and then have
the complete gall to act like they're the real heroes in this mess.

There are some individuals I'm sure that try to do their best and actually
help people. But the institution as a whole is corrupt and a sham.

~~~
gwright
The problems you point out support the rationale for the decentralized nature
of US police authority. In the US, federal, state, and local police
authorities are for the most part independent from each other. I believe this
is quite unusual if you were to survey the structure of police authority in
other countries. This is one way to mitigate the "blast radius" of corrupt
officials.

While I agree that there are some structural problems with policing
(militarization, over-reliance on guns, prioritizing officer safety over
citizen safety), I don't think "completely tear[ing]" it down is a wise
course.

~~~
wallace_f
Democratization and decentralization go hand in hand. I dont know how people
forget that.

If you read about Hitler's rise, at the time one of his problems was the
democratization in Germany of policing. They were basically independent
throughout the country, and many signalled independence, and even
disobedience. He needed control of them through an authoritarian hierarchy so
that's what he did, he centralized policing.

------
dlbucci
Jesus Christ, what the fuck is the point of having a security guard at a
school if they aren't obligated to protect those inside? They say exceptions
to the "in custody" rule exist, such as a crosswalk guard being responsible
for kids in the crosswalk. How is a security guard for a school substantially
different from that? I just don't get it.

Guess it's just another reason why having guards or arming teachers is not the
solution to school shootings...

~~~
apostacy
This is nothing new. It has already been ruled on that the police have no
obligation to protect you. They can simply say "no" if you ask them to protect
you. It certainly means that they can de-prioritize your call and only show up
after getting lunch.

Which makes it all the more awful when someone says "If you feel unsafe just
call the police! It's what I would do." That's great. I'm glad you live in a
place with a good police force. But it is frankly evil to disarm people who
have no other means to protect themselves.

------
was_boring
While disappointing, it's not out of line with other court decisions. At this
point, I believe the only function of the police is to execute state violence.

~~~
ve55
>At this point, I believe the only function of the police is to execute state
violence.

It would be best to form your opinion based on overall statistics rather than
the most sensational news articles that have the most virility.

~~~
devwastaken
Given non-compliance violence is the step taken. Most people comply.

------
pennaMan
LE, as far as the oficial legal standpoint, are nothing more than goverment
thugs and enforcers. The notion that their basic duty is to protect the public
is absurd but at the same time it is widley belived to be true, including by
some naive LE agents themselves. And I'm not talking about the US, this is
true virtually anywhere.

~~~
mpweiher
As far as I know, this is US-specific. For example in Germany, it is very
specifically duty of the police to protect the rights of citizens, which
includes their right to not be harmed (which also comes from the duty to
uphold the law, which is typically being broken when people are harmed).

~~~
ebcode
Not just US-specific, but anywhere where the police force believes themselves
to be separate from the folks they are policing. The police force in the US
arose from "slave patrols."

So in Germany, you might have "Germans policing Germans", but in the US it's
basically "Whites policing Blacks".

~~~
mpweiher
> "Germans policing Germans" vs. "Whites policing Blacks".

The German constitution is also very clear on this:

"Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. 2Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist
Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt."

[https://dejure.org/gesetze/GG/1.html](https://dejure.org/gesetze/GG/1.html)

"Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the
duty of all state authority."

[https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h...](https://www.gesetze-im-
internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html#p0022)

So _human_ dignity is inviolable. Not "citizens", not "Germans", but "humans".

------
gweinberg
If the police have no duty to protect you, they also have no right to prevent
you from carrying to protect yourself.

~~~
koenigdavidmj
Not sure why this is controversial. If a state lets thugs get away with
anything, and then is ruthless with vigilantes, they are taking the side of
the criminals. They are enablers of rape and murder.

------
DannyBee
FWIW: This is not new law, this decision is in line with most other courts to
examine the issue, including the supreme court[1].

See Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of
Social Services.

The federal court would definitely be bound by Castle Rock.

~~~
lsiebert
That's an important point. I'd caution people getting upset about this
(especially getting upset with the judge) to recognize that judges are bound
to consider higher court decisions.

There is arguably good reasons why police (and fire fighters, and social
workers, and meterologists) and the governments they work for can't be sued
for not protecting people from the bad actions of others, or disasters. It's
not their fault that bad stuff happens (and when it is, that's a different
legal situation).

That said, state constitutions can be more restrictive, and it would be
interesting to consider the effect of creating such a duty would have.

Perhaps it could be created as a duty to the state government rather then
individually harmed people, such that the state attorney general would be the
one who sued (or more likely settled with a consent decree that created policy
changes).

------
anigbrowl
Then what are we paying them so much money for? People often fail to realize
what a huge proportion of their local budget is eaten by policing.

------
tomohawk
You have to be able to protect yourself.

~~~
threatofrain
In general the police show up long after the fact and are there to write
reports for insurance. We are safe by the peace of those around us, and not by
whether the cops can show up on time.

~~~
apostacy
This is correct. In many places, the police actively avoid "hot calls", where
if there is shooting, they will hang back until it is over before moving in.

~~~
darkerside
I'd rather this then police come in hot, shooting first and asking questions
later. Mass violence is the exception, not the rule, and police should be
deescalating situations, not causing trouble.

~~~
apostacy
So, if you are being robbed, you would rather that the police wait a few
blocks away?

~~~
darkerside
I'd rather nothing bad happen to anyone ever, given the option.

~~~
apostacy
Sure, we'd all like nothing bad to ever happen. But, if you were being
attacked by someone, would you prefer that the police "de-escalate" things by
not engaging your attackers, or would you want them to come in "guns blazing"?
You have to pick one or the other. Life doesn't give you a convenient third
option.

~~~
darkerside
If they can walk over and deescalate, then of course I want them to
deescalate. This isn't an action movie. Once bullets start flying, my odds of
survival are likely going down, not up.

Do you think a policeman's job is to be a hero, or a public servant? Because I
think they should be public servants. If one shows heroism while in the line
of duty, it's because he is a hero and a good person. Not because of a
paycheck and a badge.

~~~
apostacy
These are just platitudes about "heroes" and "public servants". I want police
that are effective.

If someone is threatening you with a weapon, you had better hope that there is
at least one other weapon in this situation.

Well trained police that frequently go to the shooting range and are highly
trained and experienced can be highly effective at minimizing harm in areas
where criminals are well armed. There is ample data from real life. It is sad
that we have to apply policing methodologies that are effective in places like
South Africa or Brazil, but this is the country we live in now.

~~~
darkerside
Not sure what country you live in, but fortunately I can afford to live in a
part of the US where that is not characteristic. And I'd much rather my local
police not come in firing like the A Team, thanks.

------
phd514
This is disappointing, but not as much as Warren vs. District of Columbia.

------
vernie
I guess cops at schools are just armed in case students mouth off to them.

~~~
wallace_f
This reads like a joke, but it is more literally true than most would think:
[https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/new-
ha...](https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/internet-speech/new-hampshire-
police-arrested-man-being-mean-them-internet)

------
exabrial
Was the rumor of "we cant enter unless we have bodycams" ever proven true or
false?

------
xkcd-sucks
Looks like teachers really do need guns

~~~
threatofrain
IMO, teachers who have guns and are interested in keeping the peace should go
through a state licensing program, and have special badges (maybe brass) so we
can identify them. They could be called peacekeepers.

~~~
lj3
This already exists. It's called a concealed carry permit. Giving somebody who
has no law enforcement powers a badge is a bad idea.

~~~
chapium
No, concealed carry has no place in a school.

~~~
lj3
What's the alternative? Arming the kids?

------
c3534l
This sounds worse than it is. You could have phrased it as "police not
obligated to go on suicide missions." Or "police lives not automatically
expendable."

