The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I felt the need to post this after seeing the update about the Dallas police officer.

Did you know that police has no responsibility to protect people from criminals.

For example, if you are being attacked and you call the police for help, they can legally say sorry, "Sorry, we won't help you."

The lawyer for the SRO is making this case in his defense.

This begs the question, why do we have police forces?  Wouldn't that money be better spent elsewhere if they are not legally obligated to do their jobs?  It is definitely very scary because we had active shooter training at my job last year, but they didn't tell us that if we called the police, they could refuse to send anybody to help us.

It may not be a "law" per se but many agencies have a directive that they have to engage active shooters. It's even the new policy in Broward County where the Deputies did not go in. It was already in place in many places.

Broward Sheriff’s deputies will have to try to confront active shooters in the future, a change to the department’s written policy that was lambasted after the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

The change took effect on Jan. 4, is outlined in an internal memo that states deputies “shall” immediately intervene instead of “may” in the case of an active shooter scenario.

The policy also notes there are “very limited extenuating circumstances” when a solo deputy can delay their response.


Responding officers also would have defined priorities, in order:

-- Stop the shooter.

-- Rescue the victims and provide medical assistance.

-- Arrest suspects and preserve the crime scene.

"Many" grossly overstates the situation. A more accurate statement would be "a very few jurisdictions have enacted work policies requiring that police engage active shooters, this is almost always a reaction to public outcry after police do nothing while unarmed innocent are slaughtered.  Even once these standards are enacted they are merely work policies meaning that failure to intervene could result in being disciplined or fired but will not result in the officer facing civil or criminal repercussions.   In the vast majority of jurisdictions the police are trained to put personal safety first."

Can you provide a little more specificity?  In your second paragraph you use the term "no responsibility to protect people from criminals" but in your final paragraph you use the term "not legally obligated to do their jobs."   There is a big difference between "responsibility" and "legal obligation".   "Protect people from criminals" is also very vague.  I think this is a very interesting topic, but you have to define your scenario a little more. 

I will provide specificity.  Scot Peterson was paid by the taxpayers for the sole responsibility of protecting the children of MSDHS.  He choose to protect himself instead of doing the one job the one time he was needed after collecting pay for years to be on-hand if said children needed his protection. 

While this did result in him losing his job he is not subject to criminal prosecution nor civil liability, his pension is not even reduced.  Compare this to what would have happened if he was in the military and displayed such cowardice, he would face court martial including the possibility of death.

While I am not advocating the death penalty for cowardice officers, there should be both criminal and civil consequences for instances where cops refuse to protect the public that pays them for said protection.

No it doesn't. Many of my friends are some sort of law enforcement here, Ga, AL and TX and I can tell you that directive was policy way before any mass shootings. I think your liberal cities are playing catch-up but a lot of others have been doing active shooter scenes for many, many years and the directive has been to engage.  Why do you think the uproar from all of the other police when the Broward Deputies were ordered to stand down? I mean seriously ... the Broward Sheriff lost his job and not because they retroactively decided engaging is a good idea. I sear to you that one of my best friends who is a deputy in a local high school, with tears in his eyes, was absolutely appalled they did not engage. He said that the kids in his high school are like his kids and even if it wasn't a directive he could have never stood by without going in.

Israel was fired because Gov. Ron DeSantis wants to be re-elected and unlike almost every other decision he can make the only criticism 99% of all voters have of this move is what took so long.

The level of protection ordinary citizens feel they are owed to by the police is vastly greater than the level that is actually required.

And this unpopular and grossly incompetent sheriff was relieved of his duties, he is not subject to either criminal nor civil liberties for failing to fulfill obligations that could have saved lives.

If a truck drive accidentally fails to maintain his trucks brakes he will be held both civilly and criminal liable for the outcome.  If a cop willfully and knowingly refuses to do his job to protect and serve at worst he will loses his job.

Even the Broward County Sheriff's office used to have to engage.

Sheriff Israel admitted that he had changed the Broward Sheriff's Office written policy on active shooters, changing one word in a critical sentence about deputies engaging active shooters from "shall" go in after the shooter, to "may" go in after the shooter. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd, a commissioner on the panel, admonished Sheriff Israel stating that "Words matter, and according to your policy, he did not have to go in".

BTW ... if you ever get the chance watch some video of Sheriff Grady Judd. He's arguably the best Sheriff in the country.  Love that guy!!

Grady Judd is the man.

I believe you and Hoodie are saying 2 different things.

Even if the department policy is to engage, failing to do so will never rise to the point of criminal negligence.  You can be written up, suspended, or maybe even fired... but you will not spend time in prison.  This is as opposed to the military, where a failure to engage means you can potentially be imprisoned.

And police are unique in that area, rather than the military being unique. 

If a lifeguard fails to preform his responsibilities and someone dies they absolutely will be civilly liable and possibly criminal charged with negligent homicide.

Consider the following: Person gets drunk at bar.  While driving home cop pulls driver over because car is swerving.  Police officers determines the driver is drunk but allows the driver to drive home anyway.  Driver than hits a motorcycle rider killing the rider.  The drunk will be both criminally and civilly liable.  The bartender and the bar will be civilly liable and in some jurisdictions even criminally liable. The police officer and the municipality will be neither civilly nor criminally liable.  The cop might loses his job, but that is the worst that can happen to him. 

I have no firsthand knowledge but I really can't see that being the case. Working for the government for many years and dealing with lawsuits I can tell you government agencies are liable for almost anything ... and if they knowingly haven't addressed the issue then they even are more liable. Something as simple as leaving a piece of sidewalk out can cause a lawsuit if someone trips on it.

Difference with sidewalk is that is doing something wrong, as opposed to doing nothing.  You can't sue the municipality for not building a sidewalk.

Likewise cops can be sued for a wrongful arrest.  But they can't be sued if they decline to arrest someone that should have been arrested who then goes on to commit a crime.   

Hucko v. City of San Diego, 179 Cal.App.3d 520 (1986)

You can sue them for not fixing the sidewalk after it was brought to their attention. And yes ... now with ADA you can sue for not having a sidewalk with accessibility. That's a tough one because it's actually a civil rights issue.

You can sue a city for building a sidewalk without wheelchair access, but you can't sue them for never building a sidewalk in that location to begin with.

The key case is Warren vs District of Columbia.

In this case, three women were being attacked by two men.  One of them called for the police to help.  The officers came, but for unknown reasons, decided not to help them and allowed the attack to continue.  The women sued, and courts decided that the officers had no obligation to help them.                 

That is incorrect. There are many different situations where Federal law dictates you must install an accessible route. No one can just decide not to and lack of funds is not a legal excuse.

This is a completely irrelevant diversion from the issue at hand....cops lacking the legal obligation to do what taxpayers pay then to do.  But ADA only applies to what must be included in new construction or remodels.  So yes ADA can require a sidewalk be built when building a new library, it can’t be used to force a municipality to build a sidewalk to an existing library unless extensive renovation is being done.

That is true to an extent but it can if they have been notified it doesn't meet and someone is not able to access something just as non-handicap people can. Like I said ... it's a civil rights issue and covers a wide range of whether or not everyone has the same rights.  Many municipalities in Florida were sued by ADA organizations in the late 90s and early 2000s for lack of ADA accessibility. As a result each one had to come up with a plan to bring everything into compliance under their jurisdiction.

However,  Parkland Students v Scot Peterson was dismissed, because Peterson had no legal duty to protect the students even though he had been paid hundreds of thousands of dollar over multiple years to do just that. 

So lets assume what you say about ADA is true.   One has a civil right to a wheel chair ramp to their school, but no civil right to expect that police offers are going to respond to a school shooting.  This shows just how fucked up it is that we pay cops yet they are not required to do their job. 

Perhaps, but in Latham District County Court four bystanders were convicted of ridiculing a man being robbed, and failing to aid him.  The four were sentenced to a year in jail.

It was the ridiculing part that got them in trouble, there is no general obligation to aid.  But to the extent that bystanders are held to a higher standard for rendering aid than the police, I consider a serious flaw. 

Strong Seinfeld reference.

 :o Effin brilliant Masterfins. And great catch EKnight. Kudos to you guys! I just had a DUH moment. Here’s a Bud Light for you two Real Men of Genius. Bravo

Too funny, I was thinking the same thing.

The police have discretion. Courts have always recognized this. They do this, primarily - insofar as I understand it - due to limited manpower/resources to tackle every threat.

So yes, they can decline service to you. It sucks, but the police aren't omnipotent.