Current Events > Parkland officer found NOT GUILTY!

(+) Yeah! (+)

It was established a long time ago that police have no legal obligation to protect people.

Is it against the law to be a coward?

Serve and protect is basically fraud.

Its a court case the police have won previously.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father."

It was established a long time ago that police have no legal obligation to protect people.

Right decision.

thats fucked up

thats fucked up

This. If cops aren't legally required to protect anyone why the fuck would you think a resource officer would be?

Nope.

You were literally praising such a decision in the OP.

So why do we have to listen to commands from cops if cops won't hold up their end of the social contract? Cops want us to obey their every word but they won't give us anything in return

I hate this argument. Resource officers are armed and trained to deal with mass shooters.

Not going into the training aspect because i don't know,

but they're definitely not equipped for a mass shooter.

I can't think of a school officer that patrolled the hallway in a full swat team getup with helmet/heavy vests/powerful rifles/smoke&flash grenades etc etc

I hate this argument. Resource officers are armed and trained to deal with mass shooters.

On paper perhaps

On paper perhaps, but in practice SRO is just a cushy job they give to officers that are nearing retirement. It is considered a low risk job that a weaker officer can handle. The guy wasn't selected for the position because of his combat expertise, he was selected because he was an old man that wouldn't be too abusive to the kids

Back the blue even though they will never back you and have no obligation to

It was established a long time ago that police have no legal obligation to protect people.

What he did was potentially morally indefensible, but legally, very defensible.

I hate this argument. Resource officers are armed and trained to deal with mass shooters.

So, he failed to do his job and was fired from his job, and probably blacklisted from ever working a security officer type job ever again.
That's sufficient already. Trying to make "failure to do your job" a crime is Orwellian and disturbing as hell.

They do have an obligation to. They just can't get criminally charged/sued for not fullfiling it. They still can be fired and that is devastating for officers given the way the pension system works for them

I dont know if devastating is the right word to describe losing your pension in a scenario where children were left to die.

I'm not a psychopath. The idea isn't to seek vengeance out on people.

Its that if we collectively decide that police officers don't have to engage mass shooters then that is a very dangerous precedent and something that the shooters can use to their advantage when carrying out attacks.

And yea I'm for more gun control so no disagreement there.

Most officers do immediately head towards the shooter.

Most officers do immediately head towards the shooter.

But that's not the precedent being set here. Most officers do immediately head towards the shooter.

It's tragic what happened in Parkland, but would you really want someone that's panicking to rush in with a gun in their hands? That could just make the whole situation worse.

ok if your argument is that the police, who we spend an absurd amount of money on to arm and train, would make the situation that they are most urgently needed for worse then just fucking abolish the police.

"We need more armed security in schools!"

*The armed security*

We'll just teachers guns, and when that doesn't work we'll just make it mandatory for students to bring their own guns to class.

What was his defense? Did he admit to being a coward and feared for his life regardless if his job was to stop the insane shooter?

What was his defense? Did he admit to being a coward and feared for his life regardless if his job was to stop the insane shooter?

I don't think cowardice should be punishable by the justice system in such cases. Ostracize and condemn him all you want, but the instinct to survive is pretty damn strong. Does it make him a bad police officer? Probably. Does it mean he should be punished legally?

No, I don't think that's fair. Ultimately he was a victim of the circumstances, too. Why should he be punished for the actions of a deranged killer?