That "officer" doesn't have a constitutional/legal duty to protect them (something that had already been previously established in case law), but he damn sure had a moral/ethical/human duty to protect them.

quote:

The panel agreed to change the language to say Miller “refused and failed to accept responsibility” for taking command. Miller has been placed on restricted duty pending an internal investigation. Miller, 57, was paid $138,410.25 in 2017.

Not sure what to think about that tidbit. Nearly $140K? For what? The schmuck is clearly not qualified for the job he held!

My brother retired as the commandant of the Idaho State Patrol, and he was not making nearly that much.

When I retired from a large computer company I was one level below corporate executive rank. And my salary was $85K

I realize my job was not as dangerous as capable law enforcement officers, but my responsibility was one helluva lot more than that schmuck, coward, cop.

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the next logical question is that if the judge is correct in that they had no duty to protect....

why were they there in the first place?

window dressing?

smoke and mirrors?

good warm feelings?

Theatre.

Better insurance rates.

Warm fuzzies.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:

quote:

Originally posted by nhtagmember:
the next logical question is that if the judge is correct in that they had no duty to protect....

why were they there in the first place?

window dressing?

smoke and mirrors?

good warm feelings?

Theatre.

Better insurance rates.

Warm fuzzies.

It's typical legal butt covering. If the law required police to actually protect us, they could be sued for everyone who has ever been murdered.

It's stupid, but necesary.

^ For sure. And for the (proverbial) record, I'm definitely not suggesting police in general be required to offer up Secret Service-like bullet catching services for regular Joe Publics... we'd never find enough people willing to do it nor could we afford to pay that many of them to take that risk all day everyday for everyone. It simply can't work at that scale.

But whomever decided that there is a meaningful difference between what's required to protect some ghetto wanker in "custody" who got caught up in a garden variety petty crime and the "custody" of literally defenseless children who are required by law to attend said schools has it all wrong, that's for sure. And for $150k a year, WTF do they even offer...

Almost nothing, that's what. What we're doing now is broken, obviously.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
That "officer" doesn't have a constitutional/legal duty to protect them (something that had already been previously established in case law)....

Like it or not, that is the truth as ruled by our very own Supreme Court.
And it’s something we might call to mind whenever we learn of an incident in which one of the vast majority of law enforcement officers who believe they do have a duty to protect by going into harm’s way, and acted accordingly.

For 40-50K a year I'd go and protect my kids school

Great hours
Summer's off
I could give him a ride and pick him up
And I'd be a WHOLE lot better mentally about his safety.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
For 40-50K a year I'd go and protect my kids school

Great hours
Summer's off

People think that's what SROs get, and there may be some departments whose SROs get that, but the reality is usually different.

SROs often work long hours. SROs typically have to work most/all of the athletic events as well as some of the other afterschool activities for their school and others. And there's usually some sport or activity nearly every day of the workweek. They don't get to show up just before the first bell rings, and then jet out when the last bell rings.

And no, you don't get summers off. During school breaks, you're still working, either on special assignments or just back on patrol. Just like any other officer.

The School Resource Officer who is a “sworn” law enforcement officer does indeed have much more to do than providing security against mass killers, but it’s often been proposed that regardless of whether there’s an SRO per se that there could be / should be armed guards in schools who have no other responsibility than that.

The first time I saw that proposed was in the 2005 book Terror at Beslan by John Giduck. Since then others have recommended something similar. The problem, of course, would be the pushback by virtually everyone: the teachers, parents, the real police, legislators, the antigun crowd, etc. Even if the security was provided free by trained and vetted volunteers, many people would be unwilling to accept the idea. In years past when I’ve seen the idea discussed here, many members have responded with, “I don’t want ‘Bubba’ guarding my kids.”

Well, now we’ve seen what can happen even when a school and community have trained and armed individuals who are sworn to uphold the law and who were hired for the express purpose of protecting the rest of us.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting

Unfortunately the Judge is correct, but think about that for a second.

The very same government that tells you that you don't need to protect yourself because they will do it for you. The very same government that tells you not to protect others because you're doing "their job". That very same government has no duty to do what they tell you they're there to do.

When the worst happens some bureaucrat will shrug his/her/zeir shoulders and start a comment with "Well......." They want to control your life in exchange for protection, but when it comes down to it that protection is at their discretion, and it's just your bad luck when you find yourself at the short end of that stick.

This is one of the most profound revelations (at least to me) that I've read. Past posts by others have pointed this lack of duty on the part of law enforcement, but I hadn't thought beyond that until I read a1abdj's second paragraph regarding what the government pushes/says and this non-duty. Like the cured blind man - now I see.

Now I wonder - if, in the strictly legal sense, law enforcement doesn't exist to protect citizens, what is it's duty?

Parkland survivor David Hogg reveals he’s headed to Harvard in the fall


The former student of Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS — where 17 students were shot and killed in February — had been turned down by UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Santa Barbara and UC Irvine, TMZ reported in March.

Fox News host Laura Ingraham had mocked him on Twitter, saying the 18-year-old was “whining” about the rejections.


Hogg hit back, calling for advertisers to boycott Ingraham’s show. She lost more than a dozen advertisers and was forced to apologize.

On Saturday, Hogg’s younger sister Laura, another prominent gun control advocate, tweeted her brother’s acceptance news and tagged Ingraham in the post.

“Care to report on this? @IngrahamAngle,” she wrote. The TV anchor didn’t respond.

Hogg’s road to the Ivy League begins with a gap year following his high school graduation this spring, when he focused on helping the March for Our Lives campaign, which promotes gun control and youth voter registration.

In a New York Magazine profile of Hogg as he traveled around the country this summer, his mother was quoted saying Harvard was a possibility for her son.

At the time, he said applying to schools again did not seem “appealing.”

There was also the question of how to pay for college: “Wherever I go, I want to go for free, because I don’t want to put that over my parents or myself,” Hogg told the mag.

His mother, Rebecca, said, “We could never afford Harvard. Never. … With any luck at all, he can get into Harvard and they can help us financially.”

It is unknown how Hogg will be paying for his education.

But the Ivy League school pulled out all the stops to court Hogg, according to New York. Hogg took a private tour of the school this past spring, when he and his family also attended a Harvard Gala at Fenway Park.

His mom said alumni there told her, “There is the potential that your son will be the leader of this country, and we want to make sure he goes to Harvard.”

Jaclyn Corin, another Parkland survivor, tweeted this week that she was also accepted into Harvard.

https://nypost.com/2018/12/22/...-league-in-the-fall/

IMHO, Harvard deserves him.

flashguy

I saw that headline last night. "Survivor"

He survived something he barely knew was happening. He's a regular hero.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
IMHO, Harvard deserves him.

flashguy

Also shows the shady admissions standards of the "university" . Falling all over themselves to recruit "celebrity" SJWs. How utterly fuckin' pathetic.

Does that make you think more of Hogg or less of Harvard?

It will take time, because Harvard has had the reputation as the summit of higher ed for a long time, but it is slowly destroying itself.

Harvard has been doing this sort of thing for quite some time. Their endowment is huge. Fitting in may be a problem for him. He is not exactly a product of the prep schools of the Northeast.

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Does that make you think more of Hogg or less of Harvard?

It will take time, because Harvard has had the reputation as the summit of higher ed for a long time, but it is slowly destroying itself.

no and yes,

fact that he expects it to be free, and actually demanding it, (in a way) shows him to be the spoiled child he is,

and Harvard sucking up, when they clearly do not have to, would be embarrassing to me if I were an alumni

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
Does that make you think more of Hogg or less of Harvard?

It will take time, because Harvard has had the reputation as the summit of higher ed for a long time, but it is slowly destroying itself.

How long did it take the Boy Scouts to fall into disrepute? Harvard has a more legendary reputation, but given the strength of the BSA just 15 years ago compared to now, I say the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

I wonder how many Harvard applicants of asian-descent were passed over in favor of hoggHitler

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting

Unfortunately the Judge is correct, but think about that for a second.

The very same government that tells you that you don't need to protect yourself because they will do it for you. The very same government that tells you not to protect others because you're doing "their job". That very same government has no duty to do what they tell you they're there to do.

When the worst happens some bureaucrat will shrug his/her/zeir shoulders and start a comment with "Well......." They want to control your life in exchange for protection, but when it comes down to it that protection is at their discretion, and it's just your bad luck when you find yourself at the short end of that stick.

This is one of the most profound revelations (at least to me) that I've read. Past posts by others have pointed this lack of duty on the part of law enforcement, but I hadn't thought beyond that until I read a1abdj's second paragraph regarding what the government pushes/says and this non-duty. Like the cured blind man - now I see.

Now I wonder - if, in the strictly legal sense, law enforcement doesn't exist to protect citizens, what is it's duty?

And this is why the gun control debate is a human rights debate.