• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

sidebar regard LE response in latest incident...

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
from MISES Institute, 20 Dec 2018 after Parkland HS incident, quote:
The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office , as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out. unquote

 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
356
Location
Kahlotus, WA
from MISES Institute, 20 Dec 2018 after Parkland HS incident, quote:
The US Supreme Court has made it clear that law enforcement agencies are not required to provide protection to the citizens who are forced to pay the police for their "services."

In the cases DeShaney vs. Winnebago and Town of Castle Rock vs. Gonzales, the supreme court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect the lives and property of others — even when a threat is apparent.

Following last February's shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, some students claimed local government officials were at fault for failing to provide protection to students. The students filed suit, naming six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office , as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.

On Monday, though, a federal judge ruled that the government agencies " had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody."

“Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur,” said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. “Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are “in custody,” he pointed out. unquote

What constitutes "in custody"??

Concerning schools, the children are outside the home & away from their parents/guardian (unless a parent/guardian works at the school). Is it not the school's responsibility to keep the children safe/protected??

The Uvalde School District has a dedicated law enforcement agency, whose primary mission is to protect & secure (one would think) the grounds & buildings that are used for school activities/functions.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,841
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
What constitutes "in custody"??

Concerning schools, the children are outside the home & away from their parents/guardian (unless a parent/guardian works at the school). Is it not the school's responsibility to keep the children safe/protected??

The Uvalde School District has a dedicated law enforcement agency, whose primary mission is to protect & secure (one would think) the grounds & buildings that are used for school activities/functions.
The teachers act as In loco parentis - Latin for "in the place of a parent".

In custody; the term is very elastic and may mean actual imprisonment or physical detention or mere power, legal or physical, of imprisoning or of taking manual possession.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
What constitutes "in custody"??

Concerning schools, the children are outside the home & away from their parents/guardian (unless a parent/guardian works at the school). Is it not the school's responsibility to keep the children safe/protected??

The Uvalde School District has a dedicated law enforcement agency, whose primary mission is to protect & secure (one would think) the grounds & buildings that are used for school activities/functions.
same cite..., quote:
“Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own — such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.”
unquote
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
per 29 May 22 Police1, quote:
The Justice Department said Sunday it will review the law enforcement response to the Texas school shooting, an unusual federal look back prompted by questions about the shifting and at times contradictory information from authorities that have enraged a community in shock and sorrow.

Department spokesman Anthony Coley said the review would be conducted in a fair, impartial and independent manner and the findings would be made public. The announcement came as President Joe Biden was visiting Uvalde, where he and first lady Jill Biden paid their respects at a memorial to the 19 students and two teachers killed at Robb Elementary School on Tuesday.

The goal of the review, which the mayor requested, is “to provide an independent account of law enforcement actions and response that day, and to identify lessons learned and best practices to help first responders prepare for and respond to active shooter events,” Coley said in a statement. unquote.


also heard Biden disinvited the LE & Border Patrol officers from his private meeting in Texas this afternoon...

the next weeks/months/years will be quite interesting to say the least...

congress/state legislative bodies...chew on them fruits of truth as you figure out how to punish the firearm...
 
Last edited:

KBCraig

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2007
Messages
4,864
Location
Granite State of Mind
same cite..., quote:
“Courts have rejected the argument that students are in custody of school officials while they are on campus,” Mr. Hutchinson said. “Custody is narrowly confined to situations where a person loses his or her freedom to move freely and seek assistance on their own — such as prisons, jails, or mental institutions.”
unquote
Since the students, particularly elementary school students, are required by law to attend, and cannot move freely nor seek assistance on their own, it's arguable that they are effectively in the custody--the custodianship--of the government.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
Since the students, particularly elementary school students, are required by law to attend, and cannot move freely nor seek assistance on their own, it's arguable that they are effectively in the custody--the custodianship--of the government.
educational institutions are not state/federal governmental agencies, e.g., higher or religious or independent or charter schools.

primary/secondary public are overseen by a city/county special purpose entity called a 'bd of education' which is a non profit corporation!


ps: and i lernt sumth'n
"... funds from state lotteries replace taxpayer money rather than supplementing it, meaning that school budgets do not grow as a result of lotteries. Rather, taxpayer money that would have been used to fulfill the state’s education budget is redirected to other areas."
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
How can an explicitly government entity, authorized by law, governed by elected officials, and funded by direct taxation, by non-governmental?
as mentioned, religious, charter, independent and higher educational institutions are not funded whatsoever.

federal: 10% funding
state: < 40% funding
remaining 50% comes from property taxes on homes and businesses

"Within the constitution of each of the 50 states, there is language that mandates the creation of a public education system. The authority for public education falls to states because of a 1973 Supreme Court case, San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, which determined that the federal government has no responsibility to provide systems of public education.

Because some state constitutions date back centuries, constitutions can contain outdated language, which can decrease the relevance of the constitution to current-day policy issues. State constitutions vary on whether they include language about public school funding, religious restrictions, the education of disabled students, the age of students, the duration of the school year
and the establishment of state higher education systems."

final consider DC: "Because Washington, D.C., is not a state, it uses the United States Constitution as its constitution. However,
there is no mention of public education in the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia Home Rule
Act most closely resembles a constitution, but there also is no mention of public education in the act. Therefore,
unlike all 50 of the states, there is no constitutional foundation for public education in Washington, D.C."


finally the term 'quasi-governmental' is used to describe the non-profit status of boards of educations governing PUBLIC primary/secondary education activities within their local communities...[MW quasi =some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes.]

[sidebar: the congressional concept of 'no child left behind' came up cuz congress found out the states were not spending the 10% funding on educational activities.]
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
The local school district is dumping on the cops - I've noticed that the public education establishment is really big on avoiding blame, passive-aggressive attitudes, and trying to smear others to make up for their own deficiencies.

As to the cops: their job is to detect crime, apprehend the criminals, and see that the criminals are brought before the court. That's it. That "caretaker of the community" stuff is all crap the judicial system uses to justify illegal break-ins. It is fundamental that each citizen is responsible for the protection of himself, his home and his family, and has a postive duty to society to take care of himself so that others don't have to. (I know, the regressives don't buy that, and I don't care.) It is not society's job to prevent crime. That's illegal, and it's called, "prior restraint in violation of the 5th Amendment". So, while there may have been a moral reason for charging into the school, they can't be faulted for not having done so, because they had absolutely no duty at that point, other than to apprehend the criminal AFTER the crime actually occurred.

As to the school district and its parent, the state: when they create a system in which (1) they take custody of children, and thus an absolute duty to care for and protect those children; and (2) isolate the children from their natural care and protection provided by the parents; and (3) prohibit concerned parents from possessing the means and opportunity to care for and protect their own children; and (4) fail to provide any protection for the children; then it is my opinon that they have assumed a positive duty to protect the children and in this case in particular, there was a negligent failure to do so, that negligence caused the actual damages that occurred. Clear case of wrongful death against the school district, in my opinion. I say, "this case in particular", because what happened was that a teacher had violated security policy by propping an exit door open with a rock - and when she saw Badguy coming with a gun, she panicked, kicked the rock out and ran away. Significantly, she negligently failed to close the door and see that it had been properly locked.

Generally, there are defenses of intervening and supervening causes, where the acts of some third party may be so serious as to cut off the liability of the negligent actor, and that would be the school systems' best defense here. But I don't think it would work, because the school system had an opportunity to keep Badguy out of the school and negligently failed to do so, thus, the acts of Badguy were the direct and probable consequences of the school systems' failure. (The negligent teacher, as an employee of the school, is acting on behalf of the school when she let Badguy in the school._ Respondeat superior.)
 

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
...

final consider DC: "Because Washington, D.C., is not a state, it uses the United States Constitution as its constitution. However,
there is no mention of public education in the United States Constitution. The District of Columbia Home Rule
Act most closely resembles a constitution, but there also is no mention of public education in the act. Therefore,
unlike all 50 of the states, there is no constitutional foundation for public education in Washington, D.C."
...
One thing to consider is that Congress has the constitutional authority to make whatever regulations it may deem fit for operation of the "seat of government". On the other hand, the 2nd A. being an amendment, it changes the meaning of the provision granting Congress that authority. Though the S.Ct. will treat it as if it were an afterthought tacked on to the Constitution as merely an additional provision.
 
Last edited:

user

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,516
Location
Northern Piedmont
I see a lot of the make-a-crisis kit that governmental agencies of all kinds use a lot, because of the way budgeting and spending work. For example, when I was chairman of the Fairfax Transportation Safety Commission, I discovered how they get traffic lights installed. When there's a dangerous intersection, and everybody knows it's dangerous, and everybody wants a light there, what the cops do is increase the danger - they won't write tickets within a half-mile of the intersection, and sooner or later someone gets killed. When that happens, it's serious, so the city council will spring the bucks for the traffic light. They cynically, knowingly, and intentionally cause the death of a citizen in order to get a traffic light funded. Because they know that they won't get the money otherwise.

I think all these recent shootings were perpetrated by people who, whether they knew it or not, were Democratic Party operatives. They use social media to find the whackoes, get them wound up, give them supplies & equipment, planning & strategy, suggest targets & provide transportation. lee harvey oswald technique refined. It used to be a lot simpler - they used to give people government jobs to which they never had to report, in order to pay them to be assassins (or so I have learned from family history - I grew up in the Harry F. Byrd Machine).

You want to implement seriously repressive gun control, you need a good crisis to overcome the Constition by popular demand. It won't get done unless the people generally demand it, and that won't happen if they're not terrified into submission. So our government is cynically, knowingly and intentionally killing people, especially children, in order to justify their desire to render the public defenseless against oppression and tyranny.

That's my opinion. So there.
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
420
Location
Planet Earth
User - your opinion about these recent shooters is probably very accurate. The timing of these tragedies is just a little too "convenient".
 

mnrobitaille

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
356
Location
Kahlotus, WA
I see a lot of the make-a-crisis kit that governmental agencies of all kinds use a lot, because of the way budgeting and spending work. For example, when I was chairman of the Fairfax Transportation Safety Commission, I discovered how they get traffic lights installed. When there's a dangerous intersection, and everybody knows it's dangerous, and everybody wants a light there, what the cops do is increase the danger - they won't write tickets within a half-mile of the intersection, and sooner or later someone gets killed. When that happens, it's serious, so the city council will spring the bucks for the traffic light. They cynically, knowingly, and intentionally cause the death of a citizen in order to get a traffic light funded. Because they know that they won't get the money otherwise.

I think all these recent shootings were perpetrated by people who, whether they knew it or not, were Democratic Party operatives. They use social media to find the whackoes, get them wound up, give them supplies & equipment, planning & strategy, suggest targets & provide transportation. lee harvey oswald technique refined. It used to be a lot simpler - they used to give people government jobs to which they never had to report, in order to pay them to be assassins (or so I have learned from family history - I grew up in the Harry F. Byrd Machine).

You want to implement seriously repressive gun control, you need a good crisis to overcome the Constition by popular demand. It won't get done unless the people generally demand it, and that won't happen if they're not terrified into submission. So our government is cynically, knowingly and intentionally killing people, especially children, in order to justify their desire to render the public defenseless against oppression and tyranny.

That's my opinion. So there.
One other detail missed, is that it seems when these mass shooting events happen, there's a major news event happening (i.e. when Uvalde happened, the Depp-Heard trial was nearing conclusion & Parkland Jury Selection was going on).
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
279
Location
, ,
The local school district is dumping on the cops - I've noticed that the public education establishment is really big on avoiding blame, passive-aggressive attitudes, and trying to smear others to make up for their own deficiencies.

As to the cops: their job is to detect crime, apprehend the criminals, and see that the criminals are brought before the court. That's it. That "caretaker of the community" stuff is all crap the judicial system uses to justify illegal break-ins. It is fundamental that each citizen is responsible for the protection of himself, his home and his family, and has a postive duty to society to take care of himself so that others don't have to. (I know, the regressives don't buy that, and I don't care.) It is not society's job to prevent crime. That's illegal, and it's called, "prior restraint in violation of the 5th Amendment". So, while there may have been a moral reason for charging into the school, they can't be faulted for not having done so, because they had absolutely no duty at that point, other than to apprehend the criminal AFTER the crime actually occurred.

As to the school district and its parent, the state: when they create a system in which (1) they take custody of children, and thus an absolute duty to care for and protect those children; and (2) isolate the children from their natural care and protection provided by the parents; and (3) prohibit concerned parents from possessing the means and opportunity to care for and protect their own children; and (4) fail to provide any protection for the children; then it is my opinon that they have assumed a positive duty to protect the children and in this case in particular, there was a negligent failure to do so, that negligence caused the actual damages that occurred. Clear case of wrongful death against the school district, in my opinion. I say, "this case in particular", because what happened was that a teacher had violated security policy by propping an exit door open with a rock - and when she saw Badguy coming with a gun, she panicked, kicked the rock out and ran away. Significantly, she negligently failed to close the door and see that it had been properly locked.

Generally, there are defenses of intervening and supervening causes, where the acts of some third party may be so serious as to cut off the liability of the negligent actor, and that would be the school systems' best defense here. But I don't think it would work, because the school system had an opportunity to keep Badguy out of the school and negligently failed to do so, thus, the acts of Badguy were the direct and probable consequences of the school systems' failure. (The negligent teacher, as an employee of the school, is acting on behalf of the school when she let Badguy in the school._ Respondeat superior.)


, because they had absolutely no duty at that point, other than to apprehend the criminal AFTER the crime actually occurred.

Which crime? The first? The second? How many crimes in a chain of captive persons are the LEO allowed to happen before they have an obligation to apprehend the perp? It appears if they had acted to apprehend the perp after the first crime was committed it would have saved a lot of others from being killed. Must a whole community of citizens be murdered before LE had a duty to apprehend the killer? At what point are LEO duty bound to act?
 

American Patriot

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Messages
279
Location
, ,
Therefore, neither of you understand what you are posting. My father was a MP and my son was a LEO and I know that LEO take an oath to uphold the laws of the US and of their states. I have stood and witnessed them taking their oaths. I have many family members who are LEOs. With the position you are taking the 911 system is useless as no officer would be duty bound to respond to the call not to act upon a crime in progress.

Even the Head of the TX Department of Public Safety, Col. Steve McCraw said there was and "abject failure" in the response of the officers on the crime scene. The video showed no officer checking the door to room 111 to see if it was locked and there was no way it could be locked from inside. The door was removed and carried in custody to the state capitol for evidence showing it could not be locked from inside.

The officers had a crowbar, ballistic shield, body armor, guns, radios, and training to stop the crime but they stood down. The police chief gave no order for his officers to do their job and stop the crime in progress.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,841
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Therefore, neither of you understand what you are posting. My father was a MP and my son was a LEO and I know that LEO take an oath to uphold the laws of the US and of their states. I have stood and witnessed them taking their oaths. I have many family members who are LEOs. With the position you are taking the 911 system is useless as no officer would be duty bound to respond to the call not to act upon a crime in progress.

Even the Head of the TX Department of Public Safety, Col. Steve McCraw said there was and "abject failure" in the response of the officers on the crime scene. The video showed no officer checking the door to room 111 to see if it was locked and there was no way it could be locked from inside. The door was removed and carried in custody to the state capitol for evidence showing it could not be locked from inside.

The officers had a crowbar, ballistic shield, body armor, guns, radios, and training to stop the crime but they stood down. The police chief gave no order for his officers to do their job and stop the crime in progress.
Please provide the law that requires a duty to protect. there is none.

In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.

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. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.

Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
Oath, really? If they would lived up to their oath the police would not do 90% of what they do. The courts have become the protection arm of the government insuring that police can violate your rights with impunity.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,319
Location
here nc
Therefore, neither of you understand what you are posting. My father was a MP and my son was a LEO and I know that LEO take an oath to uphold the laws of the US and of their states. I have stood and witnessed them taking their oaths. I have many family members who are LEOs. With the position you are taking the 911 system is useless as no officer would be duty bound to respond to the call not to act upon a crime in progress.

Even the Head of the TX Department of Public Safety, Col. Steve McCraw said there was and "abject failure" in the response of the officers on the crime scene. The video showed no officer checking the door to room 111 to see if it was locked and there was no way it could be locked from inside. The door was removed and carried in custody to the state capitol for evidence showing it could not be locked from inside.

The officers had a crowbar, ballistic shield, body armor, guns, radios, and training to stop the crime but they stood down. The police chief gave no order for his officers to do their job and stop the crime in progress.
AP, here are the current NC oath of offices for sheriff & LE officer as mandated
Sheriff
I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will execute the office of sheriff of __county to the best of my knowledge and ability, agreeably to law; and that I will not take, accept or receive, directly or indirectly, any fee, gift, bribe, gratuity or reward whatsoever,
for returning any man to serve as a juror or for making any false return on any process to me directed; so help me, God.

Law Enforcement Officer

I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be alert and vigilant to enforce the criminal laws of this State; that I will not be influenced in any matter on account of personal bias or prejudice; that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties of my office as a law enforcement officer according to the best of my skill, abilities, and judgment; so help
me, God.


as you can read, AP absolutely nothing about running into areas where they could be killed/maimed/etc.

further, as previously been stated, by USSC opinions, LEs do not have any duty to respond to citizen's emergencies...

finally, as has been proven time and time again...

this is monday morning quarterbacking at its best...

would've...could've...should've ~ in hindsight is an absolutely worthless endeavour unless CHANGES in procedure, ad nauseam, are made to preclude a recurrence...but as everyone knows...

history, as everyone knows ~ never ever repeats itself, now does it!
 
Top