Judge rules cops, schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting lawsuit

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by icehole3, Dec 18, 2018.

  1. Draco

    Draco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Messages:
    11,096
    Likes Received:
    3,393
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly

    Hilarious how you see both people on the Left and the Right already try to spin this for their partisan agenda.

    God I hate politics today....
     
  2. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When and if teachers are armed and one of them accidentally shoots a student, as will definitely happen, who will pay the multi million dollar law suit judgement against the school district????THE real estate TAXPAYERS,who support our public schools.Arming teachers a TRULY STUPID IDEA!!
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    When/where has this happened?
    Why do you want to leave children defenseless?
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2018
  4. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then fine place in the right to sue under Federal Law in Federal Courts for 'failure to protect' and the other part limit to 'any law officer holding any Federal position or who is acting outside their state or under Federal supervision at the time'. So lets see if an officer in New York flashes a badge in the line of duty in New Jersey and gets into an altercation situation they have a duty to act, if assigned by their department to aid a Federal officer in any capacity or the FBI for example takes over a scene under Federal law and the officers are under their auspices for crime or are invited to come in by local law enforcement (hunting say a serial killer) they are under said demands as a criminal matter. It would allow for States Rights in principle but at least when there is a Federal interest it becomes Federal and make it as broad as possible within that concept.

    Then let the courts decide if its valid in fact the former law I proposed there can be a case made since all State officers swear to serve and protect the US Constitution and are bound to the various protections of it and there is a common acceptance of local to State to Federal courtesy regarding law enforcement support to the point of mingling as the norm that the Federal government has a right to demand law officers 'serve and protect with their lives under a policy of acceptable risk' citizens and make it a both civil risk and potentially criminal offense not to do so.

    Are you saying local government law agencies have no access to Federal crime databases and other resources commonly in the course of their work?
     
  5. KnightoNi1894

    KnightoNi1894 Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    276
    Likes Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't have a clue about how any of this works. The FBI can't "take over a crime scene." That's TV bullshit. The FBI is its own independent agency with its own distinct jurisdiction. They don't supersede local law enforcement in any way. Even having a crime occur in multiple states doesn't mean it's a crime that would be investigated by the FBI. CSI and all the other TV shows are fake. The law, and the implications of what you're proposing would make it impossible for any police agency, or officer, to do their job.

    Knight
     
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Federal courts already decided there is no duty to protect.
     

Share This Page