Another shooting shitstorm, sans the NRA, is now raging.
People are slowly becoming aware police apparently aren’t required to protect and to serve like so many thought they were.
This perception is based in something called the Public-Duty Doctrine.
There are a whole lot of sites currently talking about the Public-Duty Doctrine as a result of what happened in the Marjory Stoneman Douglas massacre. Here’s one I found in The Federalist:
Could The Police Legally Do No Wrong In The Parkland Shooting?
So, what is the Public-Duty Doctrine or ‘rule’ as The Federalist calls it?
“The public duty rule is grounded in the principle that the duty of the government entity to preserve the well-being of the community is owed to the public at large rather than to specific members of the community.”
According to PoliceOne.com, the Public-Duty Doctrine is confusing even to cops:
Addressing cops’ confusion over ‘the public duty doctrine’
From the article:
“Law enforcement professionals’ lack of understanding of the legal principles of the public duty doctrine often leads to inappropriate actions on the part of the officer.”
The Public-Duty Doctrine is apparently the basis for at least one judge’s ruling in the Scot Peterson case. You remember that one, don’t you?
Peterson was the Sheriff’s Deputy who didn’t go into Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School to try and stop that massacre.
According to NBC Miami, a lawsuit “filed in July by the 15 survivors, named as defendants Peterson, now-resigned Capt. Jan Jordan, Sheriff Scott Israel, as well as Broward Schools superintendent Robert Runcie, now-dismissed school monitor Andrew Medina and Broward County government.”
The 15 plaintiffs “claimed their civil and due process rights were violated by the defendants’ failure to protect them from school shooters.”
The suit was dismissed.
Say WHAT?!!!!
Yep. The judge in this case ruled, “Viewed properly, the claim arises from the actions of (the killer), a third party, and not a state actor.”
Cameron Kasky, Co-Founder of March For Our Lives, was “infuriated”:
This infuriating. I can’t believe I was silly enough to grow up thinking that police officers at a school had a duty to protect students. https://t.co/1GXPbkImkr
— Cameron Kasky (@cameron_kasky) December 19, 2018
Judging by comments that followed, so were a whole lot of Kasky’s followers.
Most of those comments appear directed at Scot Peterson. Many asserted if law enforcement doesn’t have a duty to serve and protect then why have law enforcement at all…or words to that effect.
Some people who commented on Kasky’s Twitter feed also referenced the ‘to protect and to serve’ mantra as the basis for their assertions that Scot Peterson, at the very least, had a duty to help those kids.
Problem is the phrase ‘to protect and to serve’ originated with the Los Angeles Police Department.
It’s a motto. It’s not a legal requirement. It originated as a contest. Read the LAPD story on this if you don’t believe me, and please stop with the eye rolls already.
I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me the attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case should be going in a little different direction.
The Florida Department of Education, Office of Safe Schools has an updated list of items schools must complete in order to comply with the new Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act.
If I were a lawyer for the plaintiffs, I’d be asking what school safety laws existed prior to the MSD massacre and passage of this new law?
There’s this from The Florida State Senate:
The law specifies district school boards “shall establish model emergency management and emergency preparedness procedures” for multiple hazards that may affect their schools including “weapon use and hostage situations”.
This isn’t a ‘should’ recommendation. No sir…it’s a ‘shall’ requirement.
Pretty clear cut and straightforward from what I can tell. No wiggle room that I can see.
The draft Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission Initial Report details a multitude of failures and omissions in the response to this massacre both by the school district and by some first responders.
Those failures and omissions appear to be in violation of actions required by existing state law in place prior to the new MSD Law.
Why aren’t plaintiff’s attorneys focusing on that?
My two cents.
- My Two Cents: School Safety….’Quick Fix’ Style - September 26, 2019
- My Two Cents: School Safety – DAMMIT! It’s Not Rocket Science….. - January 28, 2019
- My Two Cents: Kovington Kids Kalamity Double Standard…. - January 26, 2019
- My Two Cents: Weighing in on the ‘Covington Kids Calamity’ - January 22, 2019
- My Two Cents: The Illogical Logic of the NRA - January 11, 2019
- My Two Cents: School Safety Is An Enigma - January 3, 2019
- My Two Cents: ‘To Protect and To Serve’ vs the ‘Public-Duty Doctrine’ - December 22, 2018
- My Two Cents: Quiet Rooms - December 15, 2018
- My Two Cents: Stay in Your Lane Road Rage NRA Style - November 26, 2018
- My Two Cents: School Safety Hoplophile Style - November 17, 2018
