re: Active shooter at Ohio State - at least 8 injured so far

quote:

---

Thought they swore an oath to protect?

---

Doesn't matter.

quote:

---

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

---

quote:

---

Hillary had one of her hitmen go at it, she will soon be asking for a revote in Ohio

---

quote:

---

Scruffy

---

quote:

---

Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

---

Your citing a case that is applicable in only the DOC, so it literally is not worth the paper is printed on anywhere else in the country. While the general concept remains true in many jurisdictions that police do not have to respond to every single call, regardless of circumstances, police cannot be derelict of duty. The can't simply say frick that guy, I'm don't feel like helping anyone today. There are extenuating circumstances in many if not all cases where a court came to this conclusion, such as police do not have to respond to calls during an ice storm because it is impracticable and only puts more people in danger.

quote:

---

WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

---

LINK

In what jurisdictions is the Supreme Court's rulings relevant?

quote:

---

Your citing a case that is applicable in only the DOC, so it literally is not worth the paper is printed on anywhere else in the country. While the general concept remains true in many jurisdictions that police do not have to respond to every single call, regardless of circumstances, police cannot be derelict of duty.

---

*You're in need of some serious reading up on this case and how the US Supreme Court works in general if you really think this.

quote:

---

The can't simply say frick that guy, I'm don't feel like helping anyone today. There are extenuating circumstances in many if not all cases where a court came to this conclusion, such as police do not have to respond to calls during an ice storm because it is impracticable and only puts more people in danger.

---

What part of "LEO's have no duty to protect INDIVIDUALS not in within their custody" do you have trouble grasping here? It's a pretty simple concept really.

quote:

---

50 yards is not necessary for a 1-2 minute response time. Cops are easily every half mile. That's less than 1000 yards in your police cruiser. When shots are fired you get your arse in gear.

---

Like I said, it also assumes the campus police know exactly where to go to respond to the shots fired. Maybe a half mile away and a dead sprint (or drive and sprint) maybe they could get to the scene within a few minutes, but they still need to know exactly where the attack is happening for that to happen.

Even still, several minutes is a long, long time. If a gunman stormed a classroom/lecture hall, they could take out everyone (or most, at least) there within two minutes. The damage is already done by the time the cops even get there, and that doesn't even mean the cops will storm the building and try to take out the bad guy (they may not).

quote:

---

I don't think they should really face jail time. That was an initial emotional exaggeration in my post. If I'm the parent of a student unable to carry a firearm by law, and if a law enforcement officer is hessitant going in to defend the students I would be pretty upset, if not hostile towards said officer.

---

You're free to feel however you want, but these officers have lives and families of their own, and without a legal duty to protect anyone, you'd be hard pressed to find individuals who are willing to rush onto the scene with no information and have them try to save the day by themselves like they are John McClane. They call for backup to increase the odds of taking down the bad guy as well as decrease the chances of injury to themselves and others.

It's not just about defending students, but doing so responsibly. A cop does the students no good running blindfolded into an ambush. Each "incident" is different and is handled differently. I don't fault the police at all for being cautious. That's why I'm such a proponent of citizen carry.

quote:

---

What I'm saying is shame on the human being being paid to defend those unable by law to defend themselves who gets cold feet and leaves kids having to resort to something like throwing chairs in desperation to survive

---

As has been said, they aren't paid to defend anyone. They aren't necessarily getting cold feet, either. I believe they are acting cautiously, as they should. Some situations allow them to immediately engage a shooter while other situations don't.

It's not the fault of the police that an evil person decides to take the lives of others. It's not the fault of the police that the school or university has a no-gun policy. It's not the fault of the police that the students have little recourse in fighting back.

Instead of focusing your anger and frustration on the first responders, perhaps you should blame the weapon policies of the schools, or more importantly, put the blame where it belongs: on the evil people killing defenseless students.