re: PBS Frontline just put out an episode on the Uvalde shooting (bodycams, 911 calls, etc)

Has there been any realistic estimates on the kids that died due to delayed medical treatment?

I haven’t read what the ISD job requirements/experience were to be the police chief for the ISD or be on the ISD police force, but whether low requirements by ISD or ISD hired friends the ISD chief and cops were obviously not qualified.

quote:

---

Has there been any realistic estimates on the kids that died due to delayed medical treatment?

---

Apparently a 911 call came from a student in room 111 an hour after the initial shooting, and another student could be heard. Gunshots were heard a couple minutes later. Every student in room 111 died.

It’s on YouTube

quote:

---

Stuff like this makes you really wonder why dereliction of duty, cowardice, and desertion are not criminal offenses for LEO.

---

The Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that law enforcement officers have zero requirement to help anyone.

Period.

There is zero requirement for them to help any person, no matter the situation.

An officer can watch someone attack you, not intervene, and face no legal consequences.

Just finished watching.....man that is a tough watch. I'm not sure what to say right now.

quote:

---

states should allow unions that can come up with better pension/ retirement to offset the low pay. Fully vest in 20 and have some tax breaks. And in doing so, that should also increase health/ fitness requirements and yearly training (re)qualifications.

---

Some states have set up state systems which police are state certified and their retirement is through the state and they can migrate from one department to another within the state as needed. This keeps the departments from becoming too tyrannical with officers who are trapped within only that department. It is a pretty effective concept.

quote:

---

This is not an easy episode to watch.

---

I'm recording it not sure I'll watch.

My sadness for the children who died needlessly is matched only by my anger at the LEO's who stood around like cowards with their thumb up their arse and allowed them to die.

Run tactically towards the gunfire, clear the area or get another job.

Like the cops in Nashville did.

quote:

---

I'm curious to know if that'd be the case with a school police dept. Seems like that would be a requirement, to protect those kids.

---

Nope, Deshaney v Winnebago Co DSS and its progeny make it clear the State has no obligation to protect which applies to all its agent employees. This is one of the opinions tOT might be on the side of the liberal justices.

quote:

---

Deshaney v Winnebago Co DSS and its progeny make it clear the State has no obligation to protect which applies to all its agent employees. This is one of the opinions tOT might be on the side of the liberal justices.

---

If the Court ruled the other way, just imagine what the government would do in the name of 'protecting' people. This case and the general concept are cited as if police will stand by and watch you get murdered and have no culpability, but the facts are much more nuanced. It's a tragic case and I've always wondered what happened to the father.

From casebriefs.com

Brief Fact Summary.
The mother of an abused child, Ms. DeShaney (Petitioner) brought an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.S. Section: 1983 against Winnebago County Department of Social Services (Department) and its various employees, (Respondents) for failing to intervene to protect the child from beatings by his father. The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Respondents. Petitioner sought review.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.
Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors.

Facts.
In 1984, four-year-old Joshua DeShaney went into a coma resulting in profound retardation due to traumatic head injuries inflicted by his father who physically beat him over a long period of time. The Department received numerous complaints of the abuse and took various steps to protect the child. The Department did not, however, remove Joshua from his father’s custody. Ms. DeShaney subsequently sued the Department. She contended that the Department had deprived the child of his “liberty interest in bodily integrity, in violation of his rights under the substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, by failing to intervene to protect him against his father’s violence.”

Issue.
Does a state, in failing to protect an individual against private violence, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Held.
No. The Due Process Clause does not impose a special duty on the state to provide services to the public for protection against private actors if the state did not create those harms. “The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means.”

Dissent.
Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Blackmun, dissented. Brennan focused on “the State’s knowledge of [the] individual’s predicament [and] its expressions of intent to help him” i.e., the Department of Human Services’ involvement in the case and its having learned of the violence inflicted on the child. Brennan essentially equated this to a “limitation of his freedom to act on his own behalf.” In other words, the involvement of the Department effectively precluded non-government entities from intervening, and when the Department failed to act on suspicions of child abuse it became morally culpable for the harm that ensued.

Discussion.
In its analysis the Supreme Court of the United States determined that the Fourteenth Amendment did not require a state or local governmental agency to protect its citizens from private violence or other mishaps not attributable to the conduct of its employees. The Court draws the distinction between the limits of government action and government responsibility: “[a]lthough the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference, it does not confer an entitlement to such governmental aid as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.” The state’s responsibility to protect citizen is one of general scope: “[i]f the Due Process Clause does not require a state to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that a state cannot be held liable under the Due Process Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them.” Thus, the Court concluded, “[t]he Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual.

A case often cited on this point is Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005). Ms. Gonzalez got a restraining order against her estranged husband that prohibited husband from seeing Ms. G or their three daughters except during pre-arranged visits.

Husband abducted the three children. Ms. G. called the cops 4 times in one day and even visited the police station to beg police to search for and arrest her husband for violating the restraining order, but the police told her to wait until later that evening and see if husband brought the kids back. That night, husband murdered all three kids and then opened fire inside a police station, where cops killed him.

Ms. G sued the town and police for not enforcing her restraining order. The Supreme Court ruled, 7–2, in an opinion by Scalia that they were not liable under the constitution. The cops had no obligation to enforce the order, except at their discretion. Only libs Stevens and Ginsburg dissented.