- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Active shooter at Ohio State - at least 8 injured so far
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:28 pm to conservativewifeymom
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:28 pm to conservativewifeymom
Michaganers
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:30 pm to olddawg26
quote:Doesn't matter.
Thought they swore an oath to protect?
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.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:33 pm to olddawg26
quote:
Thought they swore an oath to protect
Protect individuals? Nope.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:33 pm to KeyserSoze999
quote:
Hillary had one of her hitmen go at it, she will soon be asking for a revote in Ohio
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:43 pm to skinny domino
Attacker was Somali refugee.
Shocking
Shocking
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:55 pm to Scruffy
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.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 12:58 pm to TigernMS12
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?
Posted on 11/28/16 at 1:02 pm to the808bass
Even better find.
Thanks.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that cops have zero obligation to protect you.
None.
You are obligated to protect yourself.
Thanks.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that cops have zero obligation to protect you.
None.
You are obligated to protect yourself.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 1:03 pm to TigernMS12
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.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 1:08 pm to Clames
quote:
*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.
The quote he originally cited was from a DOC appeals court, not SCOTUS. I'm well aware of how SCOTUS works. As far as the SCOTUS case, I was not aware that they had ruled on this issue, so for that I apologize and I was wrong. Before that case there were splits on the rule, hence why SCOTUS overturned the ruling of the lower court in the case cited by Bass.
This post was edited on 11/28/16 at 1:09 pm
Posted on 11/28/16 at 1:28 pm to Lsuchs
quote: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.
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.
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: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.
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.
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: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.
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
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.
Posted on 11/28/16 at 2:24 pm to Cosmo
LINK
Thanks, Obama.
quote:
Law enforcement officials told NBC News the suspect's name is Abdul Artan, an 18-year-old student at the university. He was a Somali refugee who left his homeland with his family in 2007, lived in Pakistan and then came to the United States in 2014 as a legal permanent resident of the United States, officials said.
Thanks, Obama.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News