TexasCHLforum.com

SewTexas wrote:

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote: A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in.

How does this statement (Or is it your opinion?) align with the SCOTUS decision in 2005 that says the police have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... otect.html

Is it a difference between constitutional duty versus the obligation or nature of the job? Especially since they were there at a school for a reason? Or would that SCOTUS decision not really pertain in this case since it was not really an individual per se, but rather the student body and staff as a whole?

My husband and I had this discussion a night or two ago. We finally reached the conclusion that while Peterson, according to SCOTUS did not have a obligation to "Protect", thus he did not have an obligation to "charge in". He, as the only person with a gun, and as a police officer, did have a moral obligation to go in.
Now, this will be interesting when the civil cases come around, as you know they will....

In this case, there is a difference most people forget. While I agree with the moral obligation, which should be the strongest motivation IMO, there was also a legal obligation.

When the SCOTUS said police have no obligation to protect anyone, that is taking a partial sentence out of context. The full decision is that they have no duty to protect any specific person UNLESS there is a special relationship developed between the police and the victim. In this case, by accepting the assignment to the school, the sheriff's office and its employees developed a special relationship with an obligation to protect the victims. Obviously, until the courts rule on it, the existence of this special circumstance is my opinion, but if I were the lawyers involved, I would rely on it until the courts ruled otherwise. I would also find other reasons for the suit just in case, but I believe he had a legal obligation to safeguard the students of the school because of the assignment as the campus officer.

And to answer the questions about the survivability of the officer with a pistol against a rifle, I think it is possible. By being indoors, the rifle loses a lot of its advantage, which is distance. The officer also does not have to get into a face to face gunfight. He can take a position where he can apply suppressive fire to make the shooter take cover. He could even take a covered position where he could just shout and talk to the shooter. All of these, and others I cannot think of offhand, would meet the goal of helping.

On a side note, there is a lot of split in the forum over this. In a way, I see this as a good thing and in a way it is a bad thing. I like the fact that a lot of people are supporting the deputy by pointing out the improbability of him winning a gun fight. I disagree, but I like the support for him. That is the good part. The bad part is I don't like to see how personal some of the attacks have been. I really don't want to see us arguing instead of discussing this (or any point). I am somewhat amazed at how the politics has entered it, but I think that is a symptom of modern society and too many discussions devolve into that.

If it helps anyone, the police forums I am on are almost universal in not supporting the deputy. Police are generally very unforgiving of mistakes made by other officers, but it is usually more of a brotherly ribbing about it. Many of the jokes and memes I have seen lately on police forums are pretty pointed against Broward County Sheriff's Office. There have been a few saying to wait until the investigation finishes, especially since the letter from the lawyer was published. But most agree that the best the deputy can hope for is people to recognize that the training was faulty and had not been updated since Columbine. Generally, police training since then is to go in and confront the shooter as soon as one or two officers get to the scene.

First, in the interest of full transparency, I did not read all of the posts on five pages, I skimmed them and read the ones I thought looked interesting.

There seems to be a discussion in some circles of what the true responsibility of an armed person is in a case like the school shooting in Parkland. In my opinion, it differs by the person and why they are carrying. I carry as a retired peace officer. I no longer have any obligation to charge in to a shooting. But as Charles pointed out, some of us are wired to run to the sound of guns and there is little doubt in my mind that, assuming I was there for some reason, I would go try to engage the shooter. I doubt anyone could find fault in me if I did not do so though.

If you have an LTC, I believe you have no obligation to defend anyone else other than yourself. I would not find any fault in any LTC who did not charge in, and would consider the ones who do when not required to be heroes. You are just wired that way, I guess, and I have no problem with that.

A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in. In this case, I agree that it is not his being a hero, but him doing the job he is paid to do. I never agreed with the secure the perimeter training we received in the past and am glad studies after Columbine said to do otherwise. The ALERRT program at Texas State has professors who researched this and say the best way to end a shooting is for the first responders to get in there and challenge the shooter. In most cases, the shooter will suicide rather than face the police though this is not a guaranteed response. The shooter might really shoot back at the police and the first responder who goes in might die. But he saves lives while doing so even if it is just by distracting the shooter while more of the victims get away.

And one of the thinks that bothers me right now is the news coverage all focusing on the deputies who did not go in. We are missing the chance to honor a true hero. There was a man there who was not armed and was never expected to respond to a shooter the way he did. But the football coach, who helped out as a part-time security officer on campus, knew what he was doing and put himself between the shooter and students. Aaron Feis died while being a hero. I don't want us to focus on the cowards and not remember to honor the true heroes.