Four deputies refuse to make entry into school

Are you saying that CNN is not telling the facts? If so, post credible sources countering CNN. I don't pay much attention to CNN, but they are as credible as most other newfeeds, IMO.
 
I wont get into my thoughts on CNN or any other left wing trash but it does seem that the SRO and others dropped the ball. Cowardice, lack of training, both? Whatever the reason, good luck to those involved or should I say who chose not to get involved living with it.
 
"Wait for the Translation"

Why would you trust a preliminary report from a (possible) questionable source who is reporting through a 3rd party on what happened? Yea, it's easy and sometimes fun to speculate on this, but the deputy(s) in question has received death threats and other .... and new info comes out daily that nullifies what we heard yesterday.

There apparently is video and that will become public.
If he (they) actually screwed up / failed to faithfully execute his duties, we're going to hear about it shortly in what could be a 7, 8 or 9 figure lawsuit.
 
I took a quick look at this earlier today.
Its published in multiple sources. I did not read them all.(FWIW,I did not bother with CNN)
Allegedly, it was police officers from ...is it Crystal Springs? The local city police that responded and went in.
Allegedly,anonymous sources from the Crystal Springs PD were surprised that somewhere between one and four sheriff deputies would not enter the building.
One article said the Sheriff was investigating whether the deputies followed policy.The Sheriff acknowledged more than one deputy was on admin leave.

So,IMO,we have some indication there is a bigger story coming,maybe.

But the reports are "from anonymous sources",they conflict (some say 2,some 3,some 4 ???)
I think there is something,but,IMO,we don't have a credible or complete story.
So I'm going to wait and see.

If there is something there,its not going to go away.
 
I know that these are dated items that I'm posting, but I believe that they are still valid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/p...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

http://gunssavelives.net/blog/supre...e-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/

This means that, legally, no LEO is obligated to enter into a situation where his life would be in danger. Or am I mistaken?

Not a very good thing to know, but a very good argument for CC in my opinion.
 
This means that, legally, no LEO is obligated to enter into a situation where his life would be in danger.
Click to expand...
They are not legally obligated, however they are obligated to conform to department policy if they wish to remain employed.

The company where I work prohibits running anywhere on the facility. If I run between buildings in the rain, I can not be prosecuted for doing so, but they can fire me.

More to the point, if a person signs up to do a job involving a particular critical duty and then doesn't do that duty as required, that is a problem. If I sign up to be firefighter and refuse to enter burning buildings, or if I sign up to be an EMT and then refuse to ever do CPR, or if I sign up to protect schoolchildredn and then refuse to confront someone trying to kill my charges, that is a problem. I probably won't be legally penalized for my refusal, but I will be fired (or at least punished by the company I work for), and I will make a lot of people very angry.

Of course my being fired or reprimanded doesn't do anything constructive in terms of the people who needed my help and didn't get it.
Not a very good thing to know, but a very good argument for CC in my opinion.
Click to expand...
There's certainly something to be said for taking responsibility for your own safety, and for giving people the ability to defend themselves more effectively.
 
This means that, legally, no LEO is obligated to enter into a situation where his life would be in danger. Or am I mistaken?
Click to expand...

The cases being cited deal with whether officers have a duty to act under the Constitution. They do not have a constitutional duty to act and police departments cannot be held civilly liable for their failure to act provided the officer did not create the problem to begin with.

For example, if an officer responds to the scene of an accident and you are standing in traffic and he ignores you and you get hit by a car, no liability. If the officer orders you to move to the side of the road for your own safety and a car strikes you as you stand where the officer told you to stand, there may be liability. However, this is from a constitutional perspective.

For example, Article 2.13 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure says:

“Art. 2.13. DUTIES AND POWERS. (a) It is the duty of every peace officer to preserve the peace within the officer's jurisdiction. To effect this purpose, the officer shall use all lawful means.

(b) The officer shall:
(1) in every case authorized by the provisions of this Code, interfere without warrant to prevent or suppress crime;
...
(4) arrest offenders without warrant in every case where the officer is authorized by law...”

So there is a legal obligation under state law to act, though off the top of my head I can’t think of a single case of an officer being prosecuted for failing to act.
 
I'm quite sure nobody really cares what my legal opinion is. Its not the law.

I can be responsible for my own safety if I can be armed. I can choose to not go to a "gun free zone" for the most part.

But,with some exception,kids are legally required to go to school.My logic says the schools then assume responsibility for their safety.
It appears to be proven current school security and gun free zone schools do not accomplish student safety.

If these were industrial accidents,OSHA would create and enforce standards.
If it was chemical spills,the EPA would be all over it..an airline crash,FAA.

Schools don't burn down because we took fires seriously.

Its time,past time,that the schools own and live up to the trust we must put in them to keep our kids safe.

that's got nothing to do with attacking the 2A.

If I go to the Post Office to visit Social Security,I am greeted in front of the elevators by two armed young men who look like Veterans in homeland Security uniforms. I have to show ID and pass a metal detector.
In the SocialSecurity office there is an armed guard presence.
Why are the schools less secure? Why are our children so unimportant?
Until after they are dead. Then they are exploited for politics.
 
Last edited:
http://gunssavelives.net/blog/supre...e-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/

I think it's important to view this decision in perspective. I am not a lawyer -- Frank or Spats or any of the actual attorneys around here please correct me, but my understanding is that this decision applies to the general man in the street, and the general cop on the street. If you are walking down Main Street, even though Yourtown, USA, has a police force that police force doesn't have a specific duty to protect you from every possible criminal act that could befall you. The duty of the police department is a general duty to "fight crime."

The situation at the Parkland school is perhaps a bit different. Kids in a public school are not the general man in the street. They are, while they are in a public school, under the control and authority of the public school system, which is acting in loco parentis ("in place of the parents") and which has some responsibility and liability for ensuring the safety of the students.

In order to further the protection of the students, the school system has an agreement with the Sheriff's department to provide an armed law enforcement officer (called the School Resource Officer, or SRO) at the school on a full-time basis. He is there for the express purpose of protecting the children. That IS his job. So I'm not convinced that the general court ruling that the police don't have a duty to provide individual protection is a (pardon the term) get-out-of-jail-free card for the sheriff's office in this case.
 
Johnksa said it best above "a very good argument for CC in my opinion."


IMHO the other three may get a time off etc but they will continue to work and receive their retirement. They will likely be working a desk till they retire.

I would not even be surprised if the population there re-elects the Sheriff. Why I cannot fathom but will be interesting to see what happens or rather what doesn't happen.

But it is for sure the NRA and Dana Loesch will continued to be blamed and chances are excellent we will pay for this by having our 2nd Amend rights removed/reduced.

The cops will win at the expense of the kids.
 
Last edited:
Not just CNN anymore. Multiple legitimate news outlets have reported this. The anti's and snowflakes need to realize that no amount of gun banning can fix this kind of cowardice. We need to lift CC restrictions in these soft targets, period.
 
I was hearing reports of this, from reliable sources, since literally the day after. So I think there is some truth to it.
 
Pres Trump just addressed the other three deputy failures on Judge Jeanine about 50 minutes ago.

As well I just got this from a long time high power shooting friend who winters over in Florida and he just received this a few minutes ago.



EMERGENCY ALERT! Don’t Let Them Blame You For Parkland

DATE: February 23, 2018
TO: USF & NRA Member and Friends
FROM: Marion P. Hammer
USF Executive Director
NRA Past President

Today, Governor Rick Scott, the Florida Senate and the Florida House announced their respective plans to stop future mass shooters in our schools.

There are components of the plan that we should all support. Hardening our schools, putting law enforcement in all schools when students are present, training volunteer teachers to use guns and protect children, keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill, and allowing law enforcement and administrators to deal with people who are a danger to themselves or others, are all things that need to be done. Unfortunately, there are gun control measures being considered as well.

The legislature is considering the following gun control measures:

1. A three day waiting period (3-Day Wait) on the purchase of all firearms. There is no way a 3-day waiting period would have stopped the Parkland murderer. He bought his gun many months before committing a planned, premeditated murder of 17 high school students and teachers. Proponents of a 3-day waiting period claim the waiting period is supposed to stop a person from running out in the heat of passion and buying a gun to kill someone. But they ignore the fact that mass shootings have all been planned in advance.

2. Ban on Bump Stocks. This was pulled out of the air to add more gun control to appease anti-gun groups. The regulation of Bump Stocks is currently being addressed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Banning something that is being worked on at the federal leveI is just an excuse to add another gun-ban-type item to the list. It had nothing to do with the Parkland shooting.

3. Raise the age limit to purchase rifles and shotguns from 18 to 21. 18 year-olds can vote, purchase a car, sign a legal contract, become a law enforcement officer, join the military and go overseas and die for our country – but they shouldn’t be able to buy a rifle or shotgun for self-defense, hunting or target shooting? This is a punitive, misguided and failed approach. The result is that a 20-year-old man or woman would not be able to purchase ANY firearm for self-defense, hunting or any other lawful purpose.

If raising the age to purchase a long gun would have stopped the Parkland killer from purchasing a gun legally how could it have stopped him from purchasing one illegally?

We must address BEHAVIOR -- and that is not accomplished with gun control. Punishing law-abiding gun owners for the acts of a criminal, instead of focusing on the abject failures of the FBI, Broward Sheriff’s office, Dept. of Children and Families, and a Deputy Sheriff who wouldn’t go into the school and stop the shooter is the wrong way to deal with this situation. We can do better.

Please EMAIL Governor Rick Scott, Senate President Joe Negron and House Speaker Richard Corcoran, incoming Senate President Bill Galvano and incoming House Speaker Jose Oliva IMMEDIATELY and tell them NO GUN CONTROL.

Urge them to provide armed security in schools and tighten mental health laws to keep guns out of the hands of those who are a danger to themselves or others BUT LEAVE THE RIGHTS OF LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNERS ALONE.

IN THE SUBJECT LINE PUT: DON’T BLAME GUN OWNERS FOR PARKLAND

(To send your message to all just Block and Copy All email addresses into the "Send To" box)

rick.scott@eog.myflorida.com
negron.joe@flsenate.gov
richard.corcoran@myfloridahouse.gov
jose.oliva@myfloridahouse.gov
galvano.bill@flsenate.gov
officeofthesenatepresident@flsenate.gov
RC@richardcorcoran.com

To Point 3 I would add that a young man joins the military goes to AGN by the time he's 19, loses a leg or two to a IED and comes home and is told he can't by a AR is very likely to occur. CIP I had friends who enlisted right after high school and six months later was told they were killed or maimed or MIA in Nam. One of my buddies lasted 72 hours in Nam and got mortared and was back home in 5 months.
 
Could be just a coincidence, but there were two different schools where I live that reported students having guns in school in the last couple of weeks.
 
Since the Columbine massacre it has been the policy of most police departments that the SRO respond immediately.

The Broward sheriff's dep't may be locked into the old drug raid SWAT thing: Just cool it until SWAT arrives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top