[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by blueash

Then you read something that seems wrong to me. Tou Thao was found guilty of aiding and abetting manslaughter when he failed to intervene to stop manslaughter. It may be that our wonderful SCOTUS will overturn as it has stated that cops have no duty to protect citizens despite the old "serve and protect" motto plastered everywhere. The question thus is what interests are cops serving and protecting as it is not school children being slaughtered.

A school teacher can lose her profession for failing to notice and report possible child abuse, but a cop is immune to any lawsuit for their failure to act.

No, not immune to any lawsuit. Immune to criminal charges. There's a huge difference.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Also - important to understand - he no longer has -criminal- charges to face. He can still be sued by the families of the victims in civil court for failure to act. For those who say "no one should be expected to play the hero" - that was his job. That's what he was paid to do: to protect students and keep the peace at the school. He was a Sheriff's deputy - he accepted the responsibility, then failed.

I don't think he should be held criminally responsible, because there's no way of knowing that - even if he DID act, he would've acted in time to save anyone. But he chose not to act at all, even though that was his job. And for that - he deserves to be held accountable and pay damages. That's my opinion.

You never know what an individual judge or jury might do, but our wonderful Supreme Court has ruled that cops have no obligation to protect citizens, period. The only successful cases are when it can be shown the cop actively committed a tort or deprived a citizen of a known right. Keep in mind that under sovereign immunity that cops are not expected to know the law, although your ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and thus they have a nearly 100% freedom to abuse your rights.

The law now, simplified, says that unless that cop was told in advance that a very specific act is unconstitutional, he may not be held responsible for a violation. Unless the cop knows he shouldn't do a cavity search on a woman standing in the open on the side of a street, he is free to do so. And no court can make a finding that such an act was a violation without there being a previous case so stating. Thus because no previous case exists with this exact set of actions, Cop A gets away with it. Then when Cop B does the same thing, because there still is no previous case, etc...

Read this case summary... cops had a search warrant and removed items from a home. The home owner reported that much more was removed and not listed on the inventory. The cops did not admit to theft, there was no criminal trial. The homeowner sued for recovery which would seem a question for a jury. But no... such suit was prohibited because, there was no existing rule saying cops couldn't steal while executing a search. Immunity. and this court could not impose such a rule, so the next one can't and the next one can't

Jessop v. City of Fresno, No. 17-16756 (9th Cir. 2019) Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting the City Officers’ motion for summary judgment in an action alleging that City of Fresno police officers violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when they stole Appellants’ property after conducting a search and seizure pursuant to a warrant. Following the search, the City Officers gave Appellants an inventory sheet stating that they seized approximately $50,000 from Appellants’ properties. Appellants alleged, however, that the officers actually seized $151,380 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins. Appellants alleged that the City Officers stole the difference between the amount listed on the inventory sheet and the amount that was actually seized from the properties. The panel held that it need not decide whether the City Officers violated the Constitution. The panel determined that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property that is seized pursuant to a warrant.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

No, not immune to any lawsuit. Immune to criminal charges. There's a huge difference.

This officer was charged with a crime, so I don't understand your "correction" that he is immune to criminal charges. He was charged with a crime, and convicted and sentenced for that crime.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by blueash

This officer was charged with a crime, so I don't understand your "correction" that he is immune to criminal charges. He was charged with a crime, and convicted and sentenced for that crime.

He was charged on 11 counts and found not guilty on all 11. I used the wrong terminology - he wasn't immune to being charged, but he was found not guilty.

He can still be sued.

[blueash]

///

[Kelevision]

Yet some people think we should arm all the teachers. Can you imagine.

[kenpoboy]

Useless cops?? Why don't you try it for a week and see what is really involved with doing this job. You're the coward who sits behind a keyboard and judges from far away. If you want to make a stand and stick up for your ideas, make sure you have the facts before you start typing.

[Blackbird45]

If you consider someone a hero or a coward is not the problem and it's not just this issue. Every employee when applying for a job should be handed a handbook with full description of what is expected from them. The handbook should not only describe what is demanded of the job, but the penalties in this way the person will be aware what the position entails. Once the person agrees they understand and agrees to take the position they sign a contract stating what is expected of them. In this way avoiding being judged after the fact and reducing court cases. This is not only the police, but every employee governmental or private.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Scot Peterson, a 60 year old resource officer, was found "not guilty" on all 11 counts where he was charged with a crime for not acting to stop the shooting. Personally, I agree with the verdict. The Government cannot and should not mandate courage.

If you are a "guard" and carry a gun, let's hope you have courage, or just get another job.

[NoMo50]

Originally Posted by dougjb

Just goes to show you, the presence of SRO's on school campuses are totally useless.

Yet another example of misapplied "logic" by branding an entire class of people based on the actions, or lack thereof, of a single person.

The vast majority of SRO's have not, and would not, behave the way Peterson did. There are countless accounts of SRO's performing valiant acts, if you want to take the time to search them out.

Being a keyboard kommando is easy. Doing the job of many hard working men and women...not so much.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

If you are a "guard" and carry a gun, let's hope you have courage, or just get another job.

I agree, but I don't think he should be put in prison for the rest of his life.

[gatorbill1]

He did what he was trained to do

[Blueblaze]

Cowardice in the face of the enemy was enough for a prison sentence or even hanging, back when any male citizen was liable to be drafted to fight this country's enemies.

Now it's not even a firing offense in Texas to wait in a hallway with a dozen other cops, all suited up in bullet-proof vests with AR15's, while they listen to a lunatic murder children for 45 minutes and wait for the last real man in town to arrive, armed with nothing more than his barber's shotgun.

At least this Florida coward can claim he was alone and armed only with his service weapon for the first few minutes before help arrived.

But the mere fact that such cowards exist in our police forces, and the courts don't care, tells you that this country is becoming one not worth defending -- as you can see by the armed services' inability to reach their recruitment goals.

[Wondering]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Scot Peterson, a 60 year old resource officer, was found "not guilty" on all 11 counts where he was charged with a crime for not acting to stop the shooting. Personally, I agree with the verdict. The Government cannot and should not mandate courage.

Well, if the person didn't have courage, he shouldn't have been in that job to begin with. Another gutless, pathetic human being. Wonder if you would feel the same if your child was killed!

[Gsorace]

That's not really true. As a teacher of "at-risk" students for over 30 years, I can tell you that a good SRO establishes a rapport with students. I've seen first-hand that this relationship has led to elimination of problems and incidents in the school.