Originally Posted by PaulBarnard
Originally Posted by Oheremicus
Actually, the case law I've seen has stated cops have no duty to protect individuals, just society as a whole. For instance, the city of San Jose in Kalifornia is currently being sued by the people injured at a Trump Rally. The city tried to claim they had no duty to protect those injured by the "protesters". The federal judge over ruled them and the suit is going forward. E


I think what you'll find is that a specific course of action has never been and never will be legally prescribed. While San Jose may have had a duty to provide security or police staffing, the court won't rule on a specific course of action the officers there should have taken. As it relates to the Broward Coward the judge said he had a duty to act responsibly. I doubt the jury will find that he had a duty to walk into gunfire without a thorough assessment of the situation.


Active shooter training is very clear. Move toward the gunfire and engage the target. The biggest factor determining the number of casualties in a mass shooting incident is the amount of time between the when gun fire starts and and return fire begins.

This man had a duty. He failed to act responsibly, and should be held accountable.

You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.

You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell