Fl School & survivor families should sue Police department for inaction

The more information that comes out about this incident the more it seems that there was a behind the scenes plot to allow Cruz to carry on with whatever he wanted, possibly with hopes of commuting a heinous act. It's not like they thought he might want to target a state or federal government building, it was clear that he was upset with the school, his peers and probably his life in general. I'll go as far as to surmise that some psychologists were brought in on this and asked what they though would be Cruz's probable target should he commit an act of violence and I'll bet we will find out that someone such as this will come forward in the weeks to months ahead stating that they thought it was highly likely he would target a school, class mates or teachers whether in school, school activity or outside.

Well the thing is that if they acted before this happened there would be no way for they to point their fingers at the big bad NRA (totally ignoring the fact that Cruz had all the warning signs, almost 40 incidents with police, etc which was more than adequate time for authorities to act) and blame the weapon instead of the individual.

I'll go so far as I would say it is VERY likely that there were some "insiders" within Cruz's life be they in person or online who were acting on behalf of the government to "egg him on" into committing these acts, possibly even suggesting these acts and giving moral support. For those who don't think this happens you are SADLY mistaken as this is rampant in later years of high school to college years especially when it comes to drugs, firearm sales and commuting assaults based on "hate". I was personally involved in a situation such as this that went on for at least 3 years where people acting on behalf of government manipulated me, coerced me, "bribed" me (offering LOTS of money for certain things). I later found out that 8 of these people in my circle were government CI's (confidential informants who were working off their charges by basically entrapping someone else in a lesser charge than what they were facing but a person the government wanted to control and be able to manipulate and ruin their future. They only way I found they were working as CI's was because I had a fraternity brother who became a state police officer had ran their names and they were sealed and all had the same arresting officer and prosecuting attorney & had their cases extended for over 3 years which is totally unheard of for drug or gun offenses - basically a 1 in a trillion chance of that happening unless there was a reason for it all

I wouldn't put it past the government to have inserted people into his life that talked about shooting schools, suggested it and possibly even provided guns, ammo, etc as something similar happened to me (but not guns). What they do is use one CI to plant the ideas, another to offer the "goods" either free, really cheap or on "loan" and then other CI's to buy from him and record the transaction for later prosecution. Now the thing is that the person would have NEVER done any of this unless he was in this circle of people who made it seem like it was "normal" and they do a great job of wearing you down, telling you how naive you are, how young and dumb you are, and look, see all these other people doing this, what do you think is going on - you have to look out for yourself and make your money while you have the opportunity. So they can take a straight edge, naive church boy who has no street knowledge and turn him into a drug or gun dealer with a few months of work. I've seen it happen to at least 3 different people at
my college.

now I'm not saying Cruz was an angel with some of his previous actions, but I would not be surprised in the LEAST if he didn't have some kind of prodding or financing by some outside entity who identified someone who was prone to acts of violence, had resentment towards their school and or classmates and had a very troubled family life - basically a perfect storm of events to be able to push him into the role of school shooter.

Now as far as the lawsuit, the school resource officer was there to specifically stop these situations or at least slow the perp down. If he has made his prescience known and taken a few shots at the shooter, he might have run away or at least taken cover and hunkered down. There are lots of reasons to move on the shooter, even with ONE officer let alone 4. I don't care what "protocol" is, this stinks to high heaven and I think it was planned (the reaction) to further some agenda which is yet to be seen. There is no reason that 2 officers couldn't have gone into the building while 2 remained outside scanning the exiting students. This is COWARDLY and a neglect of duty and they should be sued as a department, loose their jobs and possibly sued in civil court for all they are worth.

I think there was a plan in place for how to respond to this LONG before it happened, meaning that whenever the next school shooting happened, the police, politicians and media would have certain talking points and a replanted script to follow and the main reason for these was to push their political agenda and not save as many kids as possible. The anger of the children is misplaced and it shouldn't be on the NRA but on their local officials and politicians for politicizing this and not chastising the 4 deputies and the shooter.

Having the students being so vocal is another hallmark of a planned/scripted event where they deliver talking points to the kids for them to spout on the news because they can then villainize anyone who disagrees with these poor innocent victims. I remember the days when being a victim wasn't a badge of pride or honor and you kept that to yourself, now it seems that people are proud that someone stamped on their rights, beat the crap out of them and basically made them their Bi@#h. Well I guess that shows where self esteem has gone over the years. Drama queens abound, ignorant drama queens at that who have no idea of the full scope of the issue let alone the legal aspects of which they speak.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Sadly, the deputies who opted to hide rather than enter broke no laws. The US Supreme court has ruled police do not have a constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm.

Departmental policy is something else entirely, although given 3 more deputies also failed to enter tells me their department has no policy or the deputies are that poorly trained.

For the record I dont agree with the deputies decision to remain outside. I am merely pointing out the legal obstacle in the argument presented. That ruling, along with state law, most likely protects the individual deputies from civil law suits as well.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Sadly, the deputies who opted to hide rather than enter broke no laws. The US Supreme court has ruled police do not have a constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm.

Departmental policy is something else entirely, although given 3 more deputies also failed to enter tells me their department has no policy or the deputies are that poorly trained.

For the record I dont agree with the deputies decision to remain outside. I am merely pointing out the legal obstacle in the argument presented. That ruling, along with state law, most likely protects the individual deputies from civil law suits as well.

Every time I hear about that court ruling, " police do not have a constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm" gives more support for the 2nd amendment and IDK WHAT gun they choose to protect themselves! When a group of 10+ guys, drugged up and or drunk, want to kill you, a hunting rifle ain't going to do the job in self defense. I'll take an AR with a 60rd mag in that situation anyway and if you say things like that don't happen, well I can personally attest that it does and police response was well over 25 minutes when the station was less than 400 yards away (in a small town). Good thing there was a thick solid wood door with a heavy duty metal frame or I wouldn't be here to type this.


But do they have the authority to stop EMS from entering the school (after the shooting has stopped) to give medical aid to the injured students? I don't think they do, and I don't think anyone should have that authority to stop first responders from doing their jobs. If they are not negligent for going in, I think then at least they are guilty of with holding aid from people who were bleeding out, and this should be a crime in and of itself and punishable by at least firing, possibly jail time and definitely in civil courts.

nvm

Not all of us will charge a crazy kid with an AR-15.

I think I would but, until shots ring out you don't know for sure.

This Sheriff knows these kids. He will live with his actions.

That will torment him every day he draws a breath.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Have you thought this through?

Police are paid in tax dollars, suing the police department is a waste of time the money comes out of the people's pockets.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
Every time I hear about that court ruling, " police do not have a constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm" gives more support for the 2nd amendment and IDK WHAT gun they choose to protect themselves! When a group of 10+ guys, drugged up and or drunk, want to kill you, a hunting rifle ain't going to do the job in self defense. I'll take an AR with a 60rd mag in that situation anyway and if you say things like that don't happen, well I can personally attest that it does and police response was well over 25 minutes when the station was less than 400 yards away (in a small town). Good thing there was a thick solid wood door with a heavy duty metal frame or I wouldn't be here to type this.

Anyone who pushes the police are armed so civilians dont need to be are either knowingly lying or are uneducated about the topic. You are your own first line of defense, not the police.

originally posted by: DigginFoTroof
But do they have the authority to stop EMS from entering the school (after the shooting has stopped) to give medical aid to the injured students? I don't think they do, and I don't think anyone should have that authority to stop first responders from doing their jobs. If they are not negligent for going in, I think then at least they are guilty of with holding aid from people who were bleeding out, and this should be a crime in and of itself and punishable by at least firing, possibly jail time and definitely in civil courts.

Actually yes, Law Enforcement does have the authority on these types of scenes to block the entrance of Fire and EMS units. Fire and EMS also have their own policies dealing with scene safety and generally are prohibited from entering an unstable scene that is not secured by law enforcement. In the end the laws in place give the police command authority on certain scenes. With that said I have seen EMS and Fire break those policies / laws. In those instances nothing came from it and I figure if they have the balls to enter an unstable scene to deal with wounded then I will have their backs regardless.

I can say in all my time doing Law enforcement I can count on one hand the number of times I had issues with another agency (Fire) and it was on an accident scene with severe injuries. Fire, at least in my neck of the woods, usually assists on cleaning up debris from the highways / road ways for accidents. They dont get the training some police get when it comes to advanced accident scene investigations. Debris from an accident can be used to show how the accident occurred, what car hit what car and where. It can also help determine speed of impact etc. That info is required if serious physical injury or death occurs since it moves into a prosecutable felony crime. Sometimes you get a new fire fighters who just jumps in an wants to help and doesn't realize he is now messing with a crime scene and by extension tampering with evidence.

All you can do is educate and hope there is no repeats.

Patient safety and life is top priority though.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Have you thought this through?

Police are paid in tax dollars, suing the police department is a waste of time the money comes out of the people's pockets.

Not always. If an officers actions violate a policy / procedure / guideline and an IA investigation finds the officer at fault and sustains the investigation then the department and governing entity can disassociate themselves from the officer and their actions. It means the officer is personally responsible for any civil judgement awarded to the victims. Given how much officers make though I dont see multi million dollar verdicts being paid in a timely manner.

Note that is one of only a couple of ways the civil immunity protections for law enforcement can be nullified. Either by breaking the law or breaking departmental policy / procedures / guidelines.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Fair enough, as you elaborate though being a civil suit there is only a small amount of money if any at all, can't get blood out of a stone.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xcathdra

Fair enough, as you elaborate though being a civil suit there is only a small amount of money if any at all, can't get blood out of a stone.

If it is solely restricted to the officer correct. However the way cities operate they want the bad PR to go away as quickly as possible and that usually means asking how many zeros the "victim" wants after the 1 on the check.

a reply to: Xcathdra

So I assume then if the city wants it to go away they use tax money to make it go away?

originally posted by: whyamIhere


This Sheriff knows these kids. He will live with his actions.

That will torment him every day he draws a breath.

Beg to differ. Sheriff Scott Israel says that he provides "amazing leadership" for his deputies and employees.

“Jake, I can only take responsibility for what I knew about,” Israel said. “I exercised my due diligence. I provided amazing leadership to this agency.”

Source: www.sun-sentinel.com...

I'm certain that the families affected by this tragedy do NOT share his view.

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Xcathdra

So I assume then if the city wants it to go away they use tax money to make it go away?

Essentially yes. Absent some city or state law a city can settle with whomever they want for whatever they want, even if the officer breaks no laws or department policies / procedures / guidelines.