It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parkland Shooting: Police Do Not Have a Responsibility to Save Students

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Wouldn't the police at least have the responsibility to go after the active shooter?? In essence that's kind of the same thing as protecting the students. Definitely not standing down and hiding until the action is over.




posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 08:43 AM
link   
Not awake enough to handle this bill snip...


Is it to late to sell south Florida, to Cuba or maybe pay them to take it.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   
You Don't SAY

NewsWeek - FLORIDA PANEL INVESTIGATING PARKLAND SHOOTING APPROVES TRUMP-BACKED RECOMMENDATION TO ARM TEACHERS


Ahead of the January 1, 2019, deadline, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission released a draft of the recommendations they would present to Florida’s governor, speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senate president. Among the proposed solutions to prevent and quickly stop school shootings, was the suggestion of arming teachers.



edit on 12192018 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 09:02 AM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

No kidding. The court just ruled the police have no obligation to protect them. What other choice do they have??



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: jjkenobi

Police were never the answer .... they respond to calls - prevent few
edit on 12192018 by MetalThunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: GenerationGap

you didnt know that already!? lol how cute... police are not here to protect you. they are here to enforce the laws and take your money. they wont even clean your gut off the side walk.

apply for a pistol permit. only you are in charge of protecting yourself and your family.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 09:12 AM
link   
The police do protect one of their own after a crime is committed. I suppose it is an optional but always carried out move.

Why is there any question of why people will not give up the right to firearm ownership.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 09:15 AM
link   
a reply to: MetalThunder

I wonder what David Hogg will have to say about this?


Oh, wait... nothing, because his head is likely exploding.


TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 09:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: smkymcnugget420
a reply to: GenerationGap

you didnt know that already!? lol how cute... police are not here to protect you. they are here to enforce the laws and take your money. they wont even clean your gut off the side walk.

apply for a pistol permit. only you are in charge of protecting yourself and your family.


This is how it is supposed to be done by police. www.post-gazette.com... /201810280197

My Jewish friends tell me that other congregations have armed members who don't broadcast that they have concealed weapons.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 10:06 AM
link   
If you remove the ability of people to defend themselves, the responsibility of their defense falls on your shoulders. You bet your ass the PD had a duty to protect...its a gun free zone, they took responsibility for safety upon themselves by removing it from the people.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Plausible deniability.

The argument against your position will be that the police do not have a duty to protect the innocent public because the police did not implement the laws removing the people's ability to protect themselves. The legislature did. Thus, since there is a separation of powers between the Legislative and Executive branches, the Executive cannot be held to standards the Legislative implied for them.

That makes no common sense, whereas your observation obviously does, but that will be the response to your objections. This is the world we have built around ourselves. This is our legacy of being the "most intelligent life form on the planet."

Perhaps we should stop looking to other worlds for intelligent life until we have located it here.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I simplify it more: the government, whomever that may be, removes the right. Thus, the government (whomever that may be) is responsible for the safety.

Branches of government be damned. And if the enforcement wing decides they won't cash the check the legislature wrote...that makes the legislatures check void. IMO, of course.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
Are they trying to make the case that they can't be sued and are not liable if they fail to save students from a shooter?

Wasn't there a cop on scene during this shooting that for whatever reason hesitated going inside??



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh, don't get me wrong; I agree with you wholeheartedly! I have even asked before, if guns were made illegal, would that not make my family's protection from wild animals the sole responsibility of the government? I am just pointing out the legal (aka imbecilic) defense against that reasoning.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: randomtangentsrme
There is zero obligation for anyone to defend others. Regardless of profession.
This is why some continue to argue for self reliance.
I have been 'trained' it's not my duty to defend my college students in regards to a hostile situation at work.


Have talked to my daughter, she is a teacher or special needs kids in a middle school, she says Dad Im not leaving any of my students behind, and there would be no easy way to to evacuate anyway. Ive told her be prepared to blockcade the door we bought a couple of wedges that might work slowing the opening off the door. Have told her stand to the side of the door and be ready be to hit them with anything big and heavy, not sure what she can and can not have. Sucks to have to live in a world where you have to do that, but if they offer training she would definitely be one to get that training, so she could have one in the classroom. She already is pretty good with her .38 at home, can load quickly and has a good consistent pattern at 3o feet.


I appreciate your daughters sentiment. And as a volunteer for the Special Olympics for multiple years, I agree with the sentiment. But ideals are not reality in a crisis situation.

Once again, the training is to get yourself to a safe space.
My wife more recently than I worked at a HS. Her training was to lock everyone in certain rooms.

Not sure of your post. I agree, firearms for those trained in a classroom might help.
Schools have no interest in having firearm on campus. Which is a big difference from my time in school.


Pretty sure your training is because its a college campus where presumably everybody is an adult and it has a campus police , pretty sure younger students it isnt the same situation.Not to mention

Considering she drew down on a guy breaking into her bedroom at her apartment one night, gave him 3 seconds before she started shooting, dont think she would run even if trained to do so. Her grandfather and I both taught them to be proactive, be smart obviously get somewhere safe if you can, but dont lie down to be shot, fight, run, hit

I think for a lot of the people that choose those careers it is more than sentiment, like the teacher at Columbine upon hearing the shooting didn't flee but got many kids to safety and was working on getting more there when he was shot. Pretty sure for teachers of children thats not the edict CYA. Like the professor at Virginia Tech killed barricading the door while his students jumped out the window. Its not just men either women too have lost their lives protecting their students over and over.

You can train all you want but nobody knows how they will react, some people run from a burning building some run to it. Point is in an on campus situation help is likely tens of minutes away from even arriving, even then chances are they going assess the situation all while the shooter roams the campus. Better be proactive, and not move unless you know where the shooter is.



posted on Dec, 19 2018 @ 08:08 PM
link   
The courts have said time and again that police are under no obligation to place themselves in harm's way in performance of their "duty".
This was really driven home for me when I watched first responders at Sandy Hook arrive at the scene and promptly chain all the doors closed, hide behind trees around the school, and wait for the shooter to run out of ammo.



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Civilization no longer offers more protections than cave man living....partys over.

a reply to: SlowNail



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Thats because they needed time to remove the enemy terror squad that killed everyone and to set up a patsy story.

Folks would really bum out if they knew enemy was killing kids in the homeland.




a reply to: Zeropinion


edit on 1/6/2019 by FrostyFlakes because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2019 @ 02:59 PM
link   
It was kinda implied the cops would act when pay and benefits were negotiated.

Maybe some cops should have their pay and budget reduced now that its better understood what their actual duties are. Do they really need a car and a gun and a radio if they arent gonna save me?

a reply to: jjkenobi







 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join