Page 4 of 4

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:56 am
by Stercutus
MPMalloy wrote:These decisions should be made by people who have a traditional, classical education of mental illness. Very few of the mentally ill are a danger to themselves or others.
Right. But the ones that are a threat; are really fucking dangerous.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:01 am
by MPMalloy
Stercutus wrote:
MPMalloy wrote:These decisions should be made by people who have a traditional, classical education of mental illness. Very few of the mentally ill are a danger to themselves or others.
Right. But the ones that are a threat; are really fucking dangerous.
No argument.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:23 pm
by RickOShea
Two Miramar SWAT officers suspended for heading to Parkland massacre

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/browa ... story.html

When a gunman started shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, two Miramar SWAT team members did what comes naturally: They went to help.

Now they’ve been suspended for it.

The officers did not have permission to respond to the shooting at Parkland on Feb. 14, when 17 people were killed.

And that created an officer safety issue and left them unaccountable for their actions, according to their police department.


*Moar at link.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 6:06 pm
by woodsghost
RickOShea wrote:Two Miramar SWAT officers suspended for heading to Parkland massacre

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/browa ... story.html

When a gunman started shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, two Miramar SWAT team members did what comes naturally: They went to help.

Now they’ve been suspended for it.

The officers did not have permission to respond to the shooting at Parkland on Feb. 14, when 17 people were killed.

And that created an officer safety issue and left them unaccountable for their actions, according to their police department.


*Moar at link.
:shock:

I can't imagine they will have trouble finding jobs at other departments.


The idea that they want to control the flood of officer responses to an area experiencing a shooter is understandable. The idea breaks down rather severely when the jurisdiction with responsibility 1) fails to respond (goes into hiding) and 2) fails to request the much needed outside assistance because it lacks the will to respond.

That policy/response strategy only makes sense in ideal circumstances where the responsible jurisdiction is actually responsible.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 7:57 pm
by raptor
woodsghost wrote:
:shock:

I can't imagine they will have trouble finding jobs at other departments.
I get why their bosses were not happy with what they did. However, I think worst that should have happened is that they get +2 points for bravery and selflessness but get -2 points for not following protocol. Then call it a wash with a do not do that again (if you can avoid it) verbal counseling...in between any counseling sessions that they may need for grief and PTSD.

I agree they should apply elsewhere and would likely be well received.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Thu Mar 08, 2018 9:36 pm
by Stercutus
The LE leadership style is to be risk adverse at practically any price so it doesn't come as a total shock. It strikes me as yet another poor leadership decision in a law enforcement community wrought whole out of poor leadership decisions, but I am sitting in the cheap seats and there likely is more to it than what is in the media.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:08 am
by JayceSlayn
While I don't have direct experience with Police duty requirements, I suspect that it mirrors the EMS duty requirements closely. Specifically the point: Your first duty is to protect yourself, then your partner, and then anyone else. While Police have a duty to protect life and property, they are not required to put your life above theirs. Practically, this is sensible: assuming that they are a trained responder (vs. the "anyone else" who may not be), and if they are somehow incapacitated, that it will delay trained response further. Maybe the Secret Service have some kind of duty to put the President's life before their own, but I can't think of many other jobs which have such a requirement. And I can't imagine many people would willingly sign up for a job in which you are fully expected to get killed or injured for someone else's sake. This is in regards to legal duty of course, moral codes are an entirely different (and highly variable) matter altogether.

Unfortunately, sometimes this lack of duty to endanger themselves over others results in actions that seem callous, like allowing a shooting to continue if they have a legitimate fear of being killed themselves (perhaps because of inadequate training/equipment/backup). However, I can't really fault the duty system for being designed in that manner, nor could I really fault the officers for following it. Morally, they will have to sort that out themselves, but I think legally, inaction is quite defensible, especially vs. inappropriate action within the scope of your duty.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Fri Mar 09, 2018 9:33 am
by Stercutus
Specifically the point: Your first duty is to protect yourself, then your partner, and then anyone else.
True except for specifically, Active Shooter situations.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 1:46 pm
by JayceSlayn
Stercutus wrote:
Specifically the point: Your first duty is to protect yourself, then your partner, and then anyone else.
True except for specifically, Active Shooter situations.
I did a little looking, and it sounds like this is correct. I couldn't find anything specifically stating that it was part of a legal duty requirement, but I did find many mentions of it being the expected behavior.

Training for solo-officer response to active shooter incidents is focused on mitigating risk for the solo-officer, rather than eliminating risk entirely. That is to admit that it is not a "safe" course of action, but is the expected course of action when the first minutes of an incident count the most. Of course nothing could be truly "risk free", but mitigating risks through procedures and training are always the goal.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sat Mar 10, 2018 9:34 pm
by Stercutus
JayceSlayn wrote:
Stercutus wrote:
Specifically the point: Your first duty is to protect yourself, then your partner, and then anyone else.
True except for specifically, Active Shooter situations.
I did a little looking, and it sounds like this is correct. I couldn't find anything specifically stating that it was part of a legal duty requirement, but I did find many mentions of it being the expected behavior.

Training for solo-officer response to active shooter incidents is focused on mitigating risk for the solo-officer, rather than eliminating risk entirely. That is to admit that it is not a "safe" course of action, but is the expected course of action when the first minutes of an incident count the most. Of course nothing could be truly "risk free", but mitigating risks through procedures and training are always the goal.


An active shooter (IMO) would fall under the Special Relationships doctrine. If the police KNOW that someone is committing harmful crimes they have a Public Duty as a function of the state to prevent injuries to third parties. The special relationship is with the active shooter. This is different than the duty to an individual to prevent a certain person from coming to harm (for which there is none). We may see this come up in this case if there is a civil suit.

The problem is where do you draw the line as to how much does an officer owe the public? Nowhere is an officer expected to give up his life or even place himself in known mortal danger in the name of public safety. If it were the case then the officer should have an ROE more like a soldier (I am not arguing for this BTW, just pointing it out). An active shooter acts more like a combatant on a battlefield than say an average bank robber or drug dealer.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:35 am
by aikorob
Stercutus wrote:
JayceSlayn wrote:
Stercutus wrote:
Specifically the point: Your first duty is to protect yourself, then your partner, and then anyone else.
True except for specifically, Active Shooter situations.
I did a little looking, and it sounds like this is correct. I couldn't find anything specifically stating that it was part of a legal duty requirement, but I did find many mentions of it being the expected behavior.

Training for solo-officer response to active shooter incidents is focused on mitigating risk for the solo-officer, rather than eliminating risk entirely. That is to admit that it is not a "safe" course of action, but is the expected course of action when the first minutes of an incident count the most. Of course nothing could be truly "risk free", but mitigating risks through procedures and training are always the goal.


An active shooter (IMO) would fall under the Special Relationships doctrine. If the police KNOW that someone is committing harmful crimes they have a Public Duty as a function of the state to prevent injuries to third parties. The special relationship is with the active shooter. This is different than the duty to an individual to prevent a certain person from coming to harm (for which there is none). We may see this come up in this case if there is a civil suit.

The problem is where do you draw the line as to how much does an officer owe the public? Nowhere is an officer expected to give up his life or even place himself in known mortal danger in the name of public safety. If it were the case then the officer should have an ROE more like a soldier (I am not arguing for this BTW, just pointing it out). An active shooter acts more like a combatant on a battlefield than say an average bank robber or drug dealer.
The "duty to an individual" you referred to--- I think these are the relevant cases:
South v Maryland
Bowers V DeVito
Castle Rock v Gonzales

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:36 am
by aikorob

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 2:57 pm
by Stercutus
aikorob wrote:
The "duty to an individual" you referred to--- I think these are the relevant cases:
South v Maryland
Bowers V DeVito
Castle Rock v Gonzales


The cases of duty to rescue are pretty thin.

In this case a State Trooper came to the aid of a girl being eaten by a lion (no really):

https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/sup ... 395-1.html

Not sure it would have stood up under the retrial but it ended up not being relevant.



Lastly the 14th Amendment may be revisited here. The students may effectively be considered institutionalized (School attendance is required by statue) by the State. Due to gun laws they and their parents are unable to provide an effective defense against a foreseeable risk (an active shooter). The State provided an agent ostensibly to safeguard against such a risk who then failed to act. I think this is a bit of a stretch myself but it could go that way. But... Poor Joshua! It probably will not fly in court if history is a guide.

Re: active shooter Parkland FL. High school

Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2018 6:28 pm
by raptor
Stercutus wrote:
aikorob wrote:
The "duty to an individual" you referred to--- I think these are the relevant cases:
South v Maryland
Bowers V DeVito
Castle Rock v Gonzales


The cases of duty to rescue are pretty thin.

In this case a State Trooper came to the aid of a girl being eaten by a lion (no really):

https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/sup ... 395-1.html
Wow talk about a bad day... bitten by a lion and then shot by a State Trooper. :shock: