posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieNo I won’t. There are probably a lot o socialists in CA.
California absolutely does, along with NY.
What's funny is that, while leaning more "socialistic" than the average state, California is paying poop patrollers a comprehensive $184,000.00 per year to clean up the massive poop problem.
Doesn't seem very fair to the meter readers!
Scott Peterson arrested today. Remember that time CNN has a town hall calling out Dana Loesch and Marco Rubio instead of that loser? (That dumbass show also won some Walter Cronkite media award)
The media truly is the enemy of truth.
posted by iclfan2Scott Peterson arrested today.
Good!
That sheriff that stayed safely away from the school during the shooting?
I'm not sure how I feel about that. I mean, it's his job, but doesn't that mean he should be fired? It seems a little harsh to charge someone as a criminal for not putting their life at risk, does it not?
Don't get me wrong; the guy needs fired. Putting himself in harm's way is part of his job, so if he can't do it, then he shouldn't have the job.
Prosecution just seems harsh for that. I'm still mulling it over, though.
posted by O-TrapThat sheriff that stayed safely away from the school during the shooting?
I'm not sure how I feel about that. I mean, it's his job, but doesn't that mean he should be fired? It seems a little harsh to charge someone as a criminal for not putting their life at risk, does it not?
Don't get me wrong; the guy needs fired. Putting himself in harm's way is part of his job, so if he can't do it, then he shouldn't have the job.
Prosecution just seems harsh for that. I'm still mulling it over, though.
The deputy sheriff. The actual sheriff was busy virtue signaling at CNN's town hall blaming everyone other than his own department. They are both trash.
posted by O-TrapI'm not sure how I feel about that. I mean, it's his job, but doesn't that mean he should be fired? It seems a little harsh to charge someone as a criminal for not putting their life at risk, does it not?
From a law angle it gets interesting. I was always under the impression that courts ruled that police don't have a legal duty to protect (probably based on the supreme court ruling below). However, it appears one judge in Florida through one Parkland case out, while another said it could go on. Will be interesting to see how the legalities play out. Regardless him, the real sheriff, and the POS media all failed in this instance.
posted by like_thatThe deputy sheriff. The actual sheriff was busy virtue signaling at CNN's town hall blaming everyone other than his own department. They are both trash.
posted by iclfan2From a law angle it gets interesting. I was always under the impression that courts ruled that police don't have a legal duty to protect (probably based on the supreme court ruling below). However, it appears one judge in Florida through one Parkland case out, while another said it could go on. Will be interesting to see how the legalities play out. Regardless him, the real sheriff, and the POS media all failed in this instance.
I don't disagree with either of these takes. I think they're hot garbage, too. Just not sure how I feel about a law that says, "Either risk death or be put in prison," regardless of a person's employment.
Does the guy deserve to be in jail for not doing their job? Probably not. Is he liable for negligent behavior? Yep 100%
posted by O-TrapI don't disagree with either of these takes. I think their hot garbage, too. Just not sure how I feel about a law that says, "Either risk death or be put in prison," regardless of a person's employment.
I'm with you. I also don't know how I think the law should be interpreted. It's a fine line.
If you sign up to be a cop and sit back while children are dying, I'm not sure if firing is enough of a punishment. If you sign up for a job or a profession, there are consequences for your actions. He also didn't just not risk death, he sat there for 45 minutes, and told the other cops to not engage.
posted by SpockDoes the guy deserve to be in jail for not doing their job? Probably not. Is he liable for negligent behavior? Yep 100%
So, you believe self-preservation can be cause for negligence?
posted by Dr Winston O'BoogieNo I won’t. There are probably a lot o socialists in CA.
#calexit. Please.
posted by iclfan2I'm with you. I also don't know how I think the law should be interpreted. It's a fine line.
If you sign up to be a cop and sit back while children are dying, I'm not sure if firing is enough of a punishment. If you sign up for a job or a profession, there are consequences for your actions. He also didn't just not risk death, he sat there for 45 minutes, and told the other cops to not engage.
I mean, I don't think firing is all he's getting. Pretty sure the guy is a pariah, as well, and regardless of how inept he is, I doubt he sleeps well.
If he actually ordered other officers not to approach, how would we charge that? My initial thought would maybe be negligent homicide, but that would require that the prosecution meet the burden of proof to show that him ordering the other officers to not engage was not only negligent, but criminally so.
Maybe we could glean something from the subsequent investigation with regard to mens rea?
posted by SpockDoes the guy deserve to be in jail for not doing their job? Probably not. Is he liable for negligent behavior? Yep 100%
I think you have a point there. If there were say, 10 gunmen inside shooting up 30 people, then an argument can be made that the cop should probably hold off until more help arrives. However, in this case, where there is one gunman shooting up a school of a hundred plus, then the cop has an obligation to intervene immediately in such a ’one-on-one’ scenario.
posted by QuakerOats
I think you have a point there. If there were say, 10 gunmen inside shooting up 30 people, then an argument can be made that the cop should probably hold off until more help arrives. However, in this case, where there is one gunman shooting up a school of a hundred plus, then the cop has an obligation to intervene immediately in such a ’one-on-one’ scenario.
Obligation? Sure.
LEGAL obligation? I'm not sure I can buy that without seeing a case made for it.
Also, I don't know that there's a good means for delineating how many gunmen (or even unarmed assailants) would cause such a law to not be applicable.
posted by O-TrapThat sheriff that stayed safely away from the school during the shooting?
I'm not sure how I feel about that. I mean, it's his job, but doesn't that mean he should be fired? It seems a little harsh to charge someone as a criminal for not putting their life at risk, does it not?
Don't get me wrong; the guy needs fired. Putting himself in harm's way is part of his job, so if he can't do it, then he shouldn't have the job.
Prosecution just seems harsh for that. I'm still mulling it over, though.
On second thought, I agree more with this. He definitely needs to be fired. I'm not sure if he deserves jail.
posted by O-TrapObligation? Sure.
LEGAL obligation? I'm not sure I can buy that without seeing a case made for it.
Also, I don't know that there's a good means for delineating how many gunmen (or even unarmed assailants) would cause such a law to not be applicable.
“obligation” may be the wrong word; “duty” is likely more appropriate.
posted by QuakerOats
“obligation” may be the wrong word; “duty” is likely more appropriate.
Well again, I certainly think they have a moral duty to use their training to do what they're employed to do, which includes putting their lives at risk.
However, I still don't know if I can tell someone, "Go risk dying, or you're going to jail."
Again, if there's some way of determining intent, or if you can establish that there was something else criminal going on, I could maybe see negligent homicide, but otherwise, I can't see it.
In other news, bc Vox is a bitch and people treat them as real news, Youtube is starting to demonitizing people who insult other people. I'm sure that bodes well for them
posted by O-TrapWell again, I certainly think they have a moral duty to use their training to do what they're employed to do, which includes putting their lives at risk.
However, I still don't know if I can tell someone, "Go risk dying, or you're going to jail."
Again, if there's some way of determining intent, or if you can establish that there was something else criminal going on, I could maybe see negligent homicide, but otherwise, I can't see it.
I was not advocating for jail time. I was pondering the notion that he could be liable, perhaps in a civil suit, for damages to family members of the slain for failing to do his duty.
If a cop can be convicted of manslaughter for gross negligence in use of force....then wouldn't it stand to reason that a cop could be criminally negligent for failing to engage an active shooter?
He, of course, won't be convicted because the defense is going to say WAIT A MINUTE - the FBI was alerted about this guy and did nothing! If you're going to indict him for failure to do his duty, then where are the indictments for the FBI people?
Also, the larger implications are a slippery slope. Why didn't you arrest her husband the last time she filed a DV complaint? Why didn't you drive faster? You were negligent making a wrong turn. You had time to go back into that burning building. Becomes pretty obvious we probably can't prosecute first-responders for inaction and choices they didn't make.
