He’s a Coward scumbag but:
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) Court stated “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/no-right-to-police-protection-in-the-united-states-20903
It has been ruled MANY times that the police have NO DUTY/ Obligation/ Liability or Responsibility to protect people.
And this needs to be brought up every single time in gun control debates.
The Police are NOT there to protect You.
To me that case means the cops don’t have a general duty to protect everybody, everywhere, all the time. You can’t sue the cops because they weren’t where you needed them. However, he was right outside with a gun and didn’t do anything. That’s very different.
Two things quickly come to mind,
1) perhaps rather than to an individual citizen the def owed a reasonable duty to the student body at large, and
2) the def owed a duty to his employer who recognized the duty it owed to the student body, employees, visitors, etc.
Otherwise, as others have pointed out upthread, why waste taxpayer monies by dressing someone up as a LEO and posting him on the grounds?
In this day and age, if the government refused to assign LEO's the parents would likely take steps to fill the void - but they paid their money and expected the government to do so.
P.S. Standing ovation for the judge.
“Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) Court stated “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
The way around this in a civil suit may be failure to comply with the Department’s policy. After Columbine where responding units hung around out side waiting for SWAT, while the shooters were still active, police response to active shooters changed. Many departments changed their policies and trained for first responding units to move to the sound of the guns and confront and hopefully neutralize the shooters. SWAT units would naturally respond but not as primary response units. My department’s policy was first units on the scene are going in. If you encountered dead or wounded, you kept moving to the sound of the gunfire. It sounds pretty grim because it is. It may sound foolhardy but the shooters aren’t expecting uniformed patrolmen with handguns; they’re expecting SWAT too.
But in all likelihood, he would’ve plinked off a gun-toting civilian attempting to aid/protect the children. COWARD!!
We know this - but the lawsuit showcases that those who say we don’t need guns are also saying we shouldn’t be allowed any protections whatsoever...hard to say we don’t need to be able to protect ourselves while also claiming those with the guns, as part of their official duties as ‘public servants’, have no legal compunction to protect us either...