Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 11/27/2001 2:28:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/27/2001 2:22:29 PM EDT by warlord]
Check out the bolded quotes below, then what is the duty of law-enforcement? What they being paid for? ======================================================== [url] http://www.channel2000.com/sh/news/stories/nat-news-109360720011127-131110.html[/url] Judge Throws Out Columbine Lawsuits Only Lawsuit Not Dismissed Was One Filed By Teacher's Daughter Posted: 1:20 p.m. EST November 27, 2001 Updated: 2:35 p.m. EST November 27, 2001 DENVER -- A federal district court judge in Colorado on Tuesday threw out eight of nine lawsuits filed by the families of the Columbine victims. Julie Hayden Reports On The Judge's Decision The only lawsuit that was not dismissed by U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock was the one filed by Angela Sanders, daughter of slain Columbine teacher Dave Sanders. The families of the dead and injured shooting victims filed negligence and wrongful-death lawsuits against the Jefferson County sheriff's department and the Jeffco Public School District in April, arguing that the sheriff's deputies and school officials should have and could have done more to protect the victims. The lawsuit filed by Angela Sanders accused police commanders of preventing others from rescuing her father. Sanders eventually bled to death in the science room. Rescuers reached him hours after the massacre had begun. "The sheriff defendants were confronted with an unprecedented and rapidly evolving violent situation, reasonable persons could not conclude that the sheriff defendants' conduct was so extreme in degree, as to be 'atrocious' and 'utterly intolerable,' Babcock wrote in his decision. "Holding police officers liable in hindsight for every injurious consequence of their actions would paralyze the functions of law enforcement," he wrote in another of the nine decisions. Attorney James Rouse, who represents several victims' families, was disappointed in the decision. "We're in a situation now where we may never know what happened at Columbine," he said. An attorney for the Jefferson County Sheriff's Department argued that officers should not be held liable for their actions before or after the attack. They had argued that they have [b]"no legal obligation" to provide aid and "no duty" to investigate or prevent crimes,"[/b] Channel2000 affiliate The Denver Channel reported. Authorities said that they were shielded from liability by the state governmental immunity law. The families contend that Jefferson County authorities knew about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's threats on their Web site and knew about the pipe bombs. The families say that Jefferson County sheriffs should have taken action. Harris and Klebold shot and killed 12 students and Sanders and injured 26 people before taking their own lives on April 20, 1999. The victims' families have already settled their lawsuits against the gunmen's parents and some of the people who provided guns used in the massacre. Copyright 2001 by Channel2000.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 2:35:26 PM EDT
Hum, "no legal obligation" to provide aid and "no duty" to investigate or prevent crimes,"...old new, I guess, but the irony always gets to me. Funny, that the government has no legal obligation to protect, yet civilians have no legal right to protect themselves. Does this make sense to you in some sort of liberal, blame society, twisted, "I've had one too many Twinkie" sort of way?
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 2:43:31 PM EDT
Yep. We're supposed to submit to criminals, otherwise we might hurt their delecate psyche's. Of course this also gets us mentally prepared for when our government wants to do the same to us. "We're not going in there, and neither are you!"
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 5:59:51 PM EDT
What else did anyone expect? These cops followed their prime directive, go home at the end of the day. After all, only "civilians" lives were at stake. Apparently none of the cops had kids in the school. So the one deputy inside fired six rounds, missing with all six, and ran for his life. Total success. The rest waited until all noises insde had stopped for two hours & then went inside very slowly. Also total success. What's new?
Link Posted: 11/27/2001 6:30:12 PM EDT
Funny, that the government has no legal obligation to protect, yet civilians have no legal right to protect themselves.
View Quote
This is truly one of the clearest statements I've ever heard, profound in it's simplicity.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:14:09 AM EDT
Same thing happened when all of those people tried to sue the LAPD for not providing them protection during the 92 riots. The presiding judge tossed out the case.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 6:19:42 AM EDT
This "sanitized" piece that appeared in the anti-gun L.a Times didn't even mention "have "no legal obligation" to provide aid and "no duty" to investigate or prevent crimes." ===================================================== Los Angeles Times: Suit Over Columbine Death Is Allowed [url]http://latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-000094778nov28.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation[/url] THE NATION Suit Over Columbine Death Is Allowed Crime: Judge says officials showed an indifference to teacher's plight long after the shooting. Associated Press November 28 2001 DENVER -- A federal judge ruled Tuesday that sheriff's officials can be sued over the case of a Columbine High teacher who bled to death in the 1999 massacre, saying law officers callously failed to reach him until hours after the shooting had stopped. U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock said Jefferson County sheriff's officials demonstrated "a deliberate indifference toward Dave Sanders' plight shocking to the conscience of this federal court." However, the judge threw out the eight other lawsuits brought against sheriff's officials and school administrators over the shooting rampage. He said authorities were confronted with "an unprecedented and rapidly evolving violent situation." Rescuers did not reach Sanders, 47, until about five hours after the massacre was over. The judge noted that authorities knew the teenage gunmen were dead about 3 1/2 hours before they reached Sanders. They also knew where he was and knew that he was critically wounded, Babcock said. The judge said there is sufficient evidence that sheriff's officials "acted recklessly in conscious disregard of the risk that Dave Sanders' survivable wounds would prove fatal" if they delayed help from reaching him. Sanders' relatives are suing for unspecified damages, alleging sheriff's officials held back their SWAT team and also prevented other authorities and private citizens from rescuing him. Peter Grenier, the lawyer for Sanders' daughter Angela, said the ruling was bittersweet. "It's bitter in a sense for Angela, because it certainly confirms the viability of her claims that law enforcement officers' actions actually were a cause of her father's death," he said. "But we're very pleased the judge followed the black letter of the law and allowed the case to go forward." Calls to the sheriff's office and school district officials were not returned. Acting Jefferson County Atty. Bill Tuthill said the rulings overall came as a relief. He said the blame rests with the teenage gunmen. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot and killed 12 fellow students and Sanders, and wounded more than two dozen others before committing suicide on April 20, 1999, at the high school near Littleton. Victims' relatives and survivors sued, alleging the sheriff's office and school administrators failed to investigate earlier threats and crimes by the two gunmen. For information about reprinting this article, go to http://www.lats.com
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 6:25:54 AM EDT
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 6:44:27 AM EDT
Where are the LEO's now? Not defending your brothers? What about the attorneys? Oh, that's right, you cannot defend that which is indefensible.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 7:37:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2001 7:30:17 AM EDT by OLY-M4gery]
Originally Posted By hardcase: Where are the LEO's now? Not defending your brothers? What about the attorneys? Oh, that's right, you cannot defend that which is indefensible.
View Quote
Yup, always easier to know what they should have done from over there on the couch near the tv. If you are talking about "rushing in" many people on this site have said that would have probably been bad too, more people shot with police bullets that missed the BG's. There were something like 140+ rounds fired by LEO's at Columbine. I believe the SRO fired 3 magazines worth. He disabled the TEC-9 the BG's were using. Unfortunatley that was all he accomplished. I think the range was something like 50 yards. Of course it was 2 on 1 with all types of intervening obstacles. If you want to get down to it the real failure wasn't the day of the shootings, it was failing to investigate those 2 well prior to the shootings. One of them was employed at a fireworks factory, and was paid in firecracker gunpowder. That they used to make a lot of small bombs. Of course the powder really wan't up to the job. Where were their parents? Where were their teachers? Where were the other students who knew what these kids were like?? Of course here on this site there are so many experts. They would have searched the BG's houses prior to the shoot out. Also they are the same guys who yell illegal search and say don't cooperate with the police. The anti's blame guns, the gunnies blame the police.......
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 8:06:22 AM EDT
Suggestion: Read this quote & defend it: They had argued that they have "no legal obligation" to provide aid and "no duty" to investigate or prevent crimes,"
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 8:11:57 AM EDT
(intentionally insulting) OLY....here's a quarter, buy a fricking clue. We are not discussing tactics here, we are discussing the attitude that we don't need to protect ourselves-the police will do it for us. woops the police won't do it either----YOU ARE SCREWED....get it comrade??? And if any parent at Columbine was one of the guys on this board, you had better believe that they would have been willling to enter the school. And trust me on this---the phrase "no legal" etc. means that many more people will be packing and many more people will be critical of the so-called law-enforcement profession. Police do not have a legal responsibility, so go back to writing tickets, Barney. PS. To those who have recently given so much with no legal responsibility, only the love that you have had for your brothers and others, This post is not directed to you. thanks once again for your efforts and your respect for each other. PPS. And how about the next time that someone is arrested by this department, he files suit against the department and says...."no legal obligation and no duty"
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 11:02:19 AM EDT
No, I get it I was trying to point out that even here we can't decide what should have been done. The problem with the "LEGAL OBLIGATION" with duty, which you want to create, comes AUTHORITY. I also said that THERE WAS A FAILURE. That being to investigate the earlier "behavior" by ding a ling 1 and ding a ling 2. Had they done what they should have they probably could have prevented the shootings. Police have a duty to investigate crimes, gather evidence, and complete reports. They also have to do that while obeying the Constitution (national ans state), and all laws. The duty to render aid. Aid can only be rendered when the situation is stabilized. Are you trying to say that Fire and EMS persons must rush in to render aid regardless of the dangers?? Are you saying that police must abandon all sense of tactics and immediatley rush into an incident as soon as they arrive, 1 at a time........Are you saying that if the police come across a shooting scene, with a shooter still on scene, they have a duty to treat the injured and investigate the crime. If that duty exsists some might say as soon as officers come across 1 injured person they must stop, pursuing the suspect, and render aid immediatley, because it is their DUTY. If you are asking me if the SO there should be able to duck liability, my answer is no. But I don't think patrolman X, Y, and Z should be sued personally for following the orders of their superiors, like they are required to. The command staff their should be liable for the decisions they made during the incident. One of my other points, is that the teachers, students, and parents that knew or should have reasonable known are also responsible. Parents and teachers have responsibilties, and every member of society also has duties. But I guess it's easier to blame someone else. Sir Robert Peel, (not exact quote) said that the police are full time paid citizens that are merely given the ability, by way of their job, to concnetrate their labors on the responsibilties incumbent on every citizen.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 12:19:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/28/2001 12:13:17 PM EDT by hound]
Oly---excellent reply and let me respond with out screaming this time---much!!! Also excuse my quoting of your entire post, but I want to address your points..... No, I get it I was trying to point out that even here we can't decide what should have been done. ----yes we can-- shoot the BG's--if you can't or won't, let someone else try and no more money for SWAT or Snipers The problem with the "LEGAL OBLIGATION" with duty, which you want to create, comes AUTHORITY. -----We are told that police have the authority and now they do not want the duty.. I also said that THERE WAS A FAILURE. That being to investigate the earlier "behavior" by ding a ling 1 and ding a ling 2. Had they done what they should have they probably could have prevented the shootings. ---yep I fully agree---the old that boy ain't right solution Police have a duty to investigate crimes, gather evidence, and complete reports. ----nope...as stated in the court case They also have to do that while obeying the Constitution (national ans state), and all laws. ----you got to be joking, Do I need to list the BOR and give examples The duty to render aid. Aid can only be rendered when the situation is stabilized. Are you trying to say that Fire and EMS persons must rush in to render aid regardless of the dangers?? ---not regardless,but the 300 or so New York officers and firemen certainly led by example Are you saying that police must abandon all sense of tactics and immediatley rush into an incident as soon as they arrive, 1 at a time........ ---bad example and use of hyperbole Are you saying that if the police come across a shooting scene, with a shooter still on scene, they have a duty to treat the injured and investigate the crime. If that duty exsists some might say as soon as officers come across 1 injured person they must stop, pursuing the suspect, and render aid immediatley, because it is their DUTY. ---duty again--they might as well help the injured because they already said that they have no obligation to stop the BG's If you are asking me if the SO there should be able to duck liability, my answer is no. But I don't think patrolman X, Y, and Z should be sued personally for following the orders of their superiors, like they are required to. The command staff their should be liable for the decisions they made during the incident. ---I agree, but there are some orders not worth following----Nuremburg anyone? One of my other points, is that the teachers, students, and parents that knew or should have reasonable known are also responsible. Parents and teachers have responsibilties, and every member of society also has duties. ---yep but the teacher's etc. are not allowed to defend themselves and certainly do not try to convince everyone that they are the only problem solvers But I guess it's easier to blame someone else. ---yep the only people on the scene who were allowed to have tools to enforce their will, said that they were not required to...excellent argument Sir Robert Peel, (not exact quote) said that the police are full time paid citizens that are merely given the ability, by way of their job, to concnetrate their labors on the--- ---excellent quote--sorry I chopped it---but once again, a non-leo citizen is not allowed nor encouraged nor enabled to handle this situation
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:31:28 PM EDT
Hound, My "bad example", I'm thinking from a legal persective, if lawyer/legislators make laws mandating a duty..... It would surely be goofed up and fly in the face of common sense during some incidents. Yeah but catching bad guys "red handed"...... its like a dog chasing cars and catching one Following orders, silly me I didn't specifically mention illegal orders. The line officers are expected to do what they are told, and do it quickly... like the military. If it ain't illegal they have to follow orders. But then again I mentioned that the guys who had the auithority to give orders should be held responsible. Whoa, I wasn't suggesteing that teachers had a duty to get in a gunfight. But they had at least an ethical responsibilty to consider the odd behavior by these 2, prior to the attack. Whether that meant meeting with parents or refering them to Social Services or to a school counselor. If neccesary they should have been reported to the police, and the police should have investigated.
Link Posted: 11/28/2001 1:47:13 PM EDT
woohoo all that smoke and gunfire and we meet in the middle of the street---here have a beer.... and boiled down to the level that you just posted...I pretty much agree, but maybe all of crap that I have thrown out will give ya something to think about......see ya
Top Top