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