One of the most common arguments made by gun rights advocates is that keeping and bearing arms is essential for self-defense. One of the most common counterarguments made by gun control advocates is that people should rely on professionals to protect them. Professionals in their case means law enforcers, which leaves a giant hole in their counterargument. Courts have consistently ruled that law enforcers have no duty to protect people. A new ruling clarifies that that lack of duty includes children:
A federal judge says Broward schools and the Sheriff’s Office had no legal duty to protect students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
U.S. District Judge Beth Bloom dismissed a suit filed by 15 students who claimed they were traumatized by the crisis in February. The suit named six defendants, including the Broward school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office, as well as school deputy Scot Peterson and campus monitor Andrew Medina.
Bloom ruled that the two agencies had no constitutional duty to protect students who were not in custody.
Whenever I’ve pointed this consistent ruling out to gun control advocates they’ve had to resort to the extremely weak counterargument that while law enforcers aren’t obligated to protect people, no decent law enforcer would shirk from doing so. Arguments based on what people should do can be immediately dismissed when discussing violence because people should refrain from initiating acts of violence. When the argument of self-defense arises, it is because what people should do has already been thrown out of the window. More specifically though the shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School proved that there are law enforcers who will shirk from defending people.
As far as the courts are concerned, when somebody initiates violence against you, you’re on your own. If I were a student, I’d trust a teacher who likely has an emotional incentive to protect me far more than a random law enforcer who has no obligation whatsoever to protect me. Since I’d put more trust in a teacher, I’d prefer they have the option of being armed so they are better equipped to defend me if the need arises (as an added bonus, the need to defend me would be less likely to arise since the school would no longer be a tempting soft target).
One thought on “Once Again Courts Find Law Enforcers Have No Duty to Protect You”
I say the “judge” is FOS. The Minor Children at the school are there as required by law- no choice before a certain age, usually 16 years of age. That equals CUSTODY. No person who accused parents of abandonment, for example, would have a claim if it was learned that the kids were “abandoned” at their school for the day, as required by law for non home schooled kids, so CUSTODY. They are in the CUSTODY of the school, and those there to administer their various functions. While there, the kids are subject to rules of conduct to be followed-CUSTODY. Being minor children, if they violate said rules, they CANNOT be simply kicked to the curb- someone MUST be responsible for their well being until such time as a parent/guardian arrives- therefore, CUSTODY. That the Resource Officer is specifically assigned to the school, to serve those in CUSTODY, there is a duty to protect. Therefore, FOS.
Comments are closed.