11th Circuit re-affirms "no duty to protect" re: Parkland shootings.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    INGO's search function appears Tango Uniform, but I don't think this appears in another thread yet:

    201914414.pdf (uscourts.gov)


    Appeal from the United States District Courtfor the Southern District of Florida_______________________(December 11, 2020)

    Before WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge, HULL and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.WILLIAM PRYOR, Chief Judge:This appeal requires us to decide whether the district court erred when itdismissed a civil-rights action filed by students present at the Parkland schoolUSCA11 Case: 19-14414 Date Filed: 12/11/2020 Page: 1 of 172shooting. The students sued Broward County and five public officials on the theorythat their response to the school shooting was so incompetent that it violated thestudents’ substantive rights under the Due Process Clause of the FourteenthAmendment to the Constitution. The district court dismissed this claim withprejudice because it was an impermissible shotgun pleading and, in the alternative,because it failed to state a claim and leave to amend it would be futile. On themerits, the district court reasoned that because the students were not in a custodialrelationship with the officials and failed to allege conduct by the officials that is“arbitrary” or “shocks the conscience,” the students could not maintain a claim thatthe officials violated their substantive right to due process of law. The studentsappeal this decision, but settled caselaw makes clear that official acts of negligenceor even incompetence in this setting do not violate the right to due process of law.Because we agree with the district court that the students failed to state a claim of aconstitutional violation and that leave to amend would be futile, we affirm.
    Emphasis added.

    The opinion also includes the choice bit of gossip that Scot Peterson nicknamed "Rod," for "Retired On Duty."

    Having read most of the opinion now, it doesn't sound like the students' case was very well lawyered.
     
    Last edited:

    Trevelayan

    Marksman
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Dec 11, 2014
    292
    43
    Putnam Co.
    I was surprised that the public in general doesn't know about this. When you tell most people that the police have no duty to protect you they vapor lock and have no real response. I've been spreading this as much as I can lately to family, and after a brief realization most have rightly come to the conclusion that we are responsible for our own safety. I think this is the fourth or fifth major case that has reaffirmed this position.
     

    KellyinAvon

    Blue-ID Mafia Consigliere
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    6   0   0
    Dec 22, 2012
    24,797
    150
    Avon
    I was surprised that the public in general doesn't know about this. When you tell most people that the police have no duty to protect you they vapor lock and have no real response. I've been spreading this as much as I can lately to family, and after a brief realization most have rightly come to the conclusion that we are responsible for our own safety. I think this is the fourth or fifth major case that has reaffirmed this position.
    Riss v NYC 1968; Warren v DC 1981, Castle Rock v Gonzalez 2005...
     

    2A-Hoosier23

    ammo fiend
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Sep 16, 2018
    710
    63
    Lawrence
    Riss v NYC 1968; Warren v DC 1981, Castle Rock v Gonzalez 2005...
    :yesway:
    also DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 1989.
    Chief Justice Rehnquist for the majority opinion in that case: "Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual"
     
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 23, 2009
    1,822
    113
    Brainardland
    As a retired lawdog myself, I agree with the concept that leo agencies and individual cops should not be held liable for not preventing crimes PROVIDED that the inability is due to the simple reality that cops can't be everywhere at once.

    However, UNWILLINGNESS to do the job, such as this Peterson guy sitting on his fat ass listening to kids die should be an exception to this concept and dealt with mercilessly.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas
    Riss v NYC 1968; Warren v DC 1981, Castle Rock v Gonzalez 2005...
    I once counted up the the number of SCOTUS cases I could find that reiterate this... holding...and IIRC there were at least 21. I believe that included Castle Rock, but not ones that have come along since. If I can find my list I will post it for general knowledge.
     

    Alamo

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Oct 4, 2010
    8,093
    113
    Texas

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    108,752
    113
    Michiana
    Now is a good time to have a claim against the Feds. Joe and his DOJ seem to be willing to just pass it out. The above case, the church shooting victims, the illegals...
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 7, 2021
    2,626
    113
    central indiana
    I full well accept that police and fire aren't required to run into gunfire or a burning building. They have a life too. And defining the word "try" can be subjective. But when the unions that represent first responders, all across the country, chose to endorse a political candidate who vows to limit my ability to be my own first responder, the court ruling starts to appear disingenuous. As to the jerk-wad badge holder in Parkland I must ask at what point does a first responder exhibit dereliction of duty? He was pre-positioned at that location for the exact reason of immediate response to that particular situation. Why absorb the costs associated with him being there if he is allowed to hide? I'll also note that there is reporting that LEO's from another jurisdiction were ready to enter the building and confront the threat but were not allowed to enter. Sometimes it comes down to the individual.
     

    KG1

    Forgotten Man
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    66   0   0
    Jan 20, 2009
    25,633
    149
    I have a motto. "I am my own first responder". I'll contact 911 and request assistance but until they arrive I need to be prepared and equipped to handle the situation
     
    Top Bottom