Gathering of the Clan
http://flyanglers.org/forum/

Police response
http://flyanglers.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=447
Page 2 of 2

Author:  Gene L [ Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Police response

Further North wrote:
Gene L wrote:
Further North wrote:
I am not certain of this in all areas of the country, and as Doug said, I will take Gene's lead on this, but I do not believe that police officers have any kind of duty to engage under those circumstances.

This came up after Virginia Tech (remember the photos of the officers outside the building while the shooting was still going on?) and has been the subject of legal cases in several instances.

Look up Warren v. District of Columbia, and Gonzales v. Castle Rock as examples.

While many law enforcement officers will, and do engage, the idea of a legal duty "to protect and serve" appears to be inaccurate.


It may not be legal responsibility, but it's moral responsibility for a LEO to protect and serve especially in situations where kids are involved. With hostages it's different; you can negotiate. But even then, once shots are fired the accepted response is to assault. The deputies should have went in. I was sworn to do it.


I don't disagree...but as soon as we have a legal precedent, all bets are off. I know you'd do what needed to be done, but there's no requirement...as far as I can tell.


Shows the distance between what's "legally required" and what's morally required. There's more to LEO than court cases. Common sense and community requirements come into play. Scot Peterson MAY or may not have followed SO protocol for his agency, but if he did he shouldn't have. His "retirement" suggests he made a very bad decision.

Author:  Further North [ Mon Feb 26, 2018 1:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Police response

Gene L wrote:
Shows the distance between what's "legally required" and what's morally required. There's more to LEO than court cases. Common sense and community requirements come into play. Scot Peterson MAY or may not have followed SO protocol for his agency, but if he did he shouldn't have. His "retirement" suggests he made a very bad decision.


Sounds right to me.

Page 2 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/