info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Florida Democrat deputy (Retired in Illinois, like poofter Obama) arrested for negligence over inaction during Parkland shooting
32 views
Skip to first unread message
We Must Make A New Law!
Jun 5, 2019, 7:51:41 AM6/5/19
to
MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead of
confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related to
his inaction.
Broward State Attorney Mike Satz said in a statement that 56-
year-old Scot Peterson faces child neglect, culpable negligence
and perjury charges that carry a combined potential maximum
prison sentence of nearly 100 years.
Peterson, then a Broward County deputy, was on duty as the
school resource officer during the February 2018 shooting at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School but never went inside while
bullets were flying. Seventeen people died and 17 others were
wounded in the attack.
One of the victims was 14-year-old Gina Montalto, whose father
Tony Montalto said families wanted justice to be done.
“We are happy to see some accountability for this tragedy that
took the life of my daughter Gina and 16 other wonderful
individuals as well as terribly injured 17 others,” said
Montalto, president of the Stand With Parkland victim families’
group.
Peterson’s bail was set at $102,000, Satz said. Once released,
Peterson will be required to wear a GPS monitor and surrender
his passport, and will be prohibited from possessing a firearm,
the prosecutor said.
Peterson lawyer Joseph DiRuzzo III didn’t immediately respond to
a request for comment. In the past, he has defended Peterson’s
conduct as justified under the circumstances.
The charges follow a 14-month investigation by the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, according to that agency.
“The FDLE investigation shows former deputy Peterson did
absolutely nothing to mitigate the MSD shooting that killed 17
children, teachers and staff and injured 17 others,” FDLE
Commissioner Rick Swearingen in an email statement said. “There
can be no excuse for his complete inaction and no question that
his inaction cost lives.”
U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, a Republican who was Florida governor when
the shooting happened, initiated the FDLE probe and said Tuesday
in a statement that he was glad the investigation was finished.
“Now it’s time for justice to be served,” Scott said.
Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony said Peterson has been formally
terminated, although he announced his retirement shortly after
the shooting. Another deputy, former Sgt. Brian Miller, was also
fired, although he faces no criminal charges for his actions
that day.
“It’s never too late for accountability and justice,” Tony said.
David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor now in private
practice, said key to the case will be the culpable negligence
charge, which essentially means an “utter disregard for the
safety of others.”
“They are focusing on the care he was required to give to the
students as a caregiver who was responsible for their welfare,”
Weinstein added.
The Peterson arrest is the latest fallout from the Valentine’s
Day 2018 shooting. Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended then-Sheriff
Scott Israel for “neglect of duty and incompetence” over the
department’s actions that day. Israel is appealing that decision
to the state Senate and said he intends to run again next year.
The case also spawned a state commission that issued a 458-page
report detailing a litany of errors before and during the
shooting, including unaggressive Broward deputies who stayed
outside the school building and the policies that led to that.
The commission also recommended voluntary arming of teachers,
which state lawmakers approved this year.
The chairman of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public
Safety Commission, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, said
in an interview that the charges against Peterson are
“absolutely warranted.”
“Scott Peterson is a coward, a failure and a criminal,”
Gualtieri said. “There is no doubt in my mind that because he
didn’t act, people were killed.”
Nikolas Cruz , 20, faces the death penalty if convicted of the
first-degree murder charges filed in the attack. His lawyers
have said Cruz would plead guilty in return for a life sentence,
but prosecutors have refused that offer.
Cruz is expected to go on trial in early 2020.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/florida-deputy-arrested-for-
negligence-over-inaction-during-parkland-shooting-2019-06-
04?mod=mixifeed
confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related to
his inaction.
Broward State Attorney Mike Satz said in a statement that 56-
year-old Scot Peterson faces child neglect, culpable negligence
and perjury charges that carry a combined potential maximum
prison sentence of nearly 100 years.
Peterson, then a Broward County deputy, was on duty as the
school resource officer during the February 2018 shooting at
Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School but never went inside while
bullets were flying. Seventeen people died and 17 others were
wounded in the attack.
One of the victims was 14-year-old Gina Montalto, whose father
Tony Montalto said families wanted justice to be done.
“We are happy to see some accountability for this tragedy that
took the life of my daughter Gina and 16 other wonderful
individuals as well as terribly injured 17 others,” said
Montalto, president of the Stand With Parkland victim families’
group.
Peterson’s bail was set at $102,000, Satz said. Once released,
Peterson will be required to wear a GPS monitor and surrender
his passport, and will be prohibited from possessing a firearm,
the prosecutor said.
Peterson lawyer Joseph DiRuzzo III didn’t immediately respond to
a request for comment. In the past, he has defended Peterson’s
conduct as justified under the circumstances.
The charges follow a 14-month investigation by the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, according to that agency.
“The FDLE investigation shows former deputy Peterson did
absolutely nothing to mitigate the MSD shooting that killed 17
children, teachers and staff and injured 17 others,” FDLE
Commissioner Rick Swearingen in an email statement said. “There
can be no excuse for his complete inaction and no question that
his inaction cost lives.”
U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, a Republican who was Florida governor when
the shooting happened, initiated the FDLE probe and said Tuesday
in a statement that he was glad the investigation was finished.
“Now it’s time for justice to be served,” Scott said.
Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony said Peterson has been formally
terminated, although he announced his retirement shortly after
the shooting. Another deputy, former Sgt. Brian Miller, was also
fired, although he faces no criminal charges for his actions
that day.
“It’s never too late for accountability and justice,” Tony said.
David S. Weinstein, a former federal prosecutor now in private
practice, said key to the case will be the culpable negligence
charge, which essentially means an “utter disregard for the
safety of others.”
“They are focusing on the care he was required to give to the
students as a caregiver who was responsible for their welfare,”
Weinstein added.
The Peterson arrest is the latest fallout from the Valentine’s
Day 2018 shooting. Gov. Ron DeSantis suspended then-Sheriff
Scott Israel for “neglect of duty and incompetence” over the
department’s actions that day. Israel is appealing that decision
to the state Senate and said he intends to run again next year.
The case also spawned a state commission that issued a 458-page
report detailing a litany of errors before and during the
shooting, including unaggressive Broward deputies who stayed
outside the school building and the policies that led to that.
The commission also recommended voluntary arming of teachers,
which state lawmakers approved this year.
The chairman of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public
Safety Commission, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, said
in an interview that the charges against Peterson are
“absolutely warranted.”
“Scott Peterson is a coward, a failure and a criminal,”
Gualtieri said. “There is no doubt in my mind that because he
didn’t act, people were killed.”
Nikolas Cruz , 20, faces the death penalty if convicted of the
first-degree murder charges filed in the attack. His lawyers
have said Cruz would plead guilty in return for a life sentence,
but prosecutors have refused that offer.
Cruz is expected to go on trial in early 2020.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/florida-deputy-arrested-for-
negligence-over-inaction-during-parkland-shooting-2019-06-
04?mod=mixifeed
Klaus Schadenfreude
Jun 5, 2019, 7:54:40 AM6/5/19
to
On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 13:33:52 +0200 (CEST), "We Must Make A New Law!"
<stupid-d...@cnn.com> wrote:
>MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead of
>confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
>massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related to
>his inaction.
That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
<stupid-d...@cnn.com> wrote:
>MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead of
>confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
>massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related to
>his inaction.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect
Someone
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the
police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from
harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order
against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
Warren v. District of Columbia[1] (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)
is an oft-quoted[2] District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that
held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police
services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 5, 2019, 10:40:08 AM6/5/19
to
> Klaus Schadenfreude
committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
only answer is a complete ban on guns.
> > We Must Make A New Law!
> >
> >
> > MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > of confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
> > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > to his inaction.
>
> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > of confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
> > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > to his inaction.
>
> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
only answer is a complete ban on guns.
BTR1701
Jun 5, 2019, 11:05:55 AM6/5/19
to
In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
family in the middle of the investigation.
Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
It's also bizarre that it took so long after the incident for these
charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long ago.
Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > We Must Make A New Law!
> > >
> > > MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > > of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > to his inaction.
> >
> > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>
> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
And is this just limited to life/death situations?
> > Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > We Must Make A New Law!
> > >
> > > MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > > of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > to his inaction.
> >
> > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>
> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
family in the middle of the investigation.
Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long ago.
trotsky
Jun 5, 2019, 6:06:20 PM6/5/19
to
On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>> We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>
>>>> MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>> We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>
>>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
>>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>> to his inaction.
>>>
>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>
>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> And is this just limited to life/death situations?
>
> What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> family in the middle of the investigation.
>
> Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
> cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
> wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
>
>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>
> It's also bizarre that it took so long after the incident for these
> charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long ago.
It sounds like he violated the NRA's "good guy with a gun" paradigm.
>>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>> to his inaction.
>>>
>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>
>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> And is this just limited to life/death situations?
>
> What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> family in the middle of the investigation.
>
> Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
> cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
> wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
>
>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>
> It's also bizarre that it took so long after the incident for these
> charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long ago.
You support the NRA, right? Which one is full of shit, you and your
sockpuppet or them?
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
A Friend
Jun 5, 2019, 6:30:58 PM6/5/19
to
In article <t1XJE.2676$WT3....@fx32.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:
> On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> >>>>
> >>>> MIAMI ⤲ The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> >> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> >> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> >> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are endless
tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings to save
people. You'd probably just stand around with marshmallows on sticks,
since you claim there's no obligation to protect anybody.
> > And is this just limited to life/death situations?
> >
> > What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> > can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> > family in the middle of the investigation.
> >
> > Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
> > cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
> > wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
That's a stupid comparison. You're equating an imaginary credit-card
case with an actual case of mass murder. Sorry, but I'm fed up with
poseurs and cowards today.
Kids were under fire and dying. This piece of shit ran away and hid,
and urged responders to do the same.
> >> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
> >> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> >> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
Psychic, are we? Or just confused? You're telling us that the POS was
under no obligation to protect anyone. Since no one is to be protected
-- your rules, remember -- then it follows that someone wants to grab
all the guns in the world. That's reasoning?
> > It's also bizarre that it took so long after the incident for these
> > charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long ago.
Some cases take a year to make. So?
I hope he gets what's coming to him.
wrote:
> On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> >>>>
> >>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> >>>> to his inaction.
> >>>
> >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
> >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> >>>> to his inaction.
> >>>
> >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> >> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> >> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> >> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings to save
people. You'd probably just stand around with marshmallows on sticks,
since you claim there's no obligation to protect anybody.
> > And is this just limited to life/death situations?
> >
> > What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> > can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> > family in the middle of the investigation.
> >
> > Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
> > cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
> > wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
case with an actual case of mass murder. Sorry, but I'm fed up with
poseurs and cowards today.
Kids were under fire and dying. This piece of shit ran away and hid,
and urged responders to do the same.
> >> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
> >> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> >> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
under no obligation to protect anyone. Since no one is to be protected
-- your rules, remember -- then it follows that someone wants to grab
all the guns in the world. That's reasoning?
> > It's also bizarre that it took so long after the incident for these
> > charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long ago.
I hope he gets what's coming to him.
BTR1701
Jun 5, 2019, 10:46:49 PM6/5/19
to
In article <050620191830518701%no...@noway.com>,
were sued for inaction and/or failure to render aid that the police are
not actually obligated to help you.
> > >> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > >> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > >> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are endless
> tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings to save
> people.
You're confusing moral duty with legal duty. This Florida case is
essentially unheard of from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to
see if the court allows the prosecution to proceed.
> > > And is this just limited to life/death situations?
> > >
> > > What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> > > can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> > > family in the middle of the investigation.
> > >
> > > Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against
> > > the cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and
> > > they wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
>
> That's a stupid comparison.
No, it's not. Once the precedent is set that police have an obligation
to act to prevent harm to crime victims, that principle can (and will)
be applied across the board.
> You're equating an imaginary credit-card case with an actual case of
> mass murder.
Yeah, that's how the legal system works. A principle of law is
established with consideration to how it could be applied going forward
under different circumstances. Sorry if that bothers you, but you'll
just have to suck it up and deal.
> Sorry, but I'm fed up with poseurs and cowards today.
That might be relevant if I cared what you are and are not fed up with.
As it stands, it matters not at all to me.
And while we're at it, please explain in detail how my questioning how
this newfound legal requirement will be applied to future cases makes me
either a poseur or a coward?
> Kids were under fire and dying. This piece of shit ran away and hid,
> and urged responders to do the same.
I agree he was a worthless douche. His character isn't the issue under
discussion here, however. A distinction you seem to be incapable of
comprehending.
> > I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
> > promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> > only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>
And before you start chirping "Cite? Cite?", here you go:
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Supreme Court ruled
72 that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing
to protect a woman and her three children from her estranged husband,
against whom she had a restraining order.
The husband took possession of his three daughters in violation of the
order. The mother called the police and reported it, but the police took
no action. The next day, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police
station and was killed in a shoot-out with the officers. A search of his
vehicle revealed the corpses of the three girls, whom he had killed
prior to his arrival.
There's also this case:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the Supreme Court of
the United States held that a state government agency's failure to
prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's
due process rights.
And this one:
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981, the
DC Court of Appeals held that the police do not owe a specific duty to
A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <t1XJE.2676$WT3....@fx32.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> > >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> MIAMI The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > >>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > >>>> to his inaction.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>
> Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases where police departments
> In article <t1XJE.2676$WT3....@fx32.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> > >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> > >>>>
> > >>>> MIAMI The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > >>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > >>>> to his inaction.
> > >>>
> > >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>
> Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
were sued for inaction and/or failure to render aid that the police are
not actually obligated to help you.
> > >> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > >> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > >> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are endless
> tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings to save
> people.
essentially unheard of from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to
see if the court allows the prosecution to proceed.
> > > And is this just limited to life/death situations?
> > >
> > > What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> > > can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> > > family in the middle of the investigation.
> > >
> > > Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against
> > > the cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and
> > > they wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
>
> That's a stupid comparison.
to act to prevent harm to crime victims, that principle can (and will)
be applied across the board.
> You're equating an imaginary credit-card case with an actual case of
> mass murder.
established with consideration to how it could be applied going forward
under different circumstances. Sorry if that bothers you, but you'll
just have to suck it up and deal.
> Sorry, but I'm fed up with poseurs and cowards today.
As it stands, it matters not at all to me.
And while we're at it, please explain in detail how my questioning how
this newfound legal requirement will be applied to future cases makes me
either a poseur or a coward?
> Kids were under fire and dying. This piece of shit ran away and hid,
> and urged responders to do the same.
discussion here, however. A distinction you seem to be incapable of
comprehending.
> > I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
> > promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> > only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>
> You're telling us that the POS was under no obligation to protect anyone.
The Supreme Court is actually the one who is 'telling us' that.
And before you start chirping "Cite? Cite?", here you go:
Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Supreme Court ruled
72 that a town and its police department could not be sued for failing
to protect a woman and her three children from her estranged husband,
against whom she had a restraining order.
The husband took possession of his three daughters in violation of the
order. The mother called the police and reported it, but the police took
no action. The next day, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police
station and was killed in a shoot-out with the officers. A search of his
vehicle revealed the corpses of the three girls, whom he had killed
prior to his arrival.
There's also this case:
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989), the Supreme Court of
the United States held that a state government agency's failure to
prevent child abuse by a custodial parent does not violate the child's
due process rights.
And this one:
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981, the
DC Court of Appeals held that the police do not owe a specific duty to
provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
> > It's also bizarre that it took so long after the incident for these
> > charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long
> > ago.
>
> Some cases take a year to make.
Not these kinds.
> > charges to be brought. All the facts of the incident were known long
> > ago.
>
> Some cases take a year to make.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 5, 2019, 11:06:28 PM6/5/19
to
> A Friend
> > Ed Stasiak
> > > Klaus Schadenfreude
> > Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are
> endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
> to save people.
No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
> I hope he gets what's coming to him.
I expect he’ll be found not guilty and probably sue the shit out of the
prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldn’t
win, solely to get some media attention.
Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
I don’t want to end up in jail because I refused to run into a burning
building to save someone’s cat.
> > Ed Stasiak
> > > Klaus Schadenfreude
> > >
> > > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>
> Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
To “keep the peace”, not die for you.
> > > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>
> Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
> > Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are
> endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
> to save people.
refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
> I hope he gets what's coming to him.
prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldn’t
win, solely to get some media attention.
Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
I don’t want to end up in jail because I refused to run into a burning
building to save someone’s cat.
trotsky
Jun 6, 2019, 7:23:35 AM6/6/19
to
A Friend
Jun 6, 2019, 8:12:42 AM6/6/19
to
In article <atropos-60D225...@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
was he there? As for past SCOTUS decisions about this, if any, I don't
care. The bottom line here is that the good guy with the gun ran away
and hid. Other cops would not have, and you know that.
Again, why was the POS stationed there with a badge and a gun?
Deterrence? Don't make me laugh.
> > > >> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > > >> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > > >> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
> >
> > For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are endless
> > tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings to save
> > people.
>
> You're confusing moral duty with legal duty. This Florida case is
> essentially unheard of from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to
> see if the court allows the prosecution to proceed.
I hope it does but, yes, it will be interesting nevertheless.
> > > > And is this just limited to life/death situations?
> > > >
> > > > What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> > > > can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> > > > family in the middle of the investigation.
> > > >
> > > > Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against
> > > > the cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and
> > > > they wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
> >
> > That's a stupid comparison.
>
> No, it's not. Once the precedent is set that police have an obligation
> to act to prevent harm to crime victims, that principle can (and will)
> be applied across the board.
>
> > You're equating an imaginary credit-card case with an actual case of
> > mass murder.
>
> Yeah, that's how the legal system works. A principle of law is
> established with consideration to how it could be applied going forward
> under different circumstances. Sorry if that bothers you, but you'll
> just have to suck it up and deal.
Those kids weren't in the legal system. They were under attack, and
the only person able to defend them didn't care to do so. In fact, he
ran like a rabbit. No, I don't want to talk about imaginary cases of
credit-card fraud.
> > Sorry, but I'm fed up with poseurs and cowards today.
>
> That might be relevant if I cared what you are and are not fed up with.
> As it stands, it matters not at all to me.
I knew that already. Rest snipped.
<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <050620191830518701%no...@noway.com>,
> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <t1XJE.2676$WT3....@fx32.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MIAMI The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > > >>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > > >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > >>>> to his inaction.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> >
> > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases where police departments
> were sued for inaction and/or failure to render aid that the police are
> not actually obligated to help you.
I don't care. The POS was stationed there with a badge and a gun. Why
> In article <050620191830518701%no...@noway.com>,
> A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <t1XJE.2676$WT3....@fx32.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> MIAMI The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > > >>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > > >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > >>>> to his inaction.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> >
> > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>
> The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases where police departments
> were sued for inaction and/or failure to render aid that the police are
> not actually obligated to help you.
was he there? As for past SCOTUS decisions about this, if any, I don't
care. The bottom line here is that the good guy with the gun ran away
and hid. Other cops would not have, and you know that.
Again, why was the POS stationed there with a badge and a gun?
Deterrence? Don't make me laugh.
> > > >> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > > >> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > > >> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
> >
> > For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are endless
> > tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings to save
> > people.
>
> You're confusing moral duty with legal duty. This Florida case is
> essentially unheard of from a legal standpoint. It'll be interesting to
> see if the court allows the prosecution to proceed.
> > > > And is this just limited to life/death situations?
> > > >
> > > > What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
> > > > can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
> > > > family in the middle of the investigation.
> > > >
> > > > Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against
> > > > the cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and
> > > > they wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
> >
> > That's a stupid comparison.
>
> No, it's not. Once the precedent is set that police have an obligation
> to act to prevent harm to crime victims, that principle can (and will)
> be applied across the board.
>
> > You're equating an imaginary credit-card case with an actual case of
> > mass murder.
>
> Yeah, that's how the legal system works. A principle of law is
> established with consideration to how it could be applied going forward
> under different circumstances. Sorry if that bothers you, but you'll
> just have to suck it up and deal.
the only person able to defend them didn't care to do so. In fact, he
ran like a rabbit. No, I don't want to talk about imaginary cases of
credit-card fraud.
> > Sorry, but I'm fed up with poseurs and cowards today.
>
> That might be relevant if I cared what you are and are not fed up with.
> As it stands, it matters not at all to me.
A Friend
Jun 6, 2019, 8:19:13 AM6/6/19
to
In article <eab98b5c-7519-4ae1...@googlegroups.com>, Ed
> prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldnąt
> building to save someoneąs cat.
I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be
prosecuted for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats;
that's just insane. It will not happen. But if you've got a badge and
a gun and you're stationed at a school, and you refuse to intercede in
a mass murder and, instead, hide away, then I hope to Christ you're
dragged through the courts until your lack of character is thoroughly
exposed and you're remembered for all time as nothing more than a
worthless coward.
Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > A Friend
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > > > Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > >
> > > > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> >
> > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>
> To łkeep the peace˛, not die for you.
> > A Friend
> > > Ed Stasiak
> > > > Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > >
> > > > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> >
> > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>
>
> > > Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > > committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > > for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
> >
> > For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are
> > endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
> > to save people.
>
> No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
> refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
>
> > I hope he gets what's coming to him.
>
> I expect heąll be found not guilty and probably sue the shit out of the
> > > Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> > > committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> > > for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
> >
> > For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are
> > endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
> > to save people.
>
> No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
> refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
>
> > I hope he gets what's coming to him.
>
> prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldnąt
> win, solely to get some media attention.
>
> Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
> prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
> I donąt want to end up in jail because I refused to run into a burning
>
> Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
> prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
> building to save someoneąs cat.
I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be
prosecuted for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats;
that's just insane. It will not happen. But if you've got a badge and
a gun and you're stationed at a school, and you refuse to intercede in
a mass murder and, instead, hide away, then I hope to Christ you're
dragged through the courts until your lack of character is thoroughly
exposed and you're remembered for all time as nothing more than a
worthless coward.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 6, 2019, 10:29:14 AM6/6/19
to
> A Friend
> > Ed Stasiak
> > building to save someone’s cat.
is convicted of cowardice or “lack of character”, it opens the door for
anybody and everybody to also be convicted on similar accusations;
You’re driving down the road and see an accident happen, why didn’t
you climb into the burning wreck and try to save the victims? Go to jail.
You’re at the grocery store and a deranged killer with an AK-47 marches
in and starts shooting people, why didn’t you try and tackle the guy and
save the victims? Go to jail.
You hear your neighbor beating on his wife, why didn’t you go over there
and save her? Go to jail.
We can do this all day. Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their
officers can refuse a suicidal order and I’ll point out that when the
Columbine attack happened, dozens of cops including a SWAT team
arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait outside for a half hour,
as the victims bleed to death.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
> > prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
> > I don’t want to end up in jail because I refused to run into a burning
> > Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
> > prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
> > building to save someone’s cat.
>
> I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be prosecuted
> for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats; that's just insane.
> It will not happen.
Except legal rulings set a precedence for future incidents and if this cop
> I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be prosecuted
> for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats; that's just insane.
> It will not happen.
is convicted of cowardice or “lack of character”, it opens the door for
anybody and everybody to also be convicted on similar accusations;
You’re driving down the road and see an accident happen, why didn’t
you climb into the burning wreck and try to save the victims? Go to jail.
You’re at the grocery store and a deranged killer with an AK-47 marches
in and starts shooting people, why didn’t you try and tackle the guy and
save the victims? Go to jail.
You hear your neighbor beating on his wife, why didn’t you go over there
and save her? Go to jail.
We can do this all day. Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their
officers can refuse a suicidal order and I’ll point out that when the
Columbine attack happened, dozens of cops including a SWAT team
arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait outside for a half hour,
as the victims bleed to death.
BTR1701
Jun 6, 2019, 10:29:52 AM6/6/19
to
In article <060620190812341899%no...@noway.com>,
actually is, there's no point in talking to you about a legal case on
the subject.
Oh, and "if any"? I *provided* them to you and you snipped them out
without addressing them. Now you're pretending as if there might not be
any? Wow.
> The bottom line here is that the good guy with the gun ran away
> and hid. Other cops would not have, and you know that.
That doesn't translate into a *legal* obligation, which is what the
state will have to prove to prosecute him.
> > > You're equating an imaginary credit-card case with an actual case of
> > > mass murder.
> >
> > Yeah, that's how the legal system works. A principle of law is
> > established with consideration to how it could be applied going forward
> > under different circumstances. Sorry if that bothers you, but you'll
> > just have to suck it up and deal.
>
> Those kids weren't in the legal system. They were under attack, and
> the only person able to defend them didn't care to do so.
So your position is that a person who is able to defend an attack has a
legal obligation to act even if the law says there is no legal
obligation to act.
Not sure how that works out here in the land of logic.
The murdered kids in the case I cited (and which you snipped out)
weren't in the legal system any more than those high school kids were
and the cops in that case were the only people able to defend them and
didn't, yet it was ruled there was no legal obligation for them to have
acted.
> > > Sorry, but I'm fed up with poseurs and cowards today.
> >
> > That might be relevant if I cared what you are and are not fed up with.
> > As it stands, it matters not at all to me.
>
> I knew that already. Rest snipped.
The 'rest', conveniently, was the proof that the highest court in the
country disagrees with you.
A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> In article <atropos-60D225...@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <050620191830518701%no...@noway.com>,
> > A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <t1XJE.2676$WT3....@fx32.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > > >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> MIAMI The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > > > >>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > > > >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > > >>>> to his inaction.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> > >
> > > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
> >
> > The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases where police departments
> > were sued for inaction and/or failure to render aid that the police are
> > not actually obligated to help you.
>
> I don't care. The POS was stationed there with a badge and a gun. Why
> was he there? As for past SCOTUS decisions about this, if any, I don't
> care.
Well, there's nowhere to go with that. If you don't care what the law
> In article <atropos-60D225...@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
> <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <050620191830518701%no...@noway.com>,
> > A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <t1XJE.2676$WT3....@fx32.iad>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 6/5/2019 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > > > > In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >>> Klaus Schadenfreude
> > > > >>>> We Must Make A New Law!
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> MIAMI The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > > > >>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
> > > > >>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > > >>>> to his inaction.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> > >
> > > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
> >
> > The Supreme Court has ruled in previous cases where police departments
> > were sued for inaction and/or failure to render aid that the police are
> > not actually obligated to help you.
>
> I don't care. The POS was stationed there with a badge and a gun. Why
> was he there? As for past SCOTUS decisions about this, if any, I don't
> care.
actually is, there's no point in talking to you about a legal case on
the subject.
Oh, and "if any"? I *provided* them to you and you snipped them out
without addressing them. Now you're pretending as if there might not be
any? Wow.
> The bottom line here is that the good guy with the gun ran away
> and hid. Other cops would not have, and you know that.
state will have to prove to prosecute him.
> > > You're equating an imaginary credit-card case with an actual case of
> > > mass murder.
> >
> > Yeah, that's how the legal system works. A principle of law is
> > established with consideration to how it could be applied going forward
> > under different circumstances. Sorry if that bothers you, but you'll
> > just have to suck it up and deal.
>
> Those kids weren't in the legal system. They were under attack, and
> the only person able to defend them didn't care to do so.
legal obligation to act even if the law says there is no legal
obligation to act.
Not sure how that works out here in the land of logic.
The murdered kids in the case I cited (and which you snipped out)
weren't in the legal system any more than those high school kids were
and the cops in that case were the only people able to defend them and
didn't, yet it was ruled there was no legal obligation for them to have
acted.
> > > Sorry, but I'm fed up with poseurs and cowards today.
> >
> > That might be relevant if I cared what you are and are not fed up with.
> > As it stands, it matters not at all to me.
>
> I knew that already. Rest snipped.
country disagrees with you.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 6, 2019, 12:20:26 PM6/6/19
to
for freezing up during a battle and not advancing upon the enemy firing
back at them? That was how they used to improve morale in WWI.
A Friend
Jun 6, 2019, 2:13:13 PM6/6/19
to
In article <atropos-ACE32B...@news.giganews.com>, BTR1701
I'm still asking WHY he was stationed at that school while wearing a
badge and packing a gun. There is apparently no answer to this
question. What a waste of taxpayer money. Wow^2.
You make it appear as if the POS was about as responsible for things as
a lunch lady. So why was he there, wearing a badge, and armed?
Yes, I've snipped again.
badge and packing a gun. There is apparently no answer to this
question. What a waste of taxpayer money. Wow^2.
You make it appear as if the POS was about as responsible for things as
a lunch lady. So why was he there, wearing a badge, and armed?
Yes, I've snipped again.
A Friend
Jun 6, 2019, 2:15:18 PM6/6/19
to
In article <qdbeg7$v84$3...@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
> >> prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldnĽt
> >> building to save someoneĽs cat.
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
> >In article <eab98b5c-7519-4ae1...@googlegroups.com>, Ed
> >Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > A Friend
> >> > > Ed Stasiak
> >> > > > Klaus Schadenfreude
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> >> >
> >> > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
> >>
> >> To „keep the peaceľ, not die for you.
> A Friend <A Friend> wrote:
> >In article <eab98b5c-7519-4ae1...@googlegroups.com>, Ed
> >Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> > A Friend
> >> > > Ed Stasiak
> >> > > > Klaus Schadenfreude
> >> > > >
> >> > > > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
> >> >
> >> > Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
> >>
> >>
> >> > > Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> >> > > committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> >> > > for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
> >> >
> >> > For Jesus' sake, shut up. ÝMy family was FDNY, and there are
> >> > > Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> >> > > committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> >> > > for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
> >> >
> >> > endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
> >> > to save people.
> >>
> >> No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
> >> refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
> >>
> >> > I hope he gets what's coming to him.
> >>
> >> I expect heĽll be found not guilty and probably sue the shit out of the
> >> > to save people.
> >>
> >> No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
> >> refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
> >>
> >> > I hope he gets what's coming to him.
> >>
> >> prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldnĽt
> >> win, solely to get some media attention.
> >>
> >> Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
> >> prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
> >> I donĽt want to end up in jail because I refused to run into a burning
> >>
> >> Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
> >> prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
> >> building to save someoneĽs cat.
> >
> >I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be
> >prosecuted for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats;
> >that's just insane. It will not happen. But if you've got a badge and
> >a gun and you're stationed at a school, and you refuse to intercede in
> >a mass murder and, instead, hide away, then I hope to Christ you're
> >dragged through the courts until your lack of character is thoroughly
> >exposed and you're remembered for all time as nothing more than a
> >worthless coward.
>
> Could I just remind you that soldiers used to be executed for cowardice,
> for freezing up during a battle and not advancing upon the enemy firing
> back at them? That was how they used to improve morale in WWI.
I really did like PATHS OF GLORY.
> >I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be
> >prosecuted for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats;
> >that's just insane. It will not happen. But if you've got a badge and
> >a gun and you're stationed at a school, and you refuse to intercede in
> >a mass murder and, instead, hide away, then I hope to Christ you're
> >dragged through the courts until your lack of character is thoroughly
> >exposed and you're remembered for all time as nothing more than a
> >worthless coward.
>
> Could I just remind you that soldiers used to be executed for cowardice,
> for freezing up during a battle and not advancing upon the enemy firing
> back at them? That was how they used to improve morale in WWI.
BTR1701
Jun 6, 2019, 3:05:42 PM6/6/19
to
officers and equipped by the taxpayers, if they weren't required to protect
someone with a restraining order?
> What a waste of taxpayer money.
an issue for the voters of that county to address.
> You make it appear as if the POS was about as responsible for things as
> a lunch lady.
law as delivered by the highest court in the nation. You apparently don't
want to accept that as real.
A Friend
Jun 6, 2019, 6:21:25 PM6/6/19
to
In article <y4adnbW8cehj_mTB...@giganews.com>, BTR1701
Seriously, and with no malice toward you: No, I don't want to accept
it, and I don't think the taxpayers (much less the grieving families)
should, either. I still don't know why they bothered putting this guy
at the door.
I've read the deeper coverage about this. The prosecution thinks it
has a way forward, despite the state of the law ... which is as you
say.
it, and I don't think the taxpayers (much less the grieving families)
should, either. I still don't know why they bothered putting this guy
at the door.
I've read the deeper coverage about this. The prosecution thinks it
has a way forward, despite the state of the law ... which is as you
say.
The Horny Goat
Jun 6, 2019, 7:18:40 PM6/6/19
to
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:29:10 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
wrote:
>We can do this all day. Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their
>officers can refuse a suicidal order and I’ll point out that when the
>Columbine attack happened, dozens of cops including a SWAT team
>arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait outside for a half hour,
>as the victims bleed to death.
The point of course is that military personnel and police officers
(and other first responders for that matter) take oaths requiring them
to go above and beyond what's expected of civilians.
Now civilians DO do extraordinary things in extraordinary conditions
all the time but that's because they're good people - even heroes in
some cases.
Police offficers promise IN ADVANCE to do these things and so it's not
considered nearly as big a deal when they put themselves in harms' way
as when John/Jane Doe do so.
I have personally run into heavy traffic when my then two year old son
thought crossing a 4 lane street to join Mommy (which involved ongoing
traffic at fairly high speed) - reasoning that drivers would be far
more likely to see a big guy yelling and screaming and waving his arms
would be far more visible than a tyke minding his own business and
looking at Mommy on the far side of the street. (And I have definitely
spent more time thinking about it while typing this than I did in that
crisis situation!)
Again the willingness to do heroic deeds when the situation demands it
is at the core of what officers do when they swear to 'preserve and
protect' or whatever formula they do in your jurisdiciton.
wrote:
>We can do this all day. Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their
>officers can refuse a suicidal order and I’ll point out that when the
>Columbine attack happened, dozens of cops including a SWAT team
>arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait outside for a half hour,
>as the victims bleed to death.
(and other first responders for that matter) take oaths requiring them
to go above and beyond what's expected of civilians.
Now civilians DO do extraordinary things in extraordinary conditions
all the time but that's because they're good people - even heroes in
some cases.
Police offficers promise IN ADVANCE to do these things and so it's not
considered nearly as big a deal when they put themselves in harms' way
as when John/Jane Doe do so.
I have personally run into heavy traffic when my then two year old son
thought crossing a 4 lane street to join Mommy (which involved ongoing
traffic at fairly high speed) - reasoning that drivers would be far
more likely to see a big guy yelling and screaming and waving his arms
would be far more visible than a tyke minding his own business and
looking at Mommy on the far side of the street. (And I have definitely
spent more time thinking about it while typing this than I did in that
crisis situation!)
Again the willingness to do heroic deeds when the situation demands it
is at the core of what officers do when they swear to 'preserve and
protect' or whatever formula they do in your jurisdiciton.
BTR1701
Jun 6, 2019, 8:39:56 PM6/6/19
to
The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:29:10 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> We can do this all day. Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their
>> officers can refuse a suicidal order and I’ll point out that when the
>> Columbine attack happened, dozens of cops including a SWAT team
>> arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait outside for a half hour,
>> as the victims bleed to death.
>
> The point of course is that military personnel and police officers
> (and other first responders for that matter) take oaths requiring them
> to go above and beyond what's expected of civilians.
My oath was to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
> On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 07:29:10 -0700 (PDT), Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net>
> wrote:
>
>> We can do this all day. Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their
>> officers can refuse a suicidal order and I’ll point out that when the
>> Columbine attack happened, dozens of cops including a SWAT team
>> arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait outside for a half hour,
>> as the victims bleed to death.
>
> The point of course is that military personnel and police officers
> (and other first responders for that matter) take oaths requiring them
> to go above and beyond what's expected of civilians.
Didn't say anything about protecting its individual citizens.
FPP
Jun 6, 2019, 10:26:28 PM6/6/19
to
That only works in nitpicking. We had a problem with a press run one
time... but we'd followed all the specs, and all the policies and
procedures to the letter - but the item printed wrong.
When we told the VP of manufacturing that, he held up the product and said:
"Now, does this look right to you?
When we all said "no", he followed up with:
"Then why did you run it?"
Nobody had a good answer.
So I'll ask you... "Does what he did sound right to you?"
Don't bother to answer... I already know what the excuse will be.
--
There are three inescapable facts from the Mueller report that Mitch
McConnell can't hide:
1. A foreign government attacked our elections in order to help Donald
Trump.
2. Trump welcomed that help.
3. Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into his actions.
-Elizabeth Warren
Ed Stasiak
Jun 6, 2019, 11:34:42 PM6/6/19
to
> The Horny Goat
> > Ed Stasiak
https://work.chron.com/cops-oath-22507.html
Generally, state and local police officers take the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor
at the beginning of their careers. The oath affirms their standards of integrity, bravery
and honor to the community and law. The oath can vary slightly. For example, in
Virginia, the words "...so help me God" are added at the end. However, typically the
oaths used reflect the version endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police.
Police Officer’s Oath
The widely used oath embraced by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
reads, "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the
public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable
for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency
I serve."
I don’t see anything there requiring a cop to die for someone?
And why weren’t the cops and SWAT officers on the scene at Columbine prosecuted?
There were dozens of them, yet they didn’t go into the school until the attack was long
over and meanwhile, victims were bleeding out and dying.
> Again the willingness to do heroic deeds when the situation demands it is at the core
> of what officers do when they swear to 'preserve and protect' or whatever formula they
> do in your jurisdiction.
Lawyers all over the U.S. are gleefully rubbing their hands hoping this cop is convicted
because if that happens, not only will cops and first responders end up being sued on
a daily basis, but anybody and everybody can be prosecuted and thrown in prison for
“lack of moral character”.
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their officers can refuse a suicidal
> > order and I’ll point out that when the Columbine attack happened, dozens of
> > cops including a SWAT team arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait
> > outside for a half hour, as the victims bleed to death.
>
> The point of course is that military personnel and police officers (and other first
> responders for that matter) take oaths requiring them to go above and beyond
> what's expected of civilians.
According to the Internet:
> > Even soldiers who swear an oath to obey their officers can refuse a suicidal
> > order and I’ll point out that when the Columbine attack happened, dozens of
> > cops including a SWAT team arrived within minutes and proceeded to… wait
> > outside for a half hour, as the victims bleed to death.
>
> The point of course is that military personnel and police officers (and other first
> responders for that matter) take oaths requiring them to go above and beyond
> what's expected of civilians.
https://work.chron.com/cops-oath-22507.html
Generally, state and local police officers take the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor
at the beginning of their careers. The oath affirms their standards of integrity, bravery
and honor to the community and law. The oath can vary slightly. For example, in
Virginia, the words "...so help me God" are added at the end. However, typically the
oaths used reflect the version endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs
of Police.
Police Officer’s Oath
The widely used oath embraced by the International Association of Chiefs of Police
reads, "On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character or the
public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable
for our actions. I will always uphold the Constitution, my community, and the agency
I serve."
I don’t see anything there requiring a cop to die for someone?
And why weren’t the cops and SWAT officers on the scene at Columbine prosecuted?
There were dozens of them, yet they didn’t go into the school until the attack was long
over and meanwhile, victims were bleeding out and dying.
> Again the willingness to do heroic deeds when the situation demands it is at the core
> of what officers do when they swear to 'preserve and protect' or whatever formula they
Lawyers all over the U.S. are gleefully rubbing their hands hoping this cop is convicted
because if that happens, not only will cops and first responders end up being sued on
a daily basis, but anybody and everybody can be prosecuted and thrown in prison for
“lack of moral character”.
Ed Stasiak
Jun 6, 2019, 11:37:47 PM6/6/19
to
> FPP
>
> So I'll ask you... "Does what he did sound right to you?"
The question is; should he be prosecuted, fined and thrown in prison?
> So I'll ask you... "Does what he did sound right to you?"
FPP
Jun 7, 2019, 2:17:19 AM6/7/19
to
On 6/6/19 8:39 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same..."?
Does that sound somewhat familiar?
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
trotsky
Jun 7, 2019, 6:58:00 AM6/7/19
to
RichA
Jun 7, 2019, 9:31:34 AM6/7/19
to
trotsky
Jun 8, 2019, 8:20:15 AM6/8/19
to
On 6/5/19 10:05 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>> We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>
>>>> MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>> We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>
>>>> of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
>>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>> to his inaction.
>>>
>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>
>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> And is this just limited to life/death situations?
Did the NRA change its catch phrase to "A good guy with gun is likely to
>>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>> to his inaction.
>>>
>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>
>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> And is this just limited to life/death situations?
commit suicide?" What the fuck?
You sockpuppets are all idiots and liars.
trotsky
Jun 8, 2019, 8:21:42 AM6/8/19
to
On 6/6/19 7:19 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article <eab98b5c-7519-4ae1...@googlegroups.com>, Ed
> Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> A Friend
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>
>>>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>
>>> Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>>
>> To ³keep the peace², not die for you.
> In article <eab98b5c-7519-4ae1...@googlegroups.com>, Ed
> Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>
>>> A Friend
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>
>>>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>
>>> Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>>
>>
>>>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>>
>>> For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are
>>> endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
>>> to save people.
>>
>> No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
>> refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
>>
>>> I hope he gets what's coming to him.
>>
>> I expect he¹ll be found not guilty and probably sue the shit out of the
>>>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>>
>>> For Jesus' sake, shut up. My family was FDNY, and there are
>>> endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
>>> to save people.
>>
>> No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
>> refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
>>
>>> I hope he gets what's coming to him.
>>
>> prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldn¹t
>> win, solely to get some media attention.
>>
>> Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
>> prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
>> I don¹t want to end up in jail because I refused to run into a burning
>>
>> Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
>> prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
>> building to save someone¹s cat.
>
> I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be
> prosecuted for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats;
Isn't it weird how "Ed Stasiak" posits the exact same kinds of false
> I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be
> prosecuted for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats;
equivalences that Thanny von Twinkles does? That's just weird!
FPP
Jun 8, 2019, 9:28:39 AM6/8/19
to
then ignoring when those in power trample on it.
From Merrick Garland, to the Emoluments clause, to declaring national
emergencies to build a vanity wall, to violating campaign finance reform
laws, to obstructing justice, to abuse of power, to declaring national
emergencies to sell weapons systems to murderous thugs, to ignoring
lawful subpoenas.
I could go on, but you get the gist. If you've taken an oath to protect
and defend the Constitution from all enemies, foreign OR DOMESTIC - then
to remain silent while those in power flaunt it at every turn is rather
hypocritical.
Thanny sure doesn't let Twitter users get away with that kind of shit!
Or college professors. Or celebrities. Or Facebook users. Elected
officials, sure... but not some D-Lister on social media.
And definitely not someone lying about your doctor! They have to be
held to account.
trotsky
Jun 8, 2019, 11:48:38 AM6/8/19
to
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 12, 2019, 1:59:08 PM6/12/19
to
>>A Friend wrote:
>>>Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>A Friend
>>>>>>Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>>>Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>>>>To keep the peace, not die for you.
>>>Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>>A Friend
>>>>>>Ed Stasiak
>>>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>>>That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>>>Then what, pray tell, was he stationed there to do?
>>>>>>Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>>>>>committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>>>>>for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>>>>endless tales of heroic firefighters running into burning buildings
>>>>>to save people.
>>>>No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
>>>>refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
>>>>>I hope he gets what's coming to him.
>>>>I expect he'll be found not guilty and probably sue the shit out of the
>>>>>to save people.
>>>>No doubt, but the issue here is, is it a _crime_ if someone (even a cop)
>>>>refuses to put themselves in mortal danger and the answer is, no.
>>>>>I hope he gets what's coming to him.
>>>>prosecutor for dragging him into court on a case he knew he couldn't
>>>>win, solely to get some media attention.
>>>>Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
>>>>prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
>>>>I don't want to end up in jail because I refused to run into a burning
>>>>Because if he IS found guilty, anyone and everyone can then be
>>>>prosecuted for not getting involved in a whole host of incidents and
>>>>building to save someone's cat.
>>>I'm tired of irrelevant comparisons. No, not everyone will be
>>>prosecuted for refusing to run into burning buildings to save cats;
>>>that's just insane. It will not happen. But if you've got a badge and
>>>a gun and you're stationed at a school, and you refuse to intercede in
>>>a mass murder and, instead, hide away, then I hope to Christ you're
>>>dragged through the courts until your lack of character is thoroughly
>>>exposed and you're remembered for all time as nothing more than a
>>>worthless coward.
>>Could I just remind you that soldiers used to be executed for cowardice,
>>for freezing up during a battle and not advancing upon the enemy firing
>>back at them? That was how they used to improve morale in WWI.
>I really did like PATHS OF GLORY.
arresting people for failure to carry out their jobs and perform their
duty.
Put coward Florida cop in prison, and who's next? The social worker? The
teacher? The politician?
by John Kass
Chicago Tribune
June 6, 2019 5:00 am
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/john-kass/ct-met-john-kass-parkland-shooting-cop-charged-20190605-story.html
He asks whether criminal negligence charges are also appropriate against
a indifferent teacher, judge who let killers go free, a school
administrator of a school whose graduates can't compete in the world, or
a negligent social worker.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 12, 2019, 2:25:13 PM6/12/19
to
>>>Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>MIAMI - The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
>>>>We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>of confronting the gunman during last year's Parkland school
>>>>massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>>to his inaction.
>>>>massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>>to his inaction.
>>>That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>And is this just limited to life/death situations?
>What if a detective is investigating a credit card fraud case-- which
>can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
>family in the middle of the investigation.
>Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
>cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
>wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
I just looked at what former Broward County deputy Scot Peterson was
>can take many months to develop-- and he takes a vacation with his
>family in the middle of the investigation.
>Can the victims of the identity theft press criminal charges against the
>cop for not working continuously to solve the case earlier and they
>wouldn't have been victimized otherwise?
charged with: seven felonies and four misdemeanors, including child
neglect, culpable negligence and perjury. The legal theory is that no
one shot on the first floor could have been saved, but he might have
prevented the gunman from reaching the third floor, where Nikolas Cruz
killed 6 and wounded 4.
The law imposes a special duty upon those whose job it is to protect
childre. There's no law imposing a special duty upon those whose job it
is to protect us from becoming fraud victims.
>>. . .
BTR1701
Jun 12, 2019, 2:43:31 PM6/12/19
to
Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> I came across this column in a newspaper with a counterargument, about
> arresting people for failure to carry out their jobs and perform their
> duty.
>
> Put coward Florida cop in prison, and who's next? The social worker?
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-social-worker-charges-20170320-story.html
>
> I came across this column in a newspaper with a counterargument, about
> arresting people for failure to carry out their jobs and perform their
> duty.
>
> Put coward Florida cop in prison, and who's next? The social worker?
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 12, 2019, 3:07:58 PM6/12/19
to
wrongly documented facts, failed to document the mother's diagnosed
mental problems, and failed to asses the child as being at very high
risk for future harm. They ignored obvious signs that abuse escalated.
By law, adults who regularly interacts with or care for children --
teachers, nurses and doctors in a clinical or hospital setting -- have a
duty to report injuries that are common signs of abuse, either to police
or social workers. The person making the observation is the one with the
duty in law. Merely documenting it in a report to a supervisor isn't
fulfilling one's duty.
If the reports are supposed to land on the desks of social workers, who
have the power to remove children in certain circumstances in which
there is evidence of abuse, how is it that you believe that they have a
lesser duty imposed upon them by law than the child's teacher?
A Friend
Jun 12, 2019, 4:19:11 PM6/12/19
to
In article <qdreh9$aue$1...@dont-email.me>, Adam H. Kerman
I think there's a line, and I think Scot Peterson falls 'way on the
other side of it. He was armed, he was sworn, he was at the scene, and
*he didn't even try*. Despite all his misfired sarcasm, Hass is
probably right that Peterson will beat the charges on appeal, should he
be convicted. We have been assured here, after all, that sworn, armed
peace officers aren't really required to do anything except draw a
paycheck.
other side of it. He was armed, he was sworn, he was at the scene, and
*he didn't even try*. Despite all his misfired sarcasm, Hass is
probably right that Peterson will beat the charges on appeal, should he
be convicted. We have been assured here, after all, that sworn, armed
peace officers aren't really required to do anything except draw a
paycheck.
BTR1701
Jun 12, 2019, 10:44:11 PM6/12/19
to
In article <qdriib$7sm$1...@dont-email.me>,
link as an answer to the question, "What's next, the social worker?"
"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>I came across this column in a newspaper with a counterargument, about
> >>arresting people for failure to carry out their jobs and perform their
> >>duty.
>
> >>Put coward Florida cop in prison, and who's next? The social worker?
>
> >https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-social-worker-charges-20170320-s
> >tory.html
> BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> >>I came across this column in a newspaper with a counterargument, about
> >>arresting people for failure to carry out their jobs and perform their
> >>duty.
>
> >>Put coward Florida cop in prison, and who's next? The social worker?
>
> >https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-social-worker-charges-20170320-s
> >tory.html
> If the reports are supposed to land on the desks of social workers, who
> have the power to remove children in certain circumstances in which
> there is evidence of abuse, how is it that you believe that they have a
> lesser duty imposed upon them by law than the child's teacher?
I didn't say I believed anything one way or the other. I just posted the
> have the power to remove children in certain circumstances in which
> there is evidence of abuse, how is it that you believe that they have a
> lesser duty imposed upon them by law than the child's teacher?
link as an answer to the question, "What's next, the social worker?"
RichA
Jun 12, 2019, 11:52:14 PM6/12/19
to
Putting people in jail is expensive, over $100,000 per year, per inmate. It's time to go back to humiliation punishment. Tattoo a big yellow "C" on his face. That would be a great punishment.
Adam H. Kerman
Jun 13, 2019, 12:53:26 AM6/13/19
to
to a social worker.
BTR1701
Jun 15, 2019, 10:46:09 PM6/15/19
to
In article <dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
> > > MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> > > of confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
> > > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > to his inaction.
> >
> > > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
> > > to his inaction.
> >
> > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>
>
> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>
> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
anim8rfsk
Jun 15, 2019, 11:48:16 PM6/15/19
to
BTR1701
Jun 16, 2019, 12:27:40 AM6/16/19
to
In article <0001HW.22B5F37D00...@NEWS.EASYNEWS.COM>,
Yep.
"You can't protect yourself and we won't protect you, either. Good luck!"
"You can't protect yourself and we won't protect you, either. Good luck!"
trotsky
Jun 16, 2019, 7:57:03 AM6/16/19
to
On 6/15/19 11:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <0001HW.22B5F37D00...@NEWS.EASYNEWS.COM>,
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:44:39 -0700 BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>> We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> In article <0001HW.22B5F37D00...@NEWS.EASYNEWS.COM>,
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:44:39 -0700 BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<dc40ac03-b229-4b3d...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>> We Must Make A New Law!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
>>>>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>>>> to his inaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>>>
>>>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>>>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>>>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> Nice
>
> Yep.
Nope.
>>>>>> to his inaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>>>
>>>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>>>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>>>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> Nice
>
> Yep.
Ubiquitous
Jun 17, 2019, 7:45:10 AM6/17/19
to
>> > > MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
>> > > of confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
>> > > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>> > > to his inaction.
>> >
>> > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>
>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>
>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
Heh. Nice attempt at CYA.
>> > > of confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
>> > > massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>> > > to his inaction.
>> >
>> > That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>
>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>
>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
Ubiquitous
Jun 17, 2019, 7:47:17 AM6/17/19
to
atr...@mac.com wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:44:39 -0700 BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>> MIAMI — The former Florida deputy who stood outside instead
> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> Sat, 15 Jun 2019 19:44:39 -0700 BTR1701<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> wrote:
>>>>> Klaus Schadenfreude
>>>>>> of confronting the gunman during last year’s Parkland school
>>>>>> massacre was arrested Tuesday on 11 criminal charges related
>>>>>> to his inaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>>>
>>>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>>>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>>>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> Nice
>
>Yep.
>
>>>>>> to his inaction.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's bullshit. He's under no obligation to protect anyone.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, and how can anyone be prosecuted for essentially not
>>>> committing suicide? Are they next going to prosecute firemen
>>>> for not blindly running into a raging inferno?
>>>>
>>>> I have a feeling this case is being pushed by anti-gun fundies,
>>>> promoting the idea that as nobody can truly be protected, the
>>>> only answer is a complete ban on guns.
>>>
>>> https://www.dropbox.com/s/aykj3pg3lo1akwg/NoProtection.jpg?dl=0
>>
>> Nice
>
>Yep.
>
>"You can't protect yourself and we won't protect you, either. Good luck!"
"You can't sue us; you were warned!"
0 new messages