Pulse Shooting Victims Sue Police For Not Entering Quickly Enough

[Au165]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/us/pulse-shooting-civil-lawsuit/index.html

This is a joke. Police really are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Had they went in all Chuck Norris and the shooter shot everyone they'd be sued, instead they pull back and formulate a plan and they are sued. Even naming the officer who was in there and engaged only to have to pull out due to being out gunned is a slap in the face to him for attempting to stop a shooting. This needs to be tossed in a clear message that, while you can feel sorry for victims and their families trying to blame anyone and everyone beyond the shooter in these instances has to stop.

[CKwi88]

I'm sure everyone feels similarly about the resource office at Parkland as well.

[fredtoast]

No way to tell if this is a joke or not without knowing the facts.

Not claiming the police did anything wrong at all. Just need to know what happened before I pass judgement.

[XenoMorph]

(06-08-2018, 03:08 PM)Au165 Wrote: https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/08/us/pulse-shooting-civil-lawsuit/index.html

This is a joke. Police really are damned if you do and damned if you don't. Had they went in all Chuck Norris and the shooter shot everyone they'd be sued, instead they pull back and formulate a plan and they are sued. Even naming the officer who was in there and engaged only to have to pull out due to being out gunned is a slap in the face to him for attempting to stop a shooting. This needs to be tossed in a clear message that, while you can feel sorry for victims and their families trying to blame anyone and everyone beyond the shooter in these instances has to stop.

the whole world is damned it you do damned it you don't...

Keep sueing Police though and soon no one will be coming to help

[treee]

I'm sure there are national LEO events where they discuss best practices for a variety of situations. Maybe it should be more publicly visible and an attempt made to standardize what is expected of them in certain situations.

[Au165]

(06-08-2018, 05:30 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: I'm sure everyone feels similarly about the resource office at Parkland as well.

Little different in that the department came out immediately (within days) to say that he didn't follow their policy for an active shooter. I also believe he should be sheltered from litigation though as well for the simple fact everyone likes to pretend they'll turn into Rambo in these situations the reality is fear locks people up. Anyone who knows people who have been on active deployments in the military can tell you stories of fellow soldiers curling up when gunshots start flying. It gets real fast.

[Belsnickel]

(06-11-2018, 12:29 PM)Au165 Wrote: Little different in that the department came out immediately (within days) to say that he didn't follow their policy for an active shooter. I also believe he should be sheltered from litigation though as well for the simple fact everyone likes to pretend they'll turn into Rambo in these situations the reality is fear locks people up. Anyone who knows people who have been on active deployments in the military can tell you stories of fellow soldiers curling up when gunshots start flying. It gets real fast.

Public sector agencies and employees should only be sheltered from litigation if policies and procedures were followed and those policies and procedures are legal. If the stated policies were not followed then there should be some form of reparation. If the policies were followed and they were not legal (meaning they violated constitutional or statutory law), then there should be reparations made and the policies need to be updated. If the policies are legal and were followed, then there should be no reparations made, though the policies should be assessed for their effectiveness.

[Au165]

(06-11-2018, 12:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Public sector agencies and employees should only be sheltered from litigation if policies and procedures were followed and those policies and procedures are legal. If the stated policies were not followed then there should be some form of reparation. If the policies were followed and they were not legal (meaning they violated constitutional or statutory law), then there should be reparations made and the policies need to be updated. If the policies are legal and were followed, then there should be no reparations made, though the policies should be assessed for their effectiveness.

Sounds good in theory, but not real life. This is an area I work in and I can tell you every time something happens in policing everyone gets sued for lack of training and following procedures, even when things are followed to a "T". The fact everyone is allowed to sue for everything in the line of policing is a problem in itself and should be looked at, as other countries provide their police more latitude to police freely. If we in fact trained officers as much as they should be they'd never actually be on the streets. When you realize how many different areas they have to be trained in you realize that we have set up our officers to fail, which is why I think they just be protected better from litigation. 

Society has let itself down in that we do not provide police with the proper funding to do what it is we ask them to do. You don't rise to the occasion you fall back to your training and unfortunately that fall back point can be a long ways in high stress situations.

[Belsnickel]

(06-11-2018, 12:47 PM)Au165 Wrote: Sounds good in theory, but not real life. This is an area I work in and I can tell you every time something happens in policing everyone gets sued for lack of training and following procedures, even when things are followed to a "T". The fact everyone is allowed to sue for everything in the line of policing is a problem in itself and should be looked at, as other countries provide their police more latitude to police freely. If we in fact trained officers as much as they should be they'd never actually be on the streets. When you realize how many different areas they have to be trained in you realize that we have set up our officers to fail, which is why I think they just be protected better from litigation. 

Society has let itself down in that we do not provide police with the proper funding to do what it is we ask them to do. You don't rise to the occasion you fall back to your training and unfortunately that fall back point can be a long ways in high stress situations.

As a person in policy assessment/evaluation, I get you. This is why my statement made generous use of the word "should" throughout. I agree with everything you state, here, I'm just saying that this is the way it should work. I also feel like we just expect too much from our police, in general. But that is a very in depth conversation we could have.

[Au165]

(06-11-2018, 01:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: As a person in policy assessment/evaluation, I get you. This is why my statement made generous use of the word "should" throughout. I agree with everything you state, here, I'm just saying that this is the way it should work. I also feel like we just expect too much from our police, in general. But that is a very in depth conversation we could have.

For sure, I lean left on a lot of things but after working in an industry closely tied to policing I tend to lean further right on policing in general. I see a lot of the behind the scenes things including all the lawsuits they go through as part of just doing their day to day jobs and it is nuts. The first question we get asked all the time is how does this affect our liability. That is no way to go about policing. 

[Belsnickel]

(06-11-2018, 02:39 PM)Au165 Wrote: For sure, I lean left on a lot of things but after working in an industry closely tied to policing I tend to lean further right on policing in general. I see a lot of the behind the scenes things including all the lawsuits they go through as part of just doing their day to day jobs and it is nuts. The first question we get asked all the time is how does this affect our liability. That is no way to go about policing. 

I still lean left with policing, but I don't tend to blame the police on the ground. I blame administrative decisions that ask more and more of police without providing them the resources or guidance that is necessary to perform their jobs. I disagree with how we utilize police in our country and that also ties to some of the laws we have and how we expect them to be enforced.

I always look to the policies first, because if those allow for the behavior of the individual, then we shouldn't blame the individual for acting in a certain way. But this is why I'm a policy analyst rather than, say, a psychologist.