Interesting situation

[Purplehood]

It is actually supported by Supreme Court rulings...

[howdy]

Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

Now you've totally lost me. I have no clue what you are implying.

the anti cop thing goes a bit too far when you try and portray individual officers as uncaring.

Wow, I said that? Sorry if that is how is sounds. That was never my intention.

[VMI77]

It is actually supported by Supreme Court rulings...

And a recent incident and ruling in NY, where a transit cop watched a guy stabbing people from the safety of the motorman's cab, and did nothing to help a passenger who was struggling with the attacker, and trying to stop him. The courts have made it very clear that the police have no legal duty to act in protection of individuals...only a general duty to society at large.

[VMI77]

Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

Now you've totally lost me. I have no clue what you are implying.

Your question was are the Police morally or legally required to act, and my comment eluded to the fact that at the mass shootings of Columbine High School (for over an hour and a half), the Luby's cafeteria in Texas, the McDonalds in California, at Virginia Tech and so on, the Police did not enter the building until the shooting stopped. They formed a defensive position outside the building and waited. They were under no legal or moral obligation to intervene in the shooting.

.

Really? I just thought they didn't get there in time. is this verified? If so...

What he says is true for sure with regard to Columbine and the San Ysidro Mc Donalds. For example:

The massacre lasted for 77 minutes, during which time Huberty shot to death 21 people and wounded 19 others. The victims were predominantly Mexican and Mexican-American and ranged in age from 8 months to 74 years, with the average age being 26 years old.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidr ... s_massacre

The police made no effort to enter the building until he was finally taken out by a sniper. This reference also doesn't mention some details, for instance, that a child shot outside the McDonalds lay dying on the sidewalk outside the restaurant and bled out before the killer was finally shot by the sniper.

At Columbine police were on the scene almost immediately, and exchanged gunfire with the killers, but didn't enter the building for about 50 minutes....just after the killers committed suicide. On a strange note, the first officer responding wasn't wearing his corrective lenses and was ineffective targeting the killers.

Now, to be fair, I think there were probably plenty of officers in all these instances who wanted to get in there and stop the killers, but were restrained by orders and policies crafted by the upper echelons of command. The political atmosphere in this country is in the process of ruining a lot of once good institutions.

[Cedar Park Dad]

Wow, ok, I often wondered how some of these killers could have done so much and roamed around so much in some of these. Now I understand.

[texanjoker]

Wow, ok, I often wondered how some of these killers could have done so much and roamed around so much in some of these. Now I understand.

Those are old incidents and tactics have changed. Leo's have had to "evolve" to work these type of events. Look at all the active shooters that are now stopped in a quick time period.

But then what does this have to do with a chl holder running off a aggressive pandhandler

[Cedar Park Dad]

Wow, ok, I often wondered how some of these killers could have done so much and roamed around so much in some of these. Now I understand.

Those are old incidents and tactics have changed. Leo's have had to "evolve" to work these type of events. Look at all the active shooters that are now stopped in a quick time period.

But then what does this have to do with a chl holder running off a aggressive pandhandler

I think the timeline involved.
I've been fortunate in either being lucky or ugly enough never to have been through this. I've been harassed by homeless people at the bus stop before. Only one got surly and I started shouting at him and he went away. Evidently he must have thought I was crazier then he was.

I take that back. I did see a homeless guy shouting at people on the street downtown here some years ago. He got in the face of a woman near some horse cops (downtown Houston). One of the officers cantered over. The horse lumbered into him and sent him skidding. That was both effective and entertaining.

[texanjoker]

Wow, ok, I often wondered how some of these killers could have done so much and roamed around so much in some of these. Now I understand.

Those are old incidents and tactics have changed. Leo's have had to "evolve" to work these type of events. Look at all the active shooters that are now stopped in a quick time period.

But then what does this have to do with a chl holder running off a aggressive pandhandler

I think the timeline involved.
I've been fortunate in either being lucky or ugly enough never to have been through this. I've been harassed by homeless people at the bus stop before. Only one got surly and I started shouting at him and he went away. Evidently he must have thought I was crazier then he was.

I take that back. I did see a homeless guy shouting at people on the street downtown here some years ago. He got in the face of a woman near some horse cops (downtown Houston). One of the officers cantered over. The horse lumbered into him and sent him skidding. That was both effective and entertaining.

When I have to deal with an aggressive or any other panhandler that won't go away, I use my work voice and ask if they have any warrants. They usually turn and quickly walk away .

[LAYGO]

The question has been asked & I've done (as well) long before I even owned a pistol. Would I get involved? Yes.

I am reminded of a situation almost 20yrs ago that I haven't thought about in a long time. I was on my way to lunch & I noticed this teenage kid yelling/screaming at a woman & her reacting scared. He started to throw punches at her & I got involved & restrained him using PMAB (Patient Management of Aggressive Behavior) basket hold that I used all the time when I worked in Psych Hospitals. I asked her what she wanted & she said for him to leave her alone after he calms down.

I did not own a pistol until 5 years ago, but it hasn't changed my philosophy of helping. My Mom was a Paramedic for 20+ years. My Father was a Medic on a 6 man Ranger team (LRRPs) in Vietnam. It's in my blood.

[LAYGO]

And I felt this way LONG before I ever even became a gun owner. It's the way I was raised.

Being 20yrs your junior, I was raised that way too. Thank you.

[srothstein]

There have been many changes in police tactics over the years, especially in how they respond to an active shooter. I agree that at the Columbine shooting the preferred tactic was to wait for the SWAT team or its equivalent. The current response is for the first 2 (4 is preferred but not to wait too long for 4) officers that respond to go in, ignore all wounded, and track down/confront the shooter.

But that is an entirely different question from the legal and moral requirements to respond. Incidentally, legal and moral requirements are also two separate questions. The primary answer is that the police have NO legal obligation to respond to any crime in progress. This was first clearly articulated (to the best of my knowledge) in Warren v. D.C., where the police did not "properly" respond to a call where two elderly women were being raped. It has been upheld many times. The legal theory may be best stated as the police are present to protect society in general and not any specific individual unless they have created some special relationship with the individual that creates an obligation.

The moral obligation is a separate question in and of itself. I am a firm believer that 95% or more of the police officers will feel a moral obligation to do everything they can to help people. That is why they became officers to begin with. This is why you see officers run into burning buildings while waiting for the fire department, jump into raging rivers to help save drowning victims, and charge into places where they just got a call for a robbery in progress. Every cop will occasionally have a bad day where he does not display this type of attitude, and there are a small number of people in any group that do not meet the expectations of the public or the rest of the group. But I think the 5% I gave above may even be a large estimate for the number of cops that do not care.


End result? Tactics is the biggest factor, but there is no legal obligation even if the vast majority will feel a moral obligation and will try their best.