What was his opinion on negligence? By the FBI, by school officials and by officers watching passively as murders took place?
There’s wrongful death, misfeasance or nonfeasance written all over this.
Cha-ching!
Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge
- Thread starter volsrock
- Start date
What was his opinion on negligence? By the FBI, by school officials and by officers watching passively as murders took place?
There’s wrongful death, misfeasance or nonfeasance written all over this.
Cha-ching!
Irish Exit
Verified User
You can look at the case yourself. Think it was called Nelson v. District of Columbia or the other way around.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Ok buddy, whatever helps you sleep at night.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
This is national precedent and has been for decades. How fucking clueless are you?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
His opinion was you cannot be negligent to someone you are not owed a duty to. Just like I can't sue you for negligent posting.
A school district has no duty to it’s students?
The FBI has no duty to investigate calls warning them of an unstable and potentially violent gun owner?
A cop’s duty is either to prevent crime, especially mass murders, or allow it. Which is it?
$$$$$$$$
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
No, no, and no. Once again, read something for once.
Cha-ching!
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Kill yourself.
duty of care
“n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.”
The morons on this thread should review this standard for schools. The duty of care standard is recognized beyond a doubt for school administrators. As a school resource officer, that duty of care almost certainly applies. And it has NOTHING to do with the 14th Amendment.
Cha-ching!
“n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with the watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would use. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.”
The morons on this thread should review this standard for schools. The duty of care standard is recognized beyond a doubt for school administrators. As a school resource officer, that duty of care almost certainly applies. And it has NOTHING to do with the 14th Amendment.
Cha-ching!
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
Keep reading, moron, perhaps you’ll learn something. Dubious, however
You're a fucking idiot who thinks the decades of court precedents on this shit will just bend to your emotional whims.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
YES IT DOES YOU FUCKING SIMPLETON. Duty of care is a PROPERTY RIGHT you dumbass. How the fuck do you not get this yet?
http://www.educator-resources.com/pdf/Teacher Tort Liability.pdf
“In Loco Parentis” motherfucker. Look it up
In a school setting, the duty a teacher owes to students is a foregone conclusion that is summarized in the legal doctrine of “In Loco Parentis.” Literally defined as “in the place of the parents,” this legal theory has historically been used to justify the power and authority that school officials have over students. At the same time, this theory accounts for a heightened degree of responsibility for the care and well being of students under the control of a teacher, just as if the teacher were acting in the capacity of a parent. The student/teacher relationship by definition is a special relationship.
Teachers have a duty to anticipate foreseeable dangers to students and to take steps to minimize those dangers. Specifically, a teacher’s duties always include the following broad elements: adequate student supervision; responsibility to report the need for maintenance of equipment and facilities; heightened supervision of high-risk activities; or looking after the well being of students with special needs. In most negligence cases brought against teachers, the duty element is easily proven.
http://usedulaw.com/345-in-loco-parentis.html
In loco parentis has moved from being primarily a right of restraint and coercion used to discipline students to being a duty of school officials to protect those same students. School personnel have authority over students by virtue of in loco parentis and a concomitant duty to protect those students.
Cha-ching! $$$$$$$
It may be for property owners, but the standard is different when care of children is entrusted to those that are surrogate parents. A different animal altogether that you fail to grasp.
Cha-ching! $$$$$$$$$
christiefan915
Catalyst
Then they're useless. Why are we paying them? Why is it even a job?
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
To generate revenue and keep us peasants under control.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
It may be for property owners, but the standard is different when care of children is entrusted to those that are surrogate parents. A different animal altogether that you fail to grasp.
Cha-ching! $$$$$$$$$
Wrong.
So that’s your prediction? The Parkland victims will walk away with no comprnsation?
Good. I’ll note that.
/MSG/
Uwaa OmO
They don't have a legal claim because they do not have a right to state protection.