Andrew Pollack, father of Meadow Pollack who was killed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, has filed suit against former deputy Scot Peterson for failing to do his duty, presumably his duty to protect Meadow Pollack from getting killed. The lawyer for Peterson is seeking a dismissal on the grounds that Peterson had no duty to any individual person, only a duty to the community at large. Mr. Pollack is going to lose this one. It is a 'matter of settled law' that the police do not have a duty to protect any particular person.
This complaint-and-rebuttal presents a serious problem for those who say we don't need our guns because we can always call 9-1-1 and the police will send help. It's an even more serious problem for those who argue that teachers shouldn't be armed because the school has an SRO or two. If the police have no duty to protect, the presence of SROs at the school is irrelevant; they can ignore the screams and the shots with impunity. The only people with motivation to confront the shooter are those who are themselves in peril, i.e.: teachers, and if they're going to confront a shooter, they had better be equipped to do so, i.e.: armed.
When the scene shifts to 'college', another dynamic complicates the issue. College students may be adults and may have concealed weapon permits and, in case of a shooting incident, may similarly be motivated to confront the shooter except that most college campuses are 'gun-free zones' (victim disarmament zones) where they may not be armed and are therefore at a severe disadvantage in that situation. Again, police may respond when called or they may not.
What to do... What to do...
No comments:
Post a Comment