Uvalde and Police "Duty"
⚖️ Do you need a great lawyer? I can help! legaleagle.link/eagleteam ⚖️
Is there a legal cause of action to the police's lack of action?
🗂 Consider doing some good with Tab for a Cause legaleagle.link/tfac
Welcome back to LegalEagle. The most avian legal analysis on the internets.
🚀 Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula! legaleagle.link/watchnebula
👔 Suits by Indochino! legaleagle.link/indochino
GOT A VIDEO IDEA? TELL ME!
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Send me an email: devin@legaleagle.show
MY COURSES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school! legaleagle.link/lawguide
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you! legaleagle.link/copyrightcourse
SOCIAL MEDIA & DISCUSSIONS
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Twitter: legaleagle.link/twitter
Facebook: legaleagle.link/facebook
Tik Tok: legaleagle.link/tiktok
Instagram: legaleagle.link/instagram
Reddit: legaleagle.link/reddit
Podcast: legaleagle.link/podcast
OnlyFans legaleagle.link/onlyfans
Patreon legaleagle.link/patreon
BUSINESS INQUIRIES
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Please email my agent & manager at legaleagle@standard.tv
LEGAL-ISH DISCLAIMER
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).
Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by pixelme.me (pxle.me/eagle)
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers
Should there be recourse against the police department? 🗂 Consider doing some good with Tab for a Cause legaleagle.link/tfac
If they intentionally dodge the investigation, you sure bet there ought to be.
Thanks for doing real time on current issues. That's what makes the channel grow. Puttin the skillset to actual use. Not bulshlttn and playing lawyer. Unlikely, and won't happen. But I think they should be fired or.. idk. Lot of changes. Starting with the chief and mayor who are basically man and wife and see Uvalde as their playground and piggy bank. And couldn't careless about the people. The police, rank on the ground, present on site- chose to sacrifice the children over themselves. Even though they were armed, had numbers, and had armor. I understand they were given orders, but you still have autonomy, you're not a robot. And they knew, as they could hear- what was happening in that classroom. Had they run in there, maybe one, two, or 3 of them would've been hit with non mortal wounds, and children would've been rescued. Instead they CHOSE to letm all dy.
So a question about the duty of care schools have. In a town ten minutes away spanking is still allowed because they pressume the role of caretakers/parents. Couldn't a lawsuit be brought against TEA(Texas education agency) because they have failed their duty. The school police are part of the district which is the same as a parent not acting when their children were being taken
Such a Horrible Event.. Would LOVE To Donate. However... This Nation is TOO Regulated (Even w/o) The Usage-of, *Library Computers* Tested them... - *Many Times!*
Cops are more than happy to run up on an unarmed citizen though.
It is absolutely insane to me that I, as a lifeguard, can be sued for negligence for failing to respond to a kid drowning while police are not considered negligent for not enforcing a restraining order
in those last days the righteous will be called insane and insanity celebrated
A restraining order is a civil order with civil penalties. It cannot be enforced in the same manner as a criminal statute. What your probably thinking of is a Criminal Protective Order. They are completely different things. Hate to be cliche but Civil Restraining Orders aren't worth the paper they are printed on as far as Protecting individuals.
You missed the bit about the proverbial lynching of the officers who happened to be around when George Floyd decided to kill himself, while they were also beset by an angry mob? When is the last time you ever heard of a lifeguard having a lynchmob at his house demanding the blood of his children, before he's dragged to prison for 20+ years for something he couldn't prevent?
@@joshualittle877 This is unfortunately true. A friend of mine got a restraining order against an ex-bf and stalker, and she said she may as well have used it as toilet paper for all the good it did. Restraining Orders are worthless if you don't have the money for lawyers and a P.I., and the criteria to get a CPO is beyond ridiculous. Probably because if police handed out CPOs as much as they should, they would have to actually do their jobs.
@@AMR_Setsunai That's because Police don't pass out either Criminal Protective Orders or Restraining Orders. Judges issue them. Three other factors majorly effecting the CJ System. 90% of all criminal cases are plea bargained and never see a court room trial. 97% of all civil cases are arbitrated out of court and also never see a court room. Last, many major large jurisdictions are getting rid of cash bail systems
"People have no right to the government's aid." I find this a very chilling stance. If not to help its people, what's the point of having a government at all? It reduces the entirety of a nation's apparatus to merely the biggest group of thugs around.
If people have no right to the government's aid, then the government has no right to the people's aid (i.e. taxes)
@@mechanomics2649 I'd go further: If the people have no right to the Government's aid, then the government have no right to impose its laws upon the People, because it is violating the social contract we agree too.
@@DaHuntsman1 Agreed. If the government won't uphold its end of the social contract, it has broken the contract. It was their choice, not ours.
The govt is here to help and protect the wealthy, while we the unwashed masses are abandoned.
Um, to provide services...that's what a government is for, to keep society together for a group of people. Protection isn't necessarily a part of that...you get your roads, infrastructure, and protection from foreign threats...if you think criminals are bad, wait until you see how the Chinese military is the minute you try to remove the US military...
If the police aren't obligated to help the kids, then they shouldn't be able to restrain the parents from doing so. It's either one or the other.
I think that you have a good point. I wonder what would have happened to civilians who had been involved. For example, what if I had physically restrained people who were trying to take actions against the shooter. Would they be considered accomplices? Or even perpetrators? In almost every jurisdictions, a person can be convicted of homicide (even murder) if their actions assisted, protected, concealed, etc the actual killer. For example, a person who drives the get away car can be (and frequently is) convicted of the same offenses as the killer.
I totally agree!
As a doctor I can have my license stripped and jail time, fines, etc if I were to watch someone choke to death without doing anything. But the police can do the same for free, seems like a balanced set of ideologies
police can be the one that choked him to death and they get away free
Not just watch, they can choke the person to death and still get away with it.
@@gyumii No, Fr 🤦🏽♀️
You also were required to go through a lot more school/training, and on your own dime. Where is the justice? These laws are unjust. ⚖️
The police need to take the same oath "First due no harm..."
"People have no right to governmental aid." Starting to wonder what we have a government for.
According to your Declaration of Independence, to secure "certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". And it looks to me as if it's failing in that regard.
The governemnt is a contract and if the government is failing to uphold its side of the bargain, why should we accept it?
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -Declaration of Independence, Preamble
@@Mr12Relic Exactly. It's our right and responsibility as citizens to dismantle what's broken. That's exactly what defund the police is about. The current law enforcement system is broken and irreconcilable, so now it needs to be replaced.
Same people screaming defund police are screaming for more gun control? No thanks.
Sounds like US law is maddeningly good at avoiding any responsibility for failing to actually do their job.
The government does it overseas, they can do it here at home
EXTREMELY good. Not just for government, but businesses too. It would blow your mind to see just how much it took to punish the radium clock makers who caused agonizing death to hundreds of women, knowing it was killing them, and deliberately setting these women up in the worst possible situation to be effected by the radiation. The only things the law actually protects is business and government lol. That's why so many Americans absolutely refuse to give up an inch of their second amendment rights.
No not just that but also going against their job. A police officer can break the law as undercover. Like they fight for police to have sex with prostitutes so they can arrest them for prostitution.
not taking responsibility for ones actions is the biggest murican pastime of all
@@pj23nl land of the free from responsibility.
Let’s get this straight everyone: police are not obligated to protect you, but YOU are obligated to pay them. And if you don’t, you go to jail.
AND, I'm told that I shouldn't arm myself to protect my family but should instead rely on the cops to protect my family....
And oh the irony. Once you go to jail they are now obligated to protect you.
let's put it this way, when we pay local taxes some go to pay for cops, some goes to pay for firefighters, some goes towards schools, some goes to government staff, a lot of the rest goes to upkeep of roads, sewers, and other infrastructure. Cops primarily bring in income for the government through tickets (thus quotas), that's kind of their main active duty, to Law Enforcement. Alternatively this is probably why Volunteer Firefighters are a thing, they have no active route of revenue generation for doing their job. What cops "protect and serve" is the rule and stability of law.
Same way you're supposed to remain calm and not be afraid when talking to the PD, but the PD feels afraid even without cause then they can use that to shoot you 🤷
Y'all pay high taxes.
So basically, a cop uniform is nothing but a fun costume that let’s you get away with turning real life into your own GTA/FPS game
Always remember. Protect and serve is on cop cars to make them feel like they are important. It’s not for us. And never will be.
So, let me get this clear: -The police are under no obligation to protect anyone. - Acting outside the law to protect others is vigilantism and therefore punishable by law. - Children cannot protect themselves from gunmen So who is, under the law, to protect children from gunmen? The parents were barred from entry. The police refused to enter. The gunmen killed teachers and children. Who's job is it? Government? Hell, y'all can't even agree if elections are fair. Law Enforcement? Clearly not. Common citizenry? You've made that illegal. This is, on it's face, grossly reprehensible. "Home of the Brave" indeed.
The USA is a failed democracy. The country is a few short steps away from the very despotism the US introduced repeatedly to South American nations. The government has lost the ability to function in any meaningful way, corruption is common, legal, and easy to obfuscate, and is owned wholly by corporations and banks. I expect that in the next two decades, the US economy will collapse entirely, famine and hunger will drive their citizens to desperation, and civil war becomes inevitable. Assuming they continue to elect useless corporate stooges or megalomaniac criminals, America's relevance on the world stage will only matter because of military power. That said, it's only a matter of time before the endless grifting results in the military being as much of a joke as Russia's is today.
Common citizenry did try but was detained by the police. the police did preent anyone from doing something. (and id seem get children killed by telling them to yell help)
@@marocat4749 that is one of their premises
@@marocat4749 the second one
The national anthem is a question, perhaps even a challenge to meet. "Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave over the land of the free and the home of the brave?" No.
So wait, Police officers enjoy a "qualified immunity" to their job, under the understanding that they are in a hazardous profession.... but when they are faced with a choice of engaging in that hazardous professional action that affords them the qualified immunity, they're able to... say that it's not their job? Coupling this with their embrace of Dave Grossman's training which has touched every single aspect of almost every police officers training; they are trained to think they're soldiers, get to choose when they are soldiers, and then do not have to have consequences when they choose not to be, or when they choose to? This is the *very* definition of being "above the law." Police are state-thugs, pure and simple.
$$$
100% true the biggest, and most deadly gang in the USA is the police..gangmemebers who think they are soldiers. They dress like soldiers now and drive mrads
A major reform is in order, this is just disgusting.
These guys aren't even trained as soldiers. I remember back when there were lot of riots how multiple videos and chat logs came up of US soldiers complaining about how bad the Police riot control officers were. Like one KZheadr pointing out how the US army has specific rules that state that you never raise your gun at civilians unless in an ensuing firefight while the riot police were marching in with the guns pointed at anybody they came by on the street. Also reminds me of every time in US history that Marshal Law was declared simply cause people in the area were less hostile to the actual army then the local police; such as in the multiple race riots back in the early 1900s
The police are there to protect the government not the people and the government is there to serve itself only.
Government: "We're not responsible because they weren't in our custody." Everyone: "What about students at a school you mandated they go to?" Government: "...Nah."
Exactly, so infuriating. Never will have a child for this f- world.
I mean, they’re the ones making the decision on whether or not they did wrong 🤷♂️ no possible agenda there.
this government frustrates me so much
Students, unlike prisoners, are not chained to their seats. They can certainly walk out of the classroom, even if they'd get in trouble for it. Under the law, custodial relationship between government and average citizen occurs only when a person is PHYSICALLY held in the custody of the government (not merely required to attend a school by the laws).
"Having more armed resources at schools will prevent more mass shootings." Not if those parties have no duty to actually protect anyone.
Yeah, that definitely isn't true. Students of color often feel intimidated by them.
You know what will prevent mass shootings? A ban production on high capacity magazines and bullets for rifles that are often used in active shooting situations. No bullets means less likely for people to use the ones they already have. There are already too many rifles on the streets and in peoples homes. Its easier to ban the bullets themselves and therefore they will eventually run out or try to conserve on purpose. It may take a few years but a long ass, 100 year ban might just do the trick. People can try to make bullets, but if we keep up with arresting anyone trying to make and sell such bullets, shootings will either go down or be less damaging and therefore be less of an option of interest for shooters. ARming teachers, students, having more cops in the school or whatever is not the answer. Its just a quick fix to an issue that took time to get worse and will take time to get better. All of those scenarios are going to cause more issues, more deaths, and more problems then what they are worth.
@@michaelbugner7011 teach kids of color how to shoot guns and give them licence,i think it's win win situation.
@@michaelbugner7011 because mass shooters make them feel very comfortable 🤦♂️
No, but they have a vested interest in saving their own lives.
As a fireman I want to say I’m absolutely embarrassed to be lumped in with police as first responders right now. I have a duty to act given that I have a medical license and training. I can be hit with abandonment if I leave my patient or have my licensed revoked if my negligence results in their death. Asthe nurse in Vanderbilt, a hospital very close to where I work, found out you can even be charged in criminal court. Where is this accountability for police? A fireman in Georgia, Capt. Daniel Dwyer, was suspended for 4 days after doing his job and running into a structure fire to pull a woman out because it violated county protocol. An off duty Detroit fireman Sgt. Sivad Johnson, 49, drowned and died in the process of saving 3 children. Recently another fireman in West Virginia John Forbush, 24, drowned trying to save a mother and her two children. Why is it that fire and EMS can be held accountable for our actions and not PD or SO? Don’t get me wrong I’ve worked with some incredible officers and deputies who I’d follow anywhere but LE overall is in desperate need of reform. Why is it so difficult to find candidates who are willing to put themselves in danger so others can live? We have a moral duty to serve the public, and don’t tell me that those were extreme examples of heroism or going beyond what’s expected of you. Heroics should have nothing to play into it. The bravest thing you did was sign up to do your job. From then on it’s just work. Unbelievable.
Thanks for drawing this distinction. I always see the thin blue line flag sticker alongside a thin red line flag sticker, as if police and firemen are the same. You guys are heroes. The police are cowardly bullies.
It is absolutely ridiculous the difference in standards. Thank you for the service you give to this country, sir or madam. Know that many of us do not lump you together with this waste of tax money
You have my absolute respect, I would bend over backwards to assist Firefighters Or EMS, y'all literally save lives and protect people. I wouldn't piss in a cops mouth if he was dying from thrist, because I sure know they wouldn't provide the same courtesy. It's absolutely disgusting
"Why is it that fire and EMS can be held accountable for our actions and not PD or SO?" Talk to the Supreme Court. The lawyer who made this video stated that the SCOTUS has ruled that LEO's are responsible for the safety of the public, not individual private citizens. Take whatever measures you need to have the law changed if you feel it's wrong.
Hell, I feel like I have more responsibility to help people than cops and im just a civilian with cpr, first aid, and aed certification.
*Police: to protect and serve* * * Disclaimer: this statement isn’t legally binding in any US State or territory
to protect .. their own ass.. and to serve.. their own self
Demoncracy 101.
Got a bumper sticker idea...
40 years of conservative voting and appointed judges will do that
It wasn't about the people, maybe about interests
Ironically, there is a law here in Indiana that says that if a cop needs your help, you have a duty to help, and legal consequences if you do not help. That seems to be a violation of the 14th Amendment (equal protection under the law): cops don't have to help you, but you have to help them.
False. Cases aren't equal, so you can't apply that either. For example you can't be conscripted into a Swat team to raid a house of an armed drug dealer. Police officers can be and can't say 'no'. Different obligations mean different protections, which is where qualified immunity comes from: The legal principle that what is a genuine excuseable mistake, is different for an officer than for a random citizen. Much to the chagrin of BLM freaks and criminals who want to defund and disempower police as much as possible. I guess they're thrilled at all the dead children as a direct result of them seeing their dream fulfilled of a defunded, disempowered police terrified of doing anything.
What kind of help does it require? Does it only require things like reporting crimes, or would running from a fight where the cop is losing count as a violation?
Tf kind of law is that? There was parents willing to go in and save there kids but the cops stopped them. That ain’t equal protection. Not even parents had shields, body armor, guns to go in.
This sounds like one wrong move from a landmark supreme court case.
@@joshuaa7266 He's not going to answer that question, because it would destroy his BLM narrative.
My primary issue with all of this, objectively, is the fact that we as citizens are told to call Police for these situations when legally they are not bound to help nor culpable for actions or inactions. We think they are legally bound to do so because they all but tell us that is the case, constantly. Our ignorance is due to misinformation or representation.
This is why you should conceal and carry. This whole situation could have been prevented by one guy with 9mm straped to his hip.
@@dillongage The right person that is armed and ready, maybe. They are hard to find. Not everyone is wired to protect others. Not everyone is willing to potentially self sacrifice or even be in the vicinity of danger regardless of what they say.
@@dillongage if cops won't do it. Then your made up hero definitely won't do shit.
@@dillongage it couldn't have, the police were literally restraining the parents from even entering the building. And I'm not a fan of giving pistols to literal children. They've also already done studies showing arming teachers would just result in higher mortality rates due to crossfire. There are upwards of 26 children packed into these tiny rooms, they can't even be distanced by six feet, so how exactly would you shoot an intruder in a highstress situation AND not accidentally hard one of the 26+ kids standing behind and near them. You can't pack them all into a corner, they won't fit, and they'll be in the line of sight from the windows which makes it EASIER for a shooter to get them. This issue is not as simple as just slapping a gun into everybodies hands.
@@dillongagenot really there were multiple parents probably armed willing to help and the police stopped them. In fact there is some evidence that they restrained some parents from entering the building. If the police have no obligation to help that is fine but they should not be able to turn around and prevent those that want to and are willing to help
I love how states can pass truancy laws forcing children to go to school and somehow say that there's no custodial relationship with the state because they didn't limit their ability to act.
I didn't realize as a student I could just get up & leave and not be stopped.
@@utubepunk Exactly. The students ARE in a custodial relationship with the state. You absolutely cannot just walk out of school freely at any time, which is, by definition, a limitation to your "freedom". Pure bs.
Hey kids you need to go to school, but if something happens to you, let's say a school shooting (this is America we are talking about) you are on your own. And if you die and the police didn't do anything, oh well... They showed up so that's good enough. This is the most extreme example I have seen of 'minimum effort'. (If you could call what they did 'effort')
@@BC_W you've essentially pointed out that the government has decided to issue police "participation trophies" for school shootings, and that feels so accurate it hurts.
I would really like his input on this point specifically. If children are forced to go to school under threat of arrest to them or their parents, then it would logically follow that there is a custodial relationship with the state based on the states' expectation and its ability to deprive people of their rights as a result of truancy.
As a teacher who was a mandatory reporter, I could lose my license for inaction in reporting abuse in my State. Its strange I am held more accountable despite also being a government worker.
And that's why nobody says ATAB.
You forget your a worthless position compared to the thugs that protect there property Why do you think your so underfunded
They reported it, but didn't do anything. Also who do you report those to? My guess is social services is eventually where it ends up, which is where the case of the abused kid went ignored.
As a teacher, I wish what you said were true, but I've met a few ATAB folks in my life. I don't get that one at all, but they exist.
Police are mandatory reporters too. They are held at the exact same level of accountability when it comes to that department.
The short form: You MUST pay for their services. But if they don't want to give you the services you paid for, they don't have to. And you annoy them about it, they might just murder you and walk. Because the best place to hide after a murder is behind a badge.
When I was preparing for the bar, whenever I come across a question related to the police, I shut off my moral brain and choose whatever choice that gives the police the greatest leniency and power and ended up always getting the correct choice, even if I can't exactly articulate the rule behind the choice. I can't help but laugh at this terrible state of police accountability in the US.
You have the option to leave the country. Do it
@@foruminfo9079 many of us would rather see our country improve than abandon it. Also, it is extremely difficult and extremely expensive to emigrate. Until that's viable or I can get refugee status in Canada or something (lol), I've gotta stay here and fight against the god-awful systems in place as much as I can.
@@handarule People risk their lives to go to a developed country for a better life, and often arrive broke. Seeking improvement is great, but complaining that things are terrible and god-awful just shows lack of appreciation for the things we take for granted.
@@foruminfo9079 That is a False Dilemma Fallacy, I can both say this country is shit but idk N. Korea is worse all because one is more bad does make one not bad
@@wiltamsfam That is not a false dilemma fallacy, but ironically, the statement you are making is a false dilemma fallacy. You are acting as if there are only two options of "good and grateful" or "bad and ungrateful". I'm suggesting the third option that exists, which is being grateful of having the lesser of the two evils. Just because it is not optimal, does not mean you have to be ungrateful.
Can you imagine firefighters trying to argue that they aren't obligated to try and get someone out of a burning building? Or paramedics arguing that they aren't obligated to try and resuscitate an injured person? And cops still wonder why people dislike them so much
@@mlx39996 You didn't acknowledge the paramedic one, which I think is more applicable since both paramedics AND cops take an oath.
Where I live there is a community that is for all intents and purposes part of our town. But since they are a mile on the other side of the "now leaving" sign our town fire department shows up to house fires. They don't spray any water or _fight_ the fires they literally just stand around and watch the house burn. While a family just watches their whole life fall apart there is a firetruck, a hydrant, and a bunch of people dressed as firefighters watching along side them refusing to lift a finger.
@@mlx39996 being in unsafe situations is inherent to being a police officer. Regardless of what the law actually says, they have an ethical obligation to help people in harm’s way even if it means endangering themselves. Police officers sign up for this. They consent to the possibility of violence and danger. Those children in Texas didn’t, but the cops valued their own lives more than the lives of innocent civilians who they supposedly exist to serve.
@@mlx39996 it’s definitely not the same thing. The situation was an active shooter, they’re trained to deal with that. That’s not too great a risk, that’s in the job description. With a firefighter giving up the assumption is that little can be done anyways to save lives and put out the fire. And I might be inclined to agree with you if it was a group of 20 criminals with heavy duty weaponry, but it wasn’t. It was one shooter and they have swat gear. If they can’t handle one shooter as an entire department then they shouldn’t exist. And once again, from an ethical perspective, a cop consented to this possibility. If they don’t want to assume the risks associated with being a police then taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to give them hazard pay. You can’t have it both ways, and I don’t think you’d find a lot of people who would have faith in a PD that thinks one active shooter is too great a threat to act.
There have been incidents where firefighters have let houses burn because the owners opted out of paying for the fee. They will still show up to ensure the fire does not spread to nearby, covered buildings, or turn into a wildfire, but won't spray the burning house, even if the owner offers to pay the fee right then. Because that sets a precedent that no one would pay to support the service, unless and until their house was actively on fire. And EMTs are allowed to refuse service as well. They aren't slaves.
The Simpsons was pretty accurate. In one episode Marge goes to Chief Wiggum for help, and he says "Let me tell you what I tell everybody who comes in here: the law is powerless to help you." Then later he arrests her, and Marge says "I thought you said the law was powerless" , but he says "Powerless to *help* you, not punish you."
Cops do have quotas, they need to filled there jails and prisons any means necessary.
Accurate.
The insanity is that in most European countries, even a private citizen can be held accountable for not taking action. Someone who is aware of a child being abused but does not inform the authorities can be charged with criminal negligence. Honestly, all the cases you quote sound like courts twisting the law into a pretzel to avoid responsibility falling on the police. In Uvalde, as in the parkland case, officers did not just standby, they actively prevented people from helping. As such, you could even make the claim that they have become accessories to the crime. Whether or not children are compelled to go to school, the moment they enter school premises, the school becomes responsible for their well-being, the same way, I as a private citizen am responsible for anything that happens inside my house.
Private citizens can be held accountable for not taking action in the US too, afaik. It's literally JUST cops the courts do this shit for.
No, unless you initiated helping and then recklessleslsy or willfully did not finish AND in the mean team there would have been another who could have helped AND you had no good cause to believe they would not have helped. Then you do. But until you take any action or even then if there’s no one there to take over you have no duty to even finish the help you started, and even if there is someone, you only have a duty of care if they never gave reason to you to believe they wanted to help.
Is that true? Someone In a forum says that European unión countries also have the "no duty to protect" policy
@@moic9704 In Denmark (an EU country), police do have a duty to protect the citizens. This is expressed as "a duty to protect public order".
i am in the process of trying to become a teacher and it's mind boggling the amount of shit we're expected to do and could be sued for is more than any police officer. if a kid is bullied in class, the teacher is held responsible (rightly so) even if they didnt really know what was happening. but dont worry, the big scary men in uniforms with bulletproof vests and guns dont have to worry about protecting innocent children. literally cant believe (well i can believe bc ppl are shitty but still) that there are people who dont see police as completely useless and harmful. they want teachers to have guns and be ready to lay down their lives for their students, but police can just sit in the parking lot hanging out while we all get slaughtered.
Fellow teacher in training right now and I completely agree it is wild all the stuff we are supposed to do so we don’t get arrested/loose our license. Completely wild that we are given so much responsibility while cops seem to have so little in some regards
*lose
*lose not loose
But they ran out of donuts and had to wait until they were delivered...
@@tomh779 hey teacher, might wanna learn how to use the edit feature 👍
The fact that teachers will be more culpable in stopping the shooter than the police are, shows how messed up America is right now
I think what messed up about america is how often we hear about teacher and shooter in the same sentence
*has always been
it also has been especially with cops it's as George Carlin once said When I was a kid and we went to the movies, we rooted against the police and for the crooks - and I still do,” he starts out. “They’ll plant fake evidence, they’ll put a gun in the hands of an unarmed man they shot to death. They harass minorities, they brutalize people, they deny people their rights, and they lie about it all in court all the time.”
Someone noted that we want teachers to develop and maintain the skills needed by mercenaries and personal protection agents. ... Those two careers get paid a LOT more than teachers do.
Yep, the founding fathers done goofed.
I’m a public school teacher and legally, I am “in loco parentis” (in place of parents) when students are in my classroom. I’m legally responsible for them. I can absolutely be held liable if a student is hurt or injured in my classroom. Wish we could have the bare minimum of legal responsibility for police too.
The police DO have legal responsibilities, same as you. You're missing a specific point though. You, and the police have legal responsibilities when a child (or someone being detained for police) is in your custody "in loco parentis" as you said. YOU and they have a personal responsibility to ensure no harm comes to your custodial charge through your actions. The legal difference is when something happens that is outside of your custodial control. If a child were going to the bathroom on your watch and was trapped during an earthquake, you would NOT be held responsible for failing to rush into the bathroom and pull them from the collapsed roof they are pinned under. You have NO requirement to put yourself at risk to save the child. Would you? Maybe...probably...but there would be no legal liability if you failed to act due to your own life being endangered. It is the EXACT same situation for Police. Someone in their custody has protection from harm FROM THEM (supposedly), but they don't have to stop an active shooter (or a bank robbery, or a murder, or a car chase) if it puts their own life at risk. You and they can choose to act for the benefit and safety of others, but they can't be forced to by the law. Agree or not, that's the basic gist of the laws.
@@weilund6 That's not 100% true though. If an incident occurs between two individuals both in police custody, the police can be found liable for not providing adequate protection. Custodians are legally bound to protect inmates not just from their own actions but also from other inmates (and presumably from outside actors too?). It's not unreasonable to ask why that protection is granted to some people under government custody and not others
@@lawrencebates8172 what I said is still true. Specifically... If one inmate in custody managed to get a shotgun loaded with live rounds, and started killing other inmates... The cops would not have to intervene (they could wait) until the inmate was out of ammo, or they had superior numbers to mitigate the risk to the officers. Would someone be in deep sheep dip because and inmate got a shotgun, definitely yes, but in the direct hazard situation, police would not be held liable for waiting for a threat reduction, even if the inmate was actively killing other inmates... Or even other officers/civilians. Don't conflate the 2 situations, because they are different in the eyes of the law. YOUR safety as a civilian is paramount on understanding that cops/first responders are NOT required to put their lives at risk to save yours. They won't be held liable... Someone may be liable for creating a crisis, but not during.
@@weilund6 You make a very good argument for abolishing the police. If they are too afraid to risk their lives for *children* (which humans are biologically hardwired to protect), they need to switch professions.
@@toriblue I would argue that the only permanent fix is a code of laws (similar to the military UCMJ) that codifies duties and responsibilities with penalties for failure of all first responders. Otherwise, even the best most selfless cop on a bad day could say "nope, not putting my life at risk" and the law will back that up. There are AMAZING people that jump in where angels fear to tread, but they do it of their own accord, voluntarily. Then, there's the question of: Who the hell would be a cop/first responder if the law says you have to step into the breach and possibly die? Hell, most military guys don't understand that until someone explains it to them.
In my country, Finland, even a citizen is obliged to help if it's within their power. Say someone is badly hurt, you can't just walk by.
Particularly annoying that at around 0:55 as hes saying the police don't have a duty to help he shows a *French* cop and France, like Finland, has the offence of *non assistance à un person en danger"
Then again, in Finland you don't get lynched and thrown in prison for decades if you help. In the US, you would be.
@@nvelsen1975 Yeah man Chauvin was really helping out that guy's windpipe
what if they are dead and finnished?
Same here in germany. You are obliged to help unless you would endanger yourself or others.
"I said the law is powerless to HELP you, not punish you." -chief wiggum
Those of us who have followed police accountability for a while know exactly what you are about to say. However, the whole law enforcement community and the state of Texas is doing their damnedest job to hide the Uvalde police ineptitude.
How do you hide that, when it's already out and on video?
I wish they'd just come out and say "We didn't do anything because we didn't have to." No lying about how it was "under control." Just them saying they didn't do anything because they are under no obligation to and they would rather it be kids being shot than them.
@@damon9443 at least that'd be honest
To late.
@@damon9443 but that would make it really hard for bootlickers to defend their cowardice and shatter the illusion of their disingenuous lying motto
Is it just me, or have the courts have systematically reduced accountability of the government to the people?
They have and no one cared.
That's the Republican party - the ones who prefer less government.
Depends on the topic. With police, absolutely. 50% of my local taxes go towards the city police. I would say half of that is wasted money. They should be helping out the homeless and the mentally ill. Instead we have cops dealing with the homeless and the mentally ill. As if cops could do anything about that.
Yep. The government apparently can take away whatever freedom from you they like, but they aren't under any obligation to protect you or provide for you in the absence of you being able to do it for yourself.
@@derek96720 They only care about unborn children.
A great explanation of how "our" legal system is not in place for it's citizens but for the "corporation" of government and business. Police are here to protect business and collect fines for government. The lawyers and judges are here to make sure the business interests are protected.
Who picks up the bill if the state has to pay for state employees doing something wrong? Exactly... The taxpayer and that's who they're protecting when they argue against crazy lynchings of officers who refused to into fire fearing to be made into the next sacrificial lamb for some crazy BLM types. Think of that next time you decided to mouthe off all edgy.
Police are the mafia goons of the corporations and government. They don't care about cases like this, when they are only there to guard the elite and tax citizens with silly fines. In my opinion, if you don't wanna risk your life to save a child from a murderer, then you shouldn't be allowed in the police.
My wife is a naturalized citizen. When I told her about Uvalde - that police stood by while a gunman murdered children in a school - she could not believe me. She literally thought I had fallen for some online hoax. She just could not conceive of the police in the US, or anywhere, acting this way.
I really hate that most qualified immunity cases end up "there's no precedent so we aren't going to do anything" and then THAT BECOMES THE PRECEDENT
Qualified immunity is specifically about protecting cops from incurring liability or culpability from damaging *actions* . As far as damaging *inaction* , as far as a failure to act, that is protected *independently* of qualified immunity. If the US abolished qualified immunity literally tomorrow, that would not change anything about duty to act, and the cops involved with Uvalde would be judged the same. In fact, right now, there are countries where it is simultaneously true that qualified immunity doesn't exist AND duty to act doesn't exist. Mine is an example.
A judge has absolutely no good reason to weaken the power of their minions lol. The only way you'd change that inaction from judges would be a mob swarming a courthouse followed by a massive massacre from police prompting retaliation from armed civilians. Literally a micro civil war is the only thing that'd change it and only because the judge can't afford another event like that as it would make them fear for their own life.
Qualified Immunity only protects officers from civil lawsuits. They still face consequences. They can be fired from their department. They can be charged criminally. And, unlike any other American citizen charged with a crime, police officers face double jeopardy. They can face state and federal charges for the same act. Also, qualified immunity does not protect the municipality from a lawsuit for the officer's act; which is where most people direct their lawsuits anyway because they have more money.
@@MD-qz1wx Anybody in America who violates both state and federal law with a single act can be charged on both the state and federal level because of dual sovereignty. Are police officers subject to a different kind of double jeopardy?
Because gun control policy is currently stupid and is always aimed at punishing innocent people who never harmed anybody with any gun.
"The police have no duty to protect you." "Then let me protect myself." "No, only the police get to protect you."
Pure murica
Precisely
@@jollibeeaus Not quite, I think this actually applies to most countries. Would have to validate laws, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't a thing in most western countries.
You forgot. "If we defund the police who are going to call when you need help"
@@jillmac2000 I don't call the police..I don't talk to them .. I don't look at them...I grew up in a big inner city.. Trust me, they are *not our friends..If you forget that you are vulnerable
Does this mean you can sue any police department that displays the message "To Protect and Serve" for false advertising?
the police will claim that they protect the state and serve the state.
exactly what I was thinking.
As someone that works at a youth emergency shelter, that social worker case is not at all rare. Kids have to run away from home because social workers either won’t or can’t get them out of their shitty situation.
Then when kids have to run away, officers are legally mandated to bring those kids back to their abusive "families". Yet, they don't have to help anyone from danger.
I was in one of those situations. My situation has since improved, but it was not with the help of any social workers. CPS doesn't respond to any call, any threats of violence, nothing. I was left to rot in a family that hated me. This is not an environment that children thrive in. Where is the justice?
@@thilsiktonixwould still seem like a criminal negligence case as qualified Immunity doesnt protect you against criminal charges.
Let me get this straight: If a kid skids in the gym, because, say the floor is wet from sweat, the city can be sued. But if there is an active shooter, the city cannot be sued, neither any of its agents, for negligence.
Most of the time they can't be sued for kids or civilians getting hurt or sustaining property damage on school grounds even if gross negligence is the cause because they can just claim sovereign immunity and are suddenly no longer legally targetable. My grandfather had an unsecured school gate swing into his windshield and shatter, pelting both he and my little brother with glass. It was clearly the schools fault it happened and only by shear luck and the quick reflexes of my grandfather that my brother only received cuts to his face and not his eyes. The school lawyer was in contact within 24 hours to let the family know that they could not be filed against and we should just be happy no one was "truly hurt."
@@tahuni2170 That's disgusting.
I doubt any school appealing to the city with a decent lawyer would be subject to any kind of negligence for a kid sliding on anything. Perhaps specific people at the school, but not the school itself.
You can sue anyone and anything for anything you want. Wether or not you win depends on the merrits of the case.
If a kid slips on school grounds and it is determined that the kids was taking adequate precautions, then it holds that they slipped because of the floor and not because they personally were negligent. As a result they can sue the school for negligence and can potentially win. If however the kid had purposely tried to slip, or was grossly negligent to their own duty to stop themselves from slipping, then they probably wouldn't be able to hold the school liable. An active shooter exists not because someone was negligent in stopping them, but because they personally made the choice to commit the act and there is no one that can be held responsible for their actions but themselves. We do not hold a school shooter's parents responsible for the acts that the school shooter commits, because it would be a sad world if we did. Everyone is entitled to their own actions and is entitled to be able to take sole responsibility for those actions. In order to allow someone to take responsibility for their actions we are not able to hold other people responsible to prevent the actions of some to an unjustified extent.
In Europe, the police literally have to explain every single bullet they shoot. Even just a warning shot is investigated, in order to determine if it was necessary. It blows my mind what the US police can get away with.
In the US, those sorts of policies and laws are up to the individual agencies and states, respectively. In a place like Uvalde, which is in TEXAS, which is one of the most extremely conservative states in the country (and thus willing to make excuses for anything conservative, to include police support), it's unlikely that a similar regulation would be in place. And in my state, an equally conservative state, the same is true there as well. There is no *law* that says every bullet fired by police is investigated, whether it hits someone or not. However, I live in a democratic pocket of the state; the police agency where I live has a policy that every bullet fired is investigated, and every use of force is also reviewed (meaning if police taze, strike, pepper spray, or paintball/beanbag). Officers that violate that policy may be fired or sued (they wont be criminally responsible though unless they violated a state law in the process). And i think that's what a lot of people really dont get about police in america, to include american people. We keep expecting all police everywhere to be the exact same, but that isn't the case, and it never has been. Police in one state will behave differently to police in another state; the only universal expectation of behavior for police is in the upholding of the constitution. Everyone's saying that it's absurd that policy have no responsibility and that they can't be touched about that responsibility, but it literally depends *on each state.* In my city, they 100% CAN be touched, just not criminally. And in another state, they might be able to be touched criminally. The federal government does *not* write the laws for the states. So if we want change, we need to start changing our legislators so that we can change the laws of our respective state.
@@LuiLu0611 long way of saying US is dumb
@@LuiLu0611 One thing to keep in mind is that both Republicans and Democrats are effectively the same with regards to doing anything about police brutality and excesses. Though at least Democrats occasionally make token efforts when high profile cases of people of color being abused by pigs makes the news. Neither do anything about civil asset forfeiture or any of the other egregious offenses committed daily by pigs, because it greatly benefits them to ensure the pigs are on their side and willing to do whatever they tell them to do. Police exist to protect and enforce the laws of the establishment via (the threat of) violence. And both Democrats and Republicans, as an establishment, are deeply conservative and thus both are equally interested in maintaining the status quo as far as pigs go.
Yeah, most cops don't even brandish their guns throughout their entire service as a cop over here. Absolutely insane to think about how cops in America will shoot a tiny ass dog for barking a bit too much.
@@LuiLu0611 Or we need the federal government to lay down better policy for police for all states to follow.
What this has shown us is that policing in the USA needs to be reformed and a lot of senior officials need to go to prison
you clearly learned nothing
It's absolutely unacceptable, in the military a platoon that would coward out like that would be charged into oblivion, especially if it directly caused the loss of multiple civilian lives, it's mind boggling that police doesn't have a legal duty to protect. You can't have the privilege of authority without the duty to serve.
"You can't have the privilege of authority without the duty to serve." Im stealing that quote. Thats 110% spot on and applies to far more than just police.
"With great power comes great responsibility."
Military kills civilians all the time, how many died in illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?
"You can't have the privilege of authority without the duty to serve." I second that this is a perfect quote.
Great point. It seems the police have all the privilege granted by their authority but little responsibility. My questions are as follows: What’s their damn job then? What good is the oath to protect and to serve? Are police forces in other 1st world countries like this? (I’d really like an answer to this one)
I currently have a part time job at the Y as a lifeguard. If someone is drowning while I'm on the clock I can be held criminally negligent if I do not save them. You would think if people are in trouble the same could go for the police. How is the Police not held to the same standard as a teenager working a part time job at the Y. That is absurd.
How do you know? Have you ever been held legally responsible? You should've fought the case if you have. You could probably have won.
@@andrasfogarasi5014 no but I've been told that numerous times by course instructors and managers
@@andrasfogarasi5014 During the certification process you are told multiple times. I don’t know any cases where this has happened, but it is true. Source: I’m a former lifeguard.
You just need the lifeguard unions to press the supreme court into giving you guys qualified immunity. Then the tax payer can pay for your crimes.
Probably because it’s your job to save lives, but apparently the police’s job is to…well, it’s not to save lives, that’s for sure.
Gods I'm glad that we have "Duty of Care" laws in Australia. If you've got authority over someone (such as employer/employee, teacher/student, etc) you have a duty to provide reasonable aid.
I thought we had something like that, too. But apparently it doesn't cover everyone.
@@flickcentergaming680It covers no-one. Cops are quite literally above the law. If you want help, don't call the cops. You'll have better luck trying to save yourself.
Seems surprising - the place I work for makes us do all kinds of "active shooter" training...and a core theme of all of it is that everyone should expect the police to arrive and they will be rapidly going in and using force to stop all threats and secure the scene getting people out as quickly as possible. This whole mess seems to turn all the stuff they say for training on its head.
Well if you watched the actual Uvalde body cam video, they secure the scene and the death funnel(hallway) within a few minutes, then got dozens of kids out of the windows as quickly as possible, then shot the criminal. So not sure how you interpret that as "on its head'
@@foruminfo9079 What video we're you watching? cops were there within minutes and didn't go in for well over an hour while shots were being fired. Being told to hunker down and wait for a fast response vs getting shot to death and having the cops come look at your body in an hour seem pretty different to me.
@@guywithatippmann If you watch the body cams, cops were there within minutes and tried going in right away, but faced a barrage of gun fire and had to retreat. It is not like they didn't try to go in. If they did go in, they would have been killed and the gunman would have been able to go to other classrooms to kill more kids. During that hour, cops were told to secure the hallway so the gunman cannot get out, so other cops outside could break windows and rescue dozens of children from all the other classrooms. It's not like they were doing nothing for an hour like the media and others portray.
We also cannot forget which amendment comes before the Second. All of the Bill of Rights are vitally important for us to know and put into practice.
@@foruminfo9079may i get a link or path to this body cam footage from Uvalde?
On a slightly different note than depressingly cowardly policemen: Can we please shine light Angeli Rose Gomez, who was arrested "for intervening in an active investigation", when she begged and yelled at the cops to rescue the children. She drove 40 miles to the school, got handcuffed, let go, snuck away from the crowd, jumped a fence, ran into the school, got her kids out. She wasn't a "good guy with a gun", not a cop, not a big-talking conservative politician, just a mom. All while the cops were doing nothing to save little children from a murderer. If America can't have a government that cares for its citizens, can we all have moms like her, please? Maybe we could all put them in the policeforce to actually care for and save people's lives.
That entire police force needs to be fired
@@JoelChavez6121 or trained better. Perhaps trained to put their life’s in the way of others. What if there are laws that would stop the military from shooting trespassers entering any federal military property without authorization, wouldn’t people drive through Area 51 or Fort Knox just because? No, so why can’t cops be trained to protect the city like the military is trained to protect government property?
What's with the quotes, if I may ask? Because there are good people with guns out there. Just simply looking up all the surveillance footage of law abiding citizens legally defending themselves and/or others and you'll see. Crimes happen in seconds, police take minutes.
If America can't have a government that cares for its citizens; it is time to get rid of the government.
@@Vandicoup The quotes are just direct quotes of what the police said about what her crime was and the "good guy with a gun"-thing is the same tired slogan some conservative politicians keep hammering out. Personally, I think the only good guys with guns should be highly-trained policemen and soldiers, but I don't live in America and am not afraid to go up to a cop to ask for the way, when I'm lost. So what do I know?
It’s strange to me how lawyers who practice law are held to a higher standard than those who enforce it.
@Ribby The Party Frog you should have to be smart to be a cop too, unfortunately lots of cops aren't even qualified to flip burgers.
Lawyers also have to READ THE CONSTITUTION before taking their oath UNLIKE the POLICE. Police take a constitutional oath but don't even read the very short document
@@bulletprooftiger1879 First off love your name, my favorite band actually. Momentum Booootssssss! Second, kinda ironic that all these police failures left and right over the years could be attributed to those prerequisites no longer being enforced. I hate to say "blind inclusivity is bad for society", but this is a prime example. We can't hire everyone who applies, give them all participation trophies and *also* expect them to be up to par. You know why you don't see this in the law practice? It takes actual intelligence, ability, and drive to both understand & utilize it. More than your average peaked-in-high-school bully is willing to invest.
I think our police need a serious attitude adjustment overall: their job is to "keep the peace", not perform renegade operations. You don't need deadly weapons to keep the peace, and least you shouldn't, in a well-adjusted society. Clearly we do not have that in the US, everyone is packing heat, and nobody is safe (despite what gun advocates tell us is suppose to happen with a "gun surplus").
@Ribby The Party Frog I encourage you to apply and see what the process is like. It's very hard to get hired as a cop in most areas.
I would say that the cowardice of the Uvalde police definitely "shocked the conscience" of the parents listening to their kids getting shot.
I guess it's nice to know the specifics behind why you're obligated to live your life by the standards of law while government agencies aren't ever actually obligated to ensure you can do so safely, but I keep watching videos like this hoping someone has a more hopeful solution than just... too bad for being born in America.
I'm not sure what's more depressing - that it's apparently fine that the Uvalde police didn't do anything to protect children or the other cases referenced in this video :(
Why not both
@@recycledfelines Both are certainly depressing, but they can't both be the most depressing.
It's not "fine." As a cop, all of my co-workers and fellow LE that I've heard from are upset. The Incident Commander who was the Chief of Police and not much more than a pencil pusher stopped the officers stacked up outside the door ready to go in. He called it a barricaded subject. There's no such thing as a barricaded subject in an active shooter situation. It's either an active killer or hostage situation. That's the only two options until the shooter(s) are neutralized. The incident commander should not have assumed the children were dead. He completely mishandled the situation. Now, will he be punished for his incompetance? Likely not. It's been my experience that once you make a rank of a supervisor, and depending on how well you are likely by brass, you're actually more likely to be promoted for such a colossal screw up. This guy will likely retire with a massive pension. It's disgusting.
@@KenJones1961 Sure they'll be just as upset during the next shooting. For all the good it does.
@@lProN00bl many times brass is more concerned with agency liability than they are with saving lives. So, yes.
Then we need to take "serve and protect" off cruisers, stop all hazard pay for cops, and forbid them from ever saying that they risk their lives to stop the "bad guys." 🙄
Exactly!!! Every freaking time they claim police is there to protect when actually they are not even legally obligated to
But they do want to take that off. And replace it with nonsense breaking the line between Church and State. All those cop cars with "In God we trust" painted on.
They do serve and protect. They serve corporations and protect from property damage and theft.
*stop all pay for cops Fixed it 👍
@@jackskellingtonsora According to Legal Eagle, that's exactly what "serving the public" has been interpreted to mean. They serve corporations, not individuals.
In conclusion: being a child is somehow worse than being a criminal.
Well, except for pre-borns, fetuses, zygotes, and embryos. They are more protected by government than the mothers are. Just another example of how Texas politicians are not really "pro-life" but pro-birth and pro-controlling women's reproductive choices.
sad thing is in that 1980s case, if the mother had gone and gotten the child out of harm's way herself. The cops would have immediately acted to arrest her for kidnapping.
I find this infuriating beyond my ability to express. We've all been sold this bill of goods that says, "Hey, we police may rough you up sometimes, and sometimes we kill the wrong person -- BUT -- you have to see it from our point of view. Our lives are in danger every day, so sometimes we over-react. But don't you worry, Citizens! We'll be the first ones to rush into danger when the lives of you citizens are at stake. So, you need to let us keep our qualified immunity in cases of police brutality, and you need to pay us better and give us better pensions. Because we're willing to take a bullet for you, Citizens!" Well, apparently, that's all BS. The police seemingly have no intention of rushing into danger, not even when the lives of kids are at stake. The town of Uvalde spends FORTY PERCENT of its revenue on the police, and they can't even be bothered to try and save the lives of young children. What a joke.
They'll just claim it was "a few bad apples". The problem is, a few bad apples spoils the whole bushel, and nobody is bothering to look for the bad apples until the bushel starts rotting. The police need to be forced to stop covering for each other. If a police officer fails to report misconduct of another police officer, or if a police chief fails to act on that report, they should get mandatory jail time. Make the punishment so severe that cops will finally start being willing to risk pissing each other off by reporting bad cops for misconduct.
@@deusexaethera And when a cop is brave enough to report a colleague who's abusing the public, they get ostracized by their fellow cops. A female cop here in Buffalo turned in a colleague for excessive force. Nothing happened to him, but she was forced out of the job, and no other police agencies would hire her. She sued the city and won, I'm happy to say, but I don't see a lot of changes in the BPD.
There's a law I don't know specifically how it's worded and it may vary per state it's called a Good Samaritan law which basically means if you try to help someone and don't do a good job you can't be sued well this is exactly the opposite they don't have to help anyone and can't be sued
I'm still in shock at how kids are in a public school ran by the state with mandated attendance, and that state is under no obligation to protect those kids from harm. Like.....WHAT?????
And the answer is reduce the funding the police department gets and remove their immunity from prosecution for their actions or lack thereof. Also make the police department remove "Protect & Serve" from their vehicles. Make individual schools responsible for the safety and well being of every child while on the school property.
probably one of the clearest examples of the lack of an inherent alignment between what is legal and what is moral
Kinda like abortion ... legal... but immoral as all hell....
@@williampawson5476 what's the point of a child being carried to term if this is what america does to its children.
That's Legalism for you. Morality is ignored, what matters is the Law.
@@Demarcoa carried to term? Usually if it is almost a full baby it is because they found deadly things wrong with it that can impede the life of the child.
@@williampawson5476 so is slavery, which ironically is what will happen if abortion is not applicable
That case in the beginning with the social worker is actually so horrifying. What sort of horrifying country is alright with saying "Yeah, the civil servants who exist to protect you and keep you safe have absolutely no legal obligation to do so."
Warms my heart seeing people from all sides of the political spectrum being very unhappy with our police. I mean, the problem itself is horrible, but it really seems like an issue that unites everyone.
Police Department's new motto: "Serve and protect, sometimes, unless we're scared of the bad guy you assumed we would defend you against. You should still obey us though, no matter what, and comply also, because we're 'the only defense between you and danger', except when we're not."
The wide yellow line.
At this point the police *are* the danger
@@ecyor0 Trickling down their pants.
You're more likely to get killed or injured in the line of duty working as a pizza delivery driver than as a police officer. Support the Thin Brown Crust.
Or more simply “Serve and protect: the private property of the people who want us armed like were in the 40K universe”
"The police have absolutely no duty whatsoever to help anyone that's in trouble." I had to pause and let that statement sink in for a little while. I have always felt that my opinions fell on the side of what's right, watching out for the little guy, defending the innocent and generally in support of the police. There have certainly been times when we have been outraged by instances of police brutality or racism, but they could typically be directed towards individuals who you could claim were "not fit to wear the badge". They did not live up to the standard. But what this tells me is that wearing the badge doesn't require any standard and ultimately we are all on our own if things go sideways. Some people might help, some wont....and a uniform is no indicator of who is who. I'd be lying to say I'm not struggling with that thought.
Wow welcome to what majority of the poor and people of color feel towards the police…
Public schooling and general media tries so hard to make you trust law enforcement and believe that they are there to protect you. But that just isn't true. It's disgusting to hear.
This is what the defund the police people have been saying the whole time. It's not just a problem of bad individuals. The problem is the entire structure of how we handle and treat police.
All Cops Are Bad because the _role_ of The Cop is a BAD thing.
I'm sorry that something like this was what was needed to show you that the system of police need to be changed dramatically. From police refusing to testify against other police in instances of police brutality or dirty cops to them being trained like they're serving in the military rather than writing speeding tickets. These systems need to be changed drastically
They sure do sell themselves as the defenders of the public. Pure Gaslighting. Just like when they ask if you need help, then fish for a reason to criminalize your condition.
Oh you bet I’m going to share this video a million times over. Every time someone ask why I take my security so seriously and says “that’s what the police are for” they are going to get a visit from the LegalEagle.
From 10 to 15, I lived in an abusive household (I was a foster kid and my guardian had brain damage from a surgery). Over the years, I called the police maybe 10 times when I truly feared for my life. Our next door neighbor was also a cop. Not once did the police help me, except for the one occasion that the neighbor cop, whose daughter I was friends with, heard me screaming and let me spend the night as his house. Once, after 4 years of this, that I survived by running away and spending as much time as I could at different friends' houses, I yelled at a cop for not doing their job and helping me and standing in front of the car door to keep them from leaving, I ended up getting sent to juvie (after a being taken to the hospital for being "unruly." That is when I lost all faith that they would ever save me. The 2 days I spent in juvie was ironically the most peaceful time in my life because I had food and was safe. I wanted to be sent to a group home, but was returned to the abuser after being "disrespectful" to the judge (I kept trying to insist that it wasn't safe). I eventually saved myself. I'm 22, safe, and preparing for law school now, but I learned from an early age that our systems won't save me. That guardian has passed away now. I never even had the chance to be adopted so I aged out. It stays with me but I know so many other people who weren't as lucky as me. Thanks @legaleagle for your content. I have watched you for years and can't wait to inspire people the way you do.
I'm so sorry you went through all that trauma at the hands of "trusted" adults. You keep in your school studies and keep moving forward.
That is f'kin sad... Sorry you had to go through that. If I ever ran into a kid having trouble like that I don't know how I could just walk away. Sadly I think your story is just another bit of proof that the US has NO working system to help people who have been abused. Potentially why the fierce fight for ever expanding, and no limits abortion is being fought and entertained as hard as it is. We just don't have any capacity to care for children in garbage homes. Although the same can be said in other countries too... I'm sure there are plenty of places where you can't even call for help,. Glad you are doing good 👍 everyone needs to realize they can get out of it, it may take time but you can.
TLDR?
@@Joyboy_kkb it’s not that long. They were abused and the legal system didn’t help.
@@Joyboy_kkb stop bein a caveman and just read the damn thing.
I work in a public defender's office. The amount of police misconduct we see on a daily basis is despicable. Police need to be held to higher standards.
They need to be reduced to crowd control and meter maids
I mean, the people who become your clients are out murdering, raping, and assaulting people, and we can't even put most of THEM in jail, and you think that the police roughing up criminals is going to go anywhere? People don't want to spend the resources to put violent criminals in prison, and you're expecting this? That's the sad reality of the situation.
Qualified Immunity needs to be brought to an end. And lawsuits against the police should come out of police pensions, not from the tax payers. That would stop police unions from protecting crooked cops. Remove all the protections for incompetent and crooked cops and only then can the problem be solved.
Higher standards? Hell, they need to be held to the bare minimum standards that any non-cop is held to. But they get a free pass because they have a badge, a gun, qualified immunity, and the right to act if and when they see fit. I bet if the cops in Uvalde had had their way, they likely would have just stayed at the local Dunkin' chowing down on donuts and coffee.
People don't even want to hold "blaques" accountable for anything, despite them being the biggest issue this nation is facing. Focus on the real issues first
What I learned from this video: the Police won't help you if you are in danger, and you can't do anything about it.
They also might actively be the danger in certain cases :(
I am not a lawyer but in Mexico the Law says that members of public security institutions are OBLIGATED to: "Provide help to PERSONS threatened by some danger [...] Their response must be congruent, timely and proportional to the event." Not even the most corrupt mexican police officer would dare to say "I have no duty to protect people."
As a foreigner watching this, this is absolutely insane to think about. Despite paying the government taxes, they have no legal obligation to help you. Literally imagine a shop that refuses to give you service after you paid them, that's absurd.
This is precisely why we will never relinquish our arms. Now ya know.
This is absolutely insane, in Australia if you violate a court order you have grounds for remand the suspect
@@canebrakeruffian1122 the problem is the police were preventing you from shooting at the active shooter
@@haruhisuzumiya6650 In this particular instance, that's because firearms are banned at schools. That's not the case in other public areas. But police do have a tendency of preventing good people from taking the right course of action often.
@@canebrakeruffian1122 it's their job to be the good guy with a gun Security forces have access to firearms at your schools This kind of complicity doesn't exist in Australia however and I believe that Canada are doing something
It's amazing how many times judges have ruled in favor of police officers doing nothing as opposed to doing what most people believe is the exact purpose of having a police is in the first place .
The public's perception of the police's function has nothing to do with their actual function.
sO They could be sued for _False ADvertisinG_ then?
Because police don't care about you
@@onomiyaki What IS their function?
not amazing, they're not obligated to save you, only to arrest criminals. sorry you believe otherwise, but that's facts
I have loved your videos since I first came across them a few months ago. Your wit and style in presenting everything from prominent real world legal scenarios to the fun and fantastical call outs of movies and TV shows never fail to enlighten and entertain. But seeing the true emotion in your presentation of this horrible situation (I'm from an hour east of Uvalde, I know families directly involved) raises the bar (pun intended) in my esteem for you.
In the job I had before this one, failure to act resulting in loss of life would get you a stretch in Leavenworth, at least. But this was not about the law, or courage under fire, or the lack thereof. It was not even about training or organization. It was about trust. Trust that was the issue long before this incident. There was one officer who had the shooter in his sights as he entered the building, and requested permission to fire. Apparently, that was his procedure, and that is a problem on so many levels it is difficult to know where to start. I will start with logic and leave it to you to expound on the remainder of the problems. I am curious as to how my logic will stack up within the law. - The policy is to obtain supervisor permission to fire An officer not on the scene has the sole decision power on the scene? - The officer on the scene obviously judged that he should shoot, or he would not have asked permission. If you are convinced enough to ask, doesn't it follow that you are convinced enough to shoot? Logically, this policy makes no sense at all, unless... You do not trust the judgment of your officers. So logically if you do not trust them, why would you arm them with deadly force and send them to a life and death situation? If mistrust was an issue long enough to construct a policy based on mistrust, why was nothing done about the trust problem? Mistrust. So prevalent we often do not even recognize it when it is staring us in the face. But it has resulted in the deaths of more people in war and peace than all the malevolence, cowardice, and incompetence combined in all of history. So... Legally... Should the officer, within the bounds of engaging an armed suspect, have had the prerogative to fire as he saw fit? 19 lives later, it is a worthy question.
As an interesting contrast to this: in Germany *everyone* is *obliged* to provide help unless it'd put them into harm's way themselves. Police officers who refuse help (including help that potentially does put them into harm's way) make themselves liable for prosecution. If you, as a normal citizen, saw someone collapse on the street and simply walked by, you'd also be liable for prosecution.
That makes sense but our laws are designed to protect cops and govt from accountability, not provide it.
So by setting a high bar for law enforment all their citizens you have a built in responsibiltiy to help others?
@@RolandBechtel We have a built-in responsibility to help others because we're human. Laws to enforce this are required because there're too many a******s who don't care about anything but themselves.
In Amerika you can be held liable for providing first aid if you make a mistake. Good Samaritan laws exist in many states, but they usually have a lot of exceptions.
@@JohnDoe-my5ip Well, providing help doesn't mean you have to, e.g., do CPR yourself - especially if you're untrained. At the very least you'll have to call for help that is trained, e.g. by calling an ambulance.
Those rulings are so appalling. The social worker one hit me especially hard as a teacher. I'm a mandatory reporter, but because of inaction, lack of legal recourse, and rulings exactly like that, it is far more likely that I'm putting the child in more harm's way when I make a report. At the same time, working in the field I do and in public schools, I often see children of color, esp black children, who were taken away from their parents by social services for far less than the kind of physical or s*xual abuse I would be reporting. The state has made it illegal for people to help children being beaten (that would be kidnapping), but have also ruled they themselves have no responsibility to help. It's morally appalling, especially in a case with such a preponderance of evidence as was seen in that particular case. I know you said it isn't the video for discussing what the law should be, but when things are put so plainly and so horrifyingly, it's impossible not to think about it.
I'm a mandated reporter in Texas and it's disgusting that I could get in more trouble for not reporting abuse than the police and social workers would get into for not stopping it. I'm legally not allowed to investigate suspected abuse, but it seems they aren't legally obligated to take my reports seriously... It's so demoralizing.
Right? This is exactly why people hate lawyers (in the general sense, I know there are good ones).
"...it is far more likely that I'm putting the child in more harm's way when I make a report." I don't follow. How does reporting to authorities would have more adverse effects than complete inaction?
The abuser usually blames the child if abuse is noticed.
@@anteshell Most abusers don't like being identified as abusers and you increase the risk of them taking it out on their victims. Also, a lot of abuse victims might be reluctant to seek help, either failing to recognise the abuse, or fearing retaliation (believing that their abuser might defeat the investigation, explaining away the visible marks of abuse). In this case, mandatory reporting makes them actively hide the abuse and avoid known mandatory reporters (like teachers, social workers, some healthcare workers...) making it harder for the abusers to get caught.
It's almost like the supreme Court doesn't protect the needs of the people
they dont. they protect the state.
they don't protect the state, they protect their wallets
I am one minute into the video, and already I don’t know what to make of this. I am a 911 dispatcher. We DO Have a legal duty to help people. If we are shown to be negligent in that duty, and someone gets hurt or killed as a result, then we are held responsible. If we don’t ask the right questions, or send the right help, or hang up on people we shouldn’t be hanging up on, and anyone looks into it, then we are held accountable, and can be sued, fired, and disciplined in various ways. I can’t wait to hear why it’s not the same for law-enforcement agencies that we work with.
So let me get this straight: a policement gets paid twice that of a teacher or more. Requires much less formal education. Has more legal power. And no legal responsability. Who tought this made any sense?
Police rarely get paid more than a teacher, police in the state of Arkansas where I live get paid about the same as. That is my only disagreement with your statement.
I thought that with great legal power comes great legal responsibility....
It makes a lot more sense when you realize the police are primarily there to protect politicians and their pet politicians from the public. The idea that they are noble defenders who should be respected and honored is marketing on their part.
@@thecentry9650 because they don’t have strong unions holding cities hostage. In Seattle policemen make immoral amounts of money often buffed to the absurd by fake overtime. Some cops make hundreds of thousands of dollars just from overtime they are most likely never delivering on
@@thecentry9650 what? In my area, a cop’s starting salary is around 80k. A teacher here makes 40-50k.
Imagine someone looking you dead in the eye and saying, “You must pay taxes but we are under no obligation to protect you.” That’s the single most fundamental point of government- to protect citizens- and yet we do not have such rights in America.
Then vote for policies that fire bad police officers. Don't absolve yourself of responsibility.
Kinda sounds like tyrany to me.
@@mrenygma181 I mean it is.
@@spacetoast7783 if I recall the timing of the rules correctly I wasn’t born yet when the first was handed down and couldn’t vote when the second was handed out. Plus, you can’t elect Supreme Court judges.
@@Jessie_Helms Wtf are you talking about? First of all, Supreme court justices are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. You are perfectly able to vote for President and Senator. Secondly, they never ruled that police can't be held to a high standard. It's like you didn't watch this video at all before commenting. And third, the federal government doesn't run your local police. You need to vote in your local elections, genius. Fire the bad cops. Don't absolve yourself of responsibility in your society.
"by alot of us working together we can make a tiny difference in this world" that hit so close to me
@legaleagle, I appreciate you making this video even though it clearly was not easy. I put off watching it for months because the whole concept just hurts to think about, but as always it is helpful to get some insight into the legal background of things.
It's absolutely wild that firefighters and medics have a duty to act but law enforcement doesn't. It's just flat insane how many special protections law enforcement has that apply to no other profession.
They only have a duty to continue providing aid. This is because once they start they are legally a patient. Kinda like if a LEO arrests someone, that person is now that officers “patient”
Firefighters don't have a duty to act, if your burning alive in a fire and they don't want to risk their lives to save you they ain't going in. Or rather their duty to act doesn't translate to a duty to save your life or property and certainly not at risk of their own safety and lives. Similar to the police they often simply setup a perimeter to contain the situation and wait for things to settle down before moving in to clean up and document the incident.
@@DrewLSsix they do when providing medical treatment (firefights are basically just paramedics that on the rare occasion respond to fires). Most of what they do is medical
They're basically an occupying army, not a public service
@@DrewLSsix You're really all over these comments being pro-police aren't obligated to help you. What a weird hill to die on. Do you think that, maybe since we're all paying them to, they SHOULD help you when you're in danger?
This is insanity. I joined the military as a musician, and even I had to take an oath swearing to sacrifice my own limb and life to protect others as part of my duty, should the time ever come. If someone in the marching band has a duty take a bullet for others, then there's no excuse for why it shouldn't apply to the police.
I'm just imagining a full marching band being deployed on the front line of some war with nothing but their instruments and their commander being like, "what, didn't you read the contract"
@@doctortomato9520 Not wholly incorrect. Now, I wasn't there, so this is sorta hearsay, and I can't prove it, but I did watch a video by a vet some time ago where he mentioned he got stuck in a convoy with a guy from the Army Marching Band, because recruitment wasn't helping to replace casualties sufficiently and so they had to put some of the Army Band guys out there.
@@rclipse1985 that was one of the Campfire Stories by Mikeburnfire, Zach was talking about how messed up the army was with their deployments, stop losses and of course deployment during Stabilization time
@@fallout0624 Ah, yeah, that's probably where that was from.
@@doctortomato9520 I believe there were soldiers who played music on the battlefield, historically
Coming back to this video after Nashville, the contrast is stark and frankly stunning. The Nashville police officers were heroes. They did their jobs without hesitation and saved lives. The video from their body cameras is incredible.
Reminds .me of the subway/train stabbing where the train cop failed to intervene and stayed behind a locked door if I remember it correctly.
Man it must be nice to be the government - “We can force your children to be put into our school systems, but we aren’t legally liable for things that happen to your kids while they are in our school systems we are forcing you to put them in”
Welcome to life...
Home schooling is almost always protected on the state level and the compulsion of education is not codified on the federal level.
Beyond homeschooling, there are private schools. Even if a family can't afford such institutions, a state could make the case that there is no education monopoly around most population centers.
@@Peter-td3yk welcome to America, in many countries the government workers can and will be held accountable for harm to people put in their charge. With given proof of course.
if you dont like our school system you can keep your children at home.
if there is "no custodial relationship" and the school has "no responsibility for the students" then they have no legal grounds to take any of a students personal items away from them, but they still pull that shit all the time.
Also schools have dress codes that are used against the girls.
I have no clue how someone could assert that schools prevent children from acting on their own behalf. Kids are told that they can't eat during class, can't use the bathroom, can't have a drink of water, and can't wear certain clothes. Even high schoolers are often not allowed to leave campus for food and face penalties if they do, the cited reason often being the state's liability for what happens to them. The state shouldn't treat kids in it's schools like prisoners then say they have no custodial relationship because they're not treated similarly to prisoners.
@@ElijahStroud I believe it's technically a lawsuit waiting to happen if you deny someone going to the bathroom (these days).
@@MYFAVORITES5 Yeah but a kid isn't going to go for the lawsuit path.
@@ElijahStroud completely agree. This is government trying to cover their own asses. The government should not on the one hand tell citizens what to do and on the other hand do nothing to protect the citizens when they are in danger while doing what the government tells them to do. It's a complete contradiction.
Up until now I had incredible respect for the supreme Court, but now I'm just confused and find them to be one of the most frightening institutions in our country. Despite contemptible behavior, it seems like police can be punished for not doing their job. They need to remove that to protect and serve, especially if they don't actually have to do it. Thank you for explaining everything. I wish that other people could hear your argument so that they could understand why and how things went. So very wrong and how there may be no justice for all of those little children.
I respected the Supreme Court, too. And I now feel the same way you do about them. It terrifies me that so much about our country relies on 9 people who we have no say about who is chosen for the job.
Having looked into this, in the UK EVERY Organization Coming into Contact With a Child has a LEGAL OBLIGATION to Protect The Child. It is " The Duty of Care" which applies to ALL Responsible Groups ( POLICE, Social Workers, Doctors, Nurses, etc) to act to Ensure the Safety of the Child, EVEN if they've Only Just Heard About It. There is also the " Policing By Consent " Ethos of UK Police: basicaly it's almost a Duty of Honor, in that it's Expected that they would Act, which is why Unarmed Officers will still Attend a Violent Situation. But also Culturally: in the UK ANY Adult who Did Not Act to Save a Child would be Shunned by their Entire Community. Basically, ANY ARMED OFFICER in the UK would be MORALLY AND LEGALLY EXPECTED to Place a Child's Life above their Own in such a Situation.
It is important to be familiar with the Constitution and practice it. 😁
This reminds me of my years in school. Someone is bullying you and you tell the adults, they do nothing. But the moment YOU do something about a bad situation, YOU get punished.
"Yes, we know that he punched you, we can see the black eye, the gang of 12 kids surrounding you all admitted to running you down and trapping you... but why didn't YOU come get a teacher's help?"
This is trivial, but I witnessed a big mess of a traffic light failure. Huge intersection, weird bike lanes, double turn lanes all 4 ways. I called the police non emergency and begged them to come do traffic control, and the dude on the line was literally like "Ugh, what do you want US to do about it?" Like a total bratty teenager. I was so disgusted. Like, get up off your ass and do some public safety chores on city property?
I guess you could say that particular cop at least was dumber than a traffic light.
If it's not a "bad guy" situation they can use to recreate their favourite action movie, why even bother to interrupt donut break? The chance to play blue Rambo is the only reason why most (american) police even want the job. A majority of them have very skewed priorities, don't care about helping everyday folks and if they once did, the "Killology" training most of them go through will beat that right out of them.
@@sherlocksmuuug6692 yet when a chance to be a hero actually arises they act the way they did in Uvalde. I think they take that job because they want to have power over others
@@commandantd44 police in America was created to capture escaped slaves. Full stop.
@@commandantd44 They could rake in a lot of donut money though in "fines".
I learned at an early age to be careful when crying out for help because it might not be help that hears you, not all kids survive learning that lesson... Anyways, that's why even since I was a child I recognized the police for exactly what they were, a gang, it's so cute when people's minds are blown because there's gang activity in our police departments coming out 😱 color me board waiting for everyone to catch up. Perhaps we can find some good lawyers to head up motions and draft up initiatives to make bribery illegal again and defund the corruption so we can implement a fiduciary responsibility of officials to actually serve the interests of the people, you know, a good return on investment. Maybe then we can have actual fighters in our corner that will flat out replace cowardly and corrupt cops. Don't worry I'm not crying out for help anymore I'm offering a merciful path forward.
My question is if the police or social services have no legal obligation to protect the citizen and the child, why do we have them? What's their purpose?
Police: slave catching, originally
That Castle Rock case is not only incredibly heartbreaking for the mother who lost her three daughters, but it also makes no sense. What in the actual hell is the point of mandatory restraining orders if they might not even be enforced? Then for literally what purpose do the restraining orders exist? They only function if the person receiving the restraining order believes there will be a punishment for violating it, so now it's like anyone who gets a restraining order can reasonably go on harassing someone because there's a good chance they might not even be punished for it. I sometimes hate this country so much, like all these politicians need to make it make sense.
The restraining orders already do almost nothing, but now we have a case showing no one cares...
IMHO it sounds like at best the restraining order only gives you a running head start to get away.
@@mnomadvfx And it's a paper trail of evidence for when they kill you
@@mnomadvfx no doesn’t even do that. The subject of your restraining order can be standing outside the courthouse and grab you as you leave.
@@mnomadvfx To my knowledge the order requires the victim to reveal their adress, so without police enforcement it becomes a game of hide and seek - without the hide.
These rulings fill me with so much intense rage I can’t even express how I feel. How can we as Americans ever tout our rights when we don’t even have the right to life and protection from danger by the state. Absolutely unbelievable and maddening
the owners want it this way lol, and the puppet politicians keep the wheels turning x)
Scalia was an awful person. He's a big part of these rulings. These are not outliers of Scalias rulings, either.
I mean - in theory you have the ability to hold your public institutions to account. You vote for people who do exactly that. But instead you stick to your rigid two party system. You only have yourselves to blame.
Ugh the first two cases he spoke about pissed me off
You pretty much cannot have a "right" to many things. But if we hire people for security, they'd better secure, or be gone. Zero chance I would even allow the "state" to wipe my behind.
I worked in child care for a bit; a woefully undertrained cog in a sprawling, bureaucratic, unweildy mess. In that position, I was a "mandated reporter", which by the laws of that state meant that I could be charged with - at the very least - child endangerment if I were aware of any instance of child abuse and did not call law enforcement. If the next shift just no-showed me and just went home, I would be charged with x counts of neglect (for every kid in the facility). Fun stuff like that. And the bounds of that status was NOT LIMITED TO MY JOB. It was 24/7. If my neighbor had burned their child on a stove eye for stealing or somesuch, and it's found I knew about it, *I* could go to prison just because I happened to live next door. For working at a place where I was a glorified babysitter with no *real* authority of any kind, I could lose everything if I didn't call the cops. Meanwhile, the same cops were apparently under no obligation to actually do *anything* with that information? There is something inherently wrong about that.
So many things in this video are important but I very much appreciate that he does not make you wait until the end of the video for the tldr version/ for the answer of the question posed at the beginning like many clickbait-y videos do, especially since this is the last type of video that should be clickbait
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the police in this case did nothing to stop the ongoing slaughter of children, yet did stop parents from attempting to stop said slaughter, ostensibly to "prevent them from getting hurt or killed." Through a combination of their own inaction, and their prevention of the actions of others, they practically guaranteed the continuation of slaughter. Per the legal standard explained during the video, the state has no duty to act in cases when people are free to act on their own, yet in this case, they were restraining people from acting on their own while refusing to act themselves. How absurd is that?
Yep. This is the classic problem of how the US government does things - either we should have the right to protect ourselves by owning and carrying a handgun or we should have the right to expect the police to protect us. Unfortunately, in most states, we lack the right to either, which is why these tragedies will just keep happening.
I think they stopped the other parents b/c their were cops who went in to save their own kids & didn't want other parents in their way. That statement of them pepper spraying & tasing parents but cops were getting their own kids out while a loser held a class hostage for an hr & killed all the kids & teacher os truly chilling
@@drmadjdsadjadi This shooting happened in a state with both
@@1337Koios WRONG! You do not have the right to expect the police to protect you. The police have complete discretion to allow you to be shot and killed in the United States and are there SOLELY to protect the government. Indeed, go look up any of several lawsuits that have been launched against cops for failing to protract schoolchildren and you will find the police are almost always exonerated. The only people who have a duty to protect others are those with a “special relationship” such as parents for their children but the police need not protect your kids or you and you cannot win a lawsuit that says they failed to protect you: that is the whole problem in the USA. Also when it comes to public schools themselves, you generally do NOT have the right to carry guns into the classroom in Texas (there are exceptions to this if the school district wants to allow it but the Uvalde school district did not avail themselves of this), so you are wrong on BOTH counts. I am not saying we have to allow guns in classrooms but we DO have to MANDATE police protect the individuals who happen to be in schools if we do not allow them to protect themselves.
@@1337Koios Indeed, did you even bother to watch the idea on which you are commenting? As the lawyer who provided the information clearly stated, you do NOY have the right to expect that the police will protect you, so, given that, why should you be disarmed and not allowed to protect yourself? That is what is wrong with this country, many people want to have gun control and yet the police are not legally required to protect us. You simply cannot have gun control without also FIRST having a corresponding police duty to protect the public.
it still appalls me that the officers on scene didn't go in and kill the shooter. I am Military Police, we are trained in active shooter scenarios. In the event one does happen, the first responding officer(s) on scene MUST go in and confront the shooter. You aren't there to help. You aren't there to care for wounded. You aren't there to carry people out. You are there to kill and neutralize the threat and prevent more loss of life. Even if you aren't able to kill him because the shooter outguns you, you can still keep him busy long enough for others to arrive and assist. Doing anything less is cowardice and you do not belong in this field of work
Very cool... This is the training we'd like to imagine the civilian police receiving, but I highly doubt it especially in a small town. Hopefully, someone will see the value if it and find funding for it and make it happen on an annual basis.
@@nleem3361 No. They already receive 40% of the town's budget, they already have military gear, they already have a SWAT team that they stopped from entering, they already have training with firearms including how to use them against others with firearms. Yet more funding and 'training' is not the answer 🤦♂️ they would still just stand outside the school and do nothing except stop anyone *else* from helping either. They would still have no legal responsibility to help anyone because that is not the point of the police
@@BaileyZKerr exactly theres probably at least one ar15 in every police car in America, the claim they were outgunned is BS, they were just scared
This is the training officer Munley received when she confronted Hasaan before she was shot. She certainly helped end his rampage early and didn't stand around outside.
Interesting. Were you there when it happened?
5:59 that is Mt. Garfield. A unique cliff feature rising above Clifton Colorado. I used to live there and had that view driving home from work every day (though not at that altitude)
Imagine if soldiers, like myself, could just refuse lawful orders to do our job. Imagine if we had qualified immunity. We enter into this job acknowledging the risk to our lives and that we must do our job without question. Police must be held to the same standard 😡
Uhm, the police would love to have our qualified immunity mate. If some idiot civilian runs right through a firefight and you take him down in a split decision, there are no consequences. If police do the exact same thing, they get a lynchmob at their house demanding the blood of their children, they get thrown in prison for decades with Biden tweeting 'good riddance' even before the persecution is completed. Imagine a bunch of Taliban sueing you succesfully for fighting against them. That is the current legal situation in the US for most police departments.
huh? cops can't just refuse lawful orders. what are you talking about
@Lex Bright Raven What said you bears no relation at all to what I said. You sure you replied to the right person?
@Lex Bright Raven Ah, so you were replying to me, you're just into nonsensical marxist prattling.
@@nvelsen1975 so? You've been nonsensically prattling right wing shit. The original commenter is not wrong. They are held to a lesser standard while having increased power. Nurses, cnas, emts, doctors, teachers, paras, pretty much ANY other public servant is held to a much much much higher legal standard for the safety of those they work with or for, police are not. They don't get thrown in prison before the trial is up, that is just a downright lie. They get mobs outside of their homes because people are frustrated with the absolute lack of accountability they have for their action/inaction. If it was your kid, you'd be pretty pissed too. And comparing it to the taliban? Seriously dude? The person you called nonsensical isn't the only one here who has completely lost their damn mind. It's not a freaking war, obviously the situations are different. You made uo a strawman and argued that, which is gross behaviour from what I assume is a fully grown adult. You need to start listening to hear instead of listening to respond. You're too blinded by your own agenda to even acknowledge this as a problem, let alone acknowledge why.
There are two lessons here: Firstly, that police are not here to protect you, they are there to hurt you if you step out of line. Secondly, that there are justices on the Supreme Court that will cover for cops under basically any circumstances.
Supreme Court? Its far beyond that. DA, Prosecutors and majority of Judges should be ashamed of themselves.
We need to change the law. But that isn't going to happen.
Best comment right here
I dont think generally that is how police feel, but the law protecting them if they do not act is definitely terrible.
black people been known this
If every pack of cigarettes has to have a warning, then every police car and police uniform should have a clear message: "The use or reliance on this service can produce severe bodily and psychological harm, and sometimes even death".
Well said
"To not protect, and to serve powerful interests" or "To comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted"
“Innocence proves nothing”
When my girlfriend was feeling suicidal, she considered calling the police on herself as a form of suicide because apparently it’s around 50% effective depending on what you say.
I mean, it does though. Its just like, on their website and on google. Making them spray it on their car is akin to circus solutions which would further aggravate things. This has to be done through legislation, it has to be spelled you correctly and imprinted into an amendment. There is real appetite for it on both sides but we are being driven apart by security theater.
I love how the SC sometimes doesn't do High-school level logic in favor of just telling you off. You work for the state, you act on behalf of the state, you are the only one who can enforce the law of the state. You are not enumerated or implied to have the right to veto the state. You are obviously not acting as a private citizen when you are on duty and enforcing a law, when the law is appointing you to enforce that law. You weren't coerced to accept this position, and you willingly took the position knowing this was the case. You willingly choose not to enforce the law. The SC says yes. Congratulations, now legislators, judges, and even executives can be essentially line-item vetoed by anyone they try to have actually enforce the law. Which is weird, because the court makes these kinds of logical conclusions frequently. "If we rule this way, this is the consequence, this consequence is effectively the same as something contradictory to a state/federal constitution." Is the police officer a private citizen unable to violate constitutional law because they are 1 person? No, because then it can be argued that any person; a judge, for instance, could just choose not to do what the law/constitutions spells out for them to do, and they'd face no repercussion. Because... they're a private citizen? The logic doesn't follow. The whole point of these rulings is to hold the state accountable to itself. How can your entire argument be that the state doesn't owe anyone anything when they enumerate legislators with the power to make laws on what one could reasonably expect of the state based on what is written in those laws. What's the logic? The argument is absurd. "The state doesn't owe you [x]" It's not even addressing a constitutional question. Because the ruling implies with that statement like "we can't assess the reasonably expected consequences of our own decision in relation to this ruling, and we can't then apply it to whether the constitution would retain its reasonably expected authority... because... 'the state doesn't owe you [x]'" The state, which ultimately interacts with and determines the relationship between itself private citizens, private citizens and each other, and those acting for the state.... "doesn't owe you anything" So, if the constitution of that state which defines exactly the state's inner functions and its rights in relation to the people, and the expectations it is supposed to uphold... doesn't "owe you anything" Does this state never interact with private citizens? Do its laws not determine who is and isn't acting in the interest of the state? What do they mean that the "private citizen doesn't owe you [x]." Because that's cool and all, but it doesn't address "can the state interact with you based on how the state says it will interact with you." Is the state *expected* not to have to enforce its laws in good faith? The ruling basically sounds like they skipped over the entire premise of what is effectively happening in favor of getting on a soap-box about who is and isn't owed what. The role of the state in these cases basically goes unaddressed and the ruling is this absurd argument that can potentially expanded to the point where you could argue "states shouldn't exist" or "constitutions and laws are just words" Which just sounds like the ramblings of an immature teenager.
The point is that all the rulings ARE in bad faith. That's what Fascism is. The clauses are only there to provide the illusion that there are checks and balances or recourse. But the state will constantly change definitions and twist law with unreasonable president in order to ensure the rules can only ever harm citizens, and not the state. I would go so far as to say the Supreme court judges have been intentionally eroding any form of potential liability for all layers of government with the express intent of reducing citizens recourse to injustice and thus their rights against a state that is giving themselves ever more power. essentially, its a massive system of contradiction that's there to waste your time fighting a battle you cannot win since your opponent makes the rules, all while the system tells you to go **** yourself. That is Fascism in the most literal sense.
This is a really good episode. I would love to hear the arguments against legislation compelling law enforcement to protect and serve. I know police have a tough job but the kind of people we need in that field are the one's who naturally feel compelled to act in the interest of others before their own personal safety. That kind of reform would be ugly at first but would take us where we need to be.