HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Parkland Students Who Sur...

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:13 PM

Parkland Students Who Survived Shooting File Federal Lawsuit

Last edited Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Sun Sentinel

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - Broward deputies at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School violated the constitutional rights of the survivors of February's school massacre by failing to stop Nikolas Cruz when he showed up on campus with murder on his mind, according to a federal lawsuit filed Wednesday.

The lawsuit specifically names Broward County, retired school resource officer Scot Peterson, Broward Sheriff's Office Capt. Jan Jordan and campus monitor Andrew Medina as defendants.

The plaintiffs are all students who are referred to by their initials.

The suit also doesn't identify Cruz by name, referring to him simply as "the Shooter."...Read More, short article..

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/parkland-students-who-survived-shooting-file-federal-lawsuit/ar-AAzWu6L

"At least three BSO deputies arrived in time to hear gunfire but couldn't locate its source, those deputies wrote in official reports. Peterson was already on campus when the shooting began but also said he could not discover where the shooting was happening and took cover.
One Coral Springs officer said he saw a BSO deputy sheltering behind a tree even though the deputy said he believed the shooter was on the building's third floor, according to an incident report filed after the massacre. Another officer said he saw BSO deputies "taking positions" behind their cars when the shooter was still at large and students inside the building were begging 911 operators for help.
By the time first responders entered the freshman building 11 minutes after the shooting began, Cruz had blended in with other students and fled."

10 replies, 1507 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Parkland Students Who Survived Shooting File Federal Lawsuit (Original post)
appalachiablue Jul 2018 OP
sandensea Jul 2018 #1
appalachiablue Jul 2018 #3
sandensea Jul 2018 #4
appalachiablue Jul 2018 #5
sandensea Jul 2018 #6
appalachiablue Jul 2018 #7
appalachiablue Jul 2018 #10
X_Digger Jul 2018 #2
summer_in_TX Jul 2018 #8
appalachiablue Jul 2018 #9

Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:22 PM

1. This is yet another reason the GOPee is so anxious to take over the judiciary

They want to make sure these lawsuits never go forward, no matter how many were injured or killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sandensea (Reply #1)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:34 PM

3. Indeed, strategically grooming potentials & staffing positions for some time..

These deputies, no words, from the grandchild of a fearless sheriff and descendant of fighting veterans of US wars, none of whom were cowards, anything but. 'A coward dies a thousand deaths,' as my father often said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to appalachiablue (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:36 PM

4. Hear, hear.

Your father was a man of clarity - and courage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sandensea (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:58 PM

5. A special man who was smart, generous, brave; much loved and respected.

Here's an exemplary man of courage and bravery, Joseph Pfeifer, the first fire chief to rush into the Twin Towers on 911 and the last to retire. He also lost his only brother in that disaster.

'Joseph Pfeifer spoke to "CBS Evening News" anchor Jeff Glor about what he remembers from that fateful day. "I actually saw the first plane aim for the building, and I knew I was going to the largest fire of my life," Pfeifer said. Pfeifer lost his only brother, Kevin, a fellow firefighter on that day...'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to appalachiablue (Reply #5)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:07 PM

6. Amazing story - thank you for sharing!

Please consider posting this as its own thread, appalachiablue.

As it's only about an hour old, it could even be LBN if you'd like.

My wish is that we'll live to see justice for what happened that day - real justice, not Bush's Orwellian 'Goldstein' trials.

Thanks again!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to sandensea (Reply #6)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 08:19 PM

7. Done. Justice for the terrible Parkland slaughter is what I want to see as well.

~ Peace

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to appalachiablue (Reply #7)

Thu Jul 12, 2018, 06:05 PM

10. AP, July 11, "Official: 911 Issues Delayed Response to School Massacre"

July 11, 2018, Associated Press, "Official: 911 issues delayed response to school massacre."

- Judge Patti Englander Henning speaks during a hearing at the Broward County Courthouse Wednesday, July 11, 2018, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to determine whether a report about Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooter Nikolas Cruz, prepared by the Broward County School District, will be released.

SUNRISE, Fla. In the crucial first minutes after a gunman began shooting students and staff at a Florida high school, law enforcement's response was hampered by quirks in the local 911 system that caused many calls from inside the school to be transferred, the chairman of a commission investigating the massacre said.

Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, chair of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, said Wednesday that the dual dispatch system used by the city of Parkland delayed getting responding police officers and sheriff's deputies timely information during the Feb. 14 shooting that left 17 dead and 17 wounded....

After testifying before the commission, Shawn Backer, deputy chief of the Coral Springs Police Department, told reporters it is too early to say whether the bifurcated system created any significant delays in the response. He said Broward sheriff's deputies and Coral Springs officers who responded to the school were quickly able to establish communications.

"I wouldn't say there was a failure of communication. The boots on the ground, the officers that were there, were in contact with deputies from the sheriff's office instantaneously and were able to share information in person," he said..More, https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/official-911-issues-delayed-response-to-school-massacre/ar-AAzWRa8

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 07:34 PM

2. The police have no legal obligation to protect you.

In multiple states, at the local, state, and federal level, police have not been held accountable for failing to protect individuals. Let's examine some of the cases.

South v. Maryland (1858)

Cocking v. Wade (1896)

Riss v. City of New York - 1967


Brief Fact Summary

Plaintiff was harassed by a rejected suitor, who claimed he would kill or seriously injure her if she dated someone else. Plaintiff repeatedly asked for police protection and was ignored. After the news of her engagement, the plaintiff was again threatened and called the police to no avail. The next day, a thug, sent by the rejected suitor, partially blinded the plaintiff and disfigured her face.

The municipality does not have a duty to provide police protection to an individual. It has a duty to the public as a whole, but no one in particular.

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969)

Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrance (1974)

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App.3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

The first amended complaint alleged in substance: On September 4, 1972, plaintiff's decedent, Ruth Bunnell, telephoned the main office of the San Jose Police Department and reported that her estranged husband, Mack Bunnell, had called her, saying that he was coming to her residence to kill her. She requested immediate police aid; the department refused to come to her aid at that time, and asked that she call the department again when Mack Bunnell had arrived.

Approximately 45 minutes later, Mack Bunnell arrived at her home and stabbed her to death. The police did not arrive until 3 a.m., in response to a call of a neighbor. By this time Mrs. Bunnell was dead.
(1) Appellant contends that his complaint stated a cause of action for wrongful death under Code of Civil Procedure section 377, and that the cause survived under Probate Code section 573. The claim is barred by the provisions of the California Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code, 810 et seq.), particularly section 845, which states: "Neither a public entity nor a public employee is liable for failure to establish a police department or otherwise provide police protection service or, if police protection service is provided, for failure to provide sufficient police protection service."

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978)

Stone v. State, 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981)


The Court, however, does not agree that defendants owed a specific legal duty to plaintiffs with respect to the allegations made in the amended complaint for the reason that the District of Columbia appears to follow the well established rule that official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection. This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981)

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982)


Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (Only those in custody are deserving of individual police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845

Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County (1986)

In 1986, the Maryland Court of Appeals was again presented in Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County with an action in civil liability involving the failure of law enforcement to enforce the law. In this case, a police officer, Freeberger, found an intoxicated man in a running pickup truck sitting in front of convenience store. Although he could have arrested the driver, the police officer told the driver to pull the truck over to the side of the lot and to discontinue driving that evening. Instead, shortly after the law enforcement officer left, the intoxicated driver pulled out of the lot and collided with a pedestrian, Ashburn, who as a direct result of the accident sustained severe injuries and lost a leg. After Ashburn brought suit against the driver, Officer Freeberger, the police department, and Anne Arundel County, the trial court dismissed charges against the later three, holding Freeberger owed no special duty to the plaintiff, the county was immune from liability, and that the police department was not a separate legal entity.
The Court of Appeals further noted the general tort law rule that,
"absent a 'special relationship' between police and victim, liability for failure to protect an individual citizen against injury caused by another citizen does not rely against police officers."
Using terminology from the public duty doctrine, the court noted that any duty the police in protecting the public owed was to the general public and not to any particular citizen..

DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)


During divorce proceedings, Jessica Gonzales, a resident of Castle Rock, Colorado, obtained a restraining order against her husband on June 4, 1999, requiring him to remain at least 100 yards from her and their three daughters except during specified visitation time. On June 22, at approximately 5:15 pm, her husband took possession of the three children in violation of the order. Gonzales called the police at approximately 7:30 pm, 8:30 pm, 10:10 pm, and 12:15 am on June 23, and visited the police station in person at 12:40 am on June 23, 1999. However, the police took no action, despite the husband's having called Gonzales prior to her second call to the police and informing her that he had the children with him at an amusement park in Denver, Colorado. At approximately 3:20 am on June 23, 1999, the husband appeared at the Castle Rock police station and instigated a fatal shoot-out with the police. A search of his vehicle revealed the corpses of the three daughters, whom the husband had killed prior to his arrival.
The Court's majority opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia held that enforcement of the restraining order was not mandatory under Colorado law; were a mandate for enforcement to exist, it would not create an individual right to enforcement that could be considered a protected entitlement under the precedent of Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth; and even if there were a protected individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order, such entitlement would have no monetary value and hence would not count as property for the Due Process Clause.

Justice David Souter wrote a concurring opinion, using the reasoning that enforcement of a restraining order is a process, not the interest protected by the process, and that there is not due process protection for processes.

A cop could step over you and your would-be murderer struggling on the ground to get to a donut shop and there's no legal obligation for him or her to stop and help you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to appalachiablue (Original post)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 09:54 PM

8. Geez!

Here I thought they were supposed to be public servants. It's certainly in the interest of the public as a whole that crimes towards specific people get prevented. Probably saves us taxpayer money at the very least, besides the morality of the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Response to summer_in_TX (Reply #8)

Wed Jul 11, 2018, 10:05 PM

9. Absolutely, and agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread