TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote: A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in.

How does this statement (Or is it your opinion?) align with the SCOTUS decision in 2005 that says the police have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... otect.html

Is it a difference between constitutional duty versus the obligation or nature of the job? Especially since they were there at a school for a reason? Or would that SCOTUS decision not really pertain in this case since it was not really an individual per se, but rather the student body and staff as a whole?

My husband and I had this discussion a night or two ago. We finally reached the conclusion that while Peterson, according to SCOTUS did not have a obligation to "Protect", thus he did not have an obligation to "charge in". He, as the only person with a gun, and as a police officer, did have a moral obligation to go in.
Now, this will be interesting when the civil cases come around, as you know they will....

In this case, there is a difference most people forget. While I agree with the moral obligation, which should be the strongest motivation IMO, there was also a legal obligation.

When the SCOTUS said police have no obligation to protect anyone, that is taking a partial sentence out of context. The full decision is that they have no duty to protect any specific person UNLESS there is a special relationship developed between the police and the victim. In this case, by accepting the assignment to the school, the sheriff's office and its employees developed a special relationship with an obligation to protect the victims.

I agree fully. The SCOTUS case on this issue is often misunderstood or extended beyond the holding. The case essentially held that there is no general duty to the public to prevent you from becoming a crime victim. To that extent, the decision was/is correct. If every law enforcement agency could be sued by any and every crime victim, then we soon would have no such agencies.

Chas.

mojo84 wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

mojo84 wrote:

WTR wrote:https://www.snopes.com/trump-stops-mugging-1991/ By the way I voted for Trump. I am just tired of the tweats, boasting and patting himself on the back.....Not the way I was raised.

Funny you are using Snopes to counter a news article that was posted almost 30 years ago. Have you researched who owns and runs Snopes?

The issue is, the one guy that was hired to protect the kids from exactly what happened did nothing and there are 17 people dead. You are criticizing Trump for saying he'd like to think he would have gone in and then you state you would have. Oh, the irony. Have you been in a situation when you ran to the sound of gunshots to assist others? If not, your statement is no more credible than his.

I've noticed that Snopes seems to verify what they want verified?

Exactly

Snopes is nothing more than the Oracle of Delphi of the Internet. One made crap and got paid and the other one is still doing it. Witnesses to the event said it happened. They were there, Snopes liars were not. This is an easy call.

Chas.

WTR wrote:My largest concern is that he would open himself up to the scrutiny of the left. He has. His most recent blunders show him to be a wuss. Tell Howard Stern that his VN was avoiding STIs does not look too great either. Bone spurs?..... You are correct, that was a medical condition Daddy paid for. He also had 4 deferments for college. Once he graduated in 68 and was eligible for the draft , the athlete developed bone spurs.

What proof do you have that his "Daddy" paid for a fraudulent medical report? As for Trump not having the guts to get involved, read and weep.

Chas.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid ... =3&theater

WTR wrote:I turned 18 at the end of 73. I did not go to Viet Nam. The closest I got was a Draft Card that the Gov. Never used. I knew people who lost their life in VN when there Moms and Dads could not pay a Dr. to sign off on a deferment.( not that they would have asked). I did go to College and actually found a way to graduate. What does that matter? Yes I would have gone in. I have had 62 good years with people loving me. If I caused nothing but a distraction and saved even one kiddo, it would have been worth trading lives.

When you said "deferment," I thought you meant Trump had a college deferment. If he was medically disqualified, then that wasn't a deferment, it was a medical disqualification that may or may not have resulted in a 4F classification.

I find it most interesting that you claim you would have gone in the school, but resolutely claim Trump would not. You base your opinion of Trump's willingness on a medical condition from 50 years ago. What possible good comes from attacking his sincerity as to what he would have done under the same circumstances?

Chas.

SewTexas wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

WTR wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

WTR wrote:Comments coming from a someone with five deferments for Vietnam Nam need to be tempered with reality. I don't think for a second that Trump would have gone in the school building. Gun or no gun.

- what? a person can't change in over 40 years? wow....I'm glad not everyone things like you!

- Also, I listened to this and I remember his words as being "I'd like to think I would go in....."
I could be wrong.....
I think everyone would "like to think they would go in within or without a weapon.....to save kids

I voted for the guy, but he needs to keep his feet out of his mouth. He rips the Deputies for not going in and says he would like to think he would have gone in without a gun. I guess he would like to think he answered his countries call during Vietnam Nam, and run in.

Were you in Vietnam? Did you go to college? Do you think you would have gone into the Parkland school?

Chas.

I'm not sure if this was to me or to WTR? if it was to me, I was a child during Vietnam, my dad was in the Navy at the time, so he didn't see any fighting. He had enlisted before it started. Like I said, I would like to think I would have gone in, but I don't think anyone knows until the situation presents itself.

The questions were directed to WTR who apparently feels a college deferment is something shameful. I want his experience.

Chas.

WTR wrote:

tool4daman wrote:

WTR wrote:Comments coming from a someone with five deferments for Vietnam Nam need to be tempered with reality. I don't think for a second that Trump would have gone in the school building. Gun or no gun.

Trump’s job isn’t to go into the building- Peterson’s was.

No argument. Just don't talk like a bad dude when past history shows otherwise. 'Don't be hypocritical and dis a guy for something you have run from in the past.

How about answering my questions. He's hardly being hypocritical when he says he thinks he'd go into a building. So what if he had a college deferment so he could go to college. That deferment only lasted until he was out of college.

Chas.

WTR wrote:

SewTexas wrote:

WTR wrote:Comments coming from a someone with five deferments for Vietnam Nam need to be tempered with reality. I don't think for a second that Trump would have gone in the school building. Gun or no gun.

- what? a person can't change in over 40 years? wow....I'm glad not everyone things like you!

- Also, I listened to this and I remember his words as being "I'd like to think I would go in....."
I could be wrong.....
I think everyone would "like to think they would go in within or without a weapon.....to save kids

I voted for the guy, but he needs to keep his feet out of his mouth. He rips the Deputies for not going in and says he would like to think he would have gone in without a gun. I guess he would like to think he answered his countries call during Vietnam Nam, and run in.

Were you in Vietnam? Did you go to college? Do you think you would have gone into the Parkland school?

Chas.

OlBill wrote:We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

He was a despicable coward who traded the lives of 17 people for his own. I don't care about his armor or armament he should have gone in and either killed the murderer or died trying. The fact that he is now claiming he did a good job because he called for help and gave the murder's location makes his cowardice even worse. Apparently the help that came also stayed outside; I guess Peterson needed consoling. Reports indicated that city police offers are the ones that went in as soon as they arrived. They too are disgusted at the cowardice exhibited by the deputy(ies).

I realize that some people naturally run to the sound of gunfire while others run away. The former are not fool-hearty and the latter are not cowards. That's just the way they are wired. If you put on the badge you better darn well be the kind of person that runs toward the gunfire. Peterson and three other deputies apparently were not and the body count was higher as a result of their cowardice.

You can double the size of your post trying to "analyze" Peterson's conduct and it won't justify his failure to act. His response should have been to instinctively run to save lives with no time for "reflection" as you attempt. I guess his response was instinctive for him; stay outside and listen to innocent kids and teachers die. Every hour he spent walking the campus wearing his uniform, badge and gun, he wasn't a peace officer, he was a fraud. People believed he would protect them to the best of his ability should the need ever arise, but he deceived everyone. He was nothing more than movie prop. His last day on the job was also his most important day on the job and he failed miserably.

May Jesus forgive me for feeling the way I do about Peterson and the other sorry excuses for men.
Chas.