Even if police are stationed specifically to stop somebody, with a numbers advantage and all the equipment they deemed necessary, they can literally just sit and watch you die with no reprecussions. They might get fired, but probably not.

how about the police themselves?

Honestly, they gotta give whoever does PR for police a raise because honestly, I had no idea they weren't obligated to jump into the danger when a civilian is in danger.

It might have been just my assumption (perhaps media influence) but I don't think it's common knowledge to know that.

Best part is that even if you are injured in the process, and they subdue the person who attacked you, they aren't even required to aid you if you are bleeding out.

Accurate.



It was an a tive shooter event when 18 cops were in the hallway.

Its not very hard to wrap your head around. Person A commits a crime. Person B does not commit a crime. Person B does not stop person A from committing a crime. No law exists saying "failure to stop other people from committing crimes is a crime". So person A is guilty of a crime, person B is not.
Again, its an example of when its quite easy to understand when you approach a subject dispassionately and logically, rather than screaming about moral outrage


The chief who spoke is one of those people with the fire under his ass and speaking to protect himself, looking to throw someone to the wolves to save his own skin.
One of the officers who actually got shot being a hero trying to save kids lives, was quoted as saying its a shame they come off looking like cowards for following their tactical plan but its not as big a shame as kids dying as they wish they could have done more. Which seems like a reasonable sentiment.


Facts are, both given what officers knew at the scene and what we know right now, that the situation most resembled a barricaded suspect / hostage scenario. Not an active shooter. With 60 minutes elapsed apparently without the gunman trying to shoot anyone other than responding officers. Which still left those inside the room at risk a la hostage scenario / maybe some needing medical aid (not clear, I mean we're talking rifle caliber). And with a steel door they couldn't force down and a suspect able to shoot through it, its unlikely any attempt to force entry would be successful. So the attempt probably would have just gotten more people killed without neutralizing the gunman. And as long as everyone's running around screaming their moral outrage and steeped heavy in their prejudice, that's just going to bounce off deaf ears.



Massacre occurred at 11:33
19 cops were in the hallway starting at 12:03
The only shots fired between 11:37 and 12:50 when they breached the door, were reportedly at the police at the doorway at 12:21.

The live shooter response scenario was specifically designed to stop events like columbine where shooters are walking around looking for people and killing them on sight. Whereas hostage/barricade scenarios require a different approach. What's being second guessed is the decision to treat it as the latter, and yet there's a good argument it was actually the choice that might have saved lives overall. Its clear the guy wasn't walking room to room shooting people at that point, and the officers knew that at the time.

What would have happened if the officers charged up to the door with no key or bulletproof shield and tried to pry it open? And the gunman just poured rifle fire on them. Do they shoot blindly into the room and risk killing more kids, without any idea if hostages are right on the other side? What do they do when they fail to open the door? They already knew at that point it was going to be virtually impossible to breach without a key. They needed to get the janitor even faster, or what?

This post was edited by Goomshill on May 28 2022 08:20pm

If you're talking about a civilian, I think what you're saying is fine. Unless you're saying that the police is just a civilian as well.

But my assumption was that the job of the police officers would predicate to serve and to protect.

I get WHY they are not legally liable, I'm just surprised that it IS the way it is.

Basically, if Person A is shooting (but missing the shots) at Person B, and there's a police officer standing close enough near by, the idea that they would not get in trouble legally for just watching it transpire and not doing anything to help Person B is wild to me. But I suppose that's a moral argument rather than a legal argument.

You assume because we disagree that we don't understand.

Everybody understands.

As you said, it's not a hard concept.

You're just making yourself look dumb by assuming we don't understand, rathern than actually reading and realizing it's a disagreement.

Their job is to prevent crimes.

Without any good samaritan law- which apply to civilians as well in all current incarnations- it simply lacks the elements of a crime. There's no action, no intent, no harm caused by them. There's no law against ignorance, cowardice or apathy. Committing a crime means you made a decision, performed an act, caused the harm. It can be indirect intent, like choosing to drink and drive and thus having criminal liability for an unintended accident. It can be failing to perform an action, like negligent care for a child in your custody. It can be an attempt that tried and failed to produce harm, like attempted murder. But what it can't be is merely the existence of an opportunity you failed to act upon, that your proximity gave you an option, one without any preexisting relationship.

There are all kinds of recourses beyond what is criminal. Cops that fail to act according to their sworn duty are violating their code of ethics, grounds for reprimand or dismissal. A city that failed to train officers to intervene can be held liable in civil court for damages.