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!*
"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.
@@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.
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...
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
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.
@@inciiopath 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
late but whispers had been increasingly going about that it was allowed to happen in order to create justification for harsher gun control. to a lesser degree alot of high profile shootings have similar hypothesis because of the piles of interactions the state would have with the shooter before hand in alot of cases but Uvalde is especially egregious in this.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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 TH-camr 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
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
"...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?
@@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.
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.
@@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.
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.
@@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 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
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."
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 :(
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.
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
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 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.
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.
@@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.
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
@@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'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 .
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."
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).
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I really appreciate the mature and appropriate mood of this video, and I love the deeper dive into this issue. I must say, it is absolutely absurd to me that the police, generally speaking, have no legal duty to act to protect or serve anyone. As an EMT, if I showed up to a patient's home and waited outside for an obscenely long time before entering to help them, I would 100% be fired and potentially sued over my failure to meet a basic standard of care. The fact that police are not held to the same legal, moral, and ethical standard as other public safety personnel enables tragedies like Uvalde to happen.
Ah, but you see you don't have an enormous, extremely well-funded, hugely staffed union that will back you no matter *what* you did in your corner. The police have that, qualified immunity, and the threat that the police will simply 'stop providing emergency services' (with semiveiled threats that they'll 'publicly announce' that they're stopping those services to encourage crime) if a city decides 'we don't like how you're refusing to deal with the problem, so we're cutting some of your budget'. Even if we were to hold them to your standards, it would be impossible to actually hold them to them as they have enormous protections against having standards being applied to them. You're doing the work of a professional. They're employed by what amounts to a gang who runs a national protection racket, has senators in its pocket, a union ready to fight anything, and the ability to both investigate itself in cases of misconduct and declare itself unilaterally to have 'done no wrong'.
From my understanding, the entire purpose of the police is to protect corporations and states, not people. Someone more experienced can explain further, but this is just from what I’ve seen happen here.
Police should be licensed the same way medical caregivers are and be subject to having that license permanently revoked if they fail to fulfill their duties. I'm in agreement that there shouldn't be legal ramifications for failure to act, but we have no need for police who violate ethics or fail to fulfill their responsibilities.
What is absurd is that we pass firearms acts that specifically exclude the police from the restrictions that are imposed on the rest of us; and then we are taxed in order to purchase these restricted items for the police. What we should be doing is disarming the police to save money and start issuing sticks of chalk to them, since they don't use the weapons we purchased for them and only show up to draw chalk outlines around us.
you being an EMT know scene safety is the very first thing you consider, and as I understand there were 4 officers on scene and in the fog is it 1 shooter 4 maybe maybe its a full milita in the fog you don't know. how many car crashes have you been to where central will say no injuries, wait now we have ten obvious killed, wait 100 wounded, now that is exerataded however you don't know. you need to establish command evacuate the building, triage and eliminate the threat.
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 🤷
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
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.
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.
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."
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.
"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.
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.
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
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"
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
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.
Genuine question--if the cops admit that they were waiting for the shooter to run out of ammo before going in because they didn't want to get shot, would that arguably meet the "shock the conscience" requirement since running out of ammo implies that ammo is being used? Would that qualify as intending to harm?
Legally probably not, as the court defines it the cops themselves would have to be shooting children. Since the ammo is being used was from the shooter the cops wouldn't be considered as the ones causing harm. The most important thing to take away from this is that cops are not here to protect you, they are here to protect the property rights of the wealth, that is their primary function.
No. Unless it turns out that the shooter actually didn't do anything and the cops went on a rampage and murdered all those kids, not a single Uvalde cop is going to face criminal or civil charges. That's the Justice System for you.
yes, but why would the police union every say that in court. it sucks, i wondering if the fact that some cops did get some kids out, so they did go in, then why did they not do more. that makes no sense
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.
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.
“I’m not gonna hide the ball, the answer is almost certainly no” broke my heart. It’s not your fault, I appreciate you always telling us the truth Devon ❤️ but there need to be changes.
@@OpalBLeigh they do protect (the people that pay them the most). Every situation that effects our society negatively points us to the same solution. Tax the rich
@@tirzah9929 Yeah, No one ever thought to chase criminals, protect citizens or enforce the laws of the land before then, only to catch slaves. It makes no sense but what does in the culture war.
One claim I recall reading was that police at the scene shouted to yell "help" if there was someone there that needed help, and some of the kids who complied with that request were then targeted by the shooter (since yelling gave away their position). If that is true, then didn't the police make the situation worse and put those kids in more danger than they otherwise would have been in?
It isn’t true. What did happen was the shooter yelled out to the kids if they need help to say help and when the little girl did he shot her. The cops couldn’t get in because of the way the door opens and you can’t Mule kick a metal steel outward opening door. It’s designed for outward opening in the event of a active shooter. The cops didn’t just “stand there” 2 officers were shot through the wall by the shooter and since he was inside the classroom with kids the cops couldn’t shoot through the wall themselves because they risked killing kids by not seeing them. They couldn’t just rush in because it was a hostage situation and as soon as they would have gotten in (again they needed special tools to breach this type of door) the shooter would have killed way more kids. You should really wait until the actual reports come out instead of listening to this lawyer who is so far up his ass he did what the mainstream media did and wanted to break this news and crucify the police officers instead of giving them due process. Turns out the police officers did actually do everything they were trained to do and instead of being an armchair quarterback why don’t you get off your ass and go apply to be a cop and when this situation arises again you can show us how it’s done 💪
Yes. That's why calling the police is almost always a bad idea. They have no obligation to help you and they have the authority to make the situation worse - and you have no recourse against them.
@@GerryRR exactly. Like if you shoot the shooter to get them to stop, the police can shoot you/charge you with murder. Damned if you do, damned if you don't and the police are there to enforce the damning.
@@GerryRR Great point, that reminds me of a point I always wonder about. The police are completely useless, and we know that, but a bunch of people who want to abolish the police force also want to universally ban firearm ownership. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
They made the situation worse just by being here and doing nothing. The shooter is going to feel more pressured if he knows the police is around. In other words, not calling the police would have been better.
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.
Kind of surprised to see so many people didn’t know we don’t have a right to government aid or protection. They have been doing this to certain groups of people for decades. One of the reason why the amount of time it takes for the police to respond depends on where the help is needed. Some areas, cops just don’t respond at all or far to late.
If they have no obligation to protect us and we have no right to government aid or assistance, then literally why are they even getting taxpayer money?!?
We all know they've been doing this to _certain groups of people_ for decades. The surprise isn't that the police don't always help, the surprise is that it's _legal_ for them to _never_ help.
I was always under the assumption that the purpose of government was to provide health, security, and comfort to its citizens to the best of its ability in exchange for taxes. But I'm starting to realize that's not so true. In the US the majority of people enjoy relative comfort and foreign security but domestic security and health are two things that I believe I'm also entitled to and the government needs to do some serious work in these areas. If the economy keeps up the way it's been we may soon lose many of our comforts as well. Unfortunately, many of these complaints are hard to address because of the more fundamental problem that we do not have a fair democracy. Issues like gerrymandering and first past the post voting plague our capital with politicians that do not accurately represent the people. First, we must stabilize our democracy, and second, we must stabilize our country. After we do those 2 things we will be in a much better place to address other issues like climate change and foreign affairs. This whole process starts with informing people about the problems with our democracy and the solutions so we can get more people to push harder for change. This would then likely snowball as more representative politicians enter office who are more likely to work for the people rather than against.
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.
@@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.
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
@@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?
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.
@@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.
@Peter Cee 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.
@@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
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”
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.
"After your child is murdered, the first thing we do is protect the side that ensures murderers get more guns. If you disagree, youre a traitor. You're welcome."
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.
@@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
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?
The problem with these rulings, IMO, is that when taken in with the rulings involving qualified immunity, it places law enforcement almost entirely above the law they are supposed to be enforcing. Which leads, inexorably, to forms of police corruption like civil forfeiture, for-profit prisons, and uncontrolled use of force.
Ultimately, it's up to the legislature to fix this, and it's up to us to push them to fix it. When police lobbies start their scare tactics, talk about it with your friends and family. Explain why "tough on crime" politicians are worse than politicians who treat crime as a systemic issue that can only be solved with smart use of social services.
Judges are priests in a death cult. They will gladly sacrifice as many lives as they see fit on the altar of their precious constitution. They don't care about the real world consequences of their rulings. They care about their "religion."
If I heard correctly, this particular county's police department, which receive 40-60% of the county budget, was advertising the need for police jobs by outright saying you become above the law.
I can understand that are potential scenarios in which a cop is like “I’m not willing to endanger my life to deescalate this situation” like a bar fight gone wrong, but I simply don’t understand how anyone could say with a straight face “I’m not legally obligated to protect innocent children from being murdered by a psychopath”. I know the Supreme Court ruled this, but I feel like most people would agree that the most important service a law enforcement should provide is protection from dangerous people. If law enforcement can’t even provide that, what’s even the point of having cops?
Exactly! The police only exist to punish citizens. As an institution they are your national class enemies. If we want police to protect us we need to build a new institution and remove this old one.
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.
@@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.
@@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?
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?
I'm going to be intentionally vague. Back in the early 2000's, I was the psychiatrist tasked with giving clinical recommendations to social services as to the fitness of a parent and/or the abuse of children. The reason I was, quite literally, FORCED into this task is because of a mandate from the state that required all professionals with my specific license to do a certain number of free hours to "give back" to the community. Of course, the only hours that counted were the ones that they deemed appropriate. Even those who already worked for the state in state facilities on a part time volunteer basis were required to do this. It was, thankfully, a short lived program. I tell you this because I want to make it clear that I did NOT choose to be in the position I found myself in and had no control over it. We were, in essence, the state window dressing their failed programs. Someone who was in the process of retiring filed a lawsuit against the state and, after a couple of years, won. Anyway, I made a recommendation regarding a child under a year old. The child, who was otherwise very healthy, had spent more time in the hospital than most cancer patients would in a year. It was CLEAR to everyone from the ER doctors, the nurses, the specialists, and me that this child was being battered. Every one of us reported back to the social service agency and her primary caseworker what was going on. Nothing was being done. I lived in a fairly small area at that time. I was good friends with several police officers. One night I get a call from one of them and he asks if he can stop by the house, it's after midnight. He came to tell me that he had left the scene and the child had been rushed to the hospital and had died. He didn't want me to hear about it on the news in the morning. He and I had discussed the case at length and my frustration that our reports were being ignored. The father had picked the child up by the legs and swung the head of the baby into the wall. Death was caused by massive head trauma. He was arrested for the murder of his baby. The mother was also arrested. The social worker that had been tasked with dealing with the matter had ignored over a dozen medical reports. He then lied and claimed that he had been to the house the day before and it was a nice, clean and well-kept environment. I saw the photos of the crime scene.....I saw weeks worth of garbage on the floor, including old pizza boxes that had the date of the order still on them. Some of them were older than the child. The social worker had never bothered to go to the house. He believed the father that I (and many others) were just "over dramatic women who hated men." The social worker had issues with ME, specifically because I have a doctorate in clinical psychology......a program he had failed to gain admission to and he apparently always claimed it was because they were being politically correct and chose less qualified women over him (Like him, I attended university so long ago that PC wasn't even invented yet.) The mother of the child cited "Battered Woman Syndrome" and was acquitted. The father was convicted and sentenced to a few decades. He's likely going to be paroled by the end of this decade. While out on bail, the father not only committed a few other crimes (he never actually hit his ex.......she later admitted that) he got a tattoo that reads "In loving memory of "child's name"" Oh, the social worker that did nothing? Well he made the local agency look bad (remember, small town) and so they forced him to retire early......they paid out the remaining terms of his contract in a lump sum and he had been living on a pension for the last 20+ years life.....he died a little over a year ago. When questioned about being responsible for the death of that child, the social worker said on the witness stand that, "I'm a social worker. If the parents of the child fail to provide proper care, why should I expected to do so or held responsible if they don't?" Everyone from the attorney questioning him to the judge, were literally struck silent. The attorney responded, "Because it was your job." He answered, "It was the the job of the parents and they didn't do it." The attorney looked at him and said, "Yes, and they are on trial for the murder of "baby name." The prosecutor tried to do something but there was nothing to do. The law protected him for not doing his job. I quit that job at that point. I was close to the border of another state and was already licensed there so I started working and eventually moved to be closer to work. That baby still haunts me.
I’m so sorry. Thank you for sharing your story and your emotions about this mess with us all. It was a brave thing to do and we thank you for your vulnerability. Please take care of yourself and I hope that you find peace someday ❤️
I'm not surprised at all. I was routinely abused by adults while I was growing up I'm the 80's and nothing was ever done about it. I even had a teacher duct tape my mouth shut when I was in kindergarten.
You wrote that you're a psychiatrist and later that you have a doctorate in clinical psychology. Which is it or do you have both an MD or DO and a PhD or PsyD?
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.
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?"
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.
@@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.
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").
As someone from a country with police by consent, this is shocking. As a human, its disgusting to think the police don't have a duty of care for the public.
Can they be sued for actively preventing others from helping? In this case they didn't just stand aside and do nothing. They used force to prevent parents from going in and trying to save their kids. The effectively served as guards for the shooter. If anyone but a cop had guarded the entrance and prevented cops from going in to help they would be a criminal accomplice. They didn't fail to provide protection they aided in the killing.
He describes the 5th circuit in the video. This was a failed rescue mission and the police were "protecting" parents while securing the area so it all applies
@@worldsedge4991 I agree with You Worldsedge, but sadly @Luis Sousa is right. Cops have special protections in the law that would prevent accusations of aiding & abiding the killing, as opposed to anyone else taking similar actions.
I'm sure there are dozens of actual "Legal" reasons covering the Police from not allowing Untrained Civilians who feel like Playing Hero into Crime Scenes, Active Shootings, or Hostage Situations.
The answer "no" is something I learned at the bright age of 14. Omw back home from school. I live in an apartment so I took the stairs to my floor where I start noticing that my door is open I slowly approach my house where I can see the balcony is open and there is stuff thrown everywhere. I almost walked in when I heard stuff still being thrown and tossed up. In fear I ran back to the stairwell and called 911 to tell them I am being robbed. I explained that I am a minor and that my parents won't be home for another hour or so since that day my parents took my brother to the doctors. The operator asked if I was safe and that the police would be otw shortly. In fear and panic I asked the operator to stay with me on the phone til they arrived. The operator stayed with me for over 45mins and became slowly less hopeful that someone would respond. After the 45mins the operator said that they could no longer stay with me on the phone. Even though I explained that the kitchen drawers where we keep knifes was one of the drawers I say that was open and knifes spilled on the ground. The cops came 3 days later btw.
@@tevarinvagabond1192 Uvalde shows that police officers will EASILY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY leave MULTIPLE KIDS within DIRECT LINE-OF-FIRE of someone actively committing a crime, without doing a single goddamn thing to stop the criminal or ensure the safety of the kids. So, yeah, I call BS on your 'calling BS".
@Tevarin - police do not have to turn up. That's literally what this video tells you. And your answer is "BS". Check yourself in the mirror, you are biased.
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?
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
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
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.
I think it's important to everyone to think about the nature of police. They are empowered by the state to inflict violence upon its own citizens, yet have no obligation to use that power for the benefit of citizens, and have essentially free reign to inflict violence without consequences. That is not community defense, that is an occupying army.
Totally agree. I am pretty much at the point of no confidence in our police. We should just disband the entire force - especially since they have no duty to "protect and serve" except their own wellbeing and interests. The current system is not what it's supposed to be. People are better off without them. Learn how to defend yourselves, because you're all that you can count on. Our government has no interested in the protection of its citizens - they are just using and manipulating us.
@@Its__Good Except for Gerrymandering, coerced thought through mass advertisments, and elections where the majority candidate lose. Yeah, totally responsible.
So strange…I remember back in high school during a CPR class I had to take for lifeguard certification, they told us that if someone is choking in our presence, we have the right to not say anything/not try to help. But the second we do begin to help, we can be held liable if the person is not saved by our attempt. Crazy that a teenage lifeguard can be held liable for helping and failing but police can’t be held liable for not even trying to help in the first place
That maybe the case when you were a teenager, but that is not the case now. A teenage lifeguard can't be held liable for performing CPR on anyone as long as he/she doesn't attempt to perform any medical procedures outside of the typical CPR training they received.
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.
@@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.
I already knew the answer was “no” from the onset of this. Years ago: The police watched as a man got stabbed multiple times in a subway and hid in another cart. They only moved in after the attacker was subdued… by the guy getting turned into Swiss cheese. Their reason: they thought the guy using the knife actually had a gun. So they stayed put. So was the guy hailed as a hero for stopping him? Nope! The police department gave credit to the two officers after they went in to arrest the maniac. The courts ruled the police had no duty to help the guy being carved up like a pumpkin as a special duty didn’t exist because no promises were made to protect a man who had experienced the wrath of a crazed murderer with a knife. I love America. /sarcasm
@@bannedmann4469 Unfortunately, a lot of people still do. It's very easy to simply not know about their lack of a duty to actually protect the public. There have been many cases where that was made clear but they were relatively small to this tragedy. This will be really hard to ignore.
This is all REALLY hitting home just HOW IMPORTANT the 2nd Ammendment is. If we can't depend on the police for protection than it is up to citizens to be willing to protect them selves.
Isnt that the guy who said towel guy was a hero because some random dude with a towel or napkin or paper towels was there putting pressure on his wounds so he didnt bleed out?
The first case you cited with the 4 year old brings back memories of why I eventually resigned as a LEO. I made every effort to remove a four year old boy from his drug addict mother who had a string of drug addict boyfriends and filed multiple child car and protection orders, but the social workers all fell for the mother's sob stories and kept giving the kid back to the mother. Even a case I brought myself had the judge give the kid back to the mother after she went to rehab. A few months later the boy was dead after being beaten to death by a new boyfriend. I was so angry I showed up at the court house drunk and heckled the judge and then went to the social welfare office and told the social worker that she's as responsible as the mother and boyfriend for the boy's death. I was sent for counseling by our department and put on desk duty and later transfered out of the Community Policing Squad into the District Support Group. Just couldn't deal with the apathetic views of the social workers or the State. A few months later I resigned and went to work as a Close Protection Officer for VIPs. Most of these social workers are underpaid and sympathize with the mother, not the child and really don't act because they're trying to cover their asses. Same with these laws, they are written to protect the State from law suits, not protect citizens. As for the school shooting. Most every cop I served with would have chased down that shooter and put an end to him in moments, since none of us would have stood by and listened while he shot kids. Don't know what sort of cops they're recruiting these days, but they also seem like "cover your ass" cowards.
I know a state trooper up in Minnesota and he told me about their hiring practice apparently there are two windows for police positions one for people that are actually qualified to do the job with either prior experience as an officer or with a law degree and one with basically everyone else. They only look at the qualified people after they are done hiring from the everyone else category. Now I don't know what its like elsewhere but when I heard that there are a lot of qualified that basically just get pushed to the sidelines while these idiots get hired it really pissed me off.
@@johnlarson5027 Qualified = prior training that might contradict ours. Now that could mean "We don't want any gun toting yahoos from Sundown Town P.D. going out blasting", or it could mean "we are those yahoos, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, yeehaw"
I used to be a big time feminist because as a man, I feel naturally protective of women and children. I got a psychology degree and became a social worker. What I discovered was a ton of self center women, doing everything in the world to flatter their own virtue signaling butts and also to cover their butts when ever anything went wrong. They also had a strong bias against any body who was white or male even if they were white or male. Iim sure we all agree that it is wrong to have a "good ol boy club" that benefits men over women or whites over minorities but I have discovered that being just as biased in the other direction is just as harmful. It is not "justice" as it is commonly espoused by "progressives." It was wrong in the 1950s and it's just as wrong today. Pro-woman biases in our government do nothing to discourage bad behavior in women and rob said women of any ability to learn ethics and morality and encourage narcissism, almost making women blameless in their self centered oblivion.
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.
Here's the problem I have with the special relationship: as soon as the state authorities interfere or threaten to interfere with a citizen attempting to protect another from a hostile individual or party, they are either assuming responsibility for the protection or are aiding the hostile.
While that sounds reasonable, the courts have not held private entities liable for disarming individuals and failing to protect them. I don't see why they would rule differently in the case of the government when you are not in their custody.
Right? If you're actively impeding the efforts of those who ARE willing to render aid, and that action allows the perpetrator to continue their criminal action, how are the police NOT acting as accessories to the crime?
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.
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 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.
“Or otherwise prevented by the state from caring for herself” Unlike the students in ulvade who were incapable of caring for themselves as children and whose parents were prevented from caring for them by the police
Wow. So in Texas, if you're a public school teacher, you are required by law to report any suspicion of abuse. You can be found criminally liable (and people have) of not reporting. But apparently, once you report, the people aren't actually legally (criminally) obligated to act.
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
It was my final year of high school when the Columbine shooting happened, the police behaved exactly the same then, and we all learned the exact same thing when police went unpunished for their negligence. 23 years was a lot of time for nothing to change and for people to forget this lesson.
While tragic, it was not negligence in the Columbine case. Prevailing police doctrine at the time was for officers to wait for backup, form a squad of around 4 or more, and enter the building and begin clearing it. It was after other shootings, particularly Virginia Tech, that police doctrine changed. The new thought is to engage the shooter as quickly as possible. Some departments in Southern California (police training differs widely per department) are taught to enter immediately, even if you are the only one, run towards the sound of gunshots, or walk in the direction they were last heard. In Parkland's case, only SRO Scot Peterson and the Broward County Sheriffs deputies on scene know if they were cowards or confused by the fog of the situation.
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.
As a fellow attorney, I agree, your analysis is spot on. I actually think the best path towards culpability for the officers is not that they failed to act in stopping the shooter, for all the reasons you said. Rather, the fact that they prevented the parents from going in themselves to attempt to save their kids may be a violation of the parent's rights. Because, this is not simply failing in a "duty to protect" that the courts have been reluctant to recognize, but rather that they actively took actions to prevent others from saving the kids.
Genuine question: If the police have a duty to serve "the public, but not individual citizens," does that (not) imply that "individual citizens are not members of the public"? Or is there a narrow legal definition of the term "public" that is being employed here?
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." 🙄
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.
@@jackskellingtonsora According to Legal Eagle, that's exactly what "serving the public" has been interpreted to mean. They serve corporations, not individuals.
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 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.
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.
Um so it’s terrifying to me that children are compelled to go to school, they’re legally compelled to BE SOMEWHERE by government mandated laws. But then the people who force them to be there bear no legal responsibility for them during the time that they’re there. Like when I was in high school my teachers would sometimes vaguely reference how the school is legally responsible for me until my parents pick me up and regain custody. But if a school cannot guarantee or be responsible for my child’s physical protection, how can I be required to send them to school? And how can a school be responsible for a child when the government that legislates the school and finds them is not responsible for the child. I think this is a legal loophole that definitely needs to be changed. Also um are psych pts like 72hr hold or longer considered in govt custody? What’s the law there?
They aren't, you can protect your children by homeschooling them. It's more vital to do this now than ever before, not just to protect them from violence, but also the "knowledge" imparted by public Marxist schools.
Another commentor said that as a teacher they're legally responsible for the kids in some ways. It makes me wonder if that's how the government justifies not offering any more custodial protection.
@@HzizsVynryn I personally think so. The idea probably is that there has to be a “person” in charge, so that can be a teacher or the school staff collectively, but not the government as a whole or something since it’s a larger entity or some arbitrary stipulation. (That’s by best guess.)
Agreed. Children are going to a school created by the state and someone will be punished if you're not consistently going there. The idea that they are not in a special relation with the state seems like a thought that can only be held in a complete clown world.
I remember back when I was in highschool, I was super truant all the time. So the school would occasionally send actual police officers to my house to force me to go. Funny how they can send police to bring you to school but not be obliged to protect you when you're there.. I feel so safe!
As an NCO in the U.S. Air Force, I was required to perform my duties at hazard to life and limb if so lawfully ordered, under some pretty harsh penalties for refusing depending on the circumstance. Isn't it awesome that I could instead have been a cop and had all sorts of immunity to practically everything.
Funny that you mention the laws of the military are more effective at making you honorably do your duty. Makes me wonder if just putting the police under the regulations of martial law would straighten them out at this point. It’s harsh I know, but when the department sacrificed many for their wellbeing instead of properly protecting and serving then perhaps they need it now.
@@staticaleel5068 I've thought about this and it scares me just as much as it comforts me. On one hand, military oversight will straighten out several problems with how the law is handled. On the other, that means there is an actual occupying force in every city in the country (albeit small in most cases). I think the best option is somewhere in the middle, where they act as a civilian branch (?) under the same regulations.
It makes sense that they care whether or not you do nothing in the military. At that point you're protecting government property when you take action, so of course they give a crap about that. :)
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.
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.
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
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.
As an abused victim in the 80's and 90's I can verify the laws were different and horrible. I was never removed and could not speak to anyone with out my aunt's permission. Dozens of calls and nothing was ever done but me getting in to trouble because someone saw some one. My injuries were always from "sports." I have always wanted legal justice for my continual PTSD, night terrors, and personal issues. When I tried going to court I was told it was to late. I should have got an attorney at age 11.
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.
"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...
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.
@@inciiopath 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
Exactly. These coward pigs were quick enough to jump on and arrest anyone who was trying to save those kids.
late but whispers had been increasingly going about that it was allowed to happen in order to create justification for harsher gun control. to a lesser degree alot of high profile shootings have similar hypothesis because of the piles of interactions the state would have with the shooter before hand in alot of cases but Uvalde is especially egregious in this.
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 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.
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)
"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.
*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
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 TH-camr 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.
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.
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..."
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
EXACTLYYYY
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.
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 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".
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
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'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
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).
@@Videogamer-555truancy
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
"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.
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.
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.
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 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
I really appreciate the mature and appropriate mood of this video, and I love the deeper dive into this issue.
I must say, it is absolutely absurd to me that the police, generally speaking, have no legal duty to act to protect or serve anyone. As an EMT, if I showed up to a patient's home and waited outside for an obscenely long time before entering to help them, I would 100% be fired and potentially sued over my failure to meet a basic standard of care.
The fact that police are not held to the same legal, moral, and ethical standard as other public safety personnel enables tragedies like Uvalde to happen.
Ah, but you see you don't have an enormous, extremely well-funded, hugely staffed union that will back you no matter *what* you did in your corner. The police have that, qualified immunity, and the threat that the police will simply 'stop providing emergency services' (with semiveiled threats that they'll 'publicly announce' that they're stopping those services to encourage crime) if a city decides 'we don't like how you're refusing to deal with the problem, so we're cutting some of your budget'. Even if we were to hold them to your standards, it would be impossible to actually hold them to them as they have enormous protections against having standards being applied to them.
You're doing the work of a professional. They're employed by what amounts to a gang who runs a national protection racket, has senators in its pocket, a union ready to fight anything, and the ability to both investigate itself in cases of misconduct and declare itself unilaterally to have 'done no wrong'.
From my understanding, the entire purpose of the police is to protect corporations and states, not people. Someone more experienced can explain further, but this is just from what I’ve seen happen here.
Police should be licensed the same way medical caregivers are and be subject to having that license permanently revoked if they fail to fulfill their duties. I'm in agreement that there shouldn't be legal ramifications for failure to act, but we have no need for police who violate ethics or fail to fulfill their responsibilities.
What is absurd is that we pass firearms acts that specifically exclude the police from the restrictions that are imposed on the rest of us; and then we are taxed in order to purchase these restricted items for the police. What we should be doing is disarming the police to save money and start issuing sticks of chalk to them, since they don't use the weapons we purchased for them and only show up to draw chalk outlines around us.
you being an EMT know scene safety is the very first thing you consider, and as I understand there were 4 officers on scene and in the fog is it 1 shooter 4 maybe maybe its a full milita in the fog you don't know. how many car crashes have you been to where central will say no injuries, wait now we have ten obvious killed, wait 100 wounded, now that is exerataded however you don't know. you need to establish command evacuate the building, triage and eliminate the threat.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Genuine question--if the cops admit that they were waiting for the shooter to run out of ammo before going in because they didn't want to get shot, would that arguably meet the "shock the conscience" requirement since running out of ammo implies that ammo is being used? Would that qualify as intending to harm?
They were protecting the shooter from being stopped by the parents. Thats being complicit.
Legally probably not, as the court defines it the cops themselves would have to be shooting children. Since the ammo is being used was from the shooter the cops wouldn't be considered as the ones causing harm.
The most important thing to take away from this is that cops are not here to protect you, they are here to protect the property rights of the wealth, that is their primary function.
No. Unless it turns out that the shooter actually didn't do anything and the cops went on a rampage and murdered all those kids, not a single Uvalde cop is going to face criminal or civil charges. That's the Justice System for you.
yes, but why would the police union every say that in court. it sucks, i wondering if the fact that some cops did get some kids out, so they did go in, then why did they not do more. that makes no sense
@@gnoxycat "Complicit" is the best case scenario, frankly. Something isn't adding up. I think they were working with the guy.
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.
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.
“I’m not gonna hide the ball, the answer is almost certainly no” broke my heart. It’s not your fault, I appreciate you always telling us the truth Devon ❤️ but there need to be changes.
Makes you wonder what the police are even for.
@@Hughes81 catching runaway slaves
@@Hughes81 Prototecting property and capital. Richest get priority, of course.
@@OpalBLeigh they do protect (the people that pay them the most). Every situation that effects our society negatively points us to the same solution. Tax the rich
@@tirzah9929 Yeah, No one ever thought to chase criminals, protect citizens or enforce the laws of the land before then, only to catch slaves. It makes no sense but what does in the culture war.
One claim I recall reading was that police at the scene shouted to yell "help" if there was someone there that needed help, and some of the kids who complied with that request were then targeted by the shooter (since yelling gave away their position). If that is true, then didn't the police make the situation worse and put those kids in more danger than they otherwise would have been in?
It isn’t true. What did happen was the shooter yelled out to the kids if they need help to say help and when the little girl did he shot her. The cops couldn’t get in because of the way the door opens and you can’t Mule kick a metal steel outward opening door. It’s designed for outward opening in the event of a active shooter. The cops didn’t just “stand there” 2 officers were shot through the wall by the shooter and since he was inside the classroom with kids the cops couldn’t shoot through the wall themselves because they risked killing kids by not seeing them. They couldn’t just rush in because it was a hostage situation and as soon as they would have gotten in (again they needed special tools to breach this type of door) the shooter would have killed way more kids. You should really wait until the actual reports come out instead of listening to this lawyer who is so far up his ass he did what the mainstream media did and wanted to break this news and crucify the police officers instead of giving them due process. Turns out the police officers did actually do everything they were trained to do and instead of being an armchair quarterback why don’t you get off your ass and go apply to be a cop and when this situation arises again you can show us how it’s done 💪
Yes. That's why calling the police is almost always a bad idea. They have no obligation to help you and they have the authority to make the situation worse - and you have no recourse against them.
@@GerryRR exactly. Like if you shoot the shooter to get them to stop, the police can shoot you/charge you with murder. Damned if you do, damned if you don't and the police are there to enforce the damning.
@@GerryRR Great point, that reminds me of a point I always wonder about. The police are completely useless, and we know that, but a bunch of people who want to abolish the police force also want to universally ban firearm ownership. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
They made the situation worse just by being here and doing nothing. The shooter is going to feel more pressured if he knows the police is around. In other words, not calling the police would have been better.
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.
Kind of surprised to see so many people didn’t know we don’t have a right to government aid or protection. They have been doing this to certain groups of people for decades. One of the reason why the amount of time it takes for the police to respond depends on where the help is needed. Some areas, cops just don’t respond at all or far to late.
I was thinking this to its part of why some community dislike law enforcement they will show up
If they have no obligation to protect us and we have no right to government aid or assistance, then literally why are they even getting taxpayer money?!?
We all know they've been doing this to _certain groups of people_ for decades. The surprise isn't that the police don't always help, the surprise is that it's _legal_ for them to _never_ help.
@@bullmoosemedia So they can buy their big guns and armor and look like tough guys when they use force on the weak.
I was always under the assumption that the purpose of government was to provide health, security, and comfort to its citizens to the best of its ability in exchange for taxes. But I'm starting to realize that's not so true. In the US the majority of people enjoy relative comfort and foreign security but domestic security and health are two things that I believe I'm also entitled to and the government needs to do some serious work in these areas. If the economy keeps up the way it's been we may soon lose many of our comforts as well. Unfortunately, many of these complaints are hard to address because of the more fundamental problem that we do not have a fair democracy. Issues like gerrymandering and first past the post voting plague our capital with politicians that do not accurately represent the people. First, we must stabilize our democracy, and second, we must stabilize our country. After we do those 2 things we will be in a much better place to address other issues like climate change and foreign affairs. This whole process starts with informing people about the problems with our democracy and the solutions so we can get more people to push harder for change. This would then likely snowball as more representative politicians enter office who are more likely to work for the people rather than against.
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.
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?
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.
"The police have no duty to protect you."
"Then let me protect myself."
"No, only the police get to protect you."
Precisely
@Peter Cee 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
That's why we have the 2nd amendment!!!
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...
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.
"After your child is murdered, the first thing we do is protect the side that ensures murderers get more guns. If you disagree, youre a traitor. You're welcome."
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
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.
The problem with these rulings, IMO, is that when taken in with the rulings involving qualified immunity, it places law enforcement almost entirely above the law they are supposed to be enforcing.
Which leads, inexorably, to forms of police corruption like civil forfeiture, for-profit prisons, and uncontrolled use of force.
No one should be freely immune to any legal responsibility. Especially public officials. It's absurd, and it ought to be illegal.
@@bernlin2000
That's the joke.
It IS and isn't, depending on where you sit.
Ultimately, it's up to the legislature to fix this, and it's up to us to push them to fix it. When police lobbies start their scare tactics, talk about it with your friends and family. Explain why "tough on crime" politicians are worse than politicians who treat crime as a systemic issue that can only be solved with smart use of social services.
Judges are priests in a death cult. They will gladly sacrifice as many lives as they see fit on the altar of their precious constitution. They don't care about the real world consequences of their rulings. They care about their "religion."
If I heard correctly, this particular county's police department, which receive 40-60% of the county budget, was advertising the need for police jobs by outright saying you become above the law.
I can understand that are potential scenarios in which a cop is like “I’m not willing to endanger my life to deescalate this situation” like a bar fight gone wrong, but I simply don’t understand how anyone could say with a straight face “I’m not legally obligated to protect innocent children from being murdered by a psychopath”.
I know the Supreme Court ruled this, but I feel like most people would agree that the most important service a law enforcement should provide is protection from dangerous people. If law enforcement can’t even provide that, what’s even the point of having cops?
From the government perspective they're needed to bash the civilian population collective face in when they don't do what they want .
The cops scare people into paying their taxes
Simple, they are simply tax collectors with guns (speeding tickets, use of "controlled substance", etc)
The police are here to keep the public in line, and that is it. They only serve the rich.
Exactly! The police only exist to punish citizens. As an institution they are your national class enemies. If we want police to protect us we need to build a new institution and remove this old one.
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?
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
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.
Phenomenally put together video. Full stop.
Definately!
This was the most educational video I've seen on this channel. I've never seen these issues covered by anyone.
I must say; certain truths here definitely shocked me horribly
Regardless of the tragedy, I just hope schools can embody the national ideal of freedom a little bit more going forwards.
Moral of story . If you think you can sue the government and win , you are SOL .
,
I'm going to be intentionally vague.
Back in the early 2000's, I was the psychiatrist tasked with giving clinical recommendations to social services as to the fitness of a parent and/or the abuse of children. The reason I was, quite literally, FORCED into this task is because of a mandate from the state that required all professionals with my specific license to do a certain number of free hours to "give back" to the community. Of course, the only hours that counted were the ones that they deemed appropriate. Even those who already worked for the state in state facilities on a part time volunteer basis were required to do this. It was, thankfully, a short lived program. I tell you this because I want to make it clear that I did NOT choose to be in the position I found myself in and had no control over it. We were, in essence, the state window dressing their failed programs. Someone who was in the process of retiring filed a lawsuit against the state and, after a couple of years, won.
Anyway, I made a recommendation regarding a child under a year old. The child, who was otherwise very healthy, had spent more time in the hospital than most cancer patients would in a year. It was CLEAR to everyone from the ER doctors, the nurses, the specialists, and me that this child was being battered. Every one of us reported back to the social service agency and her primary caseworker what was going on. Nothing was being done.
I lived in a fairly small area at that time. I was good friends with several police officers. One night I get a call from one of them and he asks if he can stop by the house, it's after midnight. He came to tell me that he had left the scene and the child had been rushed to the hospital and had died. He didn't want me to hear about it on the news in the morning. He and I had discussed the case at length and my frustration that our reports were being ignored. The father had picked the child up by the legs and swung the head of the baby into the wall. Death was caused by massive head trauma. He was arrested for the murder of his baby. The mother was also arrested.
The social worker that had been tasked with dealing with the matter had ignored over a dozen medical reports. He then lied and claimed that he had been to the house the day before and it was a nice, clean and well-kept environment. I saw the photos of the crime scene.....I saw weeks worth of garbage on the floor, including old pizza boxes that had the date of the order still on them. Some of them were older than the child. The social worker had never bothered to go to the house. He believed the father that I (and many others) were just "over dramatic women who hated men." The social worker had issues with ME, specifically because I have a doctorate in clinical psychology......a program he had failed to gain admission to and he apparently always claimed it was because they were being politically correct and chose less qualified women over him (Like him, I attended university so long ago that PC wasn't even invented yet.)
The mother of the child cited "Battered Woman Syndrome" and was acquitted. The father was convicted and sentenced to a few decades. He's likely going to be paroled by the end of this decade. While out on bail, the father not only committed a few other crimes (he never actually hit his ex.......she later admitted that) he got a tattoo that reads "In loving memory of "child's name""
Oh, the social worker that did nothing? Well he made the local agency look bad (remember, small town) and so they forced him to retire early......they paid out the remaining terms of his contract in a lump sum and he had been living on a pension for the last 20+ years life.....he died a little over a year ago.
When questioned about being responsible for the death of that child, the social worker said on the witness stand that, "I'm a social worker. If the parents of the child fail to provide proper care, why should I expected to do so or held responsible if they don't?" Everyone from the attorney questioning him to the judge, were literally struck silent. The attorney responded, "Because it was your job." He answered, "It was the the job of the parents and they didn't do it." The attorney looked at him and said, "Yes, and they are on trial for the murder of "baby name."
The prosecutor tried to do something but there was nothing to do. The law protected him for not doing his job.
I quit that job at that point. I was close to the border of another state and was already licensed there so I started working and eventually moved to be closer to work. That baby still haunts me.
that is horrific… i don’t know how that guy was able to sleep at night after the death of that child. so sorry you had to go through this
That’s terrible
I’m so sorry. Thank you for sharing your story and your emotions about this mess with us all. It was a brave thing to do and we thank you for your vulnerability. Please take care of yourself and I hope that you find peace someday ❤️
I'm not surprised at all. I was routinely abused by adults while I was growing up I'm the 80's and nothing was ever done about it. I even had a teacher duct tape my mouth shut when I was in kindergarten.
You wrote that you're a psychiatrist and later that you have a doctorate in clinical psychology. Which is it or do you have both an MD or DO and a PhD or PsyD?
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.
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?"
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.
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.
As someone from a country with police by consent, this is shocking. As a human, its disgusting to think the police don't have a duty of care for the public.
Can they be sued for actively preventing others from helping? In this case they didn't just stand aside and do nothing. They used force to prevent parents from going in and trying to save their kids. The effectively served as guards for the shooter. If anyone but a cop had guarded the entrance and prevented cops from going in to help they would be a criminal accomplice. They didn't fail to provide protection they aided in the killing.
No, it's called qualified immunity. Unless people can't prove the police acted outside good faith they have qualified immunity.
In one case described in the video (Parkland?) EMS was barred from entry to the school, "actively preventing others from helping".
He describes the 5th circuit in the video. This was a failed rescue mission and the police were "protecting" parents while securing the area so it all applies
@@worldsedge4991 I agree with You Worldsedge, but sadly @Luis Sousa is right. Cops have special protections in the law that would prevent accusations of aiding & abiding the killing, as opposed to anyone else taking similar actions.
I'm sure there are dozens of actual "Legal" reasons covering the Police from not allowing Untrained Civilians who feel like Playing Hero into Crime Scenes, Active Shootings, or Hostage Situations.
The answer "no" is something I learned at the bright age of 14.
Omw back home from school. I live in an apartment so I took the stairs to my floor where I start noticing that my door is open I slowly approach my house where I can see the balcony is open and there is stuff thrown everywhere. I almost walked in when I heard stuff still being thrown and tossed up. In fear I ran back to the stairwell and called 911 to tell them I am being robbed. I explained that I am a minor and that my parents won't be home for another hour or so since that day my parents took my brother to the doctors. The operator asked if I was safe and that the police would be otw shortly. In fear and panic I asked the operator to stay with me on the phone til they arrived. The operator stayed with me for over 45mins and became slowly less hopeful that someone would respond. After the 45mins the operator said that they could no longer stay with me on the phone. Even though I explained that the kitchen drawers where we keep knifes was one of the drawers I say that was open and knifes spilled on the ground.
The cops came 3 days later btw.
Calling BS on this, they would never leave a kid with someone committing a crime. Liar much?
@@tevarinvagabond1192 they wouldn’t?
Why such invincible faith in police, especially in comments on this particular video?
@@tevarinvagabond1192 Uvalde shows that police officers will EASILY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY leave MULTIPLE KIDS within DIRECT LINE-OF-FIRE of someone actively committing a crime, without doing a single goddamn thing to stop the criminal or ensure the safety of the kids.
So, yeah, I call BS on your 'calling BS".
@@tevarinvagabond1192 is that a law?
@Tevarin - police do not have to turn up. That's literally what this video tells you. And your answer is "BS". Check yourself in the mirror, you are biased.
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
@@cobalt-6D police in America was created to capture escaped slaves. Full stop.
@@cobalt-6D They could rake in a lot of donut money though in "fines".
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.
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
@@BaileyZK 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?
I think it's important to everyone to think about the nature of police. They are empowered by the state to inflict violence upon its own citizens, yet have no obligation to use that power for the benefit of citizens, and have essentially free reign to inflict violence without consequences. That is not community defense, that is an occupying army.
Totally agree. I am pretty much at the point of no confidence in our police. We should just disband the entire force - especially since they have no duty to "protect and serve" except their own wellbeing and interests. The current system is not what it's supposed to be. People are better off without them. Learn how to defend yourselves, because you're all that you can count on. Our government has no interested in the protection of its citizens - they are just using and manipulating us.
Redcoats/Lobsterbacks/Loyalists of a new age.
1000%
The police are accountable to elected officials. The people choose those officials. You are ultimately responsible for what happens.
@@Its__Good Except for Gerrymandering, coerced thought through mass advertisments, and elections where the majority candidate lose. Yeah, totally responsible.
So strange…I remember back in high school during a CPR class I had to take for lifeguard certification, they told us that if someone is choking in our presence, we have the right to not say anything/not try to help. But the second we do begin to help, we can be held liable if the person is not saved by our attempt. Crazy that a teenage lifeguard can be held liable for helping and failing but police can’t be held liable for not even trying to help in the first place
That maybe the case when you were a teenager, but that is not the case now. A teenage lifeguard can't be held liable for performing CPR on anyone as long as he/she doesn't attempt to perform any medical procedures outside of the typical CPR training they received.
@@67amiga pretty sure all of that is generally covered under good Samaritan laws, which all us states have
Exactly what the other people commented. Currently you simply can't be held liable if you only attempted CPR
It depends. If you are negligent or careless you might be held accountable, but really, how often does anyone get sued?
Qualified Immunity is the Comply or Die cult's favorite toy.
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.
Some police forces take up as much as 70% of many cities budgets, to hear that they have no legal obligation to protect citizens is stunning..
I already knew the answer was “no” from the onset of this.
Years ago: The police watched as a man got stabbed multiple times in a subway and hid in another cart. They only moved in after the attacker was subdued… by the guy getting turned into Swiss cheese.
Their reason: they thought the guy using the knife actually had a gun. So they stayed put.
So was the guy hailed as a hero for stopping him?
Nope! The police department gave credit to the two officers after they went in to arrest the maniac.
The courts ruled the police had no duty to help the guy being carved up like a pumpkin as a special duty didn’t exist because no promises were made to protect a man who had experienced the wrath of a crazed murderer with a knife.
I love America. /sarcasm
This case opened my eyes too.
NY does that and make it almost impossible for someone to get a gun legally. Its absurd. And cops wonder why no one likes em.
@@bannedmann4469 Unfortunately, a lot of people still do. It's very easy to simply not know about their lack of a duty to actually protect the public. There have been many cases where that was made clear but they were relatively small to this tragedy. This will be really hard to ignore.
This is all REALLY hitting home just HOW IMPORTANT the 2nd Ammendment is. If we can't depend on the police for protection than it is up to citizens to be willing to protect them selves.
Isnt that the guy who said towel guy was a hero because some random dude with a towel or napkin or paper towels was there putting pressure on his wounds so he didnt bleed out?
The first case you cited with the 4 year old brings back memories of why I eventually resigned as a LEO. I made every effort to remove a four year old boy from his drug addict mother who had a string of drug addict boyfriends and filed multiple child car and protection orders, but the social workers all fell for the mother's sob stories and kept giving the kid back to the mother. Even a case I brought myself had the judge give the kid back to the mother after she went to rehab. A few months later the boy was dead after being beaten to death by a new boyfriend. I was so angry I showed up at the court house drunk and heckled the judge and then went to the social welfare office and told the social worker that she's as responsible as the mother and boyfriend for the boy's death. I was sent for counseling by our department and put on desk duty and later transfered out of the Community Policing Squad into the District Support Group. Just couldn't deal with the apathetic views of the social workers or the State. A few months later I resigned and went to work as a Close Protection Officer for VIPs. Most of these social workers are underpaid and sympathize with the mother, not the child and really don't act because they're trying to cover their asses. Same with these laws, they are written to protect the State from law suits, not protect citizens. As for the school shooting. Most every cop I served with would have chased down that shooter and put an end to him in moments, since none of us would have stood by and listened while he shot kids. Don't know what sort of cops they're recruiting these days, but they also seem like "cover your ass" cowards.
Liar.
I know a state trooper up in Minnesota and he told me about their hiring practice apparently there are two windows for police positions one for people that are actually qualified to do the job with either prior experience as an officer or with a law degree and one with basically everyone else. They only look at the qualified people after they are done hiring from the everyone else category.
Now I don't know what its like elsewhere but when I heard that there are a lot of qualified that basically just get pushed to the sidelines while these idiots get hired it really pissed me off.
@@johnlarson5027 Qualified = prior training that might contradict ours. Now that could mean "We don't want any gun toting yahoos from Sundown Town P.D. going out blasting", or it could mean "we are those yahoos, better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, yeehaw"
Yup all the good cops with a moral sense quit after the BLM riots, at least the ones I know
I used to be a big time feminist because as a man, I feel naturally protective of women and children. I got a psychology degree and became a social worker. What I discovered was a ton of self center women, doing everything in the world to flatter their own virtue signaling butts and also to cover their butts when ever anything went wrong. They also had a strong bias against any body who was white or male even if they were white or male. Iim sure we all agree that it is wrong to have a "good ol boy club" that benefits men over women or whites over minorities but I have discovered that being just as biased in the other direction is just as harmful. It is not "justice" as it is commonly espoused by "progressives." It was wrong in the 1950s and it's just as wrong today. Pro-woman biases in our government do nothing to discourage bad behavior in women and rob said women of any ability to learn ethics and morality and encourage narcissism, almost making women blameless in their self centered oblivion.
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.
Here's the problem I have with the special relationship: as soon as the state authorities interfere or threaten to interfere with a citizen attempting to protect another from a hostile individual or party, they are either assuming responsibility for the protection or are aiding the hostile.
While that sounds reasonable, the courts have not held private entities liable for disarming individuals and failing to protect them. I don't see why they would rule differently in the case of the government when you are not in their custody.
So Law... Please make up your mind. Are you:
A: Helping the killer, or
B: Helping the killer.
Right? If you're actively impeding the efforts of those who ARE willing to render aid, and that action allows the perpetrator to continue their criminal action, how are the police NOT acting as accessories to the crime?
@@DirtyPlumbus the cops have "qualified Immunity" which is a free pass for malfeasance
@@keithbraham6438 cops have qualified immunity on an individual level, but their departments don't.
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).
@@GRNKRBY
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.
“Or otherwise prevented by the state from caring for herself” Unlike the students in ulvade who were incapable of caring for themselves as children and whose parents were prevented from caring for them by the police
The parents could have used force against the cops.
I had to reread your username four times
@@PROVOCATEURSK that would’ve gone over well.
"Protect and serve, unless doing so scares you..."
@@PROVOCATEURSK some of the parents were handcuffed for attempting that.
I would say that the cowardice of the Uvalde police definitely "shocked the conscience" of the parents listening to their kids getting shot.
Wow. So in Texas, if you're a public school teacher, you are required by law to report any suspicion of abuse. You can be found criminally liable (and people have) of not reporting. But apparently, once you report, the people aren't actually legally (criminally) obligated to act.
First degree hypocrisy.
That is a VERY interesting point.
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 👍
It was my final year of high school when the Columbine shooting happened, the police behaved exactly the same then, and we all learned the exact same thing when police went unpunished for their negligence.
23 years was a lot of time for nothing to change and for people to forget this lesson.
I was a senior in hs too and watched this on tv at school as it unfolded. So sad that we are having the same discussion 20 years later… smh
to think that the police "changed their active shooter strategies after columbine"..... only to find it's not in the least bit true
While tragic, it was not negligence in the Columbine case. Prevailing police doctrine at the time was for officers to wait for backup, form a squad of around 4 or more, and enter the building and begin clearing it. It was after other shootings, particularly Virginia Tech, that police doctrine changed. The new thought is to engage the shooter as quickly as possible. Some departments in Southern California (police training differs widely per department) are taught to enter immediately, even if you are the only one, run towards the sound of gunshots, or walk in the direction they were last heard. In Parkland's case, only SRO Scot Peterson and the Broward County Sheriffs deputies on scene know if they were cowards or confused by the fog of the situation.
The sad truth of the"thin blue line" is they are neither willing nor able to protect the public from actual threats to their health and safety.
You'd think Columbine was a wake-up call.. indeed any school shootings.....
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?
As a fellow attorney, I agree, your analysis is spot on. I actually think the best path towards culpability for the officers is not that they failed to act in stopping the shooter, for all the reasons you said. Rather, the fact that they prevented the parents from going in themselves to attempt to save their kids may be a violation of the parent's rights. Because, this is not simply failing in a "duty to protect" that the courts have been reluctant to recognize, but rather that they actively took actions to prevent others from saving the kids.
So they are complicit. Like the officers protecting Derek Chauvin. They protected the shooter.
Genuine question: If the police have a duty to serve "the public, but not individual citizens," does that (not) imply that "individual citizens are not members of the public"?
Or is there a narrow legal definition of the term "public" that is being employed here?
@@gnoxycat obviously not
That's a super interesting argument (legally anyway). I'd love to watch something like that play out in the courts, especially in Texas.
@@omnijack they simply don’t have the legal obligation
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 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.
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.
Um so it’s terrifying to me that children are compelled to go to school, they’re legally compelled to BE SOMEWHERE by government mandated laws. But then the people who force them to be there bear no legal responsibility for them during the time that they’re there. Like when I was in high school my teachers would sometimes vaguely reference how the school is legally responsible for me until my parents pick me up and regain custody. But if a school cannot guarantee or be responsible for my child’s physical protection, how can I be required to send them to school? And how can a school be responsible for a child when the government that legislates the school and finds them is not responsible for the child. I think this is a legal loophole that definitely needs to be changed. Also um are psych pts like 72hr hold or longer considered in govt custody? What’s the law there?
They aren't, you can protect your children by homeschooling them.
It's more vital to do this now than ever before, not just to protect them from violence, but also the "knowledge" imparted by public Marxist schools.
it's all a joke
Another commentor said that as a teacher they're legally responsible for the kids in some ways. It makes me wonder if that's how the government justifies not offering any more custodial protection.
@@HzizsVynryn I personally think so. The idea probably is that there has to be a “person” in charge, so that can be a teacher or the school staff collectively, but not the government as a whole or something since it’s a larger entity or some arbitrary stipulation. (That’s by best guess.)
Agreed. Children are going to a school created by the state and someone will be punished if you're not consistently going there. The idea that they are not in a special relation with the state seems like a thought that can only be held in a complete clown world.
I remember back when I was in highschool, I was super truant all the time. So the school would occasionally send actual police officers to my house to force me to go. Funny how they can send police to bring you to school but not be obliged to protect you when you're there.. I feel so safe!
At this point I'm really confused on what the police are actually accountable for. Anything? Anything at all?
That's a very good point. Ouch, that's smarts.
@@MinecraftMartin Their quotas. Oops. I mean they don't have quotas.
@@nicomoreno5028 hey Virginia is getting rid of the quotas, after pretending they didn’t exist for 20 years…
Because your a government asset they want you to get “educated” so u can work the rest of your life
As an NCO in the U.S. Air Force, I was required to perform my duties at hazard to life and limb if so lawfully ordered, under some pretty harsh penalties for refusing depending on the circumstance. Isn't it awesome that I could instead have been a cop and had all sorts of immunity to practically everything.
Funny that you mention the laws of the military are more effective at making you honorably do your duty. Makes me wonder if just putting the police under the regulations of martial law would straighten them out at this point. It’s harsh I know, but when the department sacrificed many for their wellbeing instead of properly protecting and serving then perhaps they need it now.
@@staticaleel5068 I've thought about this and it scares me just as much as it comforts me. On one hand, military oversight will straighten out several problems with how the law is handled. On the other, that means there is an actual occupying force in every city in the country (albeit small in most cases). I think the best option is somewhere in the middle, where they act as a civilian branch (?) under the same regulations.
Also the rules of engagement that military have to follow - in a literal war zone - are much more stringent than what police have to.
Almost like that's why cops become cops
It makes sense that they care whether or not you do nothing in the military. At that point you're protecting government property when you take action, so of course they give a crap about that. :)
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.
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.
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
As an abused victim in the 80's and 90's I can verify the laws were different and horrible. I was never removed and could not speak to anyone with out my aunt's permission. Dozens of calls and nothing was ever done but me getting in to trouble because someone saw some one. My injuries were always from "sports." I have always wanted legal justice for my continual PTSD, night terrors, and personal issues. When I tried going to court I was told it was to late. I should have got an attorney at age 11.
Hard to read that. Sorry. The system is totally unfair.
I still have the night terrors too
I still have the night terrors too
My teacher called my stepdad and made things worse. 🙄 most teachers believed I was just clumsy