LEGAL Parkland survivors, families file federal lawsuit alleging their civil rights were violated

[Housecarl]

I'm surprised it took this long....

For links see article source.....
Posted for fair use.....
http://thehill.com/homenews/state-w...-families-file-federal-lawsuit-against-county

Parkland survivors, families file federal lawsuit alleging their civil rights were violated

BY EMILY BIRNBAUM - 07/11/18 05:38 PM EDT 195 Comments

A group of Parkland, Fla., shooting survivors and their families filed a lawsuit in federal court on Wednesday alleging that the county and local law enforcement failed to protect the high school students, resulting in “psychological injury and trauma.”

The lawsuit claims various school and county officials violated students’ constitutional rights when they did not adequately safeguard Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 students and faculty died during the Feb. 14 shooting.

Each of the 15 plaintiffs represented in the lawsuit are students who were at the school on the day of the shooting, according to a press release on Wednesday.

The lawsuit’s defendants include Broward County, where the high school is located; the school’s superintendent; and four members of local law enforcement.

“The allegations in this complaint — many of which have been publicly known for some time — paint a shocking image of one missed opportunity after another on the part of the defendants,” Solomon Radner, one of the attorneys representing the survivors, said in a statement.

“I can’t help but think had the defendants seized on one — ONE — of these missed opportunities to stop the shooter in his tracks, Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School might have been the name of just another school instead of being synonymous with ‘mass shooting,’ ” Radner added.

Four of the five counts in the lawsuit deal with former school resource officer Scot Peterson’s behavior before the shooting. The lawsuit alleges that Peterson conducted an invasive search of several students’ backpacks hours before the shooting and took $200 from one student that he accused of selling drugs.

The search was a violation of the students’ civil rights, according to the lawsuit.

“Peterson’s primary concern was presumably to illustrate for the students how tough he was,” the lawsuit states while accusing Peterson of inaction during the shooting and lying to the public about it afterward.

Peterson has been the target of public outrage for surveillance video that shows he did not enter the school building during the shooting.

The lawsuit also accuses Broward County Public Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie and Broward Sheriff Scott Israel of failing to improve safety conditions at the Parkland high school, alleging that both men knew conditions were below standard.

The lawsuit further details mistakes made by school guard Andrew Medina and law enforcement officer Jan Jordan, who both were unable to prevent the shooting.

“Law enforcement choked,” Radner said at a news conference on Wednesday, according to CNN.

This lawsuit is one of several brought by Parkland survivors, though it is the first to name individual members of law enforcement.

Many Parkland survivors and their families became vocal anti-violence advocates in the shooting's aftermath, with a group of survivors launching multimillion-dollar gun control advocacy group March for Our Lives.

The group’s most visible leaders have become public figures with millions of total followers on Twitter.

March for Our Lives leaders are spending the summer touring areas of the U.S. that are heavily affected by gun violence while the families of Parkland victims launch an advocacy group called Stand With Parkland.

 

[bw]

We have a constitutional right not to get shot at? Who knew? Please provide the section and paragraph.

 

[night driver]

They are about to find that the LEO's have NO DUTY to individually protect them.

 

[Dennis Olson]

Chuck is correct. That’s long settled law.

 

[Ragnarok]

WTH???

Yes, there was a dereliction of duty but a violation of constitutional rights???

Can you imagine the slew of lawsuits that would follow from the inner cities if the court actually rules in favor of this tripe?

 

[Satanta]

Let me play Devil's Advocate for a minute even tho I agree with the posts above mine.

Do we have a Constitutional Right to Education? If not that also means one does not have a Right to Privacy [[the backpacj searches.]] so, if one is technically, ok, not technically because one IS forced, to go into a building with somewhat limited entrance/exiting and unarmed, does that not imply the requirement that one is being in a safe situation barring Wartime/Prisoners?

I would love to see what all was filed to make comparisons to "Rights" [[Constitutional]] and Civil.

 

[biere]

While I agree the police do not have a duty to protect, they also should not be keeping teachers or coaches from arming themselves.

I think the lawsuit needs worded to drag out the cops who hid behind their cars, if their training was up to date you now go into school shootings and deal with the issue instead of hiding and waiting for more officers.

I also want it worded so all who can legally buy a gun can carry that gun everywhere. Don't want to trust someone with a gun, well get over it. Police don't have to protect me, someone saying this is a gunfree zone needs to own up to either providing protection or letting people have access to items they can use to protect themselves.

 

[Publius]

Perhaps they should start with the black muslim bastard that was installed in the white house.

 

[hax0r212]

What about this:
If the Parkland Police department is paid by the school district to provide the officers (as is done in my city/school district), then they might have a case.

 

[Housecarl]

What about this:
If the Parkland Police department is paid by the school district to provide the officers (as is done in my city/school district), then they might have a case.

The other angle is in loco parentis...The school district knew about the threat the killer posed, as did the sheriff's office, yet nothing was done to competently deal with the danger to the student body.

That route may work at a minimum to get a "go away" settlement, but I don't think that's what the claimants are after....

 

[night driver]

While I agree the police do not have a duty to protect, they also should not be keeping teachers or coaches from arming themselves.

I think the lawsuit needs worded to drag out the cops who hid behind their cars, if their training was up to date you now go into school shootings and deal with the issue instead of hiding and waiting for more officers.

I also want it worded so all who can legally buy a gun can carry that gun everywhere. Don't want to trust someone with a gun, well get over it. Police don't have to protect me, someone saying this is a gunfree zone needs to own up to either providing protection or letting people have access to items they can use to protect themselves.

The Sheriff's Office is not the responsible party for disarming the teachers and staff. Yes, they MIGHT be culpable on some "Standard of Care" or "Standard of Response" argument, but good luck making THAT stick there.

As for your last whole paragraph, this is hardly the venue or case for that to get litigated. Not happening and especially not in a civil action. Or rather not in THIS civil action.

The other angle is in loco parentis...The school district knew about the threat the killer posed, as did the sheriff's office, yet nothing was done to competently deal with the danger to the student body.

That route may work at a minimum to get a "go away" settlement, but I don't think that's what the claimants are after....

HC LIKELY has the only litigatable point here since this is where there was negligence. The argument has to be that the Negligence was criminal in nature. Simple negligence won't get you much in court, any more.

 

[Illini Warrior]

somebody forget to tell these parents that there was an election and the country changed - their BS civil rights suit is last year's garbage now ....

 

[Dobbin]

somebody forget to tell these parents that there was an election and the country changed - their BS civil rights suit is last year's garbage now ....

Not BS - they have a point (and are apparently trying to make it in the only avenue open to them) that overlooking an obvious threat to the student population in general because of "social political correctness" and progressive graduation percentages should have its consequence - a consequence more than simply ending 17 lives and saying "oh well."

The School Administration shook the dice and gambled that Cruz would keep it together long enough to walk out after the graduation ceremony. Admin lost - so did 17 students.

One cannot simply "pass-along" a marginal student because of race, attitude, or social issues. The problem does NOT go away. In the case of Cruz, his pot boiled over before he had a chance to wear his mortarboard and give his valedictorian message - along with the rest of his classmates.

Had the Administration done its job - he would be in reform school - and subject to a higher level of guidance. Do they still even have these?

If not, the Administration - and by connection - the local government should be held responsible for dereliction.

Do they still even have this?

Dobbin

 

[Bps1691]

The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that the police have no constitutional duty to protect any individuals

"WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed." https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/...ot-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html