The comment I was responding to is one of legal liability, not general duty.
I know you were, and I understand the distinction.
However, the article you linked was about the Parkland 14A case against the county, sheriff and school officials, which referred to caselaw; that case didn't create anything new, so I identified what the Court in that case was actually deciding. I'd have cited
Warren or
Castle Rock for the point you were making.
In the criminal trial against the school-based officer, the prosecution sought, among other things, a criminal child neglect charge on the theory that Peterson (the defendant) was a "caregiver" and thus had child care-related duties (there was no specific law on point about officers assigned to schools). That theory was rejected and he was found not guilty on that and all other charges. (But see below on actual, practical outcome.)
Yes, general, police officers have a "general duty" to protect the public, but not a specific one to an individual absent a specific relationship, such as being in custody.
Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is usually cited for this, along with the
Castle Rock Supreme Court decision.
Summary of the concept:
However:
I think it's important to remind people: If the police don't keep you safe, the courts don't let you sue the cops, even if the judge might say she feels really bad about it (like the stabbing case). Plenty of caselaw behind it.
I'll repeat my comment that nothing prevents suing - whether on a 14th basis or caregiver neglect or some other theory; suing and winning are different.
And to that point, as noted/linked, 127.5 million dollars were paid out from the Feds as a result of the events of that situation, lack of admission of legal fault either by court decision or in formal statements about the settlement notwithstanding.
Prior to the Fed settlement, Broward County paid $25M.
So sure, you "can't" sue in most cases, but you can; and you "can't" succeed on that suit, but you may ultimately gain some compensation.
Tl; dr: caselaw/Constitutional law (especially) and practical outcome are not always perfectly aligned.
Ps - less than 2 months ago another civil suit against the school-based officer was
allowed to move forward to trial with a denied motion to dismiss. Kind of a weird ruling - the Court
said the extent of this officer's duty is also something for the jury to decide, saying there is a "genuine dispute" over whether Peterson had a "special relationship with students, teachers and administration" that went beyond what law enforcement officers typically have with the public,
per the linked article. And though a named defendant along with Peterson (the officer), Broward County did not argue for dismissal. I suspect an appellate brief is already framed out.
