Judge finds schools, sheriff's office had no constitutional obligation to protect Parkland students

A federal judge ruled that the schools and officials of the Sheriff of Broward County, Florida, had no constitutional obligation to protect students during the Feb. 14 massacre in high school. Marjory Stoneman Douglas, who left 17 dead and 17 injured. Sun-Sentinel.

US District Judge Beth Bloom filed a lawsuit filed by 15 students, including the Broward School District, the County Sheriff's Office and Scot Peterson, the struggling member of Parliament who had failed to confront shooter Nikolas Cruz when shots were fired.

accused of violating the rights of students under the 14th Amendment, which prohibits the deprivation of life, liberty and property without due process. Bloom, however, decided that students should be considered in custody so that officials are constitutionally bound to protect them from Cruz.

The prosecution stated that Peterson's arbitrary and shocking acts and inactions had directly and predictably caused the death, injury and traumatization of children, "arguing that the sheriff and those responsible for School "have either a policy that allows killers to cross schools killing people without being arrested" or "have such inadequate training that policy makers […] have not the basic understanding that these policies are such that they are unable to implement them. "

Broward County Superintendent Robert Runcie and Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel were well aware of the potential danger that the shooter represented and the lack of security in the school, but "chose not to fix it", reported the affiliate of CBS, WPEC. [19659003] "We do not not deserve that. We were just students and we thought we were safe at school and we did not need that to happen to us, "Audrey Diaz, former student of the old radio station in January after the filing

Bloom ruled that the 14th Amendment generally provides for the protection of the procedure against state actors, not against third parties.

"The complaint stems from the acts of Cruz, a third, and not a state actor, "Bloom wrote in a December 12 ruling." Thus, the crucial question analyzed by the Court is whether the defendants had the constitutional obligation to protect the plaintiffs from the actions of Cruz. As previously stated, for defendants to exist, plaintiffs should be considered custody. "

This decision comes a week after the Broward Circuit Judge, Patti Englander Henning last week, rejected Peterson's claim that he had" no "legal obligation to protect students and professors "when she had denied Negligent pursuit filed by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed during the attack.Henning concluded that Peterson had" the obligation to act reasonably "in his capacity as school officer during the shooting.

Pollack stated that it was not logical for Peterson's lawyers to argue that a sworn law enforcement officer, with a badge and a gun, fire, was not obliged to enter.

"So what is he doing here?" Pollack said after the decision. "He had a duty, I will not let that go in. My daughter, her death will not be in vain."

Peterson's lawyer, Michael Piper, said he understood that people might be offended or indignant at him. defense of the client, but he argued that in law, the deputy minister did not have the duty to confront the shooter. Peterson did not attend the hearing.

"No legal obligation can be found," said Piper. "At worst, Scot Peterson is accused of being a coward.This does not mean bad faith."

Piper stated that he would appeal the decision.

Cruz pleaded not guilty, but his lawyers said he would plead guilty in exchange for a life sentence. Prosecutors demand the death penalty.