r/nashville • u/Gnash_Vegas35 • 4d ago
Covenant School first responders to be honored with Medals of Valor by Biden on Friday Article
https://fox17.com/news/local/2024-jan-3-biden-will-award-medal-of-honor-and-medal-of-valor-to-covenant-school-first-responders-mass-shooting-military-soldiers-police-department102
28
u/DeadHuron 4d ago
Knowing you’re walking into danger, trying to save lives at the risk of your own? Respect and appreciation for these individuals cannot be valued enough.
11
-9
u/PricklePete Clarksville 4d ago
Conservatives will find a way to say this is the worst thing since the Holocaust.
7
u/TechInventor Berry Hill 3d ago
Please don't be the kind of person who stirs political pots for no reason.
2
u/Sharp-Ad9675 3d ago
What? Where are you coming from with that?
3
u/le_shrimp_nipples Inglewood 3d ago
Well... A very large number of conservatives complain about everything Biden does and if they agree with it they'll probably criticize him for doing it in a way they consider wrong or waiting too long to do it etc.
3
u/Sharp-Ad9675 3d ago
So completely unsolicited complaining about their complaining?
1
u/Recent_Librarian6073 3d ago
Completely unsolicited complaining ,complaining about conservatives pre-complaining.
-38
u/NashvilleHillRunner 4d ago
But according to some here, the police only protect property
26
u/MacAttacknChz 3d ago
Legally, police have no requirement to protect you
-20
u/NashvilleHillRunner 3d ago
False.
Their job is literally to protect and serve people.
That includes (of course) protecting people.
In fact, it’s (obviously) their most important job.
To claim otherwise is just silly and ludicrous.
IDK what y’all are smoking (well, actually, I guess I do). 🙄
14
u/SkilletTheChinchilla east side 3d ago
Educate yourself
-9
u/NashvilleHillRunner 3d ago
I read a synopsis of the case.
In no way, does that absolve police officers from their duty to protect and serve.
Nor would the vast majority of police, want to be somehow relieved of their responsibility to protect people.
But, I get it, FTP. 🙄
7
u/le_shrimp_nipples Inglewood 3d ago
And Lozito v. New York City is pretty clear that "police have no duty for police to protect Lozito or any other person."
4
u/le_shrimp_nipples Inglewood 3d ago
Warren v. Columbia is the original case that set the precedent precedent that "the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to specific citizens based on the public duty doctrine."
0
u/SkilletTheChinchilla east side 3d ago
That was the DC Circuit of Appeals, which is not controlling over Tennessee/6th Circuit. The case I cited is SCOTUS.
0
u/SkilletTheChinchilla east side 3d ago
I have a sibling in law enforcement you bozo. I made her a challenge coin box for Christmas in 2023. I still owe a parent a challenge coin holder as well.
You are either a troll and I'm wasting my time, or you have a chance to learn how to do something most people don't know how to do.
When dissecting a case, you do the following (some people flip 1 and 2)
Figure out what is going on /the facts of the case,
Figure out what question someone is asking the court (i.e., question presented),
The final decision/answer to the question/the "holding", and then
The reasoning behind the holding.
You then use three items to try and predict how the courts will rule in situations dealing with similar facts or legal questions.
Facts
In this case, a woman obtained a restraining order against her husband from the state she lives in. The order included the following in all caps
NOTICE TO LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS, [...] YOU SHALL USE EVERY REASONABLE MEANS TO ENFORCE THIS RESTRAINING ORDER. YOU SHALL ARREST, OR, IF AN ARREST WOULD BE IMPRACTICAL UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, SEEK A WARRANT FOR THE ARREST OF THE RESTRAINED PERSON WHEN YOU HAVE INFORMATION AMOUNTING TO PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS VIOLATED OR ATTEMPTED TO VIOLATE ANY PROVISION OF THIS ORDER AND THE RESTRAINED PERSON HAS BEEN PROPERLY SERVED WITH A COPY OF THIS ORDER OR HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THIS ORDER.
Her husband violated the order by keeping their daughters longer than he was allowed to. She called the cops multiple times for hours, begging them to put out an APB and to check to see if he was lying about where they were. They ignored her. Eventually, the husband showed up and opened fire on the cops. Their kids were dead in his truck.
Question Presented
We decide this case whether an individual who has obtained a state-law restraining order has a constitutionally-protected property interest property interest in having the police enforce the restraining order when they have probable cause to believe it has been violated.
Holding
We conclude, therefore, that respondent did not, for purposes of the Due Process Clause, have a property interest in police enforcement of the restraining order against her husband.
Reasoning
Normally, a bit lengthy and requires a lot of summary, but I'm going to paste an interesting quote below.
We do not believe that these provisions of Colorado law truly made enforcement of restraining orders mandatory. A well established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes.
In each and every state there are long-standing statutes that, by their terms, seem to preclude nonenforcement by the police… . However, for a number of reasons, including their legislative history, insufficient resources, and sheer physical impossibility, it has been recognized that such statutes cannot be interpreted literally… . [T]hey clearly do not mean that a police officer may not lawfully decline to make an arrest....
Against that backdrop, a true mandate of police action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado Legislature than “shall use every reasonable means to enforce a restraining order” (or even “shall arrest … or … seek a warrant”)....That language is not perceptibly more mandatory than the Colorado statute which has long told municipal chiefs of police that they “shall pursue and arrest any person fleeing from justice in any part of the state” and that they “shall apprehend any person in the act of committing any offense … and, forthwith and without any warrant, bring such person before a … competent authority for examination and trial.”
0
u/Muchomo256 South Nashvillainizing Valedictorian 2d ago
Where are all the numerous memes making fun of the Covenant victims who made fun of the Tanger victim in Cane Ridge.
-31
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
16
u/JohnHazardWandering 4d ago
99% of the time when someone posts "why was the entire police force going north/south/east/west on 24/40/65?" It is due to reports of a shooter around a school. The police force seems to take this very seriously, no matter the school
18
135
u/SkilletTheChinchilla east side 4d ago
The police responded quickly and decisively.
Anyone who wants to throw an Uvalde comment in here should watch the body cam footage.