Our Duty: Legality vs Morality

Just recently it was reported that a judge in Florida, in his opinion dismissing a lawsuit brought against the Broward County Sheriff and the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School / School System, stated that law enforcement and the school had no duty to protect the students during the shooting attack that occurred there. (See THIS ARTICLE)

An excerpt:

A federal judge has ruled that Broward schools and the sheriff's office were not responsible for protecting students during the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in February.

The feedback and reactions, as you can well imagine, have been utter shock and surprise. How can a school not be responsible for the safety of the students? How can the Sheriff’s office, the Sheriff and, most specifically, the deputy assigned to the school as a School Resource Officer (SRO) not be responsible for the safety of the students?  If these people and entities aren’t responsible for keeping the students safe, then who is? As I said: understandable shock and surprise.  But let’s think about something…

The judge’s statement is that law enforcement and the schools have no constitutional duty to protect [the students] from the shooter (Cruz). This actually isn’t anything new, although I’d never seen it applied to schools before. One of the things we learned in the academy was about case law that set the precedent: law enforcement has no duty to protect or defend the individual. We serve communities as a whole. Many (if not most) people who aren’t in law enforcement are shocked to learn that. Even to me, a veteran of law enforcement with over 35 years in uniform, the idea that schools have no responsibility to protect or insure the safety of students is shocking.

Then a small realization sets in: there is a huge difference between a legally mandated duty and a morally mandated one. The courts can only rule on whether or not the law enforcement officers and the school personnel did anything illegal. Even in a civil case, the plaintiffs have to show where the school system, its representatives, the sheriff’s office and/or its employees, were somehow negligent in the performance of a legally required duty; in a responsibility they have that is documented. The courts don’t decide what was done right or wrong; they decide what was done legally or illegally.

We in law enforcement have a much larger standard than legal and illegal; and I believe this applies to those in the education system as well. We have an obligation to perform to a higher standard; to a moral standard. That’s why, during the hiring process, part of the background investigation done includes questions and information gathering about an applicant’s moral behavior. Let’s be honest: an applicant can 1) never have used drugs, 2) never been arrested, 3) always gotten good grades, 4) have great references… and still have some behavior in their background that makes an investigator or Chief/Sheriff wonder about the applicant’s values. Parts of the background investigations revolve around finding out if there are temptations that the new officer might not be able to resist. How strong are their morals?

I submit to you that if you take the oath, put on the uniform, pin on the badge, strap on the gunbelt… You are assuming a higher obligation. You have a greater duty. There isn’t a commitment simply to enforcing the law and protecting “as legally required.” In today’s society, when so many members of the public we serve are quick to attack us for any slight, any error, any dereliction… we cannot afford to give them extra fodder. How many people looked at the actions of that SRO at MSD High School and thought, “There ya’ go. There’s the reason people don’t trust the police. He didn’t even do anything to protect the kids,”?

I remember a time when there was more discretion in the exercise of enforcement; officers were encouraged to focus on justice and support peace keeping. It wasn’t about arrest statistics, parking enforcement revenue and drug seizures (although they were always great to get too). It was about keeping the community peaceful. Sure, some people need to be arrested. Some people resisted arrest and needed to learn what a bad idea that was. Some habitual drunks needed to be arrested and let dry out. But the guy that is usually a stand up citizen, whose wife of 12 years just died in a car accident, and now you get the call for him in the middle of his street, swigging from the vodka bottle yelling out a mix of crying and cussing because he’s mad at the world for having taken his wife… does that guy need to be arrested? Or do you need to take the bottle, call a relative and get him back inside safely? Sure, you CAN arrest him – but where is the moral correctness of that? What about the homeless and hungry veteran who tries to steal a $2.59 lunchable? Sure, you can arrest him. He’ll get fed in jail, right? Or you can reach into your pocket, pay the $2.59 and hook him up with the local American Legion to get him back on his feet.

I know… someone just choked on their coffee as they read that and thought, “We’re not social workers!” No, we’re not; not by profession. But we certainly do social work. We also do religious counseling, domestic refereeing, roadside assistance and a lot more. A lot of it isn’t required LEGALLY, but we do it because it has to be done and we feel it’s part of our job. It’s our duty, yes? Maybe not legally, but definitely morally. We take an oath to “protect and serve,” but all too often we focus on “enforce.”

In this case… the events at MSD High School in Parkland, the legal standards may have been met, but the moral obligations were sorely neglected. As a profession, we have to remember that we have a moral standard to meet as well and that failing to do so taints the entirety of those who wear the badge.