Explain how the investigation could clear the officers involved of any wrong doing?

they were following orders , the chief would be the one to go after for giving a bad order

I hope they all find work in other fields

not going in was not the right decision

was it criminally negligent ?

that is the hard one to prove that they knew more people would die if they didn't go in and when did the know it and what did they do once they knew , who knew ?

of course there is no duty to protect thus even if they stood there and watched the shooter going around shooting people through the window they still have no duty to breach.

a case where a guy was getting murdered on the other side of the door with a knife , the police waited till the killer left to go in and provide medical aid. courts ruled there is no duty to protect.

Not know people where dying??? REALLY . The fact a small child was on the teachers phone crying telling the police that he was shooting more kids wasn't enough? What did they think he was shooting at in a locked classroom full of kids??? SQUIRRELS ???

IF THEY HAD NO DUTY to breach what was their duty . TO STOP THE DAD that wanted to but they hand cuffed him on the curb !!!! Pure (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) for those that wanted to do something.....

[quote]Many police forces even have a motto along the lines of “To Protect and Serve.” The unfortunate reality is that the police are under no obligation to protect you. The police do not even have an obligation to respond to your call for help.

The most well-known case on this topic is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981). In short, four women lived in a boarding house. One lived on the 2nd floor with her 4 year old daughter, and two lived on the third floor. Two men broke into the house and proceeded to assault and rape the woman on the second floor. The women on the third floor, hearing the screaming and cries from the floor below, called the police and were assured help was on the way, only to watch the police drive by the house, knock on the door and leave when no one answered. The two women on the third floor then called the police (again) and were assured (again) that help was on the way. The police never came, but thinking the police might be in the house, the two women called out the the third woman being assaulted. This resulted in the two assailants becoming aware of the other women in the house. The assailants proceeded to kidnap the three adult women at knife point and rape and beat them for the next 14 hours.

The three women sued the District of Columbia based on numerous failures of the police department in this event, but their case was dismissed at the trial court level. The Supreme Court of the United States explained that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”

If the police have no duty or obligation to protect citizens, what is their purpose? [\quote]

But you didn't address my second question. IF THEY are not going to protect the kids why stop the parent that was going to do something? One thing about it doing NOTHING didn't work out too good for a lot of people.