quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:
If a "school resource officer" has no duty to defend anyone at the school, why are they there? Just collecting a check?

Cancel those contracts and let teachers that want to, be trained and armed. They will at least have the incentive of self-preservation kick in.

If that's the case, the money paying for an SRO / Overtime cops would be better spent on professional armed security teams, who know it's their fucking job to put someone 6' under if they are shooting up the school.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:

So we are charging people with crimes for what they didn't do? insanity.

I'm curious. Would you feel differently if one of the victims was your child?

I'm no lawyer, but there are sins of commission (what you did) and sins of omission (what was in your power to do but you did not do).

For cops, the same standard should apply.

What if a cop sat idly by as someone strangled a bystander to death right in front of him? Should that cap be charged for something he "didn't do?"*


* The answer is 'Yes,' btw. . .

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Ethically, morally, and viscerally, I think that fucker is guilty of cowardice and dereliction of the highest order, and should pay the heaviest of prices.

But from a strictly legal standpoint, I agree that charging him criminally is potentially troublesome. The Supreme Court's prior ruling about police responsibility for individual protection was specifically written that way for a reason.

Slippery slope. Unintended consequences. Etc.

This is exactly where I am on this one. In addition, I heard a report today that the SO's policy statement on shooters says an officer "may" run to the gunfire, not that an officer "will" run to the gunfire. I.e., there was written instruction that the officer could use his judgment rather than move to the gunfire. That doesn't change what I think of him, but it may well change his legal position.

I also agree with GW3971 who suggests that criminally charging someone for failing to act is a difficult standard, and something we should be very cautious about.

I know that the families want him charged, and the new Sheriff is sensitive to that pressure. There is also a claim being made that he had a "special relationship" with the students and thus was obligated to protect the students over an above the general duty to society expressed by the supreme court. There is also a suggestion that by calling a code red and locking down the school, he prevented students from escaping and thus permitting more of them to be killed, and that he therefore also committed a crime.

I honestly don't think he can legally be convicted of the criminal charges, and if he is, I believe the appellate levels will overturn the conviction. The problem is really one of imposing societies judgment after the fact over the judgment of the officer on scene at the time. We all agree that he had an obligation to do more than he did, but I think we also agree that he didn't have an obligation to get himself needlessly killed to no purpose. Somewhere in between those two extremes is the conduct that we expect. I'm not convinced that the criminal law is the right way to do it.

On either side of the argument, you have to admit he was in over his head. Had my brother been on the scene and was armed, he would've gone in to try to neutralize the killer. It's just the kind of person he was - which I believe was why he was suited to be a LEO.

This cop was not right for the job.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:

So we are charging people with crimes for what they didn't do? insanity.

I'm curious. Would you feel differently if one of the victims was your child?

People are murdered every day. Do i really have to worry about getting charged with a crime everytime someone is killed and I didn't or couldn't stop it? The victims will always want to blame somebody else.

A little known fact about the Columbine shooting is the County Sheriff's office applied for a warrant to search the homes of both of the Columbine shooters weeks before the shooting and a judge denied the warrant as they didn't have enough PC. The detectives tried with the warrant but they didn't stop that one either are they all going to jail too? What about the judge? He could have stopped the mayhem with the stroke of his or her pen? he going to jail too?

Peterson is a coward. As a former school cop no one was harder on that chicken shit than I was but he didn't commit a crime with his in action. The shooter committed the crime. Blaming Peterson for the shooters action is like blaming the gun industry for every shooting.

Lets not forget the perjury charge. He won't be able to wiggle out of that very easily so he will likely do time. I have no idea what the sentencing guidelines are but I'm sure he'll get the maximum in the current climate there.

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by synthplayer:
On either side of the argument, you have to admit he was in over his head. Had my brother been on the scene and was armed, he would've gone in to try to neutralize the killer. It's just the kind of person he was - which I believe was why he was suited to be a LEO.

This cop was not right for the job.

Exactly. Peterson had been working there for the better part of two decades. He worked at a school where arresting suspects took a backseat to making excuses for bad behavior. He was retired on duty and the Sheriff is responsible for not making sure he had the right people in the right places.

I want you guys to look at the first post of this thread, and then I want you to look at what's being discussed now.

You guys need to get this out of your system and wrap it up, because I'm locking this thread tonight. There's simply no point in leaving this thing open any longer. Quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing this thread pop back up to the top.

I'm just not interested in having my thread used for the purposes of bickering over this cowardly asshole.

Get your comments in because I'm locking this thread tonight.

quote:

Originally posted by feersum dreadnaught:

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
Ethically, morally, and viscerally, I think that fucker is guilty of cowardice of the highest order and willful dereliction, and should pay the heaviest of prices.

But from a strictly legal standpoint, I agree that charging him criminally is potentially troublesome. The Supreme Court's prior ruling about police responsibility for individual protection was specifically written that way for a reason.

Slippery slope. Unintended consequences. Etc.

If a "school resource officer" has no duty to defend anyone at the school, why are they there?

Same could be said for the cop rolling around in a patrol car given SCOTUS has essentially weighed in that they have no 'legal' responsibility to act to protect us.

Look, this is an incredibly emotional issue, and I personally would like to see Peterson's head on a stake, but I just don't think this "caregiver" argument is going to fly in the long run.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:...
But from a strictly legal standpoint, I agree that charging him criminally is potentially troublesome..

From Chapter 827 on Neglect of a Child/Bodily Harm:
b) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the second degree

Florida law refers to the "person" also as a "caregiver" in that statute. In a 2005 3rd DCA case in Florida, caregiver definition was attached to a school teacher that did nothing to stop another person from harming a student. (State v Christie, 939 So2d 1078) Not a big jump to consider Peterson, an armed deputy who's specific duty is to "serve and protect", a "caregiver" to the children at that school.

His attorney will have a hard time arguing he was there, at the school, just to get fat and earn a pension.

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
So we are charging people with crimes for what they didn't do?

It is a crime to NOT pay your taxes. So, yes, when you have a legal obligation to act and don't act, it is a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by Broadside:

quote:

Originally posted by gw3971:
So we are charging people with crimes for what they didn't do?

It is a crime to NOT pay your taxes. So, yes, when you have a legal obligation to act and don't act, it is a crime.

This is a ridiculous comparison.

Look, the guy is a coward of the first order, and if I were a parent of a kid in that school whether she was harmed or not I'd want to strangle this yellow lowlife, but there is no "legal obligation" to sacrafice your life for anyone else's, even if that person is a child. And the fact that this guy was a LEO is probably irrelevant.

This coward should be ridiculed for the rest of his days, but I don't see these charges ultimately turning into a conviction. It will be interesting to watch though.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
You guys need to get this out of your system and wrap it up, because I'm locking this thread tonight. There's simply no point in leaving this thing open any longer. Quite frankly, I'm tired of seeing this thread pop back up to the top.

Is this what Arc calls necroposting?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
there is no "legal obligation" to sacrafice your life for anyone else's, even if that person is a child.

I don't see where anyone is asking him to do that.

People say "Oh it was AR15 vs Glock", but Peterson didn't know that. He had no idea what kind of gun was being used. But he knew it was the crazy kid they all knew about.

Nobody is asking this guy to go into certain death, but it's his job to risk his life to help others. Cops do that everyday and plenty of the Coral Springs PD did it as soon as they arrived.

I doubt he will be convicted, but maybe he'll take a plea deal. Regardless, I hope it bleeds him dry financially, mentally, and emotionally.