Other State Parkland - Follow up

[bbbass]

I'm still not sure of the politics surrounding this prosecution. Is it that someone must pay? Petersen is a coward for sure, yet don't peace officers have immunity from individual liability? They can be fired, but doesn't legal and civil fall back onto their employer? Hmmm, maybe just civil... I know a LEO can be prosecuted for misdeeds while on duty. Negligence is sure a new wrinkle... who would have thought we'd see it?

 

[awshoot]

I don't think they could legally be held responsible... Teachers don't take an oath... teachers don't take a paycheck to perform that kind of duty... their task is to teach... to defend their students, and their own lives, would be optional, a choice, not a legal obligation. IMO.

But teachers are "caregivers" under the FL law they are charging Peterson with -- no oath necessary.

 

[awshoot]

My opinion: as a sworn LEO his degree of FAIL on many levels, facing trial before a jury is appropriate.

Think about the knock-on consequences in terms of nanny state policies. If police officers are going to be criminally charged, not for creating a dangerous situation but for failing to intervene in a potentially (by whose definition?) dangerous situation, kids are going to come under extreme law enforcement scrutiny any time they aren't directly supervised by an adult and when they are being supervised by an adult, the police officer may be compelled to intervene with the adults. This would put parents and children in a weird spot where every interaction with an officer could mean the involvement of DSHS or whatever else the state can bring to bear.

There is a saying: bad facts make bad law. People want to punish Peterson so badly, it is possible that that desire will lead to a level of regulation far beyond anyone's imagining.

 

[41mag]

failing to intervene in a potentially

the potential here was actual live fire

 

[Talos32]

While not excusing Scot Peterson in any way these charges seem disingenuous. Government at all levels has consistently argued that the police have no individual duty to protect anyone. Like it or not, this argument has been used successfully in court many times.

Additionally, the government argues that "officer safety" , is paramount even to the point of excusing bad decisions or accidents that result in the death of private citizens.

Using their own logic, he had no duty to those children, and even if he did he is in the right to place his own safety above anyone else's. I don't agree with the government's logic, but you can't have a system of laws if you change the rules anytime it suits you. This is fairly transparent scapegoating.

 

[Stomper]

And Depts. don't use their best people for SRO jobs.
The top people work the street.
The system needs repair.

That's a pretty broad statement. I personally know a few active LEO's that have either pulled SRO duty, or are still currently SRO's and they're sharp as a tack.

 

[DirectDrive]

That's a pretty broad statement. I personally know a few active LEO's that have either pulled SRO duty, or are still currently SRO's and they're sharp as a tack.

That's what some LEO's have indicated.
And that would be in their neck of the woods.
It's good to hear that some jurisdictions use their top people for SRO duty.

ETA :
I was on an LEO forum and they were discussing SRO duty in their jurisdictions.

 

[nwslopoke]

I agree Peterson is a scapegoat for playing dress up. One could point a finger in any direction in Parkland and hit a guilty party. That was a total breakdown of government.An embarrassment of authority. But, everyone steps on the lowest rung of the ladder and that is Peterson.

 

[awshoot]

the potential here was actual live fire

If a police officer is shooting at a bad guy with a crowd of innocent bystanders as a backstop, that is creating a dangerous situation through negligence.

If a police officer fails to stop a person shooting into a crowd of innocent bystanders, that is failing to intervene in a dangerous situation but not creating it.

Some of the articles have pointed out that under the law, if a child is in danger, that child's parent is not legally required to risk his or her life to save the child.

I guess we can all take from this what we will, but I see a difference. I don't think a person who stands by and does nothing is doing a good deed, but I don't know if we want to make that a criminal act either. Doing so is an invitation for government employees to intervene in our lives to an even greater extent because if they don't, they could go to prison.

 

[Ura-Ki]

The whole system in Broward County is FUBAR, and it all starts at Sheriff Israel! He should be the first one who gets his neck stretched!

 

[Alexx1401]

If a police officer is shooting at a bad guy with a crowd of innocent bystanders as a backstop, that is creating a dangerous situation through negligence.

If a police officer fails to stop a person shooting into a crowd of innocent bystanders, that is failing to intervene in a dangerous situation but not creating it.

Some of the articles have pointed out that under the law, if a child is in danger, that child's parent is not legally required to risk his or her life to save the child.

I guess we can all take from this what we will, but I see a difference. I don't think a person who stands by and does nothing is doing a good deed, but I don't know if we want to make that a criminal act either. Doing so is an invitation for government employees to intervene in our lives to an even greater extent because if they don't, they could go to prison.

There is a huge difference is making a choice to fire or not on an active shooter due to others in the way, and standing outside, knowing the shooting is going on, and doing nothing.

 

[GWS]

I wonder if any Depts have tried cycling everyone through SRO duty ?
Like a 2 week stint every so many months ?

I think that's a great idea. Kids gt to see police officers as people and the police get to know the layouts of the various schools. Maybe changing out the eyes looking at the kids they might see more and intervene effectively.

 

[nwslopoke]

If a police officer is shooting at a bad guy with a crowd of innocent bystanders as a backstop, that is creating a dangerous situation through negligence.

If a police officer fails to stop a person shooting into a crowd of innocent bystanders, that is failing to intervene in a dangerous situation but not creating it.

Some of the articles have pointed out that under the law, if a child is in danger, that child's parent is not legally required to risk his or her life to save the child.

I guess we can all take from this what we will, but I see a difference. I don't think a person who stands by and does nothing is doing a good deed, but I don't know if we want to make that a criminal act either. Doing so is an invitation for government employees to intervene in our lives to an even greater extent because if they don't, they could go to prison.

But the fact is Peterson failed to even access the situation. I believe it was in Amity, Or just a few years ago. A mother with a few young daughters trailer or small hiuse caught fire. The youngest ran back in to find the puppy. The mothet ran into certain death, which they both were killed while the older daughter witnessed all this just a few feet away.

The difference between Peterson with a gun and a parent of a student at that school with a gun. Or maybe with out a gun. Yes, I said Peterson was a scapegoat, but he is still a failure.

 

[awshoot]

... Yes, I said Peterson was a scapegoat, but he is still a failure.

I don't disagree in the slightest. I'm just saying, you start making the police criminally responsible for not intervening, and you better expect the police to get extremely nosey and extremely willing to insert themselves into many life situations they'd otherwise not.

 

[nammac]

I don't disagree in the slightest. I'm just saying, you start making the police criminally responsible for not intervening, and you better expect the police to get extremely nosey and extremely willing to insert themselves into many life situations they'd otherwise not.

No thank you, we already have enough government oversight. Should be working at making people personally responsible and parents responsible for their minor children's actions... It's called accountability folks, something most of us were raised understanding...

 

[bbbass]

But teachers are "caregivers"

Huh? I'd like to see the legal opinion that states that!!!

ETA: I did a little bit of nosing around and all the legal beagle definitions I could find indicated that legally a "caregiver" is a person that cares for another person that is inhibited in caring for themselves... some lawyer might/could stretch that to apply to children in school, but my impression was that in normal usage it references taking care of a person with some sort of dysfunction or as in paid childcare. The typical examples were daycare, the elderly, mental patients, disabled people. A caregiver can be employed in a facility, or in a home. Schools were never mentioned.

 

[nwslopoke]

I don't disagree in the slightest. I'm just saying, you start making the police criminally responsible for not intervening, and you better expect the police to get extremely nosey and extremely willing to insert themselves into many life situations they'd otherwise not.

But that is the result in Americans allowing the government to take away their right to self protection outside of the home. Hard targets are rarely the sight of these events, as we well know. Call it vigilantism or what ever. When bad or even crazy people have the understanding there may be an immediate and deadly response that reasonably appears to be the magic sauce to keep bad guys away.

 

[Ura-Ki]

So, correct me of im wrong here, but didnt SCOTUS rule that LEO do not have a duty to risk life and limb to "Protect and Serve"?
If so, how can they arrest, hold, and charge this coward of broward?

And meanwhile the Sheriff gets off Scott free!
Where is the outcry, where is the riots and protests? Why are the people not calling for serious actions here?

 

[titsonritz]

That's a pretty broad statement. I personally know a few active LEO's that have either pulled SRO duty, or are still currently SRO's and they're sharp as a tack.

Agreed, I know one guy that left the streets to become a SRO when his son entered high school, he had vested interest in stopping a shooter should they visit his campus.

 

[Alexx1401]

I don't disagree in the slightest. I'm just saying, you start making the police criminally responsible for not intervening, and you better expect the police to get extremely nosey and extremely willing to insert themselves into many life situations they'd otherwise not.

Yes the Cops have enough "hate on them" without this. There is no doubt this poor guy is being made a scapegoat to try to smoke screen a LOT of people who ignored this bomb until it went off. The Cop in my opinion was a coward but, you can't try to make that a "crime" like they are here. I doubt he will get convicted of anything other that lying, if that. Often when some LEO gets in real trouble over some stunt it is not the stunt. It is when they start trying to lie to cover it up and get caught lying. If he did this, then too bad for him. I was fine with him losing his job, sounds like he should never have had it. I am not a fan of this pile on of charges for him being a coward.