+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10
 
  1. #1
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Sergeant
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    249

    Lightbulb Florida deputy charged after staying outside school shooting

    Quote Originally Posted by Curt Anderson and Terry Spencer
    Prosecutors say that former Deputy Scot Peterson failed to confront a gunman during last year's Parkland massacre, so he has been arrested on 11 charges, stemming from his inaction, including child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury. He never went inside the school to confront the shooter. The charges carry a combined prison sentence of nearly 100 years and his bail was set at $102,000.

    Twenty-year-old Nikolas Cruz faces the death penalty if convicted of killing 17 people and...
    Pic:
    https://thenypost.files.wordpress.co...8&h=410&crop=1

    Full story:
    https://www.mysuncoast.com/2019/06/0...hool-shooting/
    Last edited by Media; 06-04-2019 at 09:01 PM.
    Journalism can never be silent: that is its greatest virtue and its greatest fault. It must speak, and speak immediately, while the echoes of wonder, the claims of triumph and the signs of horror are still in the air.

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest
    The criminal charges are a stretch and the deputy was arrested exclusively for political reasons i.e. to make people feel good. However, there is case law that is working against the State. The State is mixing civil law (and administrative rules) with criminal law. For example, the SSO has a general law dealing with cowardice, but it's not an arrestable offense. A deputy can be written up and punished for cowardice, but he can't be arrested for being a coward.

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Question Cowardice criminalized?

    • If Peterson is essentially being charged for cowardice in a highly visible case, police officers wondered, where does it end?
    • Could a school-resource officer be charged for failing to intervene in a fight between students in a hallway?
    • Could a patrol cop be charged for failing to get to a crime scene quickly enough?
    • What if an officer fails to pull over a motorist who goes on to kill someone in a high-speed crash?


    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...231213708.html

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    If a deputy made an illegal arrest this bad, they would be fired and jailed for it. I donít think the rules should be any different for the people behind this.

    Here is a new policy, resulting from the cowardice charge: All deputies will enter any burning building or you will be charged and jailed.

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    If a deputy made an illegal arrest this bad, they would be fired and jailed for it. I donít think the rules should be any different for the people behind this.

    Here is a new policy, resulting from the cowardice charge: All deputies will enter any burning building or you will be charged and jailed.
    All civil servants should be held to this standard then especially elected officials.

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    I think this is preposterous, facing a 100 year charge. While I'm not a LEO, I did serve in the Army and clearly some soldiers and officers are braver than others.

    I don't know if this officer was a veteran, but some people just cannot run into gunfire when your brain is hardwired to get away from it. This cuts both way, if he was a veteran, he knows the crack of rapid fire .223/5.56 rounds and he knows damn well his IIIA vest is useless against even xm193. Just the concussion of rifle fire in hallways must have been terrifying.
    I'd like to think that if I was in his position, I'd have made entry and tried, but I understand the situation, and these charges are disgraceful.

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Assistant State Attorney Tim Donnelly
    "Case law supports the charges against Peterson because the definition of caregiver is very broad."

    https://www.mysuncoast.com/2019/06/0...-reduced-bail/
    So all I heard on the news tonight was that Dep Peterson was the care giver of the students who were shot. If that is the case, then:
    • Can an SRO just take a kid into custody, without the schools permission?
    • And if the SRO is the care giver, do FERPA laws apply to SRO's?
    • And one last point: what is the legal requirements for care givers? For example, as a caregiver, how many children can you watch at a time? So 1 SRO has custody of 3000 kids at a big school?

    Any lawyers out there?

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    So all I heard on the news tonight was that Dep Peterson was the care giver of the students who were shot. If that is the case, then:
    • Can an SRO just take a kid into custody, without the schools permission?
    • And if the SRO is the care giver, do FERPA laws apply to SRO's?
    • And one last point: what is the legal requirements for care givers? For example, as a caregiver, how many children can you watch at a time? So 1 SRO has custody of 3000 kids at a big school?

    Any lawyers out there?
    Looked at the statutes and it appears that not being an actual employee of the school is what will probably eventually save Peterson. They are trying to tie Peterson to those statutes via the contract between BSO and the school, but that won't fly on appeal. The legislators obviously did not contemplate that this could happen. If he was employed by the school, then they believe that the charges would probably hold up.

    Conversely, the courts have stated many times that police officers do not have a constitutional duty to protect you. At first glance, that may seem cold, but think about how that would actually play out if you could be arrested for not acting.

    Anytime a police officer is faced with certain death - and there is a life to be saved - officers would be required to act. They would be required to die or be charged with a crime. Giving your life in the line of duty is an act of heroism. But it is an act an individual must be free to make. The State doesnít have a right to order the death of a police officer in the line of duty. If you make it a requirement, then very few people will take a job, where others will determine their fate. Thatís why the law is written the way it is.

    Most heroic cops will risk their life to save others. Personally, I was disgusted with the fact the deputy didnít go in. It made me sick to my stomach. But it still doesnít make him a criminal. It just doesnít. And watching the SAO and FDLE manipulate and twist the law, to make a bad arrest for their own gain, makes me sicker.

    This is a miscarriage of justice of the highest order.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    So all I heard on the news tonight was that Dep Peterson was the care giver of the students who were shot. If that is the case, then:
    • Can an SRO just take a kid into custody, without the schools permission?
    • And if the SRO is the care giver, do FERPA laws apply to SRO's?
    • And one last point: what is the legal requirements for care givers? For example, as a caregiver, how many children can you watch at a time? So 1 SRO has custody of 3000 kids at a big school?

    Any lawyers out there?
    No statute was violated. Neglect was a statute written for people in a position of custodial responsibility. To insinuate a cop is a caregiver is the most asinine thing Iíve ever heard in my life. So because Peterson was assigned to a school, he now is the caregiver for 2000 kids? No one is going to buy that. Itís stupid and the morons that filed these charges are stupid. No one has the ability to adequately watch 2000 kids. If that were the case, then you can charge every SRO with child neglect right now because I guarantee you, every day on every campus, some kids are doing drugs, having sex, sneaking off, committing crimes, etc. The fact that a cop has no constitutional obligation to act has everything to do with this case.

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    I heard one lawyer talking about it and he seemed to think it would eventually get dismissed but he said there wasn't any case law he knew of that actually rules it out.

    He said there was some case law that led him to think that because Peterson was an employee of the Sheriff's Dept. technically and not the school that he would get off. He didn't name any of the cases he was talking about however. A lot of people are hoping this gets drug out for some time however to at least cost Peterson quite a bit of money on lawyers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Sure your Cracker Jack box jail house lawyer told you that.

    Iíve been a cop for over twenty years. Iíve seen thousands of arrests. I can say without a doubt, this is by far, the worst most illegal arrest, Iíve ever seen made in my entire career.

    Itís despicable and shameful. The people behind this arrest should be arrested themselves. Iím not kidding.
    The arrest is an attempt by politicians and lawyers to egregiously manipulate (jury rig) the law to achieve political outcomes. If a person gets on the wrong side of the political fence, then this is what happens. This is why so many people claim that "the system is rigged." Bad politicians and lawyers ruin the political and legal system for those who formerly trusted in it. It is happening before our very eyes.

+ Reply to Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •