Results 1 to 10 of 10
-
06-04-2019, 08:18 PM #1
- Join Date
- Aug 2017
- Location
- USA
- Posts
- 450
Florida deputy charged after staying outside school shooting
Originally Posted by Curt Anderson and Terry Spencer
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.
-
06-04-2019, 09:07 PM #2UnregisteredGuest
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.
-
06-06-2019, 02:19 PM #3UnregisteredGuest
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
-
06-06-2019, 06:00 PM #4UnregisteredGuest
If a deputy made an illegal arrest this bad, they would be fired and jailed for it. I don’t 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.
-
06-06-2019, 06:17 PM #5UnregisteredGuest
-
06-06-2019, 11:49 PM #6UnregisteredGuest
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.
-
06-07-2019, 03:01 PM #7UnregisteredGuestOriginally Posted by Assistant State Attorney Tim Donnelly
- 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?
-
06-07-2019, 05:31 PM #8UnregisteredGuest
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 doesn’t 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. That’s 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 didn’t go in. It made me sick to my stomach. But it still doesn’t make him a criminal. It just doesn’t. 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.
-
06-07-2019, 06:55 PM #9UnregisteredGuest
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 I’ve 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. It’s 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.
-
06-08-2019, 02:24 PM #10UnregisteredGuest
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.
Bookmarks