political scapegoat Scot Peterson arrested

[Unregistered]

I guess you don't know the difference between a criminal action and a civil action and the thresholds for both in this case.

I think you don't as the threshold in a civil case is a lot lower than in a criminal case.

[Unregistered]

I guess you don't know the difference between a criminal action and a civil action and the thresholds for both in this case.

Wow, you are a real genius. Criminal= beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil= preponderance of evidence, much lower threshold. It leads down a dangerous path when law enforcement is criminally liable for not preventing crime. You are not required to enter a building on a suicide mission, I really hope Peterson fights this to the end. This is a case that isn’t based on facts, just public opinion, emotion, and politics. That was the worst day of his life too, he has suffered enough.

[Unregistered]

Wow, you are a real genius. Criminal= beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil= preponderance of evidence, much lower threshold. It leads down a dangerous path when law enforcement is criminally liable for not preventing crime. You are not required to enter a building on a suicide mission, I really hope Peterson fights this to the end. This is a case that isn’t based on facts, just public opinion, emotion, and politics. That was the worst day of his life too, he has suffered enough.

WRONG

When a person is charged with a crime, they must meet the probable cause of the specific charge they are accused of as spelled out in the Statutes.

With a civil litigation, they must meet different standards such as culpable negligence, or other actions that give rise to civil penalties based on liability. The two are completely different beasts. If Peterson is found guilty, the lawsuits will follow. That's why he will likely cop a plea and give up his pension.

[Unregistered]

FYI, Peterson't pension, IRA/annuity, house and vehicle are protected from civil lawsuit judgements under Florida law. Can't get blood out of a turnip.

[Unregistered]

WRONG

When a person is charged with a crime, they must meet the probable cause of the specific charge they are accused of as spelled out in the Statutes.

With a civil litigation, they must meet different standards such as culpable negligence, or other actions that give rise to civil penalties based on liability. The two are completely different beasts. If Peterson is found guilty, the lawsuits will follow. That's why he will likely cop a plea and give up his pension.

Lol you are funny, yes probable cause is the standard that da po-lice have to make an arrest. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard jury instruction in every criminal case. This is something you wouldn’t know about big guy, now get back out there and change the world one no-file letter at a time.

[Unregistered]

Lol you are funny, yes probable cause is the standard that da po-lice have to make an arrest. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard jury instruction in every criminal case. This is something you wouldn’t know about big guy, now get back out there and change the world one no-file letter at a time.

That's ok. We wouldn't expect you to know anything about the law or anything since you are just a law enforcement officer.

[Unregistered]

WRONG

When a person is charged with a crime, they must meet the probable cause of the specific charge they are accused of as spelled out in the Statutes.

With a civil litigation, they must meet different standards such as culpable negligence, or other actions that give rise to civil penalties based on liability. The two are completely different beasts. If Peterson is found guilty, the lawsuits will follow. That's why he will likely cop a plea and give up his pension.

WRONG- A person charged with a crime doesn't need to establish probable cause, the burden is on the arresting officer.

WRONG- culpable negligence isn't a burden of proof, it's a CRIMINAL STATUTE.

784.05 Culpable negligence.—
(1) Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) Whoever, through culpable negligence, inflicts actual personal injury on another commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Whoever violates subsection (1) by storing or leaving a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a minor commits, if the minor obtains the firearm and uses it to inflict injury or death upon himself or herself or any other person, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection does not apply:
(a) If the firearm was stored or left in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure, or was securely locked with a trigger lock;
(b) If the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person;
(c) To injuries resulting from target or sport shooting accidents or hunting accidents; or
(d) To members of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or State Militia, or to police or other law enforcement officers, with respect to firearm possession by a minor which occurs during or incidental to the performance of their official duties.

Here's a link to educate yourself:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...nal-cases.html

[Unregistered]

I don’t think you pro-arrest stance people get it, everyone knows that Scot Peterson is a coward, shouldn’t have ever been a cop, and should have been fired on the spot.

This case hinges on weather an SRO is a caregiver in the eye of Florida law. Never has been before and is definitely not meeting the intent of the law. This is an unprecedented case that is a modern day public lynching.

The arrest is illegal, but since it was done by the SAO (lawyers), no one will be held accountable. Peterson's arrest is 100% politically motivated and it shows how even the SAO can engage in illegal manipulation of the law to achieve a desired political outcome. It's a bad arrest that was made to satisfy an angry public. Peterson is simply a political and legal scapegoat.

It’s going to be hard recruiting new LEO’s when the possibility of being prosecuted for being too aggressive, and now, for not being aggressive enough.

[Unregistered]

True.

However, when a DCF worker doesn't do their job and is supposed to go check on a child and doesn't and that child gets killed, they get nailed too. Doctors are mandatory reporters. If they fail to report abuse, they too can and have been arrested. Bob perp walked Steven Urban for not filling out reports.... to protect children.

Politicians tell the public "we will protect your kids", and then sends LEO's to do exactly that. SRO's are really window dressing for that promise. The public gets angry when they don't and kids die. Do you really think that the politicians will risk not being elected rather than sacrifice you?

[Unregistered]

There is no doubt that Scott should’ve went into the school to save the children. But, if the order was send to stand your position and wait, then that will be the defense. If it’s in the general orders and SOP, he will help him because he was trained poorly. Fault of agency. If he is acquitted, then they will go after sheriff Israel.