Former Deputy Scott Peterson

[wcd]

Appears he is facing criminal charges form his reprehensible behavior. UNDERSTANDING I am in no way making excuses for his behavior I am questioning the logic behind bringing up charges against him. The courts have long since ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual. So it would seem that a motion for summary disposition should have been filed ?

Am I alone in thinking that efforts could be directed in a more productive direction?

 

[BigRed]

Appears he is facing criminal charges form his reprehensible behavior. UNDERSTANDING I am in no way making excuses for his behavior I am questioning the logic behind bringing up charges against him. The courts have long since ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual. So it would seem that a motion for summary disposition should have been filed ?

Am I alone in thinking that efforts could be directed in a more productive direction?

No, you are not.

 

[BigRed]

Sheep often think a leo is some super human with superman power responsible for saving them.

Wrong.

When SHTF, you and you alone are your first responder.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I agree with your interpretation. However I can also understand how a complete disregard for duty can trigger this. Had he at least made a good faith effort to engage, I'd say he shouldnt be tried.

But given he pulled a Corporal Upham when duty called, he may have forfeited that protection. YMMV

To put a finer point on this, while they have no DUTY to protect, they should at least put in a good faith effort.
Try to enter and are repelled by gunfire? OK.
Cower outside and dont even attempt an entry due to the SOUND of gunfire? Unacceptable.

 

[Creedmoor]

I wonder what Oath that Sheriffs Dept takes? With some Law Enforcement Agency's, their Oath contains a Duty to Protect, others don't.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Appears he is facing criminal charges form his reprehensible behavior. UNDERSTANDING I am in no way making excuses for his behavior I am questioning the logic behind bringing up charges against him. The courts have long since ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual. So it would seem that a motion for summary disposition should have been filed ?

Am I alone in thinking that efforts could be directed in a more productive direction?

Do you have a link for this one?

(This one might be a long one...)

I'm good with this being a bash the Coward of Broward County thread. If it devolves into an ACAB thread it will be locked.

The now former Deputy Scot Peterson stood out for showing cowardice on a day where we saw multiple abject failures with disastrous results. Not to mention the multiple failures in the years leading up to that infamous day in 2018 (school refused to take action, Broward County Sheriff's Dept called 30+ times, foster mother was assaulted and nothing happened, FBI notified with a screenshot and "meh?")

Parkland and Uvalde stand out as how not to react to a mass-murderer. Many other don't stay in the news long when the threat is eliminated quickly.

Last Spring in Nashville we saw (literally from the body camera footage) Officers conduct themselves with gallantry and bravery to eliminate a mass-murderer. Still no manifesto, and 14 minutes is a very long time.

Riss v NYC (1968); Warren v DC (1981); Castlerock v Gonzales (2005)

I can't find the specific case but Parkland students et al v Peterson was also dismissed recently.

This case will have the same results as the ones above. "Not a good use of resources" does come to mind.

 

[wtburnette]

This seems more like distraction material to me, similar to the air force whistle blower talking about UFO's. The people in charge want us looking anywhere but at what they're doing.

 

[KLB]

Do you have a link for this one?

(This one might be a long one...)

I'm good with this being a bash the Coward of Broward County thread. If it devolves into an ACAB thread it will be locked.

The now former Deputy Scot Peterson stood out for showing cowardice on a day where we saw multiple abject failures with disastrous results. Not to mention the multiple failures in the years leading up to that infamous day in 2018 (school refused to take action, Broward County Sheriff's Dept called 30+ times, foster mother was assaulted and nothing happened, FBI notified with a screenshot and "meh?")

Parkland and Uvalde stand out as how not to react to a mass-murderer. Many other don't stay in the news long when the threat is eliminated quickly.

Last Spring in Nashville we saw (literally from the body camera footage) Officers conduct themselves with gallantry and bravery to eliminate a mass-murderer. Still no manifesto, and 14 minutes is a very long time.

Riss v NYC (1968); Warren v DC (1981); Castlerock v Gonzales (2005)

I can't find the specific case but Parkland students et al v Peterson was also dismissed recently.

This case will have the same results as the ones above. "Not a good use of resources" does come to mind.

Peterson has pleaded not guilty to 11 counts, including seven of felony child neglect and three of culpable negligence, which prosecutor Steven Klinger said stem from each of the victims shot on the third floor of the school’s three-story 1200 building.

He also faces one count of perjury, in part for telling investigators he heard only two or three gunshots after arriving at the scene of the shooting, the affidavit says, while other witnesses said they’d heard more.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/07/us/scot-peterson-trial-parkland-shooting/index.html

 

[Denny347]

The courts have long since ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect any individual.

That's not true and an oversimplification of the court ruling. It's a commonly thrown around statement on the interwebz though. The "Special Relationship Doctrine" is always overlooked. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1735&context=luclj

 

[HoughMade]

This case will have the same results as the ones above....

Maybe, but unlikely.

The fact that this is going to trial tells me that we are past the point of dispositive motions. If it was going to be dismissed, it would have by now.

Keep in mind that this is a criminal case, not a civil case. The oft-cited "no duty to protect" is a civil standard for suits for money where the law is that there is no general duty to protect that populace at large. This is not that.

He is charged with 7 counts of child neglect, 3 counts of misdemeanor culpable negligence, and perjury for lying under oath during the investigation.

Let's take the first set of charges, felony child neglect:

Florida law

“Neglect of a child” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

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...

Fla. Stat. § 827.03

As used in this chapter:
(1) “Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.

Fla. Stat. § 827.03

I see how this gets to a jury.

Now, culpable negligence:

(1) Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree...
Fla. Stat. § 784.05

OK, this seems too vague to me, but again, that vagueness might be what gets it to a jury (There's vagueness, then there's unconstitutional vagueness...and this seem like it is on the line). Also, "exposes another person" would seem, to me, to take something more than not stopping the acts of another. Peterson did not create the hazard. I haven't read the case law, but unless there's something Florida specific that would change my mind, if I were the judge, this charge would not go to trial. The "neglect of a child" charge would.

 

[Denny347]

Keep in mind that this is a criminal case, not a civil case. The oft-cited "no duty to protect" is a civil standard for suits for money where the law is that there is no general duty to protect that populace at large.

Good reminder about a point that most don't understand.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Maybe, but unlikely.

The fact that this is going to trial tells me that we are past the point of dispositive motions. If it was going to be dismissed, it would have by now.

Keep in mind that this is a criminal case, not a civil case. The oft-cited "no duty to protect" is a civil standard for suits for money where the law is that there is no general duty to protect that populace at large. This is not that.

He is charged with 7 counts of child neglect, 3 counts of misdemeanor culpable negligence, and perjury for lying under oath during the investigation.

Let's take the first set of charges, felony child neglect:

Florida law

“Neglect of a child” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

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...

Fla. Stat. § 827.03

As used in this chapter:
(1) “Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.

Fla. Stat. § 827.03

I see how this gets to a jury.

Now, culpable negligence:

(1) Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree...
Fla. Stat. § 784.05

OK, this seems too vague to me, but again, that vagueness might be what gets it to a jury (There's vagueness, then there's unconstitutional vagueness...and this seem like it is on the line). Also, "exposes another person" would seem, to me, to take something more than not stopping the acts of another. Peterson did not create the hazard. I haven't read the case law, but unless there's something Florida specific that would change my mind, if I were the judge, this charge would not go to trial. The "neglect of a child" charge would.

I see says the blind man. Rather than an agent of the government, not having a constitutional requirement to protect… This is an individual who is responsible for children under State law.

 

[d.kaufman]

 

[HoughMade]

I see says the blind man. Rather than an agent of the government, not having a constitutional requirement to protect… This is an individual who is responsible for children under State law.

That's the argument at least and, according to the judge, a good enough argument to get to trial.

The truth is that, generally speaking, not a lot of criminal law (or civil law, for that matter) compels a person to act. That is, nonfeasance (not acting) is seldom illegal. Usually, it's malfeasance- acting badly.

The main source of exceptions to this principle (there are always exceptions) is when a person has an affirmative duty to act in the interests of another- then, nonfeasance can be illegal. Examples in criminal law would be child or elder (vulnerable adult) neglect, failure to report suspected abuse or neglect. There are others, but it's a pretty small set of crimes/prohibited nonfeasance.

 

[Alamo]

Trial happening now

Prosecutors face unprecedented trial with Parkland ex-deputy Scot Peterson

Broward prosecutors have their work cut out for them in the trial of the former Broward school resource officer who was on duty during the 2018 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a legal expert says. Opening arguments were delivered last week.

www.wlrn.org

Officer who raced to Parkland massacre scene testifies against deputy who stayed outside

A police officer who rushed into a high school building during the 2018 Parkland shooting testified Friday that a sheriff's deputy outside confirmed that the shooter was upstairs. The former Broward County deputy, Scot Peterson, is on trial for failing to confront the shooter who killed 17...

news.yahoo.com

 

[Alamo]

Jury deliberations conclude for third day in trial of ex-Parkland school resource officer Scot Peterson

Former Broward County Deputy Scot Peterson, the only resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, was found ..... of inaction during the 2018 shooting in Parkland, Florida.

www.foxnews.com

 

[BigRed]

I've not been following this closely.

Regardless of the result of this case, I would hope folks would realize that relying on state is a bad choice.

When SHTF, you and you alone are your first responder.


ETA: I expect he will not be found "guilty" if there are cognitive jurors in the box.

 

[wcd]

I've not been following this closely.

Regardless of the result of this case, I would hope folks would realize that relying on state is a bad choice.

When SHTF, you and you alone are your first responder.


ETA: I expect he will not be found "guilty" if there are cognitive jurors in the box.

Fixed for you…Immediate responder.

 

[manifest destiny]

Peterson hid.

 

[d.kaufman]

Not guilty

Scot Peterson not guilty over Parkland school shooting response

Former sheriff's deputy Scot Peterson stayed outside during a mass shooting that killed 17 people.

www.bbc.com