Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: makattak on June 04, 2019, 03:51:40 PM
-
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/fl-ne-scot-peterson-arrested-terminated-20190604-247rpiefs5abpjkv43jgdlayhi-story.html
Peterson has been booked into the Broward Main Jail on 11 criminal charges, including child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury.
Peterson’s arrest comes after a 15-month investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement and the Broward State Attorney’s Office.
He should have been arrested a long time ago, but it's a start.
-
Oh, and the twitter thread highlighting this story is insane.
Bunch of people going on about how "You can't expect him to take on a SUICIDE MISSION!" "NO WAY could he go against an AR-15 with a 9MM! AR-15 has a 300yard effective range and 9mm only 75yards!"
Hey genius- it's of course a RISK to take on any armed person. It's also what he was paid for to TAKE that risk. (Insert argument about no duty to protect.) But it's not a suicide mission. It's a dangerous mission, like is asked of MANY people in this country.
As for effective range- just how big are the hallways at that school? He's not chasing him down in the plains of Afghanistan.
-
I think I would rather see arrests of the school board and that Sheriff (at the time). The guy was dumped into that position because they didn't want him anywhere else and someone trained him to wait for backup.
Not to mention that there were other Sheriff's officers that came on the scene who were telling police and paramedics not to go in.
-
The article says Peterson was fired. I thought he retired immediately after the shooting.
And I don't recognize the name of the Sheriff -- Gregory Tony. Did the guy who was sheriff at the time of the incident retire, or just not run for reelection?
-
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2019/06/04/now-that-broward-coward-scot-petersons-been-arrested-and-charged-when-can-we-expect-the-media-to-apologize/
-
The article says Peterson was fired. I thought he retired immediately after the shooting.
And I don't recognize the name of the Sheriff -- Gregory Tony. Did the guy who was sheriff at the time of the incident retire, or just not run for reelection?
I am pretty sure the Sheriff at the time (Scott Israel?) was fired by the current Gov of Florida. Not sure how that works in Florida.
-
The superintendent shares some of the blame. He was a buddy of Arne Duncan and a big proponent of Obama's promise program.
-
Why can I see this backfiring on a CCW "John Q Public" person who doesn't stop a threat in a similar situation, or being sued civilly by families of victims.
-
I am pretty sure the Sheriff at the time (Scott Israel?) was fired by the current Gov of Florida. Not sure how that works in Florida.
You are correct. I either missed it, or forgot.
https://www.gunpowdermagazine.com/broward-county-sheriff-scott-israel-fired-blames-the-nra/
-
Ehh, the guy might be a piece of *expletive deleted*it, but he's the scapegoat for the mal, mis, and nonfeasance by a whole lot of other folks.
-
Why can I see this backfiring on a CCW "John Q Public" person who doesn't stop a threat in a similar situation, or being sued civilly by families of victims.
I doubt it, for the same reason a plumber wouldn't be sued for fouling up CPR and killing, rather than saving an accident victim. A doctor on scene might be sued, but not the non-professional who just tried to help but fouled it up. Peterson was a trained professional.
That said, I'm not thrilled at the prison sentence. Getting fired and facing public humiliation? Sure. It's a little scary though, to think about being sent to prison for standing there and not doing something, as he was instructed to do. That seems like a dangerous precedent to me.
We can hate on the guy for not manning up regardless of the orders he was given, but neither cowardice nor stupidity are a crime, at least in civilian law.
-
Why can I see this backfiring on a CCW "John Q Public" person who doesn't stop a threat in a similar situation, or being sued civilly by families of victims.
Why? Has this not been done before?
Besides, private citizens are a much different animal than someone hired and trained to apprehend criminals. Also, such a ruling against a private citizen would basically say that citizen carry has a positive role in protecting the public. So...
-
Why? Has this not been done before?
Besides, private citizens are a much different animal than someone hired and trained to apprehend criminals. Also, such a ruling against a private citizen would basically say that citizen carry has a positive role in protecting the public. So...
Cops are private citizens too. Just bugs me when people try to seperate the two.
Do police have a duty to put themselves in harms way to save the non police?
-
Do police have a duty to put themselves in harms way to save the non police?
No, they don't. SCOTUS has ruled that way two or three times.
I don't think the officer should be charged with a crime of negligence or any other criminal charge for failing to act. The perjury charge might be applicable, though.
-
Cops are private citizens too.
Not in this case, obviously. When on duty, police are not acting as private citizens.
Of course, you knew that.
-
Ehh, the guy might be a piece of *expletive deleted*it, but he's the scapegoat for the mal, mis, and nonfeasance by a whole lot of other folks.
I suspect you're right. It smacks of "throwing the book at him." I'm not favoring him, but it sure looks like a prosecutor's tarring and feathering session. (election? election? election? ) I'm kinda glad he didn't thoughtlessly spit on the sidewalk.
-
There's a bit more to this than simple cowardice. The guy directed other responding deputies to stay away from the building and prevented them from going in. If it weren't for his direction, it's likely the other deputies would have gone in and shut the shooter down a hell of a lot sooner. He also claimed he was going in, but instead remained in his place of cover.
From page 11 of the arrest warrant:
https://cbsmiami.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/arrestwarrant.pdf
It's one thing to fail to confront an active shooter, but it's another thing entirely to actively block others from doing so.
-
There's a bit more to this than simple cowardice. The guy directed other responding deputies to stay away from the building and prevented them from going in. If it weren't for his direction, it's likely the other deputies would have gone in and shut the shooter down a hell of a lot sooner.
The perp actually got away, for a while, by blending in with the other students and leaving the school. No doubt the lack of response by the deputies made this easier.
-
I think the court will throw out the charges that are related to failing to confront the shooter. I am not sure about preventing other officers from entering. Lying after the fact may be something that sticks.
As far as the incident, remember this shooter was using ten round magazines. He was reloading frequently and I heard he had a couple of relatively long pauses as he had issues.
-
Not in this case, obviously. When on duty, police are not acting as private citizens.
Of course, you knew that.
Are they really? They are sworn to enforce the law, not to break the law, so they are held to the same standards as everyone else.
-
Are they really? They are sworn to enforce the law, not to break the law, so they are held to the same standards as everyone else.
They most certainly are NOT held to the same standards as everyone else. They have been granted a LOT of personal immunity for their actions.
That should come with significantly higher responsibilities.
-
I think the court will throw out the charges that are related to failing to confront the shooter. I am not sure about preventing other officers from entering. Lying after the fact may be something that sticks.
I'm not so sure. There were 17 people killed, and 17 more wounded. He's not being charged with 34 or even 17 counts, only 7. I think the line of reasoning is that if he had entered and confronted the shooter as soon as possible, he would have been too late to help the victims on the first floor but he would have been in time to possibly help those on the third floor.
I don't have any problem with that. He put on the uniform and took the paycheck. I don't think this case falls under the SCOTUS ruling pertaining to the police not having a general duty to protect. Obviously, the police can't prevent crimes that are taking place where they aren't present. Here, though, his job was the safety and security of the school and the students. Once he arrived at Building 12, he was present, but he failed to respond to the threat in any effective manner whatsoever.
-
Are they really? They are sworn to enforce the law, not to break the law, so they are held to the same standards as everyone else.
They are "civilians" in the sense that they are not military, but they are acting as agents of the state, exercising the police power of the state. So they are "civilians" in that they and their actions fall under civil law rather than the UCMJ, but they are not the same as "private citizens." They are the government.
-
I'm not so sure. There were 17 people killed, and 17 more wounded. He's not being charged with 34 or even 17 counts, only 7. I think the line of reasoning is that if he had entered and confronted the shooter as soon as possible, he would have been too late to help the victims on the first floor but he would have been in time to possibly help those on the third floor.
I don't have any problem with that. He put on the uniform and took the paycheck. I don't think this case falls under the SCOTUS ruling pertaining to the police not having a general duty to protect. Obviously, the police can't prevent crimes that are taking place where they aren't present. Here, though, his job was the safety and security of the school and the students. Once he arrived at Building 12, he was present, but he failed to respond to the threat in any effective manner whatsoever.
Wasn't there another resource officer who saw the shooter heading into the school with a rifle bag? I heard he went and hid out and texted his fellow resource officers. I am pretty sure that was a different guy.
-
Are they really?
Yes, they are really not acting as private citizens.
If an on-duty cop called to an active crime scene is acting as a private citizen, then can you point out any situation where someone would NOT be considered a private citizen?
-
Wasn't there another resource officer who saw the shooter heading into the school with a rifle bag? I heard he went and hid out and texted his fellow resource officers. I am pretty sure that was a different guy.
Nope. Peterson was the only armed police officer, school resource officer. The guy you're thinking of, and a couple of others, were unarmed school staffers acting as campus monitors.
-
No, they don't. SCOTUS has ruled that way two or three times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
In the case of Parkland, I would view it that there was a special relationship. Peterson was not a cop on the beat who didn't respond to a call because he was responding to other calls (or sleeping in his black-and-white). He was being paid specifically to be in that school, as the only armed police officer on the site. I respectfully submit that this created a "special relationship."
Secondly, as I noted above, he's not being charged with 34 or even 17 counts. He's being charged with 7 -- which I believe is based on the assumption that if he had acted appropriately, the people on the third floor might have been saved. I think that's reasonable.