that coward in Broward revisited

[gunsmith]

recall that "cop" who waited outside while that loser killed students?



https://apnews.com/article/shootings-parkland-florida-school-shooting-bb5c5fe81cecb63886bd325b53b2e597

[kgbsquirrel]

Good.

[Hawkmoon]

Interesting. In the context of discussions about jury nullification, we constantly hear from those who oppose jury nullification that, "The jury decides on the facts, the judge decides on the law."

But here ...

The law that Peterson is accused of breaking specifically applies to caregivers, but defense attorneys argued during a hearing Wednesday that a law enforcement officer doesn’t fit the legal definition of a caregiver.

Prosecutors are arguing that school resources officers are inherently different from other law enforcement officers and should be considered caregivers.

Fein ruled that a jury can decide whether a school resource officer should be considered a caregiver and noted that a jury instruction will be included to that effect.

So the judge has explicitly ruled that the jury will decide what the law means.

[Fly320s]

Interesting. In the context of discussions about jury nullification, we constantly hear from those who oppose jury nullification that, "The jury decides on the facts, the judge decides on the law."

But here ...

So the judge has explicitly ruled that the jury will decide what the law means.

My take on that is the judge knows the ex-cop can't/won't be convicted by a judge, but a jury probably will convict him.  Basically, the judge is having the jury get the result the judge wants.

[HankB]

My take on that is the judge knows the ex-cop can't/won't be convicted by a judge, but a jury probably will convict him.  Basically, the judge is having the jury get the result the judge wants.

If so, then some other judge will overturn the (hoped for) verdict on appeal.

Cops have often said "You may beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride." This may be a turnabout where for a change it will be a bad officer who'll learn that the process can be the punishment.

[ConstitutionCowboy]

At the very least, it was dereliction of duty resulting in homicide. I assume he was getting paid to be a/the "resource" officer.

Woody

[Fly320s]

Has SCOTUS ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect?  I remember it that way.

If so, I wonder how that applies here.

[cordex]

Has SCOTUS ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect?  I remember it that way.

If so, I wonder how that applies here.

Prosecutors have said that Peterson failed to come to the rescue as Cruz was making his way through the school’s hallways. The law that Peterson is accused of breaking specifically applies to caregivers, but defense attorneys argued during a hearing Wednesday that a law enforcement officer doesn’t fit the legal definition of a caregiver.

Prosecutors are arguing that school resources officers are inherently different from other law enforcement officers and should be considered caregivers.

[Hawkmoon]

Has SCOTUS ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect?  I remember it that way.

If so, I wonder how that applies here.

They did rule to that effect. However ...

I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know what case to look up to even read the decision as a layman. In general, I think the case applies in general to a police department not having a duty to protect a specific person or persons. Without reading the decision, I don't know how (or if) that would apply to, for example, an officer working an off-duty gig in uniform as perhaps security at a bank. In such a case, he is not just "a cop" patrolling an area of the municipality, he is being paid specifically by the bank to be there in the bank to protect the bank, it's money, and its customers. I'm going to guess that the SCOTUS "no general duty to protect" case would not apply.

I view a school security officer in the same light. He wasn't a patrol officer, out walking a beat or driving a route. He was specifically assigned to ONE school, ostensibly for the purpose of providing security for the students and teachers in that school. [Of course, we know in hindsight that his real function was to whitewash disciplinary problems affecting students of color, but that's another story). "Caregiver" or not, I think the unique circumstances attaching to a school resource officer take the "no general duty to protect" argument off the table.

[MechAg94]

I was thinking more about the security camera footage being delayed and other problems with the whole system there.  Goes a little beyond just that officer.

[gunsmith]

 everybody in this thread, if armed at the time, would have rushed in and tried to save some kids.
 I "know" cops have no duty to protect, but someone the deficient in caring about innocent children, needs to be made an example of.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't know how the law is written, but it would seem an awfully bad law that would consider a school resource officer something other than a care-giver. If he's not caring for the children, why is he there? To protect the staff?

[K Frame]

I've not really dug into it all that deeply, but man, I really think this one is a stretch on the prosecution's part.

And trying to define him as a caregiver is, in my estimation, a big end run around the Supreme Court's ruling on police duty to protect.

[fifth_column]

I don't know how the law is written, but it would seem an awfully bad law that would consider a school resource officer something other than a care-giver. If he's not caring for the children, why is he there? To protect the staff?

I think a line can be drawn between providing security and providing care. I also think one providing security would have a duty to respond to a life threatening situation.

The article states he's accused of breaking a law that "specifically applies to caregivers." This way, they have to spend time on determining what a "caregiver" is, conveniently avoiding actually determining wrong doing. Sound like a stall tactic to me.

[kgbsquirrel]

I've not really dug into it all that deeply, but man, I really think this one is a stretch on the prosecution's part.

And trying to define him as a caregiver is, in my estimation, a big end run around the Supreme Court's ruling on police duty to protect.

Police on patrol do not have a general duty to protect people.
Police assigned to a school have a specific duty to protect people at that school.

These are not mutually exclusive.

[Regolith]

recall that "cop" who waited outside while that loser killed students?



https://apnews.com/article/shootings-parkland-florida-school-shooting-bb5c5fe81cecb63886bd325b53b2e597

Good.

IIRC this *expletive deleted*it stain not only hid, but also directed other responding officers to not go in. Being a coward is one thing, but a coward who prevents others from doing their duty is unforgivable.

I also seem to recall that the court rulings about police not having an obligation to protect the public were specifically cases where the police simply didn't respond, or didn't respond in time. In this case, the guy actively prevented other police officers from responding effectively. That may change the equation a bit.

[Hawkmoon]

Police on patrol do not have a general duty to protect people.
Police assigned to a school have a specific duty to protect people at that school.

These are not mutually exclusive.

Article on the topic by Don Kates (some of you may have heard of him). Scroll down a bit to the reprint of his older article:

http://www.wagc.com/supreme-court-reaffirms-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-you/


Also:

https://www.barneslawllp.com/blog/police-not-required-protect

[K Frame]

Police on patrol do not have a general duty to protect people.
Police assigned to a school have a specific duty to protect people at that school.

These are not mutually exclusive.

So, police assigned to a school aren't actually on patrol... you know, as in patrolling that school...

And thus they are caregivers.

Nope. Not buying it.

[Jim147]

Up here they are private security. Like the guys that work the bars on the weekends. Not sure about Florida but that would get past the police thing.

[Tim L]

A friend of mine/ co-worker is a school resource officer.  He's also retired LEO.  Basically nobody is going to get to HIS kids.

[MechAg94]

If memory serves, wasn't this guy sort of a screw up who the sheriff put in that job to sort of protect him where he would follow orders and not mess up?