OT Parkland School Cop Scot Peterson Arrested

[Chris Craig]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1013831

Good. Fucking coward

 

[Mediocre Man]

Has the potential to be the first thread in S2 history where everyone agrees.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Has the potential to be the first thread in S2 history where everyone agrees.

Hi, you must be new here.

 

[Mediocre Man]

Hi, you must be new here.

Nope, I feel good about this

 

[tlongII]

Actually I didn't know being a coward was a criminal offense.

 

[barfo]

That's why Noël Coward wrote all his plays in prison.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Actually I didn't know being a coward was a criminal offense.

This is my take. I haven't researched what laws he's charged under but first impression is he's being charged for being a coward.

 

[Orion Bailey]

This is my take. I haven't researched what laws he's charged under but first impression is he's being charged for being a coward.

Mhavent read details yet either.

Fired for being a coward? Fair.
Charges? Not fair.

 

[THE HCP]

Wow, this is a tough one. Biggest jerk/prick/coward ever, YES. Not sure that should be punishable. Slippery slope.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Was this guy a cop? Or was he just a school security guard who had a license to carry?

If its the latter, I would see him not signing up for that kind of bullshit. Kind of a little bitch for doing so, but he was probably some old guy who needed a job, not thinking he would be die on the job with crazed school shooters.

 

[Minstrel]

If his job is to protect the students and he purposely did not (whether due to cowardice or other reasons), I can see how he could be guilty of criminal neglect. Just as a babysitter who doesn't pay attention to a small child while it does something dangerous and ends up killing itself could be liable criminally for neglect. When your job involves safeguarding others and you purposely neglect to do so, you may be legally responsible.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

If his job is to protect the students and he purposely did not (whether due to cowardice or other reasons), I can see how he could be guilty of criminal neglect. Just as a babysitter who doesn't pay attention to a small child while it does something dangerous and ends up killing itself could be liable criminally for neglect. When your job involves safeguarding others and you purposely neglect to do so, you may be legally responsible.

They would have to prove his actions would have definitely stopped the gunman. He was likely outgunned and didn't have the proper training to handle this situation. I'm guessing that will be his defense, he was not properly trained for a combat scenario.

It would also set a precedent that the right thing to do in any scenario involving a deadly situation (even for example, someone with a knife) would be to shoot to kill, since not killing a threat would be tantamount to neglect.

 

[Minstrel]

They would have to prove his actions would have definitely stopped the gunman.

No, they wouldn't. Neglect isn't a claim that everything would have changed if he had done something. Neglect means he disregarded his required duties to a criminal extent.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

No, they wouldn't. Neglect isn't a claim that everything would have changed if he had done something. Neglect means he disregarded his required duties to a criminal extent.

Neglect would assume he was properly trained and capable to handle this situation. He likely had some sort of hand pistol while the gunman had a semi-automatic rifle. Getting into a gun battle in a school with no backup may have actually escalated the situation. I don't know his thought process, but if I was defending him, these are the arguments I would use.

 

[Minstrel]

Neglect would assume he was properly trained and capable to handle this situation. He likely had some sort of hand pistol while the gunman had a semi-automatic rifle.

He didn't investigate and he told other law enforcement who arrived to remain 500 feet away. He's going to justifiably have a hard time in trial.

 

[Chris Craig]

Neglect would assume he was properly trained and capable to handle this situation. He likely had some sort of hand pistol while the gunman had a semi-automatic rifle. Getting into a gun battle in a school with no backup may have actually escalated the situation. I don't know his thought process, but if I was defending him, these are the arguments I would use.

He is a police officer, of course he is trained to shoot bad guys with guns. As school officer I am sure he was trained for such instances...its the very purpose of his job.

If there is a gunman and my students are in his path, you fucking bet I will put my life on the line to protect them and stop the fucker.

 

[Chris Craig]

If his job is to protect the students and he purposely did not (whether due to cowardice or other reasons), I can see how he could be guilty of criminal neglect. Just as a babysitter who doesn't pay attention to a small child while it does something dangerous and ends up killing itself could be liable criminally for neglect. When your job involves safeguarding others and you purposely neglect to do so, you may be legally responsible.

This. He never truly invesitagted. He never went inside. He didn't do his job. He is crimminaly liable. You better bet the parents of the killed/shot students will be at his trial.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

He is a police officer, of course he is trained to shoot bad guys with guns. As school officer I am sure he was trained for such instances...its the very purpose of his job.

If there is a gunman and my students are in his path, you fucking bet I will put my life on the line to protect them and stop the fucker.

We'll see what his training for this situation will reveal.

"Shoot bad guys with guns" sounds nice, but it may not be what his training told him to do.

 

[MarAzul]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1013831

Good. Fucking coward

Has the potential to be the first thread in S2 history where everyone agrees.

Mhavent read details yet either.

Fired for being a coward? Fair.
Charges? Not fair.

I thought about that guy when the tragedy went down. I guess the officer in question was close to retirement. Then I began to think about assigning a near retiree to such duty. Duty where he is out of the main stream for the most part everyday, but Holy hell! When and if trouble came, it is so damned important that the Cop on Duty be ready to lock and load, take down the son of bitch!

Nope, the guy should have been behind a desk or what I don't know, But this was not the place, guarding the children. Man you want the most ferocious bastard you can find for that job. A dude where no gunner in his half assed right mind would dare to cross.

Prosecute the Chief, not the officer.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

We'll see what his training for this situation will reveal.

"Shoot bad guys with guns" sounds nice, but it may not be what his training told him to do.

He'll have an easy time with a good lawyer.

First question to the jury in closing arguments....if there is a raging fire and people trapped in it, is a fireman required to go in and save them no matter what?

Second is should a police officer be required to charge in to a shootout no matter what?

I still think the guy was cowardly but I don't see how it is an easy conviction.

 

[MarAzul]

He'll have an easy time with a good lawyer.

First question to the jury in closing arguments....if there is a raging fire and people trapped in it, is a fireman required to go in and save them no matter what?

Second is should a police officer be required to charge in to a shootout no matter what?

I still think the guy was cowardly but I don't see how it is an easy conviction.

I would not convict this fellow. I did not vote to convict and abortionist years ago either. Some crimes just should never be charged.

I would bust the Chief though.

 

[e_blazer]

Has the potential to be the first thread in S2 history where everyone agrees.

As is so often the case, potential flopped.

 

[dviss1]

They would have to prove his actions would have definitely stopped the gunman.

Your takes sometimes... Goodness...

 

[Chris Craig]

He'll have an easy time with a good lawyer.

First question to the jury in closing arguments....if there is a raging fire and people trapped in it, is a fireman required to go in and save them no matter what?

Second is should a police officer be required to charge in to a shootout no matter what?

I still think the guy was cowardly but I don't see how it is an easy conviction.

If the fireman can go in, yes he is required too

 

[Chris Craig]

I thought about that guy when the tragedy went down. I guess the officer in question was close to retirement. Then I began to think about assigning a near retiree to such duty. Duty where he is out of the main stream for the most part everyday, but Holy hell! When and if trouble came, it is so damned important that the Cop on Duty be ready to lock and load, take down the son of bitch!

Nope, the guy should have been behind a desk or what I don't know, But this was not the place, guarding the children. Man you want the most ferocious bastard you can find for that job. A dude where no gunner in his half assed right mind would dare to cross.

Prosecute the Chief, not the officer.

I agree with you that a guy about to retire should not be given such a position

 

[Chris Craig]

As is so often the case, potential flopped.

We do all agree is a coward

 

[dviss1]

Guys are debating shit they don't even research... Goodness.... Lotta conjecture going on in this thread... He's being charged (rightfully so) with Culpable Negligence.

Read and you'll know the guy's probably gonna get some time...

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.

 

[dviss1]

827.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.—
(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Aggravated child abuse” occurs when a person:
1. Commits aggravated battery on a child;
2. Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or
3. Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.
(b) “Child abuse” means:
1. Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;
2. An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child; or
3. Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.
(c) “Maliciously” means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury.
(d) “Mental injury” means injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a child as evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the ability of the child to function within the normal range of performance and behavior as supported by expert testimony.
(e) “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.
Except as otherwise provided in this section, neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.

(2) OFFENSES.—
(a) A person who commits aggravated child abuse commits a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(b) 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, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(c) A person who knowingly or willfully abuses a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(d) A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects a child without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) EXPERT TESTIMONY.—
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a physician may not provide expert testimony in a criminal child abuse case unless the physician is a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 or has obtained certification as an expert witness pursuant to s. 458.3175 or s. 459.0066.
(b) A physician may not provide expert testimony in a criminal child abuse case regarding mental injury unless the physician is a physician licensed under chapter 458 or chapter 459 who has completed an accredited residency in psychiatry or has obtained certification as an expert witness pursuant to s. 458.3175 or s. 459.0066.
(c) A psychologist may not give expert testimony in a criminal child abuse case regarding mental injury unless the psychologist is licensed under chapter 490.
(d) The expert testimony requirements of this subsection apply only to criminal child abuse and neglect cases pursuant to this chapter, dependency cases pursuant to chapter 39, and cases involving sexual battery of a child pursuant to chapter 794 and not to family court cases.

 

[dviss1]

Put this MF UNDER the jail...

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

If the fireman can go in, yes he is required too

Firemen are kept from going in all the time. As @MarAzul says it is on the chief.