https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/h...quired-to-stop-massacre/ar-AAyI6oi?li=BBnbcA1

"Peterson took shelter rather than confront the killer, but he did not act with malice or bad faith, according to his attorneys, Michael Piper and Christopher Stearns of Fort Lauderdale. Therefore he can't be held legally responsible for the deaths, they say in court documents.

Allegations against Peterson suggest only that he "opted for self-preservation over heroics," the attorneys wrote.

The statements came in a motion seeking to dismiss a lawsuit filed by Andrew Pollack, the father of 18-year-old Meadow Pollack, who was killed in the shooting."


This may be an example where something is legally right and yet morally reprehensible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

Warren vs District of Columbia was pretty clear in the fact that police are not required to protect anyone. They are merely agents of the state to collect revenue from victimless crimes for whichever town, city, or state that employs them.

Protection and heroics are usually not required, but you also cannot stop a person from being who they are; a tiger can't change his stripes. Revenue collection is one of the signs visible from our side of the TBL. At the most basic level, law enforcement actions are dictated/driven by the will of government in the form of law, code, ordinance, etc., and yes, even personal bias and beliefs on the parts of government and law enforcement. When it comes to non-compliance enforcement may be directed to force the will of government on citizens, or just let some things slide. Even more odd, an "enforceable" offense in one town doesn't even register in another. Back on point, I suspect this guy's actions were part personality and part department policy; a bit of written policy maybe mixed with how things are just normally done.

I have spoken to several officers about the Parkland shooting and the deputy's lack of action All of them were outraged They all stated that what he did was against their training. However, I agree that he may be able to shelter behind the law on this one

Jeb21 said:

...
This may be an example where something is legally right and yet morally reprehensible.

Click to expand...

Perhaps "legally ALLOWED" is more accurate than "legally right".

We live in a society where some idiot can win a lawsuit for spilling a hot cup of coffee on herself, but a sworn law enforcement officer, while assigned to a school as his primary duty, is not held responsible for failing to respond to an obvious crime-in-progress involving children.

We'll see which team of snakes can twist the law better...

I suspect that his punishment will not involve a single day in jail or a single dollar lost from his retirement/benefits.
But what I hope for is this. Everywhere he goes,for the rest of his life,he is drawn out of the shadows by people that know him and recognise him,or heard about him,and he is called a coward to the extreme in a FTF confrontation. I hope he is forced to hide out,like the scum he is,for the rest of his life.
I also hope that his family and friends disown him and he has to live alone,and in seclusion. Not able to go to the grocery store or bank for fear of someone recognising him and calling him a coward.
Wondering . . . how in the hell can his family even have anything to do with him ??? --- SAWMAN

Unfortunately I think he will do quite well in retired life. I doubt there are any legal grounds to take his state pension. The world is full of scrum living the life of Reilly. It seems that many of the parents of the murdered students would rather go after our guns than deal with the coward that refused to protect. But then who said the world was fair and just?

Sro/le duty to protect

I don't think a Opt-Out opt on exists in either the Depts Policy or Training Manuals. Lawyers are just putting spin out to the Press using specific legal terms that Peterson (himself) can't. They also claim Peterson has no Liability because he was not in control. Really? Isn't the School Petersons Area of Assigned Responsibility? Isn't Peterson the Firstl Officer on scene? Didn't prior reporting state: Peterson communicated with and directed arriving LE to not go in the School and form a perimeter? His execution of "Control" was poor and in violation of Protocols but it was STILL Control and his Responsibility until passed or assumed by other LE/Supervisor. To Opt-Out after you fully understand job expectations is fine, doing it after collecting a check for 30 years when you hear gunfire is not.

Duty to Protect. SCOTUS CASTLE ROCK V GONZALES (04-278), often referenced but seldom understood. The Court Ruled that Gunzales was not entitled to benefit of Police protection of Property (three murdered children) based on a Local Court Ordered Restraining Order (RO) that also included CO State Law directed LE actions. In short the Court Ruled that the RO included a wide range of discretionary actions. The Subject of the RO was not present when Gonzales or LE when she requested action.

Here's the Kicker: Subject later drove to the Police Station with the bodies of his daughters in the truck and started a gunfight with LE resulting in Subjects death.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/545/748.html

DUTY TO PROTECT: here it is IMHO

Below Text from the Case (at Link) that clearly defines the difference between the BG not on site and when the BG is PRESENT.

The practical necessity for discretion is particularly apparent in a case such as this one, where the suspected violator is not actually present and his whereabouts are unknown. Cf.*Donaldson*v.*Seattle,*65 Wash. App. 661, 671-672, 831 P.*2d 1098, 1104 (1992) ("There is a vast difference between a mandatory duty to arrest [a violator who is on the scene] and a mandatory duty to conduct a follow up investigation [to locate an absent violator]...*. A mandatory duty to investigate would be completely open-ended as to priority, duration and intensity").

Now apply the correct standard with former SRO Peterson and the On-Site and active BG.

Can't get the image of him jumping on the golf cart and speeding AWAY out of my head.

Guy deserves the full brunt of it.

I don’t see how he sleeps at night.
If he couldn’t do the job he was hired to do, he should’ve resigned and let a man have the job.

I had to edit this response. There are also women that could have done a much better job than him.

interesting read
http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...s_high_school_guard_was_sus-tca/category/news

I don't see any admission by the former deputy. All that is reported is that his lawyer described his actions.

Too bad they can't retroactively fire him for dereliction of duty and cause a loss of benefits. More than court cases have held that cops have no obligation to protect. So I believe his lawyer is correct that the former deputy was not legally responsible for any deaths due to his lack of action.

Double Naught Spy said:

I don't see any admission by the former deputy. All that is reported is that his lawyer described his actions.

Too bad they can't retroactively fire him for dereliction of duty and cause a loss of benefits. More than court cases have held that cops have no obligation to protect. So I believe his lawyer is correct that the former deputy was not legally responsible for any deaths due to his lack of action.

Click to expand...

Quote from the first article:


"Peterson took shelter rather than confront the killer, but he did not act with malice or bad faith, according to his attorneys, Michael Piper and Christopher Stearns of Fort Lauderdale. Therefore he can't be held legally responsible for the deaths, they say in court documents.

Allegations against Peterson suggest only that he "opted for self-preservation over heroics," the attorneys wrote."

Jeb21 said:

Quote from the first article:


"Peterson took shelter rather than confront the killer, but he did not act with malice or bad faith, according to his attorneys, Michael Piper and Christopher Stearns of Fort Lauderdale. Therefore he can't be held legally responsible for the deaths, they say in court documents.

Allegations against Peterson suggest only that he "opted for self-preservation over heroics," the attorneys wrote."

Click to expand...

Yep, that is in the article and it is not any sort of admission by the deputy. That is a 3rd party description/interpretation of the events by the lawyer.

An admission by the deputy would have to come from the deputy and none of the statements in the article are from the deputy.

Are not the attorneys essentially his spokesmen, seeing as how they are representing him?

Double Naught Spy said:

Yep, that is in the article and it is not any sort of admission by the deputy. That is a 3rd party description/interpretation of the events by the lawyer.

An admission by the deputy would have to come from the deputy and none of the statements in the article are from the deputy.

Click to expand...

Florida Statutes 90.803.18(c) Admissions - "statement by a person specifically authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject" - is admissible against the party.

Here we have the deputy's lawyer making the statement in a courtroom while representing the deputy.


https://law.justia.com/codes/florida/2015/title-vii/chapter-90/section-90.803/

(18) ADMISSIONS.—A statement that is offered against a party and is:

(a) The party’s own statement in either an individual or a representative capacity;

(b) A statement of which the party has manifested an adoption or belief in its truth;

(c) A statement by a person specifically authorized by the party to make a statement concerning the subject;

(d) A statement by the party’s agent or servant concerning a matter within the scope of the agency or employment thereof, made during the existence of the relationship; or

Jester896 said:

interesting read
http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...s_high_school_guard_was_sus-tca/category/news

Click to expand...

That school clearly had some issues. I wonder what happened to the security guard post shooting.

One of the major issues imnseeing is the disconnect between expectations of services, and actual services legally required.
People expect police to act one way, but they are trained/told/allowed to act another way.

Social norms and standards are changing/have changed.

The OP said that the deputy admitted to hiding. There is no statement from the deputy.

That a lawyer for the deputy described the deputy's actions is no more of an admission by the deputy than the Sheriff's descriptions of the deputy's actions being an admission by the deputy. They aren't admissions by the deputy. Lawyers can say a lot of things about their clients and their client activities and it doesn't mean that any of it came from the client.

Jester896 said:

interesting read
http://start.att.net/news/read/arti...s_high_school_guard_was_sus-tca/category/news

Click to expand...

Jesus. From the article:
*"I think it's politically incorrect that they didn't fire him because if they did, maybe they would have had someone competent to stop [Cruz] from getting onto campus," Pollack told CBS 4 News.*
They shoulda fired him because a 39 year old has no buisssness hitting on high school children.