Scot Peterson did not confront the Parkland school shooting. Should he be jailed?

Alligatorob

Alligatorob

SF VIP
Location
Northern Utah, transplanted from Florida/Louisiana
Would a conviction be justice or revenge against a possible coward, but otherwise innocent man?

For me its a really hard one to call, hopefully the jury will get it right. Just not sure what right would be. We should know what the jury thinks soon.

Scot Peterson did not confront the Parkland school shooting. Should he be jailed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65994768
 

In a word, No.... ..I actually feel this Elderly Police officer is being used as some kind of Scapegoat for revenge ... to make SOMEONE pay for this... and it just wouldn't be possible in the situation and tragic events at the Parkland School for one Security man to have done anything to prevent this unless he'd been right there on the spot when the shooter walked in....
 
hollydolly said:
In a word, No.... ..I actually feel this Elderly Police officer is being used as some kind of Scapegoat for revenge ...
Click to expand...
Given my limited understanding of the facts and the law I tend to agree with you. Firing him, ending his career... maybe. But criminal charges seem a bit over the top. He didn't do the shooting making him a scapegoat isn't going to help anyone.

As I said, hopefully the jury will have a more complete understanding of the facts and law and then make the right decision.
 

hollydolly said:
In a word, No.... ..I actually feel this Elderly Police officer is being used as some kind of Scapegoat for revenge ... to make SOMEONE pay for this... and it just wouldn't be possible in the situation and tragic events at the Parkland School for one Security man to have done anything to prevent this unless he'd been right there on the spot when the shooter walked in....
Click to expand...

I agree. I watched part of the trial but it soon became obvious that the prosecution was using the students to gain sympathy and incite hate against Peterson instead of to provide actual evidence. I don't like that kind of drama, just the facts, please.

Oddly enough, I felt very differently at the time it happened and thought he should be punished. I don't like setting a precedent of punishing someone who failed to stop a horrible crime in a very difficult set of circumstances. Failing to stop a crime it is very different than committing the crime.

It may end with a hung jury.
 
I'd charge him with negligent homicide. I he didn't do his job. Don't have to send him to jail but he needs a criminal record along with being fired. Between the police union and political hacks that got him that job it probably won't happen.

The charges are pretty accurate-child neglect, culpable homicide and perjury. He completed 3 active shooter courses. He's also should be charged with fraudulently collecting a paycheck not doing his job like that.
 
This new idea to charge people for twisted interpretations of law is a stunt IMO .... all these items and charging people without looking at the bigger picture.
He had active shooter training........... but in reality as i was part of training of various things for a company ....... practice drills even fire drills have almost NO connection to real events .........if people did what they do in drills they most certainly would not make it out alive. ........
Faced with real shooter or any other disaster we do not go through our mind of what did the video say to do.
my last company the active shooter training IMO was a joke and did not see many following that advice IF it happened.

what happened to people putting themselves in another persons shoes ....... does everyone think they would have been some action hero and neutralized the person in one shot ........while running and falling into a body roll or some other gymnastic move as seen in a movie.

So many forget adrenaline and being scared etc does not stop just because you have a uniform on. This man has been convicted in the social media court of public opinion for a long time... how is the waste of $$ for a trial going to help?
 
Not that it should affect the decision in this case but here's something to know. Peterson will be subject to civil suit after this trial. The standard of proof in a civil suit is much lower.

Also his pension has either been suspended or revoked. I've heard both but haven't looked it up to be sure.
 
I understand all the reasons why he shouldn't be convicted. Then I think of parents who lost children at Parkland and Uvlade. Delayed responses by people who were employed specifically to protect and serve very likely permitted those shooters to add to their killing streaks.

The fear of school shootings among parents, children and grandparents is very real in the US.

To reassure families that they provide safe spaces, public and private schools underscore their detailed security plans, on-campus armed security, and proximity to police.

Nowhere do those plans include their on-campus security hiding out or their police department milling about and failing to enter the building.

Sorry, but I think this guy deserves a conviction. Maybe not jail time, but a conviction on the charges. He wasn't there as window dressing.

His employment was to be there for a "just in case this happens" scenario. The one time he was called to do his job he failed to respond and the result was likely additional bloodshed of unarmed children.

Ditto the despicable police in Uvalde.
 
WhatInThe said:
I'd charge him with negligent homicide. I he didn't do his job. Don't have to send him to jail but he needs a criminal record along with being fired. Between the police union and political hacks that got him that job it probably won't happen.

The charges are pretty accurate-child neglect, culpable homicide and perjury. He completed 3 active shooter courses. He's also should be charged with fraudulently collecting a paycheck not doing his job like that.
Click to expand...
StarSong said:
His employment was to be there for a "just in case this happens" scenario. The one time he was called to do his job he failed to respond and the result was likely additional bloodshed of unarmed children.
Click to expand...
You both make some good points... I am torn on this one. Hoping the jury will hear all the evidence and have a reasonable understanding of what the law says. That could lead to the right decision, I hope it does...
 
Last edited:
Aquitted. Just in. Every time I see his name, I think of the "other" Scott (2 t's) Peterson from about twenty years ago... killed his pregnant wife, Laci. He tried to get a new trial at the end of last year and was denied. As for *this* Scot, I haven't formed a strong opinion either way.
 
Jeni said:
yep
just like that a waste of court time and $$ ........
because someone wanted to appear to be doing something .... twist the definition to find a charge pat themselves on back and is acquitted.
Click to expand...
I think the prosecutor was under a lot of pressure from the parents and the community but I agree it was a waste. Some voters might want to think about a change in that office.

This may go a little far afield but I always wonder about the victim's families. I understand the desire for revenge or to see justice done but in this case what would it really have accomplished to have Peterson go to prison for life? In the case of a killer it's appropriate to imprison him for life to keep more murders from happening but that's not the issue in this case. If he had been convicted and it wasn't reversed on appeal it would have had a big effect on police and school resource officers. I can envision them quitting all over the country if they would be sent to prison for failing to stop a criminal.
 
Why is there even a trial? This from the article says all that is needed to know.

"There is no law that requires a police officer to put themselves in the line of fire, or risk their lives during a shooting."
 
CallMeKate said:
Aquitted. Just in. Every time I see his name, I think of the "other" Scott (2 t's) Peterson from about twenty years ago... killed his pregnant wife, Laci. He tried to get a new trial at the end of last year and was denied. As for *this* Scot, I haven't formed a strong opinion either way.
Click to expand...
I'm familiar with that Scott, he's right where he needs to be(Mule Creek State Prison).

I hadn't heard of this one(with 1 "t").
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top