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

Alligatorob said:
Yep, I am sure it feels awful. Probably not as bad as the parents who lost children feel, but still awful.
Click to expand...
Harsh words, but truthful words from sheriff Judd

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said he’s “disappointed, and Children are dead today because Scot Peterson, who was paid, by the people, to protect those children, failed. He was a coward then; he’s a coward now,” Judd said.

“I know clearly and unequivocally that he did not respond, and children died, and Scot Peterson had the nerve to say after the trial today, ‘I’ve got my life back after four and a half years,’ but children don’t have their life back, and that’s a shame,” :mad:

Security footage showed that 36 seconds after Cruz began shooting, Peterson left his office about 1000 yards from the 1200 building, where witnesses said they heard the shooting come from, and “jumped into a cart with two unarmed civilian security guards.”
Peterson then got out of the cart near the east doorway while Cruz was at the opposite end of the hallway, firing his AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle.
During the attack, the former deputy was not wearing a bulletproof vest and didn’t open the door, but instead, took cover 75 feet away with his gun still drawn. The outlet said he stayed there for 40 minutes, long after the shooting ended and other officers stormed the building.
 

I didn't even know this case was going on, but I saw the verdict on TV at the gym today. It did move me when he broke down and cried when the verdict was delivered. I'm sure he feels a great sense of relief, but he will always have to live with being known as a coward in the community. He may not spend time in jail, but he will have to live with himself.
 

squatting dog said:
Harsh words, but truthful words from sheriff Judd

Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said he’s “disappointed, and Children are dead today because Scot Peterson, who was paid, by the people, to protect those children, failed. He was a coward then; he’s a coward now,” Judd said.

“I know clearly and unequivocally that he did not respond, and children died, and Scot Peterson had the nerve to say after the trial today, ‘I’ve got my life back after four and a half years,’ but children don’t have their life back, and that’s a shame,” :mad:

Security footage showed that 36 seconds after Cruz began shooting, Peterson left his office about 1000 yards from the 1200 building, where witnesses said they heard the shooting come from, and “jumped into a cart with two unarmed civilian security guards.”
Peterson then got out of the cart near the east doorway while Cruz was at the opposite end of the hallway, firing his AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle.
During the attack, the former deputy was not wearing a bulletproof vest and didn’t open the door, but instead, took cover 75 feet away with his gun still drawn. The outlet said he stayed there for 40 minutes, long after the shooting ended and other officers stormed the building.
Click to expand...
This says it all. 🔼🔼

That shooter was attacking kids like they were fish in a barrel: 17 dead and 17 others wounded, all told. Plus suicides later on. The sole person on campus who could have/should have/was paid to protect them, was hiding down the hall.
How much faith will people in the Parkland community have in police to protect them in the future? Very little, I'd suspect. Peterson was no rent-a-cop, he was a deputy with the Broward County Sheriff's office.

I have very little sympathy for this man.
 
This man is very lucky. It could have been a lot worse for him if the jury understood proper police procedures. I am no hero. Let's be clear about that, but I don't think, or at least I hope I wouldn't have stayed hidden in a closet while kids or adults would have been getting picked off by a madman.

In that situation and giving it some thought, I think my best course of action would have been to suit up with the proper gear in my trunk, which includes a vest and a football style helmet. Using a smoke grenade, glasses and gloves. I would have made my entry.
 
Knight said:
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."
Click to expand...
But his actual job was to help protect the children and facilities. He was trained 3 times on active shooter situations. He did not do his job but that's a civil matter.

But he purposely endangered the children by not engaging shooter. He wasn't just a deputy he was there for a specific purpose. They charge negligent or abusive day care workers so why not a school security guard.
 
Actually it's a Supreme Court decision that says police have no obligation to protect you. The following article addresses that and Uvalde and the recourse of parents. I've only pasted part of the article.

---

Questions of Police Duty​

The motto, "To Protect and Serve," first coined by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s, has been widely copied by police departments everywhere. But what, exactly, is a police officer's legal obligation to protect people? Must they risk their lives in dangerous situations like the one in Uvalde?

The answer is no.

In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.

Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Police Guidelines​

Police do have protocols for dealing with dangerous situations like the ones in Uvalde and Parkland, and these protocols emphasize the need for police to take rapid action. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, for instance, says, "Taking action during active shooter incidents, rather than waiting for specially equipped and trained officers, can save lives and prevent serious injuries. Time lost by delayed action is likely to result in additional casualties."

IACP provides guidance on how officers in those situations should assess how to proceed with that rapid response.

No matter how they do it, it will probably be extremely dangerous. They might be risking their own lives.

But as courts have determined, they have no obligation to do that.

So, the next time you see a police car roll by with "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on the door, keep in mind they have no constitutional obligation to do that.

If you need police to protect you, all you can do is hope they will.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
 
Is it just me...or shouldn't he have gone in guns blazing to try and stop this active shooter?! Why is he a cop if he didn't feel he could confront danger, especially to save innocent children? I see that he was acquitted. Does that mean his pension will be reinstated?
@CallMeKate Yeah Scot Peterson isn't a good name to have when it reminds one of the infamous Scott Peterson.
 
Myrtle said:
Actually it's a Supreme Court decision that says police have no obligation to protect you. The following article addresses that and Uvalde and the recourse of parents. I've only pasted part of the article.

---

Questions of Police Duty​

The motto, "To Protect and Serve," first coined by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s, has been widely copied by police departments everywhere. But what, exactly, is a police officer's legal obligation to protect people? Must they risk their lives in dangerous situations like the one in Uvalde?

The answer is no.

In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.

Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Police Guidelines​

Police do have protocols for dealing with dangerous situations like the ones in Uvalde and Parkland, and these protocols emphasize the need for police to take rapid action. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, for instance, says, "Taking action during active shooter incidents, rather than waiting for specially equipped and trained officers, can save lives and prevent serious injuries. Time lost by delayed action is likely to result in additional casualties."

IACP provides guidance on how officers in those situations should assess how to proceed with that rapid response.

No matter how they do it, it will probably be extremely dangerous. They might be risking their own lives.

But as courts have determined, they have no obligation to do that.

So, the next time you see a police car roll by with "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on the door, keep in mind they have no constitutional obligation to do that.

If you need police to protect you, all you can do is hope they will.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
Click to expand...
That is according to the Federal Constitution. State Constitution's also come into play, as well as Sovereign Statutory law. Common law duty may also be a factor, depends, but at least in Ohio, Common law offenses/crimes, have been abrogated.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
Is it just me...or shouldn't he have gone in guns blazing to try and stop this active shooter?!
Click to expand...
Maybe so, or at least he should have tried. When people become police, much like going into the military, they know that the day may come when they have to put their life on the line and go into harms way. Fortunately it doesn't happen too often, for some never, but relying on these folks to do that is important for the rest of us.

Maybe in this case not criminal action, but as @IKE said it is cowardice. Don't know how but people like this should be sorted out and not allowed to become police. It's a discredit to the vast majority.
 
Alligatorob said:
Maybe so, or at least he should have tried. When people become police, much like going into the military, they know that the day may come when they have to put their life on the line and go into harms way. Fortunately it doesn't happen to often, for some never, but relying on these folks to do that is important for the rest of us.

Maybe in this case not criminal action, but as @IKE said it is cowardice. Don't know how but people like this should be sorted out and not allowed to become police. It's a discredit to the vast majority.
Click to expand...
There's been so many mass shootings but last week I saw the body cam of an officer who went towards the active shooter and took him down. He went in blind (sort of) because he wasn't really sure where the shooter was, then encountered him.
 
Myrtle said:
Actually it's a Supreme Court decision that says police have no obligation to protect you. The following article addresses that and Uvalde and the recourse of parents. I've only pasted part of the article.

---

Questions of Police Duty​

The motto, "To Protect and Serve," first coined by the Los Angeles Police Department in the 1950s, has been widely copied by police departments everywhere. But what, exactly, is a police officer's legal obligation to protect people? Must they risk their lives in dangerous situations like the one in Uvalde?

The answer is no.

In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.

The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father. In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.

Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

Police Guidelines​

Police do have protocols for dealing with dangerous situations like the ones in Uvalde and Parkland, and these protocols emphasize the need for police to take rapid action. The International Association of Chiefs of Police, for instance, says, "Taking action during active shooter incidents, rather than waiting for specially equipped and trained officers, can save lives and prevent serious injuries. Time lost by delayed action is likely to result in additional casualties."

IACP provides guidance on how officers in those situations should assess how to proceed with that rapid response.

No matter how they do it, it will probably be extremely dangerous. They might be risking their own lives.

But as courts have determined, they have no obligation to do that.

So, the next time you see a police car roll by with "To Protect and Serve" emblazoned on the door, keep in mind they have no constitutional obligation to do that.

If you need police to protect you, all you can do is hope they will.

https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/law-and-life/do-the-police-have-an-obligation-to-protect-you/
Click to expand...
This all may be true, but the public does have an expectation that the police will attempt to come to their aid when needed. Hiding in a closet doesn't even come close to making that happen. I understand there are no legal grounds for a cop to take a bullet for me, but I have always been taught that when facing a life-threatening danger that I am not trained or experienced at handling, calling a cop is probably a good idea.
 
Been There said:
This all may be true, but the public does have an expectation that the police will attempt to come to their aid when needed. Hiding in a closet doesn't even come close to making that happen. I understand there are no legal grounds for a cop to take a bullet for me, but I have always been taught that when facing a life-threatening danger that I am not trained or experienced at handling, calling a cop is probably a good idea.
Click to expand...
Yes, calling a cop is a good idea. Another good idea is noticing that a lot of things have changed and it might be time to update your expectations to what one cop can do for you. Maybe we should have realistic expectations. That school was made up of multiple big buildings on a huge campus. Was expecting one officer to protect it was a realistic expectation? Will he be in the right building when something happens? Will he be carrying his vest, rifle and all the equipment he needs at that moment?

I watched a little of the trial, I read the news stories at the time and some more since, but I don't think that qualified me to decide what should have happened to this man. I can't substitute my judgment for that of a jury that listened to testimony for weeks, then reviewed all that testimony again and deliberated over the course of yet another week. I kept hearing he was gathered with a few others outside the big buildings trying to figure out where the shots were coming from. Some of his colleagues testified they couldn't tell either and a few said he didn't do his job. You say he was hiding in a closet. Is that true?

The jury had to determine who to believe and who to disregard. They listened to everything, to everyone who saw things one way and everyone who saw them another way. They had maps of the campus, videos and drawings of the buildings. The jury had so much information and still it took them a week of deliberation to decide. Is a jury the wrong way to decide this?
 
Myrtle can't post a direct link to the video.. but it's in the New York Times... it shows Peterson, quite a long way from the building where the shooting is taking place..come out as the only armed guard, with a couple of other men.. get in a Golf cart and drive fast across the campus.. get out with his gun drawn, and stand at the side of a building.

He said he hadn't brought his shotgun to school that day.. he was the only one armed with a hand gun.. couldn't be sure where the shooting was coming from either outside or inside a building..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top