Broward County Deputy Who Failed to Confront Parkland Shooter Arrested For Child Neglect

originally posted by: Krakatoa
It will all hinge on the job definition of "school resource officer". As a police officer, he doesn't have an obligation on an individual basis, however, in the role of school resource officer, that may be differently written.

Then it would be breach of contract, which is civil, not criminal. That's what I was saying above, based on SCOTUS precedent, LEOs serve under zero mandate to actually protect civilians nor defend their lives. Their mandate is 100% apprehension of those suspected, witnessed, or accused of commission of a crime. I can't imagine a school resource officer would be held to a higher standard and, if they are, I can't see that expectation holding up to scrutiny against prior SCOTUS precedent.

The dude will walk from this and, considering the world we live in, may well see a payday if he flips around and charges the media, school, and DA with slandering his name and impacting his ability to find work in the area.

This sucks ass, but it is the litigious world we've allowed to be created in our country. In some ways, the above cited SCOTUS case is a ridiculously important ruling because it will be the final, best line of defense against 2nd Amendment attacks when all other lines of defense breakdown. I mean the Supreme Court has actually stated that every American is responsible for protecting themselves from harm and that they are no entities legally culpable in doing so where criminal law is concerned (obviously civil law would allow a building security officer to be sued, but that's a different bucket of laws and requirements for evidence and whatnot.)

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krakatoa
It will all hinge on the job definition of "school resource officer". As a police officer, he doesn't have an obligation on an individual basis, however, in the role of school resource officer, that may be differently written.

....
Their mandate is 100% apprehension of those suspected, witnessed, or accused of commission of a crime. I can't imagine a school resource officer would be held to a higher standard and, if they are, I can't see that expectation holding up to scrutiny against prior SCOTUS precedent.

....

So, it is clear he failed to apprehend someone in the commission of a crime, right? By not acting to apprehend the shooter, during the commission of a crime, he was derelict in his duty as an officer.

Or, am I being too logical here?

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa
Alright... I'd like to believe that I would've personally gone straight in there without thought to personal safety and taken on some crazy person who's wielding a semi-automatic rifle, with nothing but my little side arm.

But the truth is... in reality, none of us can really know what we'd do in that situation unless we were physically faced with it.

More to the point though, what are they actually charging this guy with?

Being a pussy? Not wanting to die?

... lol.

I almost want to agree with you. But when you become a cop, you accept certain things. One of them is that you may be put in a position where your safety comes after the safety of others. Just as a soldier understands. And when it's kids, it's something that shouldn't even come into question. (IMHO)

Without being in his shoes, none of us can say for sure. this one was a turning point for me, where I was ready and willing to have the difficult discussion of how to fix this. Sadly, the opposition chose to go down that same, well beaten path of taking the gunz, and not talking about much else. Which has and always will be a non starter. You would think at some point these folks would learn the definition of insanity, and try to understand it.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krakatoa
It will all hinge on the job definition of "school resource officer". As a police officer, he doesn't have an obligation on an individual basis, however, in the role of school resource officer, that may be differently written.

....
Their mandate is 100% apprehension of those suspected, witnessed, or accused of commission of a crime. I can't imagine a school resource officer would be held to a higher standard and, if they are, I can't see that expectation holding up to scrutiny against prior SCOTUS precedent.

....

So, it is clear he failed to apprehend someone in the commission of a crime, right? By not acting to apprehend the shooter, during the commission of a crime, he was derelict in his duty as an officer.

Or, am I being too logical here?

Man, I have no idea. I agree with you 100% here, I'm just tempering my expectations based on what's happened lately in this country. His defense will focus on whether he was working in the capacity of a school employee or a deputy sheriff. If it was school employee, then he was under no authority to directly apprehend anyone aside from within a likely very, very constrained set of rules applied to his work with the school. In that scenario, however, it's all contractual and this could only be a civil matter absent some other crime he directly committed. If he was working in the capacity of a LEO, then the SCOTUS ruling absolves him of doing anything, really. Again, it could feasibly cost him his job and the door is always open for a civil suit, but the ruling was clear, an action of "no action" by a LEO is not a violation of the law.

Absent a declaration of martial law or an executive order suspending the officers' civil rights, a police officer can abandon their post (thus quitting their job) at any time they wish to. It isn't the military.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This will go nowhere.

SCotUS has already said that the Police have no responsibility to protect you if you are not in custody.



www.nytimes.com... 83412AD0773807525448B2F&gwt=pay

Well there you have it. The absolute best reason to support the 2nd.

As much as I agree with every one saying that he should be found guilty,
Sadly, I feel this is more of an Optics move.
The department has been under fire for not doing anything about this, so here they are appeasing the masses.
Will it stick?
Highly doubtful.
There have been other instances like this and this case will probably end up with the same verdict.

ETA: But we can always hope!

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: Krakatoa
It will all hinge on the job definition of "school resource officer". As a police officer, he doesn't have an obligation on an individual basis, however, in the role of school resource officer, that may be differently written.

....
Their mandate is 100% apprehension of those suspected, witnessed, or accused of commission of a crime. I can't imagine a school resource officer would be held to a higher standard and, if they are, I can't see that expectation holding up to scrutiny against prior SCOTUS precedent.

....

So, it is clear he failed to apprehend someone in the commission of a crime, right? By not acting to apprehend the shooter, during the commission of a crime, he was derelict in his duty as an officer.

Or, am I being too logical here?

You would be both logical and correct in that statement

Oddly enough, the Broward County Public School system has the following help wanted ad posted to their website:

Position Type:
Armed Safe School Officer/FOPE

Date Posted:
6/28/2018

Location:
VARIOUS SCHOOL SITES

Broward County Public Schools is seeking individuals who are interested in becoming part of the new Armed Safe School Officer – Marshal / Guardian Program.

Salary Range:
$17.00 - $22.19 per hour

Position Goal:

Responsible for providing security and safety services for the school campus; and protecting the life, and well-being of students, staff, and visitors.

Minimum Qualifications & Experience:

An earned high school diploma or satisfactory completion of an approved General Educational Development (GED) Testing Program.
A minimum of two (2) years within the last ten (10) years of experience as a sworn law enforcement officer, or an armed security guard with a valid State of Florida D and G security license, or a corrections officer in “good standing” at time of employment separation or Two years of prior military experience (which includes military reservist experience), with an honorable discharge may be substituted for law enforcement experience.
Must be twenty-one years of age.
Submit to and pass an initial drug test and subsequent random drug tests in accordance with the requirements of s.112.0455 and the sheriff's office.

See attached job description for the full list of qualifications

Training Expectations:

Successful completion of 132 hours of comprehensive firearm safety and proficiency training conducted by Criminal Justice Standards and training Commission-certified instructors.
Successfully complete at least 12 hours of a certified nationally recognized diversity training program.

Individuals are required to take the 144-hour training will be compensated and be eligible to receive a $500 stipend upon successful completion of the training program and placement.

Armed Safe School Officer – Marshal / Guardian Program

From the aforementioned job description (direct .pdf link):

•Use appropriate level of force to stop, disrupt or eliminate physical threats to students, staff and visitors on school property.
...
•Maintain, retain and properly secure departmental issued supplies and equipment, including weapons, ammunition, and other specialized supplies and equipment from loss or unauthorized use.
...
•Take prompt action, as appropriate, to protect human life in an emergency situation, including the initiation of an emergency code on school campuses or District sites, as appropriate.

I'm looking at the Broward County criminal records online to see if I can find the particular statute under which Peterson was charged but am unable to locate this specific case. I do see several civil cases in which Peterson, along with the school, are listed as defendants, but nothing criminal.

Aha! I have found him at the Broward county Jail website inmate search and there are 11 charges filed against him. The first 7 are the exact same:

Charge Number
1
Case Number
19-326AF10
Statute
827.03-2b
Description
NEGLECT CHILD WITH GREAT BODILY HARM

Then there are 3 more of:

Statute
784.05-1
Description
CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE EXPOSURE TO HARM

And finally there is 1 of:

Statute
837.012
Description
PERJURY NOT IN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING

Inmate Detail for Scot Peterson

With regards to the statute under which Peterson was charged and what the State needs to do to prove its case:

Florida Statutes 827.03(2)(b) - Aggravated Child Neglect

This is the more serious form of child neglect and it will be prosecuted vigorously by law enforcement.
What the State Prosecutor Has to Prove to Convict a Defendant of This Crime

The state prosecutor has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) The defendant:

Willfully or by culpable negligence failed or omitted to provide the victim with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the victim’s physical or mental health; or
Failed to make a reasonable effort to protect the victim from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person;

(2) While doing the above, the defendant caused great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the victim;

(3) The defendant was a caregiver for the victim; and

(4) The victim was under the age of 18 years.
Punishment

This crime is a second-degree felony which is punishable up to 15 years in prison and a $10,000 fine.
Defenses

Sometimes individuals call in fake reports of children being neglected at a home just to make the parents’ lives miserable. This comes from neighbors or from people who don’t agree with the parents’ choices for discipline (spanking) or for educating their children (homeschooling). The neighbors make up stories and overzealous Department of Children and Families workers go about trying to find problems. These cases can be defended. Our West Palm Beach Negligent Child Supervision Attorneys will investigate the information that DCF and law enforcement had while conducting their investigation into the alleged child neglect.

Felony Florida

Give my taxes back and establish privately owned security. Why should this asshat be getting 6 figures in pension for being a coward on the one day his job called him in?

Hes a sacrificial lamb. The police did what their training taught them to do. The police were trained to contain the shooter and not confront them. As for the school resource officer him charging in without knowing what has occurred he would most likely be dead.


His mistake was not closing in to contain him to a smaller area. In other words by not setting up a perimeter gave him access to the entire school.

Now as far as guilt he followed training but was a coward. I've seen it happen I'm combat some people just become useless. You cant tell who it will be so even he didn't know how he would respond. I've seen people in combat hide and than run away at the first opportunity. Not everyone is a hero jailing him for something he couldn't control is wrong.

(3) The defendant was a caregiver for the victim

Is a police officer going to fit into definition for the statute in the state? I would think not.

a reply to: roadgravel

Yeah, I don't think the criminal prosecution will stick, but all the civil actions filed against the school and Peterson have a pretty good chance of winning, I would think.

Incompetent coward comes to mind but I'm sure my ATS friends already covered that.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The collusion between the school and sheriff department to skirt the law might carry some civil weight against them.

Wow, definitely omission of duty, but 11 counts and booked into jail? Maybe we need to charge the people who hired this man, that is where the real failure occurred. Fire the man, strip away his pension, call him names... but what law did he break? Just sad

Some people might think they would charge in and confront the gunman, until your put in that kind of situation, you don't really know what you would do. That day will haunt him for the rest of his life. I would say that's enough punishment for not wanting to confront a gunman.

originally posted by: Echo007
Some people might think they would charge in and confront the gunman, until your put in that kind of situation, you don't really know what you would do. That day will haunt him for the rest of his life. I would say that's enough punishment for not wanting to confront a gunman.

If it is your JOB to do that, and you have taken a LOT of pay and a guaranteed pension, you DO IT. Otherwise you should pay back all that money to the taxpayers. Would you feel the same way if a firefighter refused to enter your burning home to save YOUR child's life? Oh, he/she was scared, we should forgive him/her for not saving my child when that is his/her job and why my taxes pay him/her a good, a very good, wage.

I have no details about this case or the man in question, but isn't it a supreme court ruling that police officers have no duty to protect other's life? Headed to bed soon, but I'm pretty sure that is/has been argued before. He absolutely should have done everything in his power to prevent/stop this shooting, but I don't see how he can be charged with those deaths. If I was him, hiding out like he did and ignoring the shooter would weigh so much on my soul I might be thinking bad thoughts. Charging him with those deaths tho, I guess I'm not in agreement with that. The shooter pulled the trigger and killed those people, someone who could have stepped in could have stopped him or could have prevented it. Should'a, would'a, could'a.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

What about the other cops who also refused to enter?

a reply to: Krakatoa

The problem is that it is not his job. Cops are there to protect society as a whole, not individuals. While I think it SHOULD be their job, I believe courts have ruled otherwise.