News Scot Peterson, school resource officer criticized for his response during the Parkland shooting, faces felony charges

Oct 15, 1999
13,529
573
126
#4
I'm really not sure how I feel about this. Getting fired I can see, sent to prison seems excessive.
 

Maxima1

Platinum Member
Jan 15, 2013
2,279
110
126
#5
I'm really not sure how I feel about this. Getting fired I can see, sent to prison seems excessive.
lol Getting fired wouldn't even be a punishment for someone that would get $8700 per month without working.
 
Jun 30, 2003
25,631
114
126
#6
considering police have no obligation to protect citizens (see Warren vs. DC), i think the only thing that can stick is the perjury charge.
 
Feb 23, 2013
35
16
81
#7
I'm really not sure how I feel about this. Getting fired I can see, sent to prison seems excessive.
i'm debating it in my head. drawing on my own experience in the u.s. navy, had i been negligent which lead to the death of an individual, let alone several; a bad conduct discharge and leavenworth would have been in my future.

of course civilians don't face such consequences since imo, they never voluntarily raised their hand to take an oath as i did when joining up.

but police (peace) officers do. a cop has a lot of authority because they have great responsibilities. i'm sure most can understand that authority/responsibility work hand in hand. they knowingly accept those responsibilities when they take an oath.

since i don't know what was said when taking their oath to be a police officer, i can't say anything about willingly venture into harms way or risk their own life, but i am sure that every word would go against standing by, do nothing, as others are harmed.

so, though cop might not be in the military they still raised their hand and accepted much more and larger responsibilities than your average civilian, thereby making the consequences they face great when they are negligent.

thats my 2 cents besides saying the whole thing is sad.
 
Feb 23, 2013
35
16
81
#8
considering police have no obligation to protect citizens (see Warren vs. DC), i think the only thing that can stick is the perjury charge.
i see.

looking at my previous post. nice find.

E:
well reading about it now. pretty sure an individual 911 call vs an active shooting being witnesses at a school (the society at large) is a big difference though.

but point taken
 
Last edited:
Jun 12, 2005
14,803
398
126
#9
I read that he could face up to 97 years in prison. That does seem excessive IMO for being a coward in the line of duty. I would think more along the lines of firing and a loss of benefits.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
44,163
2,026
126
#10
These charges won't stick. He's a coward, and unfit to ever work in law enforcement again, but not a criminal.
 
Feb 5, 2006
33,106
284
126
#11
He is a scapegoat for politicians in the NRA's pocket. You can't force a civilian to go into a place where they will be shot at.
 
Feb 5, 2006
33,106
284
126
#12
The right is selling this fantasy that if only there was an armed person around during a mass shooting, they would stop it. The real world is a bit different from their fantasy. That gun is there for the gun owner's protection, not the kids.
 

tweaker2

Diamond Member
Aug 5, 2000
9,700
471
126
#13
Wonder what his job description looks like for that particular position. That could affect how he is being prosecuted.
 

Maxima1

Platinum Member
Jan 15, 2013
2,279
110
126
#14
These charges won't stick. He's a coward, and unfit to ever work in law enforcement again, but not a criminal.
Maybe so but this actually has more legs than a lot out there (i.e. essentially criminalizing incompetence). This guy never had the intention of protecting the kids when he took the job. It's a huge breach of the public trust.

"If a sane man in ordinary circumstances de-liberately acts in a way he knows to be illegal, he has acted with mensrea. On this point there can be no dispute; if mens rea means anything,it means this. At the opposite end of things, if a man is held liable forbringing about some result which, at the time, neither he nor any rea-sonable man could possibly have foreseen, this is a case of strict lia-bility. And then there are the 'middle' cases. In particular there isone middle case, that of negligence, which has proved inordinatelytroublesome to legal theorists. Indeed, much of the jurisprudential dis-cussion of the general problem of criminal responsibility in the lasttwenty years has centered on the seemingly narrow question of whethernegligence is a form of mens rea or whether to admit negligence as abasis of liability in the criminal law amounts to strict liability."'
 
Mar 25, 2001
18,706
1,253
126
#15
My understanding is the Supreme Court already ruled on this and the police don’t have to protect you.

That aside are we really criminalizing someone who froze out of fear? People talk tough and call him a coward but no one knows how they’d truly react until they actually live it. Scott Peterson froze, that was his reaction at that time. I’m sure he wishes he could have changed that but it is what it is. How is what he did criminal in any way?
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
44,163
2,026
126
#16
I strongly disagree that he acted with mens rea. Is there any record that he had ever failed to act in the line of duty before this?
 

alcoholbob

Diamond Member
May 24, 2005
5,908
85
106
#17
Scott Peterson curse strikes again
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
51,727
446
126
#18
It's just a damned good thing Trump was there to run in and save all those kids...
 
Feb 23, 2013
35
16
81
#19
the supreme court ruling since it pertinent:
Warren v. District of Columbia
This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen. Turner v. United States, 248 U.S. 354, 357-58, 39 S. Ct. 109, 110, 63 L. Ed. 291 (1919); Rieser v. District of Columbia, supra.
A publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order. The extent and quality of police protection afforded to the community necessarily depends upon the availability of public resources and upon legislative or administrative determinations concerning allocation of those resources.
layman's terms - the cops are not your personal security. that case was from officers failing to investigate and then respond to 2 different 911 calls to a residence.

that is entirely different than a cop already at a public school, with knowledge of shooting going on.

plus this is kids, the law always gives further protections to minors.
 

sportage

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2008
7,295
218
126
#20
THIS SUCKS!
So they go after this guy and the NRA goes untouched?
Seriously?
This is bull shit plain and simple. "GUNS" are the problem, not a cop with a hand gun up against an assault weapon of mass destruction.
I bet the NRA is just loving this.
 

sdifox

No Lifer
Sep 30, 2005
74,914
441
126
#21
Don't think he should be criminally responsible.
 

DrunkenSano

Diamond Member
Aug 8, 2008
3,605
52
106
#23
Can our soldiers and infantry grunts be charged for fleeing from battle or not following orders to go into fight? If so, cops should be held to the same standard. Hell, cops get paid shit ton more here in New Jersey than soldiers do and they're more useless than our troops.
 
Jan 6, 2005
10,677
561
126
#24
Why are we punishing a guy who proves that the good guy with a gun narrative is a myth.

What training did he receive to go up against an active shooter scenario?

This is just a distraction.
 
Jan 8, 2010
14,324
313
126
#25
Can our soldiers and infantry grunts be charged for fleeing from battle or not following orders to go into fight? If so, cops should be held to the same standard. Hell, cops get paid shit ton more here in New Jersey than soldiers do and they're more useless than our troops.
Yes, desertion is punishable. I do not know how it works with cops, but in my mind it is not the same as military. Military is a contract and (in some cases) mandatory. I'm sure there's some federal/state differences there in terms of how military and police are handled.

I too think this is a bit much for a police officer though. People freeze up in war. It happens.

This could have went a completely different direction. He could have went in Rambo style "I got this" and accidentally shot kids rather than the perp, and then they'd be demonizing him for that. Basically, there's no win here unless it was the perfect outcome. They are looking for a scapegoat because 'think of the children'.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS