Scott Peterson not guilty

[Rpg]

the resource officer at Parkland high school who didn't locate and shoot the Parkland shooter while the shooter was killing kids on the second floor of the school was charged but now acquitted on all charges.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/06/29/scot-peterson-trial-parkland-shooting-verdict/

The responsibility of an individual officer to intervene to protect any specific person has been litigated with some frequency. Most commonly, the courts have found no individualized obligation to intervene. This decision isn't unusual, but the case has garnered a lot of attention.

The potential liability for LEOs that could have resulted from an adverse decision was substantial.

I suspect we'll see this issue again.

 

[wood714]

I'm curious how you feel about this verdict, being you're a LEO.

 

[SMSgt]

Apparently LE has no obligation to protect anyone under any circumstance. We're on our own, folks.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

Apparently LE has no obligation to protect anyone under any circumstance. We're on our own, folks.

This was, is and will be the case regardless of any law. We all know that and knew that, regardless of what anyone pretended.

Asi es la vida.

 

[Rpg]

Apparently LE has no obligation to protect anyone under any circumstance. We're on our own, folks.

That's generally correct.

This is similar to a situation that occurred near here several years ago.

Woman got a restraining order against her husband, who was threatening to kill her and her children. She filed it with the local police and served him.

A few days later, she called the police department because he was hanging around and threatening to kill the children. he started breaking into her house and ultimately killed the children and the woman. The woman called the cops, but they didn't respond. They had plenty of time to have showed up and prevented it all.

There was litigation about the police departments obligation to respond to the specific threat and to enforce the order of protection . The LEOs did nothing but show up too late to do anything except help clean up.

LEOs found not to have a duty to protect.

 

[jbull380]

He is a coward and should be treated as one however I don't think you can criminally charge him for that. Maybe schools and PDs will think twice before using the SRO position as a pre retirement position. You better be on your A game and spun up for a gun fight.

 

[waffles]

"I've got my life back," Peterson told reporters after the verdict.

Would've been nice if some of those 17 kids could've experienced that. It's consistent with the no duty to protect doctrine but it's a real shame.

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

Apparently LE has no obligation to protect anyone under any circumstance. We're on our own, folks.

It's always been true. They are sworn to uphold the law. Not be a "personal" protector of citizens.........BTW, HE WAS A COWARD.......PERIOD.

 

[GaryS]

"Qualified Immunity" applies to civil law suits, not criminal charges. The standard for criminal conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. It's a high bar for a reason.

I haven't followed this case, but apparently a jury of twelve people decided that the prosecution did not prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Alk8944]

This is no surprise as the Supreme Court has previously decided there is no legal obligation for an officer or department to protect any individual. But Any Officer who does not recognize his moral obligation to protect an individual from harm should not be a Police Officer! Most of us recognize that when we put on the uniform we accepted the obligation to go in harm's way whenever the situation presents itself! I was shot on the job once and killed the perpetrator, and it was a traumatic experience that affected me for years, but it never prevented me from taking the initiative when similar situations occurred!

While he should have been dismissed for cowardice I have no doubt, but of itself this should not be the basis for criminal charges! We aren't all put together the same way and really have no idea what we would do under similar circumstances until presented with the situation.

 

[GaryS]

See my comment about "Qualified Immunity."

This is no surprise as the Supreme Court has previously decided there is no legal obligation for an officer or department to protect any individual. But Any Officer who does not recognize his moral obligation to protect an individual from harm should not be a Police Officer! Most of us recognize that when we put on the uniform we accepted the obligation to go in harm's way whenever the situation presents itself! I was shot on the job once and killed the perpetrator, and it was a traumatic experience that affected me for years, but it never prevented me from taking the initiative when similar situations occurred!

While he should have been dismissed for cowardice I have no doubt, but of itself this should not be the basis for criminal charges! We aren't all put together the same way and really have no idea what we would do under similar circumstances until presented with the situation.

 

[Eric300]

I guess we can now throw the 'To PROTECT and to Serve' right out the window.

I have worked with LEO's that had yellow streaks down their backs a mile long. I can tell you stories......

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Legally he may not be criminally liable…but administratively he certainly might be. That also doesn't preclude civil actions.

As a former LEO this guy disgusts me. He had an obligation to act and failed miserably.

 

[Targets Guy]

and then they have to nerve to preach to us about letting the police protect you.

 

[Rustyt1953]

Long ago all the police departments in the Greater Cincinnati area removed "To Protect and Serve" from their cruisers.

 

[Goldstar225]

While the jury acquitted him, in my eyes he remains a coward who sacrificed those kids to save his miserable self. While I doubt it happens I hope he is in torment for the remainder of his life.

Retired LEO here.

 

[CH4]

The answer is no da fuzz aren't obligated, because they can't be in all places at once, but they do the best they can with what they have. Probably 99% of all cops take their jobs seriously and don't think twice about making the ultimate sacrifice, then there're the Petersons. Dude is a coward and disgrace to the badge. Probably why he wanted to be assigned as an SRO; he wanted to lay low until he retired.

"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."

 

[Rustyt1953]

I have neither the right nor authority to pronounce judgement on another person. I also don't possess the ability to conduct a long distance telepathic Vulcan mind meld to ascertain someone else's thoughts and mindset.

As mentioned above, because of events like this cops get unfairly painted with the broad brush of distrust.

He will have to live with the mental consequences of his inactions for the remainder of his life

I am sure the public will not let him forget.

 

[SnidelyWhiplash]

Not to defend him…but none of us really know how we'll act when "facing the elephant". I believe the majority will act appropriately and some will freeze or run…the fight or flight syndrome.

One would hope proper selection and training would weed out the bad ones…but that's an imperfect thing at best.

 

[LoboGunLeather]

Without knowing exactly what the standing orders were for this assignment, what training was provided, or what protocols were in place at the time I have no firm opinion in this case. I have seen credible reports that Mr. Peterson was terminated, then reinstated upon appeal because the assigned incident commander specifically ordered all responding officer to establish a cordon and no one was to enter until a response plan was issued. Mr. Peterson then retired.

I'm certainly not ready to throw anyone in a prison cell based upon rehashed second and third-hand media reporting. But I'm not a local prosecutor looking to build my reputation and career with a big case in court with minute-by-minute breathless national reporting tugging heartstrings from coast to coast.

Like it or not, we have a justice system to deal with these matters, and this particular matter has been settled for now. "Not guilty" does not mean "innocent" or "without fault", all it means is that no criminal act can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.