I only see the perjury charge sticking due to no duty to protect.

Wonder if they will do an OJ and throw the book at him.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I only see the perjury charge sticking due to no duty to protect.

Wonder if they will do an OJ and throw the book at him.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

==============
 This makes me wonder.
If an LEO has no duty or obligation to protect, then who is responsible for the safety of children in a school, hmmm?


The teacher? the janitor? cafeteria worker?

==============
 This makes me wonder.
If an LEO has no duty or obligation to protect, then who is responsible for the safety of children in a school, hmmm?


The teacher? the janitor? cafeteria worker?

That's the other question I had, is there a duty to protect a minor?  That's one for the charges, failure to protect a minor.

MIAMI — A former sheriff’s deputy was arrested Tuesday in connection with the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., the latest in a series of actions to hold police accountable for their response to an attack that left 17 people dead.

Scot Peterson, a former Broward County sheriff’s deputy who was the security officer assigned to the high school, faces 11 charges of neglect of a child, culpable negligence and perjury as a result of an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the authorities said. He was taken into custody and will be booked into the Broward County jail on a $102,000 bond.

“The F.D.L.E. investigation shows former Deputy Peterson did absolutely nothing to mitigate the M.S.D. shooting that killed 17 children, teachers and staff and injured 17 others,” the department’s commissioner, Rick Swearingen, said in a statement. “There can be no excuse for his complete inaction and no question that his inaction cost lives.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/parkland-scot-peterson.html

Whoa. . .

The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm. What he did was deplorable, but it was not illegal.

Self protection is the responsibility of every law abiding citizen. The 2nd amendment (normally) assists you in protecting yourself unless if the right is denied for whatever reason, such as denied carry rights or "gun free zones". In those instances, you have the utmost right to be a victim, but rest assured, the police will attempt to enforce the law afterwards, and find the criminal.

You'd be surprised what the police are and aren't allowed to do. They're generally treated as a protected class of elite citizens. The police can chase down an assailant or thief and shoot them in the back. You cannot. The police can "feel threatened" by a unarmed mentally ill man and shoot him dead. You cannot.

Hell the courts have even ruled that the police can KNOWINGLY allow their police dog to attack an innocent person, and they have no duty to stop the dog from mauling and potentially killing you.

But I digress.

==============
 This makes me wonder.
If an LEO has no duty or obligation to protect, then who is responsible for the safety of children in a school, hmmm?


The teacher? the janitor? cafeteria worker?

In the case of a minor, whatever adults  are currently responsible for their care has a duty to protect.  From a technical standpoint, whatever charges they brought up against the deputy could be brought up against all adults in charge.  They wont obviously because of blowback, and successful lawsuits/prosecution would open a HUGE can of worms so would never happen.  That is part of the reason why some districts talk of arming school personnel if they are willing, as it is they are the guardians for the children while they're in school.    But ONLY law enforcement have no obligation to protect, period.

In general, unarmed or armed, 100 years old or 18 years old, MMA expert or wheelchairbound, male or female, etc.  the duty to self protection is EACH INDIVIDUAL's.  That is the reason for the 2nd amendment, to give the average citizen a reasonable means of self protection, if they choose to (and if the state hasn't taken away their right).

==============
 This makes me wonder.
If an LEO has no duty or obligation to protect, then who is responsible for the safety of children in a school, hmmm?


The teacher? the janitor? cafeteria worker?

Teachers have the responsibility.
If they aren't up to it, then they should not be
entrusted with ours kids,  lives and minds.
We are repeated reminded cops aren't here to protect you
they just enforce the law.  Hawaii is pretty warped in that area
as the laws don't allow you to protect yourself  in public, which
is a problem when the cops are 20 to 60 minutes away.
BTW; Never talk to cops, ever!
I never have and never will call a cop for help mainly because they
are the most dangerous people I know of.  They can kill indiscriminately
and get away it.  Even soldiers have a UCMJ and their personal honor
to direct their actions.  Local cops are a Political, union member,  loose cannon
with a Glock 17 or M4 carbine.

Teachers have the responsibility.
If they aren't up to it, then they should not be
entrusted with ours kids,  lives and minds.
We are repeated reminded cops aren't here to protect you
they just enforce the law.  Hawaii is pretty warped in that area
as the laws don't allow you to protect yourself  in public, which
is a problem when the cops are 20 to 60 minutes away.
BTW; Never talk to cops, ever!
I never have and never will call a cop for help mainly because they
are the most dangerous people I know of.  They can kill indiscriminately
and get away it.  Even soldiers have a UCMJ and their personal honor
to direct their actions.  Local cops are a Political, union member,  loose cannon
with a Glock 17 or M4 carbine.

local cops protect their own. period.  And by "their own", I do not mean the citizens of hawaii.  Look at the recent news story with the cop that beat up his wife.  After the news broke and the video surfaced, he got promoted!  He got put on leave for 2 years and got paid for that.  And now he's shuffling paperwork at a desk in a police station, and still getting paid!  Beating up your significant other really pays off when you're law enforecement.

The school had a duty to protect when the shooter was reported for potentially violent and criminal behavior.

They failed to take action.

The Broward County Sheriff's Office had a duty to protect when they were called multiple times about the shooter's criminal conduct.

They failed to take action.

The FBI had a duty to protect when they were notified in advance of the shooting the student had posted threats that he intended to commit the crime.

They failed to take action.

Deputy Scott Peterson had a duty to protect as the assigned Law Enforcement representative at the school. It was his job to ensure the safety of the students regardless of what the Supreme Court ruled within the scope of ensuring the safety of the public at large.  He was on special assignment at the high school, not responding to a 911 call.  There's a reason for his presence there -- protecting the students and faculty from threats they aren't capable of facing (i.e. an armed murderer).

He failed to take action.


If Peterson is found guilty of neglect of a child, I would suggest every other person who was in a position to stop the massacre be brought up on the same charges.

Everybody in that community failed -- but let's blame the NRA.   

Some are older but still appropriate

Gun-Free should be easy enough to enforce, right?

In the case of a minor, whatever adults  are currently responsible for their care has a duty to protect.  From a technical standpoint, whatever charges they brought up against the deputy could be brought up against all adults in charge.  They wont obviously because of blowback, and successful lawsuits/prosecution would open a HUGE can of worms so would never happen.  That is part of the reason why some districts talk of arming school personnel if they are willing, as it is they are the guardians for the children while they're in school.    But ONLY law enforcement have no obligation to protect, period.

In general, unarmed or armed, 100 years old or 18 years old, MMA expert or wheelchairbound, male or female, etc.  the duty to self protection is EACH INDIVIDUAL's.  That is the reason for the 2nd amendment, to give the average citizen a reasonable means of self protection, if they choose to (and if the state hasn't taken away their right).

Any "duty to protect" law/idea is always going to have some limitations. Someone charged with the care of another has to protect them within reason. You would be in trouble if you let the child play with a knife but if the child were drowning and you didn't know how to swim then you couldn't really be in trouble for not jumping in to save them.

So the deputy has at least 2 things working for him. Number one is that the action they expected him to take would have put him in serious risk of injury/death and that is beyond the normal duty to protect. Second one is that the officer could claim a defense along the lines of intense debilitating fear. Maybe that's what really happened or maybe not but he could certainly claim that angle.

Any "duty to protect" law/idea is always going to have some limitations. Someone charged with the care of another has to protect them within reason. You would be in trouble if you let the child play with a knife but if the child were drowning and you didn't know how to swim then you couldn't really be in trouble for not jumping in to save them.

So the deputy has at least 2 things working for him. Number one is that the action they expected him to take would have put him in serious risk of injury/death and that is beyond the normal duty to protect. Second one is that the officer could claim a defense along the lines of intense debilitating fear. Maybe that's what really happened or maybe not but he could certainly claim that angle.

The SCOTUS already ruled that PD have no duty to protect.  So regardless of the 2 things working for him or not, he has no duty to protect.  This is what pro 2a people have been saying since the SCOTUS ruling and why it's important for law abiding citizens to be allowed to carry a gun anywhere.  But according to your boss, if anyone in Hawaii is in fear/danger, just call HPD.  It states so on the CCW denial letter.

I can understand your "within reason" argument, but it is reasonable for responding PD to put themselves in danger for an active shooter, if not then don't sign up.  But again SCOUTS ruled other wise. 

But he didn't state that he was afraid.  Had he said he was scared and froze, then I would give him a bye.  Because no one knows how they will act during an active shooting.  Shit happens.  But he went beyond that and told responding PD to stay 500 feet away.  And video shows he didn't freeze and cower in a corner afraid. 

The SCOTUS already ruled that PD have no duty to protect.  So regardless of the 2 things working for him or not, he has no duty to protect.  This is what pro 2a people have been saying since the SCOTUS ruling and why it's important for law abiding citizens to be allowed to carry a gun anywhere.  But according to your boss, if anyone in Hawaii is in fear/danger, just call HPD.  It states so on the CCW denial letter.

I can understand your "within reason" argument, but it is reasonable for responding PD to put themselves in danger for an active shooter, if not then don't sign up.  But again SCOUTS ruled other wise. 

But he didn't state that he was afraid.  Had he said he was scared and froze, then I would give him a bye.  Because no one knows how they will act during an active shooting.  Shit happens.  But he went beyond that and told responding PD to stay 500 feet away.  And video shows he didn't freeze and cower in a corner afraid.

In my military training I was taught to always advance towards the problem.
Be it a fire, a machine gun, or whatever, and you knew there was
always someone there to back you up.  Don't do stupid.
Make the other bastard die for his beliefs.
I don't expect cops to be like the military.
Don't even assume they will protect you.
That is your personal responsibility.
I would never expect a cop to rush an active shooter, as
cops are really just revenuers and Janitors( They clean up messes).
I do expect a state to allow me to protect myself so if I or others are
in such a situation( Hawaii does not allow this).  I will attack.
In my county it is "shoot, shovel, and shut up".

I will attack.
In my county it is "shoot, shovel, and shut up".

You do know, don't you, that you'll probably be banned for that?

    

You do know, don't you, that you'll probably be banned for that?

    

macsac a moderator said otherwise the other day.
We will see.
I still owe you a breakfast at cafe 100.

"Death must not be feared. Death, in time, comes to all men. Yes, every man is scared in his first battle. If he says he’s not, he’s a liar. Some men are cowards but they fight the same as the brave men or they get the hell slammed out of them watching men fight who are just as scared as they are. The real hero is the man who fights even though he is scared."

General Patton

If Patton were alive today, he would have gotten hell from liberals for not saying persons instead of men.

But then again with Pattons IDGAF attitude, he would say screw em.

Aren't most police departments' mottos "to protect and serve"?

I guess the motto never specified who.