Parkland Cop Charged

The Coffee Shop
21

Somebody has to pay. If only the teachers had been armed…

If teachers were armed, and also fail to act to intervene in a school shooting, would those teachers then be charged with child neglect amongst other things?

No they shouldn’t IMO. Although armed and trained, the expectation is for them to intervene or act to the best of their ability within the situation. Their primary job is to teach. A cops primary job is to protect. If they do not and they should have, they can be held liable for the consequences.

.

But there is no other reason to carry in school then to protect. Given the added risks it adds to the environment, I think it’s fair to say if you want to carry on school grounds, that comes with responsibility to act. If you don’t want to intervene, don’t carry as there is no point.

The question is the level of responsibility. Teachers would not have the same level as officers, to the point they would be criminally liable if they didn’t intervene. To allow teachers to carry or not is another debate.

.

But the whole point of arming teachers is to respond or limit the damage caused in mass shooter situations. If you’re not willing to take on that responsibility, maybe you shouldn’t be carrying in school.

22

I was only able to scan the posts, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating what someone has already said.

Being scared is not a criminal act. Yes, the guy ran and was the last line of defense, but making it criminal? No…

But if someone is not held responsible how will we ever rest? We need to try and fry this guy. It’s all his fault…

Now back to reality. We have a problem we can’t fix with our current laws and the way our education system is setup. We are going to have more dead kids and educators unless new approaches are tried. Throwing up our hands in the air and declaring the problem is not fixable or we can’t mitigate it is not an option. Maybe the Florida experiment will work, maybe it won’t, but again, doing nothing is not an option.

23

Somebody has to pay. If only the teachers had been armed…

If teachers were armed, and also fail to act to intervene in a school shooting, would those teachers then be charged with child neglect amongst other things?

No they shouldn’t IMO. Although armed and trained, the expectation is for them to intervene or act to the best of their ability within the situation. Their primary job is to teach. A cops primary job is to protect. If they do not and they should have, they can be held liable for the consequences.

.

But there is no other reason to carry in school then to protect. Given the added risks it adds to the environment, I think it’s fair to say if you want to carry on school grounds, that comes with responsibility to act. If you don’t want to intervene, don’t carry as there is no point.

The question is the level of responsibility. Teachers would not have the same level as officers, to the point they would be criminally liable if they didn’t intervene. To allow teachers to carry or not is another debate.

.

But the whole point of arming teachers is to respond or limit the damage caused in mass shooter situations. If you’re not willing to take on that responsibility, maybe you shouldn’t be carrying in school.

I agree. That is why it will be voluntary.

.

24

Somebody has to pay. If only the teachers had been armed…

If teachers were armed, and also fail to act to intervene in a school shooting, would those teachers then be charged with child neglect amongst other things?

No they shouldn’t IMO. Although armed and trained, the expectation is for them to intervene or act to the best of their ability within the situation. Their primary job is to teach. A cops primary job is to protect. If they do not and they should have, they can be held liable for the consequences.

.

But there is no other reason to carry in school then to protect. Given the added risks it adds to the environment, I think it’s fair to say if you want to carry on school grounds, that comes with responsibility to act. If you don’t want to intervene, don’t carry as there is no point.

The question is the level of responsibility. Teachers would not have the same level as officers, to the point they would be criminally liable if they didn’t intervene. To allow teachers to carry or not is another debate.

.

But the whole point of arming teachers is to respond or limit the damage caused in mass shooter situations. If you’re not willing to take on that responsibility, maybe you shouldn’t be carrying in school.

I agree. That is why it will be voluntary.

…

Ok. Do you think all of those volunteers, if the situation arises, will put their life on the line to confront a shooter? Do you think some will act as the cop did, and run away? You don’t know how you will react in a life and death or emergency situation until you’re in one.

I think if teachers want to carry, a responsibility to step up when the time comes should be tied to that right to carry. Otherwise, there is no point in arming them. If they’re going to carry a gun, it SHOULD be their job to respond to shooter situations. They should be very aware of that.

25

This is one reason why arming teachers isn’t that great of an idea.

Understatement of the day, so far.

26

Ok. Do you think all of those volunteers, if the situation arises, will put their life on the line to confront a shooter? Do you think some will act as the cop did, and run away? You don’t know how you will react in a life and death or emergency situation until you’re in one.

I think if teachers want to carry, a responsibility to step up when the time comes should be tied to that right to carry. Otherwise, there is no point in arming them. If they’re going to carry a gun, it SHOULD be their job to respond to shooter situations. They should be very aware of that.

It’s situational but the armed teacher’s responsibility is different than the officer’s.

If an armed teacher is in building A and a shooting occurs in building B, I don’t feel the teacher should be obligated to go to where the shooting is to intervene. He/she should get his/her students to safety.

If a shooter enters the building or classroom of an armed teacher, I feel the teacher *has the obligation *to respond as trained.

I feel the officer should respond to where the shooting is no matter where it occurs.

.

27

They will find him guilty of perjury the other charges, neglect of a child and culpable negligence is a big reach and would set a new precedent that would likely be overturned on appeal. Evidently he was not following procedures and protocols since he lost his job. " The warrant for his arrest also notes that Peterson attended over a dozen active shooter related courses, including one in April 2016 in which one of the objectives was for participants to be “better prepared to respond to an active shooter incident.
“Remember, every time you hear a gunshot,” language from the training read, “you have to believe that is another victim being killed.”
Further evidence of his negligence, prosecutors say, is that at the time of the shooting Peterson was an instructor for the Broward Public Schools “Active Killer” course. So he was not some rent a cop schmuck and may be held to a higher standard of culpability because of his training.

28

I was only able to scan the posts, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating what someone has already said.

Being scared is not a criminal act. Yes, the guy ran and was the last line of defense, but making it criminal? No…

When I first heard that he was arrested I thought the same as you did. Then I read more about what actually happened. I believe it was more than just “I froze in the moment”. He had plenty of time to come to grips with what was happening, what his duty was and what his options were. He made horrible choices that, per the 14 month investigation, cost several students their lives. I believe he should be held accountable.

I don’t agree with the sentiment but I understand the emotions of one of the parents.

“I have no comment except to say rot in hell Scott Peterson. You could have saved some of the 17. You could have saved my daughter. You did not and then you lied about it and you deserve the misery coming your way,” said Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed in the shooting.

.

29

They will find him guilty of perjury the other charges, neglect of a child and culpable negligence is a big reach and would set a new precedent that would likely be overturned on appeal. Evidently he was not following procedures and protocols since he lost his job. " The warrant for his arrest also notes that Peterson attended over a dozen active shooter related courses, including one in April 2016 in which one of the objectives was for participants to be “better prepared to respond to an active shooter incident.
“Remember, every time you hear a gunshot,” language from the training read, “you have to believe that is another victim being killed.”
Further evidence of his negligence, prosecutors say, is that at the time of the shooting Peterson was an instructor for the Broward Public Schools “Active Killer” course. So he was not some rent a cop schmuck and may be held to a higher standard of culpability because of his training.

He’s definitely going to jail. We don’t even need a trial but some prosecutor will be more than happy to add this victory to their political resume. Then everyone can go home happy. It’s the American way.

I think we should take a different tactic. We should arrest everyone who ignored the warning signs that the Parkland shooter was mentally ill;

A Broward County sheriff responded to the Cruz’s Parkland home after Lynda Cruz reports that she was thrown against the wall after taking away 14-year-old Nikolas’s Xbox. Mental health clinicians advised Nikolas did not need to be held under the Baker Act.

Anonymous report that Cruz stated on
Instagram that he plans to shoot up the school

A school resource officer reports that a peer counselor told him that Cruz ingested gasoline in an effort to commit suicide and was cutting himself. He also allegedly said he wanted to buy a gun and possessed hate-related symbols. A mental health clinician said Cruz didn’t need to be held under the Baker Act. Eight hours later, a sheriff’s deputy responds to Cruz’s home on allegations that Cruz is hurting himself and talking about buying a gun.

“At least three times, people contacted law enforcement to warn that Cruz could carry out a school shooting.”

What do you say? I think we can add another 20 - 50 people to the trial and get them off the street before they let more mentally ill people on the street.

30

They will find him guilty of perjury the other charges, neglect of a child and culpable negligence is a big reach and would set a new precedent that would likely be overturned on appeal. Evidently he was not following procedures and protocols since he lost his job. " The warrant for his arrest also notes that Peterson attended over a dozen active shooter related courses, including one in April 2016 in which one of the objectives was for participants to be “better prepared to respond to an active shooter incident.
“Remember, every time you hear a gunshot,” language from the training read, “you have to believe that is another victim being killed.”
Further evidence of his negligence, prosecutors say, is that at the time of the shooting Peterson was an instructor for the Broward Public Schools “Active Killer” course. So he was not some rent a cop schmuck and may be held to a higher standard of culpability because of his training.

He’s definitely going to jail. We don’t even need a trial but some prosecutor will be more than happy to add this victory to their political resume. Then everyone can go home happy. It’s the American way.

I think we should take a different tactic. We should arrest everyone who ignored the warning signs that the Parkland shooter was mentally ill;

A Broward County sheriff responded to the Cruz’s Parkland home after Lynda Cruz reports that she was thrown against the wall after taking away 14-year-old Nikolas’s Xbox. Mental health clinicians advised Nikolas did not need to be held under the Baker Act.

Anonymous report that Cruz stated on
Instagram that he plans to shoot up the school

A school resource officer reports that a peer counselor told him that Cruz ingested gasoline in an effort to commit suicide and was cutting himself. He also allegedly said he wanted to buy a gun and possessed hate-related symbols. A mental health clinician said Cruz didn’t need to be held under the Baker Act. Eight hours later, a sheriff’s deputy responds to Cruz’s home on allegations that Cruz is hurting himself and talking about buying a gun.

“At least three times, people contacted law enforcement to warn that Cruz could carry out a school shooting.”

What do you say? I think we can add another 20 - 50 people to the trial and get them off the street before they let more mentally ill people on the street.

Did these 20-50 break a law?

.

31

I was only able to scan the posts, so I’m sorry if I’m repeating what someone has already said.

Being scared is not a criminal act. Yes, the guy ran and was the last line of defense, but making it criminal? No…

When I first heard that he was arrested I thought the same as you did. Then I read more about what actually happened. I believe it was more than just “I froze in the moment”. He had plenty of time to come to grips with what was happening, what his duty was and what his options were. He made horrible choices that, per the 14 month investigation, cost several students their lives. I believe he should be held accountable.

I don’t agree with the sentiment but I understand the emotions of one of the parents.

“I have no comment except to say rot in hell Scott Peterson. You could have saved some of the 17. You could have saved my daughter. You did not and then you lied about it and you deserve the misery coming your way,” said Fred Guttenberg, whose daughter Jaime was killed in the shooting.

.

I’m pretty much in the same boat. No idea if he should be convicted because we don’t know everything yet, that is what the trial is for. But I think I am OK with him being charged.

32

They will find him guilty of perjury the other charges, neglect of a child and culpable negligence is a big reach and would set a new precedent that would likely be overturned on appeal. Evidently he was not following procedures and protocols since he lost his job. " The warrant for his arrest also notes that Peterson attended over a dozen active shooter related courses, including one in April 2016 in which one of the objectives was for participants to be “better prepared to respond to an active shooter incident.
“Remember, every time you hear a gunshot,” language from the training read, “you have to believe that is another victim being killed.”
Further evidence of his negligence, prosecutors say, is that at the time of the shooting Peterson was an instructor for the Broward Public Schools “Active Killer” course. So he was not some rent a cop schmuck and may be held to a higher standard of culpability because of his training.

He’s definitely going to jail. We don’t even need a trial but some prosecutor will be more than happy to add this victory to their political resume. Then everyone can go home happy. It’s the American way.

I think we should take a different tactic. We should arrest everyone who ignored the warning signs that the Parkland shooter was mentally ill;

A Broward County sheriff responded to the Cruz’s Parkland home after Lynda Cruz reports that she was thrown against the wall after taking away 14-year-old Nikolas’s Xbox. Mental health clinicians advised Nikolas did not need to be held under the Baker Act.

Anonymous report that Cruz stated on
Instagram that he plans to shoot up the school

A school resource officer reports that a peer counselor told him that Cruz ingested gasoline in an effort to commit suicide and was cutting himself. He also allegedly said he wanted to buy a gun and possessed hate-related symbols. A mental health clinician said Cruz didn’t need to be held under the Baker Act. Eight hours later, a sheriff’s deputy responds to Cruz’s home on allegations that Cruz is hurting himself and talking about buying a gun.

“At least three times, people contacted law enforcement to warn that Cruz could carry out a school shooting.”

What do you say? I think we can add another 20 - 50 people to the trial and get them off the street before they let more mentally ill people on the street.

Did these 20-50 break a law?

.

Maybe. State laws vary on when mental health workers must break client confidentiality.

33

When I first heard that he was arrested I thought the same as you did. Then I read more about what actually happened. I believe it was more than just “I froze in the moment”. He had plenty of time to come to grips with what was happening, what his duty was and what his options were. He made horrible choices that, per the 14 month investigation, cost several students their lives. I believe he should be held accountable.

I’m curious what you think, "… what his duty was… ".
One of our lawyers will certainly chime in, but a person’s legal “Duty to Protect” only applies if there is a “special relationship” between individuals, as legally defined, or if the person is the direct cause of the actual threat.

The second half certainly doesn’t apply - the shooter himself was the cause of the actual threat).

The first half…?? Certainly doesn’t apply to police officers, based on current Supreme Court precedent. Why do we think it should apply to on-site security? Do bouncers have a legal obligation to interpose themselves in the middle of a bar fight? To step in a break up two people fighting with knives?

34

When I first heard that he was arrested I thought the same as you did. Then I read more about what actually happened. I believe it was more than just “I froze in the moment”. He had plenty of time to come to grips with what was happening, what his duty was and what his options were. He made horrible choices that, per the 14 month investigation, cost several students their lives. I believe he should be held accountable.

I’m curious what you think, "… what his duty was… ".
One of our lawyers will certainly chime in, but a person’s legal “Duty to Protect” only applies if there is a “special relationship” between individuals, as legally defined, or if the person is the direct cause of the actual threat.

The second half certainly doesn’t apply - the shooter himself was the cause of the actual threat).

The first half…?? Certainly doesn’t apply to police officers, based on current Supreme Court precedent. Why do we think it should apply to on-site security? Do bouncers have a legal obligation to interpose themselves in the middle of a bar fight? To step in a break up two people fighting with knives?

I will refer you to Post #12.

I think it was his duty to not “desert a child under circumstances in which the caregiver knew or should have known that the desertion exposes the child to unreasonable risk of harm.”

I also agree with the following statement: “There can be no excuse for his complete inaction and no question that his inaction cost lives,” said FDLE Commissioner Rick Swearingen.

35

I will refer you to Post #12.

I think it was his duty to not “desert a child under circumstances in which the caregiver knew or should have known that the desertion exposes the child to unreasonable risk of harm.”

Still two problems (questions, really) with your reference:
(a) Post #12 includes a definition for caregiver that includes, “… an employee of any school…”. So any employee should be criminally charged for not running into an active shooter / burning building / etc.? A custodian? A lunch worker? What is the legal justification that this person (a security officer) has a higher standard of obligation that other school employees?
(b) The inaction of the security officer did not directly introduce the risk. The attacker is the one who did that. Failing to mitigate a risk that someone else created is not the same as initiating/introducing the risk.
To be clear, I’m not defending his professional performance. I certainly wouldn’t hire him for a security role, based on his reaction in this incident. However, I just don’t see the justification for the criminal charges. Seems more of case of political grandstanding and/or catering to the emotions of the crowd, rather than anything based on solid legal reasoning or precedent.

36

I will refer you to Post #12.

I think it was his duty to not “desert a child under circumstances in which the caregiver knew or should have known that the desertion exposes the child to unreasonable risk of harm.”

Still two problems (questions, really) with your reference:
(a) Post #12 includes a definition for caregiver that includes, “… an employee of any school…”. So any employee should be criminally charged for not running into an active shooter / burning building / etc.? A custodian? A lunch worker? What is the legal justification that this person (a security officer) has a higher standard of obligation that other school employees?
(b) The inaction of the security officer did not directly introduce the risk. The attacker is the one who did that. Failing to mitigate a risk that someone else created is not the same as initiating/introducing the risk.
To be clear, I’m not defending his professional performance. I certainly wouldn’t hire him for a security role, based on his reaction in this incident. However, I just don’t see the justification for the criminal charges. Seems more of case of political grandstanding and/or catering to the emotions of the crowd, rather than anything based on solid legal reasoning or precedent.

**“…for not running into an active shooter / burning building / etc.?” **

Law refers to “deserting a child”. It doesn’t state that one must run to the danger. There’s your difference. Pretty sure the focus of the charges are that the officer deserted the kids. I believe he did.

.

37

"The crime of child desertion or child abandonment occurs when a legally responsible adult leaves a child with the intention to abandon him or her. The parent or guardian must intend to sever the custodial ties over the child, and must often do so without regard for the child’s health and safety. "

Doesn’t really seem to fit the situation. Did he have legal, custodial responsibility for any of the individual students?

38

Again from post #12:

Florida Statute 827.10 says “A caregiver who deserts a child under circumstances in which the caregiver knew or should have known that the desertion exposes the child to unreasonable risk of harm commits a felony of the third degree.”

Florida Statute 39.01(10) says “Caregiver” means the parent, legal custodian, permanent guardian, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in subsection (54)."

And (54) says “Other person responsible for a child’s welfare” includes the child’s legal guardian or foster parent; an employee of any school, public or private child day care center, residential home, institution, facility, or agency; a law enforcement officer employed in any facility, service, or program for children that is operated or contracted by the Department of Juvenile Justice; or any other person legally responsible for the child’s welfare in a residential setting; and also includes an adult sitter or relative entrusted with a child’s care."
.

39

Again from post #12:

Florida Statute 827.10 says “A caregiver who deserts a child under circumstances in which the caregiver knew or should have known that the desertion exposes the child to unreasonable risk of harm commits a felony of the third degree.”

Florida Statute 39.01(10) says “Caregiver” means the parent, legal custodian, permanent guardian, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare as defined in subsection (54)."

And (54) says “Other person responsible for a child’s welfare” includes the child’s legal guardian or foster parent; an employee of any school, public or private child day care center, residential home, institution, facility, or agency; a law enforcement officer employed in any facility, service, or program for children that is operated or contracted by the Department of Juvenile Justice; or any other person legally responsible for the child’s welfare in a residential setting; and also includes an adult sitter or relative entrusted with a child’s care."

So you are saying that he had a legal responsibility to be personally responsible for the wellbeing of 3206 children? If so, why is it not 3206 counts, since his actions were identical for every student at that school?

Also, separate from my other questions, what is Florida’s definition of “child”? That may or may not affect how applicable those laws are.

40

Haven’t seen this on here yet, maybe I missed it?

https://www.cbc.ca/...t-peterson-1.5162187

Theses charges are bullshit populist red meat to satiate the legally ignorant. Clear prosecutorial overreach should be a crime too.