The conservatives I hear on the radio are cheering these charges. I guess it undermines their “good guy with a gun” world view.
I can’t speak to the legality of these charges, but everyone in this thread who is bemoaning them because they feel he should not be required to charge into a building in a split second may not be aware that Peterson, according to the Public Safety Commission report, “hid for 48 minutes at the base of a stairwell after the first shots were fired.” Clearly the charges have nothing to do with “charging in” or making a split second decision. That’s a strawman. 48 minutes. Cite.
But how would one know what their physiological response to such an intense situation would be? Some people react with uncommon and selfless bravery. Some people soil themselves. Some people do both. Sure, most people like to think they know how they would react…
But no, I do not believe that could be trained out at the police academy. In school, it’s only simulation. The danger isn’t real and it’s impossible not to know that. Every soldier went through that course in training where they crawled under the wire while machine guns were being fired over their heads. A small number still panicked and cowered when people were actually shooting at them.
I saw a news report of college classroom ‘active shooter’ simulations some time ago. (I searched but cannot find it now).
The simulation was a classroom where an active shooter would enter a full classroom (like a lecture hall). One or more of the students were armed (not with real guns, or course). Even in a simulation, several students could not bring themselves to pull and fire a fake gun at the shooter. In a fake event they knew was coming, it was still too intense for them act.
I feel confident saying that these students probably did not know they would react this way.
All I’m saying is that someone who panics and cowers in an active shooter situation should lose their job, but they should not be jailed. Because panic and cowardice are neither reasoned nor voluntary. Now, if he filed a false report and lied to investigators, THAT he should be prosecuted for.
I’m not sure I agree. Your position is certainly reasonable, but I can counter that negligence is also a reasonable thing to consider. He was trained and specifically put there with a firearm for this exact situation. He chose not to do his job and (see my post above) did not do so in a panic. He sat for almost an hour and actively decided not to act. This is not a “guy panics in a split second” situation. He had plenty of time to gather his wits, come up with a plan, and do the job he was trained to do. He chose not to and people died. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call that negligence.
I could understand the panic if this was a rookie officer. But this guy was 56 years old and had been the school resource officer for eight years I think. (I can’t find how long he’s been in law enforcement.) He’s had multiple training classes on such situations. At some point, the training should kick in and he should react appropriately.
Criminal Negligence has got to be something like a deliberate act. In this case, I think the deliberate act would be advising other officers that they shouldn’t go in (to stop the shooter).
I’m not the jury: I don’t decide if he’s guilty of criminal negligence or not. But criminal negligence is not the same as deciding not to run into a burning building.