I don’t agree with these charges. The decision to go charging into gunfire without any information is very questionable tactics. It’s not going to help anyone if he’s shot dead after taking six steps into the building.
Some officers will charge into a dangerous scene without a second thought. Others may wait for backup. The courageous officer gets a medal. I don’t think the man who hesitates deserves criminal charges.
He was fired from his job. That’s appropriate under the circumstances.
From an article about him being charged, “Officials added a perjury charge alleging that Mr. Peterson knowingly made a false statement while under oath in stating that he did not hear shots fired after he arrived at the 1200 building, except for the first two or three shots he heard.”
Unless he admitted later that he really did hear more shots, I cannot imagine how anyone could possibly prove that he actually heard more shots.
This seems like an ambitious prosecutor looking for a cheap way to climb the political ladder.
This shooting happened Feb. 14, 2018, that’s almost 16 months ago. The officer resigned/got canned. Bringing charges now seems pretty strange.
I had no idea that lack of courage is a crime.
Under the logic cited in the article, I see no reason why any parent could not be prosecuted under the law if he or she does not run into a burning building, tackle a robber, shoot a burglar, or wrestle a bear, shark or alligator in protecting a child.
I don’t know enough about what the officer did or did not do to comment on whether it was wise or cowardly, but let’s assume he was the biggest coward and worst police officer ever. How is that a crime under the statute?
When has a law (in a societal, not military context) ever required an individual to risk death to protect another? Doesn’t the public duty doctrine apply in Florida? The officer may have had a general duty to protect the children, but that doesn’t mean he had a duty to any individual child, so the idea that he “neglected” any child should not apply.
There needs to be an exception to prosecutorial immunity. It is abhorrent in a free society that some guy with a law degree and a chip on his shoulder can dust off law books and lock people up for months at a time or upend their lives. There needs to be some check on them besides simply losing a case.
He had backup, he ordered them to wait also.
I dunno. This guy got paid full cop wages for several years of playing Officer Friendly w/ a bunch of teens. Pretty cushy duty. Then when the one worst thing he might be expected to have to respond to actually happens - he screws the pooch.
And walks away w/ a pension of $100k/yr. Cops are paid decently - in large part - for the expectation that they must act under pressure in ways a normal person might not. I’ve got no problem with this guy facing significant repercussions. Maybe firing w/ no pension and a prohibition against any gun carrying security/law enforcement work might be enough.
Holy cow, what a mess. Both sides of this argument make some excellent points and I find myself unable to come down on one side or the other. I hate it when this happens.
Maybe a civil suit instead of a criminal suit would be a compromise I could feel better about.
Unlike most parents, he was armed and trained to respond in exactly such circumstances. Here is a scan of the affidavit for the arrest warrant. Among other things, it lists all of the active shooter, tactical shooter and building tactics classes he attended. What is the point of putting a police officer in a school if it isn’t to respond to such incidents?
Ever since Columbine, the protocol has changed. Instead of waiting for a perimeter and backup, cops are supposed to charge in ASAP to stop an active shooter because every moment you go on waiting is more time for the active shooter to continue the killing spree.
I understand the rules for police intervention have changed. Peterson broke them and deserved to be fired. (I think he resigned before that happened)
It’s the criminal charges that I question.
Seems more like a political stunt more than a winnable case.
This precisely
Agreed.
Fired and disgraced is appropriate. Criminal charges…no.
Panic and cowardice are not the same neglect and negligence. People react differently to intense situations. You never know how *you *are going to react until you are in one.
I don’t think this is accurate. He was not in a position of authority to order other officers to do anything.
Apparently the Department of Law Enforcement disagrees with your thought.
Per the New York Times article here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/parkland-scot-peterson.html
Got any evidence to say that is inaccurate?
As the onsite expert on live shootings, who had been stationed on the site of the ongoing live shooting for years, why on earth would they NOT defer to his authority and expertise??? Or not expect him to take command in the situation as it unfolded around him?
Perhaps, but exposure to intense situations is something one might expect as a uniformed law enforcement officer. If your response is panic and cowardice, perhaps that’s not the career for you. I’m squeamish so I’ve never considered a career in medicine. (Although my understanding is that squeamishness is trained out of medical students. Wouldn’t panic and cowardice be trained out of police academy students?)
Still, cowardice is not a crime under the FL Penal Code — he is being charged under the provisions for negligence and child neglect. I suppose the determinant there is if a reasonable person should have expected him to take action on his own initiative to locate/identify and neutralize the threat.
Do the police have an obligation to protect people or not? The Supreme Court says they don’t have any constitutional obligation to protect people.
Right, the Constitution does not impose an obligation. But this one prosecutor seems to think that Florida law does. We’ll see if the courts agree.
With what data we have available at this time, I think this is accurate. As the case proceeds and more information comes out this may change. But I really doubt it.