Discussion»Questions»Current Events and News» Scott Peterson (School officer at Parkland) being charged with inaction during the school shooting. Should he be convicted?
If he IS convicted ... it would go against all precedent. Courts have previously held that police officers have NO obligation to protect any individuals they do not have a set relation with - such as someone in witness protection, or a confidential informant. Even if you dial 911, the police have no duty to respond.
Should he be convicted? I don't know. There's a lot of questions that have to be answered. What was his training? Did his contract actually require him to confront an active shooter by himself? Or was he under the same rules as normal police officers, and just contracted to the school?
The whole reason he was stationed at a school was for protection. His duty of care was specific. I think it's a toss up but if he is convicted, I would advise a police office to not accept a position of school resource officer, as their duty of care would be different from the traditional duty of law enforcement.
As I said ... it depends on the language of the contract between the police and school. The only ones I've seen personally, at the local school district, are just an obligation of the police department to provide an officer during school hours and the school district to reimburse the police department for the officer's time. The contract doesn't mention any specific duties. In that situation, the officer has no obligations outside his normal duties - so court precedent is he has no obligation to protect the school children.
EDIT: Yes, I have pointed that out to the local school board. The reason (I was told) they don't get a more specific contract; is that it would require a 3-way negotiation between the school district, police department, AND police union.
This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at June 5, 2019 11:54 AM MDT
No it doesn't have anything to do with the employment contract. This is not a civil contract suit. This is a criminal charge and all that matters is the law. The state did the investigation and has now brought the charges. It is not a police matter.
See my previous response. Unless the contract stated otherwise, his only duties were that of a normal police officer. Normal police officers have NO DUTY TO PROTECT US. That is according to multiple court rulings.
You can look up the court cases. The police have no duty to any individual citizen, unless you are in custody or a confidential informant. A crime may be committed right in front of them, and they have no duty to respond to it.
Besides. This see isn't concerning an.individual, this is a case about skirting an obligation to the community at large which the courts have ruled officers do have a responsibility to.
And, believe it or not, it has been successfully argued in the courts that police - by protecting themselves first - fulfill that obligation to "the public at large".
I do not know about his individual contract. But know the National regulations for an active shooter are to go to the shooting and confront the shooter. Not establish a perimeter. He is charged with neligence and perjury.
Is that confrontation required before you have backup? (Normal police procedure is to wait for backup whenever violence is possible.) I didn't really follow the situation, so don't know if he went in after backup arrived or what.
They had a Florida law professor on NPR this morning, and she was saying it will be far easier to prove perjury than negligence.
Yes. That is the sole purpose in having a School Resource Officer. They are there to respond immediately to an active shooter without waiting for backup. They are not there to direct traffic/help with unruly children/etc, even though they may help with these areas as well. This man knew this, he had the training and did not do his job.
Normal procedure for an active shooter is different than other situations....now to go to the shooter not wait for back up etc.
This post was edited by my2cents at June 6, 2019 11:51 AM MDT
It's different here. The School Resource Officer is basically a police officer assigned to the school, when a school has a history of so much "petty" crime that it takes a part-time (or more) officer for the cases. They normally handle things like vandalism, theft, reports of assault (bullying), or truancy. But if there's a fight, they actually have to call another officer and wait for backup. Basically, they're the same as a Neighborhood Patrol Office, but in the school building.
I suspect we will have to wait until all the facts come out at a trial to know whether he is guilty of the charges against him. If nothing else, he did not show much courage in attempting to find and disarm the shooter. He was outside the school the entire time. It would appear that some of the teachers and some of the students did more to protect the children than the officer did.
He may be a coward, but that's not a crime. You can be fired for cowardice, but not arrested. I understand we really want someone to punish after a tragedy, but this isn't going to help anyone.
Criminal negligence is a far more serious form of negligence that usually involves the death of another individual. The defendant has failed to perceive the serious nature of his or her actions and instead precipitated a gross violation of the standard of care expected on an individual.
https://negligence.laws.com/criminal-negligence
This post was edited by Thriftymaid at June 6, 2019 11:51 AM MDT
I absolutely think he should be charged. Police absolutely should be held to the standard of doing their job and be criminal liable when people are injured due to their choice to be a punk.
How about this. If the police want to militarized and heat up and act like paramilitary when they are kicking in doors? Then they get held to the same standard of .military personnel who skirt their duties under fire. Yeah that's sounds closer to fair.
I see the charges as being politically motivated somewhat. We'll see how it goes but the state might have a hard time getting a guilty verdict. But, yes, I do see sufficient evidence for the indictment.
Walt O'Reagun 