Parkland School Shooting Verdict

[retiredguy123]

Scot Peterson, a 60 year old resource officer, was found "not guilty" on all 11 counts where he was charged with a crime for not acting to stop the shooting. Personally, I agree with the verdict. The Government cannot and should not mandate courage.

[Rainger99]

Scot Peterson, a 60 year old resource officer, was found "not guilty" on all 11 counts where he was charged with a crime for not acting to stop the shooting. Personally, I agree with the verdict. The Government cannot and should not mandate courage.

I read that it was the first case ever where criminal charges were brought against a police officer for failure to act.

[Keefelane66]

Disappointed in ruling.

[dewilson58]

:BigApplause:

[Taltarzac725]

You cannot force people to be heroic and actually run towards the bullets. They either have true grit in that situation or they do not. And no amount of training will undo that unless I suppose it was on a battlefield and then you have to deal with post traumatic stress and how people deal with it.

[manaboutown]

This clown should be a host on The View. He does not have the true grit to be a LEO or in security.

[badkarma318]

He has been publicly branded with the scarlet C, for Coward, and he will bear that, as well as the mental burden of his inability to act to save children, to his last day. A cold and timid soul.

[MrFlorida]

Remember , the police are only there to take the report after , they are not there to protect you.... You have to protect yourself..

[dougjb]

Just goes to show you, the presence of SRO's on school campuses are totally useless.What are they there for?

Apparently, the only purpose of the presense of a uniformed, armed certified police office on middle school and high school campuses is to give a false sense of security to parents. These SRO's cost a great deal and it is easy service for these glorified crossing guards.

Moreover, these cops wind up arresting kids for minor violations and getting the kids into the "system" that the kids can never get out of. It causes many kids to simply get squashed by these uselss cops!

[Number 10 GI]

Just goes to show you, the presence of SRO's on school campuses are totally useless.What are they there for?

Apparently, the only purpose of the presense of a uniformed, armed certified police office on middle school and high school campuses is to give a false sense of security to parents. These SRO's cost a great deal and it is easy service for these glorified crossing guards.

Moreover, these cops wind up arresting kids for minor violations and getting the kids into the "system" that the kids can never get out of. It causes many kids to simply get squashed by these uselss cops!

You are painting with a very broad brush and your vitriol diminishes your credibility. You want the SROs to ignore violations committed by students? Do you believe anarchy in schools is acceptable? If a kid is following the rules, there should be no problems with the SRO.

[Michael G.]

You cannot force people to be heroic and actually run towards the bullets. They either have true grit in that situation or they do not. And no amount of training will undo that unless I suppose it was on a battlefield and then you have to deal with post traumatic stress and how people deal with it.

Same with people that carry firearms for their protection.
Could they all fire those weapons when needed.
I think not.

[Tvflguy]

I did not recall if Peterson was an actual cop or just a SRO. Googled and found out that he was a sheriffs deputy. That said total Shame and cowardice. And running and hiding.

Now I understand why the parents are upset after the verdict. Can’t imagine the angst and heartbreak. Of course he had to live with this, but the poor families…. If this can be used as a precedent in future cases as this….

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Remember , the police are only there to take the report after , they are not there to protect you.... You have to protect yourself..

Yes, of course you're right. Let's mandate that all school children of all ages, from pre-K and up, be required to carry a loaded firearm with them whenever they're on school property.

Y'know, so they can protect themselves from shooters.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Also - important to understand - he no longer has -criminal- charges to face. He can still be sued by the families of the victims in civil court for failure to act. For those who say "no one should be expected to play the hero" - that was his job. That's what he was paid to do: to protect students and keep the peace at the school. He was a Sheriff's deputy - he accepted the responsibility, then failed.

I don't think he should be held criminally responsible, because there's no way of knowing that - even if he DID act, he would've acted in time to save anyone. But he chose not to act at all, even though that was his job. And for that - he deserves to be held accountable and pay damages. That's my opinion.

[blueash]

I read that it was the first case ever where criminal charges were brought against a police officer for failure to act.

Then you read something that seems wrong to me. Tou Thao was found guilty of aiding and abetting manslaughter when he failed to intervene to stop manslaughter. It may be that our wonderful SCOTUS will overturn as it has stated that cops have no duty to protect citizens despite the old "serve and protect" motto plastered everywhere. The question thus is what interests are cops serving and protecting as it is not school children being slaughtered.

A school teacher can lose her profession for failing to notice and report possible child abuse, but a cop is immune to any lawsuit for their failure to act.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Then you read something that seems wrong to me. Tou Thao was found guilty of aiding and abetting manslaughter when he failed to intervene to stop manslaughter. It may be that our wonderful SCOTUS will overturn as it has stated that cops have no duty to protect citizens despite the old "serve and protect" motto plastered everywhere. The question thus is what interests are cops serving and protecting as it is not school children being slaughtered.

A school teacher can lose her profession for failing to notice and report possible child abuse, but a cop is immune to any lawsuit for their failure to act.

No, not immune to any lawsuit. Immune to criminal charges. There's a huge difference.

[blueash]

Also - important to understand - he no longer has -criminal- charges to face. He can still be sued by the families of the victims in civil court for failure to act. For those who say "no one should be expected to play the hero" - that was his job. That's what he was paid to do: to protect students and keep the peace at the school. He was a Sheriff's deputy - he accepted the responsibility, then failed.

I don't think he should be held criminally responsible, because there's no way of knowing that - even if he DID act, he would've acted in time to save anyone. But he chose not to act at all, even though that was his job. And for that - he deserves to be held accountable and pay damages. That's my opinion.


You never know what an individual judge or jury might do, but our wonderful Supreme Court has ruled that cops have no obligation to protect citizens, period. The only successful cases are when it can be shown the cop actively committed a tort or deprived a citizen of a known right. Keep in mind that under sovereign immunity that cops are not expected to know the law, although your ignorance of the law is not an excuse, and thus they have a nearly 100% freedom to abuse your rights.

The law now, simplified, says that unless that cop was told in advance that a very specific act is unconstitutional, he may not be held responsible for a violation. Unless the cop knows he shouldn't do a cavity search on a woman standing in the open on the side of a street, he is free to do so. And no court can make a finding that such an act was a violation without there being a previous case so stating. Thus because no previous case exists with this exact set of actions, Cop A gets away with it. Then when Cop B does the same thing, because there still is no previous case, etc...

Read this case summary... cops had a search warrant and removed items from a home. The home owner reported that much more was removed and not listed on the inventory. The cops did not admit to theft, there was no criminal trial. The homeowner sued for recovery which would seem a question for a jury. But no... such suit was prohibited because, there was no existing rule saying cops couldn't steal while executing a search. Immunity. and this court could not impose such a rule, so the next one can't and the next one can't

Jessop v. City of Fresno, No. 17-16756 (9th Cir. 2019) Court Description: Civil Rights The panel affirmed the district court’s order granting the City Officers’ motion for summary judgment in an action alleging that City of Fresno police officers violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments when they stole Appellants’ property after conducting a search and seizure pursuant to a warrant. Following the search, the City Officers gave Appellants an inventory sheet stating that they seized approximately $50,000 from Appellants’ properties. Appellants alleged, however, that the officers actually seized $151,380 in cash and another $125,000 in rare coins. Appellants alleged that the City Officers stole the difference between the amount listed on the inventory sheet and the amount that was actually seized from the properties. The panel held that it need not decide whether the City Officers violated the Constitution. The panel determined that at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property that is seized pursuant to a warrant.

[blueash]

No, not immune to any lawsuit. Immune to criminal charges. There's a huge difference.

This officer was charged with a crime, so I don't understand your "correction" that he is immune to criminal charges. He was charged with a crime, and convicted and sentenced for that crime.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

This officer was charged with a crime, so I don't understand your "correction" that he is immune to criminal charges. He was charged with a crime, and convicted and sentenced for that crime.

He was charged on 11 counts and found not guilty on all 11. I used the wrong terminology - he wasn't immune to being charged, but he was found not guilty.

He can still be sued.

[blueash]

///

[Kelevision]

Yet some people think we should arm all the teachers. Can you imagine.

[kenpoboy]

Useless cops?? Why don't you try it for a week and see what is really involved with doing this job. You're the coward who sits behind a keyboard and judges from far away. If you want to make a stand and stick up for your ideas, make sure you have the facts before you start typing.

[Blackbird45]

If you consider someone a hero or a coward is not the problem and it's not just this issue. Every employee when applying for a job should be handed a handbook with full description of what is expected from them. The handbook should not only describe what is demanded of the job, but the penalties in this way the person will be aware what the position entails. Once the person agrees they understand and agrees to take the position they sign a contract stating what is expected of them. In this way avoiding being judged after the fact and reducing court cases. This is not only the police, but every employee governmental or private.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Scot Peterson, a 60 year old resource officer, was found "not guilty" on all 11 counts where he was charged with a crime for not acting to stop the shooting. Personally, I agree with the verdict. The Government cannot and should not mandate courage.
If you are a "guard" and carry a gun, let's hope you have courage, or just get another job.

[NoMo50]

Just goes to show you, the presence of SRO's on school campuses are totally useless.

Yet another example of misapplied "logic" by branding an entire class of people based on the actions, or lack thereof, of a single person.

The vast majority of SRO's have not, and would not, behave the way Peterson did. There are countless accounts of SRO's performing valiant acts, if you want to take the time to search them out.

Being a keyboard kommando is easy. Doing the job of many hard working men and women...not so much.

[retiredguy123]

If you are a "guard" and carry a gun, let's hope you have courage, or just get another job.
I agree, but I don't think he should be put in prison for the rest of his life.

[gatorbill1]

He did what he was trained to do

[Blueblaze]

Cowardice in the face of the enemy was enough for a prison sentence or even hanging, back when any male citizen was liable to be drafted to fight this country's enemies.

Now it's not even a firing offense in Texas to wait in a hallway with a dozen other cops, all suited up in bullet-proof vests with AR15's, while they listen to a lunatic murder children for 45 minutes and wait for the last real man in town to arrive, armed with nothing more than his barber's shotgun.

At least this Florida coward can claim he was alone and armed only with his service weapon for the first few minutes before help arrived.

But the mere fact that such cowards exist in our police forces, and the courts don't care, tells you that this country is becoming one not worth defending -- as you can see by the armed services' inability to reach their recruitment goals.

[Wondering]

Scot Peterson, a 60 year old resource officer, was found "not guilty" on all 11 counts where he was charged with a crime for not acting to stop the shooting. Personally, I agree with the verdict. The Government cannot and should not mandate courage.
Well, if the person didn't have courage, he shouldn't have been in that job to begin with. Another gutless, pathetic human being. Wonder if you would feel the same if your child was killed!

[Gsorace]

That's not really true. As a teacher of "at-risk" students for over 30 years, I can tell you that a good SRO establishes a rapport with students. I've seen first-hand that this relationship has led to elimination of problems and incidents in the school.

[Susan1717]

And then we have the opposite, the marine that tried to secure a violent man on a train and accidentally killed him. Have they tested the dead man’s blood yet to determine if drugs were present causing death? And what about this criminals past crimes permanently disabling an older woman he attacked? I’d certainly want this marine on any train with me or my loved ones!

[Marine1974]

Should not be a police officer sworn to serve and protect our citizens. Here we see a volunteer military, no draft . No one is forced to be brave . How can you live with yourself let children die and he stood by .

[Marine1974]

What was he trained to do with the weapon he carried on the job ?
What do you know about police training?

[Marine1974]

Why have police if they aren’t required to protect us ? Why was the resource officer charged with a felony.

[gmnirr]

when did that change?

[gatorbill1]

What was he trained to do with the weapon he carried on the job ?
What do you know about police training?

He was trained to call for backup, which he didf

[dewilson58]

Another gutless, pathetic human being.

The good thing is, you have no basis to judge.

:thumbup:

[defrey12]

You shouldn’t be. It’s correct. It’s the law.

[defrey12]

He has been publicly branded with the scarlet C, for Coward, and he will bear that, as well as the mental burden of his inability to act to save children, to his last day. A cold and timid soul.

Okay…next time, you do it. Easy to be an “arm chair quarterback.”

[Taltarzac725]

Same with people that carry firearms for their protection.
Could they all fire those weapons when needed.
I think not.

I doubt if many people would have the strength to shoot another person especially if they were aiming at someone else other than them.

There were not that many well known gunslingers in the Old West. 10 Infamous Deadly Real-Life Gunslingers of the Wild West (https://americanshootingjournal.com/10-infamous-deadly-real-life-gun-slingers-of-the-wild-west/)

[dkintzer1]

Just goes to show you, the presence of SRO's on school campuses are totally useless.What are they there for?

Apparently, the only purpose of the presense of a uniformed, armed certified police office on middle school and high school campuses is to give a false sense of security to parents. These SRO's cost a great deal and it is easy service for these glorified crossing guards.

Moreover, these cops wind up arresting kids for minor violations and getting the kids into the "system" that the kids can never get out of. It causes many kids to simply get squashed by these uselss cops!
You paint with a very broad brush.

[nn0wheremann]

Scot Peterson, a 60 year old resource officer, was found "not guilty" on all 11 counts where he was charged with a crime for not acting to stop the shooting. Personally, I agree with the verdict. The Government cannot and should not mandate courage.
He was paid to protect the children and staff at the school. He accepted the job, the pay, and he decided to disregard his duty.

[retiredguy123]

He was paid to protect the children and staff at the school. He accepted the job, the pay, and he decided to disregard his duty.
I agree, but the state wanted to send him to prison for life. Too much of a penalty.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I agree, but the state wanted to send him to prison for life. Too much of a penalty.

Agreed completely. I am in favor of stricter gun control (not eliminating guns - just controlling access more efficiently). I am against excessive force or choke holds for criminals by police officers. I am often accused of being a bleeding heart you know what.

But I'm not really. I'm just practical and pragmatic. What will actually WORK to help the MOST people, as a collective group and not any specific demographic, with the least possible damage or expense to anyone else.

I hate that this cop didn't go in and shoot the shooter. However - the pragmatic me realizes he wouldn't have lived to tell about it if he'd tried. And I think he knew that. He needed to do SOMETHING though - and he failed, until it was too late. For that, he needed to be stripped of his job, his weapons, his responsibility, banned from serving the public as an armed -anything- ever again, anywhere in the USA. Possibly fined, but probably not even that. AND he should be subjected to civil lawsuits from the families of the victims.

[Taltarzac725]

Agreed completely. I am in favor of stricter gun control (not eliminating guns - just controlling access more efficiently). I am against excessive force or choke holds for criminals by police officers. I am often accused of being a bleeding heart you know what.

But I'm not really. I'm just practical and pragmatic. What will actually WORK to help the MOST people, as a collective group and not any specific demographic, with the least possible damage or expense to anyone else.

I hate that this cop didn't go in and shoot the shooter. However - the pragmatic me realizes he wouldn't have lived to tell about it if he'd tried. And I think he knew that. He needed to do SOMETHING though - and he failed, until it was too late. For that, he needed to be stripped of his job, his weapons, his responsibility, banned from serving the public as an armed -anything- ever again, anywhere in the USA. Possibly fined, but probably not even that. AND he should be subjected to civil lawsuits from the families of the victims.

Parkland school shooting families settle suit with district (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/parkland-school-shooting-families-settle-suit-district-n1281834)

That seems to be happening. The lawsuits against the school resource officer.

Scot Peterson: Then-Parkland school resource officer found not guilty | CNN (https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/29/us/scot-peterson-parkland-shooting-trial-thursday/index.html)

[Byte1]

I do not know the specifics of the incident where he might have acted and had not. He may have been telling the truth when he said he did not know where the shooting was, how many perps and what kind of armament he/they possessed. I am not saying that he acted prudently, but I am not saying he did either. I know of several incidents where a veteran officer was attempting an apprehension and a rookie officer stood back, confused as to what to do. Was that officer acting cowardly? Or, was it just his/her lack of experience? I do not want to see officers of the law punished criminally for failing to do something when there is also the possibility of them being charged with excessive force, just because the perp is black or female, etc. I have seen many/many choke holds that worked to subdue the perp, and NONE of them resulted in a fatality. Yet, in the past few years it is suddenly a bad act when the dirt bag criminal with a violent past perishes due to excessive force. It seems like every time a choke hold is used with fatal results, the subject has a repeated criminal record of violence and drug usage. But, I digress.
From the little that I know of this situation, I would NOT agree with the officer being charged criminally, but with the little that I know I would probably wish to see his employment terminated. But, like I said before I know little of the details but a lot of opinions on how everyone seems to think happened.
I have a former police officer friend that has been in shoot or don't shoot situations where he would have been justified in killing the subject, yet he held back and the situation worked out favorably. He was NEVER, EVER accused of being a coward. Although, no one was injured seriously in those incidents. Some of us are fast to judge folks for not reacting fast enough in these situations. It's easy to criticize later. Law enforcement have to make critical decisions in seconds and they must have all the facts to act appropriately. Making a life depending decision in a split second is usually based on a "gut feeling" not always based on available information. I believe this officer was working by himself, without anyone backing him, watching his back and giving him support. Maybe he made a bad decision, or maybe he was waiting for support. If he had rushed in and resulted in making things worse, he would have been accused of being brash, careless or foolish. The results determine the hero from the fool.