Scot Peterson, school resource officer criticized for his response during the Parkland shooting, faces felony charges
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CNN) Former Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson -- who was criticized for how he responded when a gunman opened fire at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School -- has been charged with 11 counts, including felony child neglect charges, authorities said.
Peterson retired after the February 2018 massacre at the Parkland, Florida, high school that left 17 people dead, and is collecting a pension .
He was fired Tuesday at a disciplinary hearing by new Sheriff Gregory Tony. The firing could affect Peterson's retirement pay, Tony said.
Peterson, who was a school resource officer, is facing charges of child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury in connection with the deadly shooting, according to a release from the State Attorney's Office.
Tags
Who is online
160 visitors
It is good to have this former officer realize thru this type of event how critical his role was and how his failure to act did result in needless death.
In the end of the day, this is something that needed to be done, so that other officers do remember, it really is about protect and serve.
Hard to say just what he should be feeling. He's gonna carry a mark on him for the rest of his life.
I have a friend who retired as a Chicago cop a couple years ago, after 25 years. For most of that time he was a plainclothes tactical officer in the 10th police district on the west side of the city. This is one of the roughest neighborhoods in Chicago, and probably in the country. When I saw him after he retired , out of curiosity I asked him how many times he had shot at a bad guy during his career. "Never" he said, "it never came up".
Most cops are never called on to personally confront an active shooting. They usually get there when the shooting is over. The cop at Parkland High School was faced with confronting a bad guy , that once in a career thing, and he flinched. Now he is marked for life.
I think you can argue that tactically or morally he should have done something different, but criminal charges seem both extreme and inappropriate. The Supreme Court has established that police are under no obligation to save your life, much less to do so at the risk of their own life.
Also, it's not like the students were his personal children and they died of malnutrition. That would be neglect. I don't think running from a gunman is going to qualify as neglect or negligence.
I think the only charge that might have a chance would be culpable negligence if they can prove that through the failure to perform some basic duty, like locking a door, gunmen successfully killed someone. If that's the case, I'm not aware of it.
I don't know what the grounds for the perjury charge are. That sounds like a separate thing.
well sadly you must not have any kids around you if you type here about what the supreme court said. because they also agreed that innocent until guilty is a right that should be maintained and yet police gun down unarmed people all the time for the silliest of reasons. (i digress)
my reason for replying to you is that criminally being charged is a direct result of inaction. especially after the new Law Enforcement movement of First person shooter training that has become the rage.
so i didnt need him to directly go toe to toe but did expect him to enter the building , use his expensive Motorola radio to determine , visual confirmation or audible ingenuity , the location of the suspects.
And yet "his children comment goes back to what i assume is you NOT knowing that a resource officer is in most departments are a bidded job. Meaning this officer knew where he had he ability to land. So yes they arent his children but his mere presence and acceptance of the assignment makes him appear to give a dam at time of gun violence on his watch.
What a cowardly piece of shit. He hid for 48 minutes.
Your comment is dumb. My family life has no bearing on my ability to analyze a legal issue. Is it your attention to just take cheap personal shots?
Maybe you should go back and read my comment, seeking the nuance within. I said that you can have the opinion that morally or tactically he should have done something else, but his failure to act in those ways does not rise to the level of criminal behavior. Is that really so complex?
There are a lot of allegedly "brave" people in this country who are absolutely certain of what they would do in a live shooter situation. Keyboard heroes.
actually i agree with you . i have pointed out before that your comments get under my skin because almost every time you put your two cents in, [Removed]
in this case, i expressed my issue with your comment comes from the fact that this happened in real time and effected thousands of people. your fellow american citizens and a deadly result happened based on a LACK OF ACTION from someone employed to bring calm back from chaos.
yes my perspective is different because i happen to not be so FLIPPANT in how i see the lack of action of someone employed by choice to be the person who is SUPPOSED to respond to all disturbances.
this deputy would respond to a fight of two kids anywhere in that buildings. this deputy would attempt to stop the choas by using everything on his duty belt to do so. So yes as a parent, a retired officer and also citizen who does deal with acknowledging the human impact of such an event, i do find that your insight is lacking just like this deputies lack of action when SOMEONE wanted him to do something.
ill add this, because i do know that your comment history about articles i have posted have this .....as noted above along with a disconnect. this ability to act as if all these others factors matter more (supreme court- his duty to act, kids arent his and so on) is in a lot of ways the problem in america. I read your comment and thought, this person must not have kids. if he did, he could understand that this deputy made money showing up every day to that ASSIGNMENT where his presence was meant to deter and intimidate those who might question there need to cause problems for the students. So yes he being there was to increase these kids belief that he would act on there behalf to keep them safe. ANY PARENT SEEING THIS GUY when dropping there kids off or hearing about what he did during the school year, would expect him to act in some manner when the most illigel of activities has descended upon there kids - but your COMMENT suggest he doesn't have too.....disconnect.
lastly i also dont mind pointing out or admitting that i do seed articles where i enjoy knowing that most who reply do so because they have the ability respond with the personal side of life being part of that process.
so again your super power of providing this judgement from outer space vs reality of having some kind of relative experience to use to relate to why a criminal action is warranted is annoying. i also agree that WHAT HE MIGHT be found guilty of wont come close to the laundry list thrown at him. Because prosecutors do throw all at an issue and it gets watered down. But in my obviously biased and overly strong opinion charges are warranted if only to suggest to the public that this deputy failed in doing the most basics of tasks. which is to at least observe and report.......and that is based on an expectation of his wearing the dam uniform, much less just being a decent non selfish human being.
and there are even more brave people that act in live shooter situation that arent in uniform because they FEEL it is the right thing to do to help some one else. REALITY.
Protect and Serve. That is what he was paid to do.
I'm mixed on this one though. How do you really know how a person is going to respond in an emergency?
If one reads some of the Navy's reports on the USS Stark that was shot up and on fire from an Exocet missile strike, you would learn that some of the crew, even though trained refused to go forward and fight the fires. On the other end of the spectrum, you had a junior petty officer that took it upon himself to stay the missile magazine, and sprayed water on the bulkheads and missiles to keep the missiles cool so they wouldn't cook off at great personal risk.
Was this fellow not their good guy with a gun?
He went in hiding for 48 minutes during the killings.