It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Former school resource officer at Stoneman Douglas High School faces 11 charges

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:50 PM
link   

(CNN)Former Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson has been charged with child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury in connection with the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

Peterson and another deputy were also fired by new Sheriff Gregory Tony, his office announced. Also fired was Sgt. Brian Miller, the sheriff said.

Peterson, who was a school resource officer, is facing 11 charges in connection with his lack of response to the shooting massacre at the high school in Parkland, Florida, according to a release from the State Attorney's Office.

Peterson is to be booked into Broward County Jail, the state's attorney said, and his bail will be set at $102,000.

cnn

If posted in wrong forum, please move.

I always viewed this guy as a coward for not responding to gunshots inside the school. A little courage and he could have stopped this horrific event from happening. He can't own a gun and will wear a ankle monitoring device during this process. Lock him up!!!!





posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 03:54 PM
link   
This has already been posted trash this threads oh fearless Mods!!



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

A) The previously established precedent is that police are not required to risk their lives for civilians...

They can’t just decide to change that after the fact o this guy..

B) obviously none of them should be officers anyway..



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:29 PM
link   
If he'd responded and killed the shooter int he process, he'd likely be facing civil lawsuits and throngs of people accusing him of brutality and excessive use of force.

Cops and teachers are damned if they do, damned if they don't.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 04:37 PM
link   
If he doesn't have to defend the kids then what is his job?
What is he getting paid to do?
Anyone in his position should have been able to determine where the shooting was happening.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:18 PM
link   
a reply to: incoserv

Bullsh#t, people mostly get upset when police shoot unarmed people, or shoot people in the back, or without just cause.



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: vonclod

Your forgetting the part about where the PD demonizes the victim and praises the offending officer as if he is a hero..



posted on Jun, 4 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
"If he doesn't have to defend the kids then what is his job? What is he getting paid to do?"

States evade liability by relying on the ironically-named "public duty doctrine," which says police are duty-bound to protect the public in general, but not to protect any particular individual. "Protecting the public" means enforcing the law, not protecting individuals.

Likewise, the general rule of law in the U.S. is that government is obligated to protect the public in general, but owes no statutory duty to protect any particular person from criminal behavior. Neither the U.S. Constitution nor federal civil rights laws require states to protect citizens from crime. As a federal appeals court (in Brazier v. Cherry, 293 F.2d 401, 404-05, 5th Cir. 1961) bluntly put it, ordinary citizens have "no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen." This opinion has held since then, despite several challenges over the years.

The 'to protect and defend' you see emblazoned on police cars is little more than feel-good speech.




new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join