Broward County Deputy Who Failed to Confront Parkland Shooter Arrested For Child Neglect

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement has arrested former Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson on charges of child neglect and culpable negligence as a result of a 15-month investigation into the actions of law enforcement following the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

“The FDLE investigation shows former Deputy Peterson did absolutely nothing to mitigate the MSD shooting that killed 17 children, teachers and staff and injured 17 others,” said FDLE Commissioner Rick Swearingen. “There can be no excuse for his complete inaction and no question that his inaction cost lives.”

Browar d County Deputy Who Failed to Confront Parkland Shooter Arrested For Child Neglect

Peterson was the school resource officer for MSD during the shooting. Officials say the investigation revealed Peterson refused to investigate the source of gunshots, retreated during the active shooting while victims were being shot and directed other law enforcement who arrived on scene to remain 500 feet away from the building.

I know a lot of people on ATS will approve of this. My only complaint is that he should have been changed as an accessory to the murder. He did everything he could to make it as bad as possibly, short of shooting at kids himself. I'm surprised he didn't direct responding officers to the wrong school.

The penalty for his cowardice should be death.

But that is my ideal world.

I am not sure what the penalties are for culpable negligence, but I hope they are severe.

Cowardice under fire by law enforcement, or military, personnel is unacceptable. This is what he signed on...and received salary and benefits for many years...for. When it came time for him to earn his keep, he wilted and let innocent people die.

Lock him up.

We can only hope that he is found guilty of this and perhaps more once the full details of the investigation are presented in court.

His actions, as despicable as they were, quite simply cost many people their lives. There is no other way to word it unless you are an apologist.

I believe "punk-ass sissy" is the colloquial term.
I hope he chokes on a donut.

Maybe he just identified as a bystander that day?

Coward, should goto jail!!!

Sadly, the SCOTUS may very well toss out this verdict based on their prior rulings on matters like this.
www.nytimes.com...

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

originally posted by: Homefree
I believe "punk-ass sissy" is the colloquial term.
I hope he chokes on a donut.

He ain't gettin' nary a donut... He might choke on an iced honey bun or, ahem, hotdog, where he's going.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

This will go nowhere.

SCotUS has already said that the Police have no responsibility to protect you if you are not in custody.



www.nytimes.com... 83412AD0773807525448B2F&gwt=pay

originally posted by: LDragonFire

Coward, should goto jail!!!

What the hell was he doing dicking around on a golf cart???

- Thanks for reposting, I was gonna watch the video in your thread but when you said to trash it, I found the other thread but not a video.

a reply to: LSU2018

Didn't he have a duty to assist the children to get out of the school in such a manner as does not put his life at risk?

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

The guy is a piece of crap for not doing the job he was being paid to do but I really have to wonder if its possible to convict him on child neglect charges.

Maybe I'm wrong here but I doubt you will convince a jury..

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I have an awful feeling this is all for show... This guy's the most visible and easy for the public to hate, so make him the fall guy.

I'm not even sure he can be held criminally or civilly liable. There are legal definitions to consider, and whether or not his job specs fulfill those legal definitions and requirements. The legal

784.05 Culpable negligence.—
(1) Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) Whoever, through culpable negligence, inflicts actual personal injury on another commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

Source
I don't think that Peterson "exposed" these kids in any way, at least not under the legal definition. Peterson did not create the situation.

Everything I'm finding about criminal child neglect is geared towards parents and caregivers; I'm not sure Peterson would be considered a caregiver under legal definitions. I say this in part because the Supreme Court has ruled that officers are not liable for the safety and protection of anyone, so there is precedent in Peterson's favor as I understand it.

In the big picture, though, Broward County Sheriff has much bigger problems than this one deputy that contributed to this tragedy. There's plenty of blame to go around.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: LSU2018

Didn't he have a duty to assist the children to get out of the school in such a manner as does not put his life at risk?

Tired of Control Freaks

I'm not sure what his duty was as a resource officer. It looks like he got on his cart and rolled off after the gun fire started. There's no audio though.

If I was a cop, I'd put myself in harm's way to save people, especially kids. I say I'd do it as a bystander but I've never been in the situation before. I DID stand in front of my best friend once when his wife pulled a loaded rifle on him and was able to disarm her and then took a butcher knife away from her (he divorced the loon after that), but a school shooting is a completely different situation.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
Sadly, the SCOTUS may very well toss out this verdict based on their prior rulings on matters like this.
www.nytimes.com...

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

This suggests to me the arrest is for more than cowardice. This could be one huge story if they have found some other reason for his inaction beyond cowardice or incompetence.

Alright... I'd like to believe that I would've personally gone straight in there without thought to personal safety and taken on some crazy person who's wielding a semi-automatic rifle, with nothing but my little side arm.

But the truth is... in reality, none of us can really know what we'd do in that situation unless we were physically faced with it.

More to the point though, what are they actually charging this guy with?

Being a pussy? Not wanting to die?

... lol.

It a armed parent or good Samaritan had tried to enter to aid the children.

He damn sure would’ve confronted them .

Makes my blood boil.

It will all hinge on the job definition of "school resource officer". As a police officer, he doesn't have an obligation on an individual basis, however, in the role of school resource officer, that may be differently written.

Either way, this person (he does not deserve the use of the word "man") should be charge to the fullest extent of the law as the court interprets his role in that position.

This case will become the precedent for the future of all on-campus security and officers regarding their duty to engage or otherwise distract a shooter in a given situation.