Broward County Deputy Charged As a Felon
Justice
This does come under the heading of ‘Feel Good Stories’.
The Broward County deputy who stood outside the Parkland school building, who did nothing to even try to stop the shooter but let him rampage, is now being charged as a felon for his “do nothing” stance in that slaughter.
From the article: A former Florida sheriff’s deputy has been arrested on felony charges over his handling of the deadly mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland last year.
Of course, his lawer denied everything, saying: “We will vigorously defend against these spurious charges that lack basis in fact and law. Specifically, Mr. Peterson cannot reasonably be prosecuted because he was not a ‘caregiver,’ which is defined as ‘a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare,'” attorney Joseph A. DiRuzzo said in a statement. – Article
Lack basis in fact? There are videos and photos of Peterson outside the school while the shooter was hunting and finding targets, and ROTC students were helping their fellow students get to safety, ending up dead as a result.
Well, what goes around, comes around. Long may he find himself a social outcast (among other things). Stay tuned.
Category: Feel Good Stories
Wasn’t there another POS named Scott Peterson?
Yes, indeed there was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Peterson
Must be the last name…Scott Peterson, Drew Peterson, and now another Scott Peterson
TNX ExPH2 for posting this. I listened to an hour+ long segment on the Howie Carr show yesterday afternoon. Could not find mention of it online though. Not even Drudge.
Lots of LEO called in to the show, some from FL and a few mentioned his “old school” training may get him off and place the blame on his superiors for not updating his training.
Even the most untrained human being would have at least tried to do something other than cower. I would hope.
IF those ROTC “kids” could do it, why couldn’t he?
That’s the real question.
But the courts have said the police do NOT have to protect you.
Warren vs District of Columbia
True, but other cases have found that they do need to act in accordance with their training, which he did not.
I doubt the child neglect charge will stick (and it shouldn’t), the others are spot on, and should have no problem.
They also need to follow department policy. And the department policy of the Broward County Sheriff at that time was out of step with every other police department in the country; “hold back and contain–wait for SWAT”, which was the policy in place when Columbine happened. Don’t misunderstand me; what he did was a stain on LEOs across the country. But his defense lawyer probably does have a case. He was following policy; the Supreme Court has held that the police are not required to provide protection for the individual citizen; that could be interpreted as them not being “care givers”. This case is very far from over. But it still is not a good thing for the former deputy; his life is in shambles already.
These shootings expose heroes as well as revealing cowards.
It couldn’t happen to a more deserving fuckwad, may he end up being Bubba & Thor’s prison bitch!
Scott Israel, the political POS other “Coward of Broward” former sheriff should be joining him… and getting to know Julio and Mr. “Tiny” on a “up close and personal” basis.
I would not be surprised if Peterson throws Israel under the buss, and inf from one trial is used at the next..
I’m betting that he will rat like a perp!
This will be an interesting case to watch, as I’m not convinced this is at all any sort of slam dunk case.
This guy is indeed a cowardly turd who stood around with his thumb up his ass while kids were being murdered in a school he was tasked with providing a police presence for during the school day. He should never wear a badge again and he should always be known for the cowardly fuck he was on that day.
But a felon? I remain unconvinced the law will get him on anything substantial. I am also uncertain that convicting him provides any real benefit to society.
The job of LEOs is already idiotically difficult, and while I’m often not a fan of the blue gangs that line up and protect the shitbags in their midst I am not naive enough to believe that this type of conviction won’t have long lasting, unintended consequences. While I am often critical of the police for protecting the known shitbags I am also extremely supportive of those hard working honest LEOs who put themselves in harm’s way every single day on behalf of their communities. Anything that makes their job more difficult isn’t a benefit for society at large.
Being a coward is despicable, but it might not be criminal.
What about the fight scenarios around the nation that happen every day? LEOs arrive on scene and try to sort out what’s going on and who the good and/or bad guys are and someone gets hit, falls down and dies…will those LEOs face charges for not acting quickly enough?
The ramifications of being charged for being a coward who didn’t act carry far beyond the simple realities of this one case.
That is why I think this case becomes one to watch.
I couldn’t agree more. Being a coward comes with a lifetime of humiliation . Being charged criminally for being a coward even though it was his duty to protect the kids and engage the shooter… I don’t think so. Just another example of a prosecutor gone off the rails if you ask me. What’s next?? Prosecuting an otherwise outstanding LEO that freezes up in a shootout?? A brief mental snap in a HIGHLY stressful situation=prison time? Felon status for life?? I don’t think so. Just to be clear, I saw the video of Peterson. I do not think he froze or had a mental snap. Looks like he shagged ass and he will have to live with that shame for sure but to prosecute him would be dangerous..
It’s probably going to be what is called a test case, in the end. But there’s the court of law, and the court of public opinion and when someone does what he did – let a thug with a gun go on shooting people instead of trying to stop him – the court of public opinion will long outweigh the other one.
Regardless of the outcome of this, I doubt that Mr. Peterson will be welcome in many places.
I agree with the concerns of both VoV and JBU, but from what I’m reading this is not about prosecuting a “freeze” or failure to act quickly enough, but rather, a failure to operate to the standards to which he was trained, and in fact, taking affirmative actions TO THE CONTRARY of his training. Cases such as this have been prosecuted against Paramedics and Firefighters, and have not resulted in unintended consequences across those services.
I could always be wrong, but with the exception of the child neglect, I think these are good charges, and have a good chance of sticking.
“A duty to act is a legal duty requiring a party to take necessary action to prevent harm to another person or to the general public. In personal injury law, an individual may be held to a standard of reasonable care to prevent injury or harm.”
https://www.bing.com/search?q=duty+to+act+definition&form=PRNWSR&mkt=en-us&httpsmsn=1&refig=c6867536766140ceaa9d8cf010d32f3c&sp=3&qs=AS&pq=duty+to+act&sk=AS2&sc=8-11&cvid=c6867536766140ceaa9d8cf010d32f3c
Hasn’t Warren v DC found that LE has no duty to protect?
Warren v DC was Federal only (DC’s a Federal enclave). Much like DC v. Heller, as I recall it only applies to Federal law. And also as I recall it was a civil case brought on the grounds of Federal civil rights violation, not a criminal one.
If Florida state statue or case law imposes on him a duty to protect in this particular situation, Florida may be able to prosecute him for violation of state law.
As I recall, requirements for civil torts (e.g., a personal injury suit) are generally not the same as those for criminal prosecution and conviction. What would constitute an actionable injury in civil court may or may not be a criminal offense, and depends on what the jurisdiction’s criminal law says.
I suspect that the heavy charges may be more “politics” than “prosecution”.
If he was even remotely close to following policy, any decent defense lawyer will be able to argue professional judgment and reasonable doubt. Even if not to policy, this angle will be hammered. Any number of paid expert witness will be brought in to argue his methods were “reasonable”.
How many online comment posts have I seen that argue “only a SWAT team could have defeated the shooter” or a similar “planned collective action is required” opinion. I have lost count. The anti-gun myth is that a good guy with a gun is incapable of winning a gunfight against a bad guy with a gun, because guns are so easy to use that they make untrained criminals unstoppable and effective killing machines, but a practiced honest individual gun owner can not possibly be effective with hard to use guns that need specially selected groups of government people with esoteric and special training to use guns effectively and collectively.
They really believe that blatant contradiction. Passionately.
Probably because it excuses any individual responsibility for stopping evil, and means cowards are blameless.
So the jury pool will likely include at least at least one such warped opinion, making conviction unlikely if it even gets that far. The perjury charge will likely be the only one sticky enough to get a conviction.
That SCOTUS precedent about no duty to an individual is still there. (Whatever out opinion of it, it still stands) the dead kids are individuals. The school population and structure is the collective responsibility. He will likely argue he did exactly the right thing protecting the collective. ( eggs, meet omelette pan)
I very much doubt he will be convicted of much, if anything, given what is routinely allowed to happen.
I agree with your view, but his refusal to do what he was trained to do was widely publicized. That does carry some weight.
He served for the pension and benefits, always looking out for number one.
Was thinking much the same. At the very least, the trial will be very entertaining.
Unintended consequences as a phrase has also become so ambiguous as to be almost without meaning. Complete disregard of possible negative consequences may be more accurately descriptive these days.
Fuck the fuck no.
That POS needs to do hard time for not doing his effing duty.
Kids died because of his inaction.
He should have left the PD the moment he realized he didn’t have in him to fight, and you know that long before the bullets fly.
People fight the way they train, and that training includes going through different scenarios that, if they were to happen for real, might end up costing you a little more than sweat and tears.
If your job includes a real possibility that you may have to fight and die, and when you ask yourself, in the privacy of your thoughts, how will you react when death and pain are coming riding straight for you, and answer is other than fight to the bitter end if you must, then you should find a job doing something else, because if you have mental reservations and doubts if you are going to do the right thing, you are leaving a mental opening to quit, turn, and run for cover away from the fight.
The decision of how you are going to perform under fire is made long before you find yourself in a battlefield.
That POS knew he was a coward, and kept faking his false professionalism to collect his paycheck.
He needs to pay for that, so the other cowards see and learn their lesson, before the next shootout.
Died because of his inaction. Died, also, because of the inaction of the FBI who received multiple tips that the perp was a “school shooting waiting to happen”. The deputy was in good company.
You sure those tips were to the FBI and not the local authorities? I don’t know for sure either way, but seem to remember those complaints were to the local PD. If you’ve seen sources that say different, please post a link – I’d love to see it.
There were tips to the FBI, Hondo.
Take a look at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission report.
http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/MSDHS/CommissionReport.pdf
Specifically, section 8.4 at page 244.
The FBI declined to make a formal presentation to the Commission, but did supply a letter which can be found in the same report under Appendix “D,” page 421.
Thanks – I hadn’t seen that.
FWIW: at least one of the two tips to the FBI appears to have been made after the tip’s source had previously provided the same info to the BSO. See page 399, near bottom, in the synopsis of a telephonic statement given by Ms. Mary Hammel Theall.
Here, it appears that both the FBI and BSO share blame for ignoring the guy prior to the mass shooting.
Hondo,
In some ways, the response the FBI made is rather lacking in guts (show up and talk to the Commission) and also points out the problem.
For the FBI, they get thousands of “tips.” They don’t have the man power to investigate them.
Hindsight is always 20-20. It is easy to look for the shooter’s name, see it in some report and say “they knew!”
While not absolving the FBI (because we don’t know enough about the policies and what happened to the tips within the FBI) it is easy to see how it was missed or ignored or whatever you want to call it.
Agreed. Where I fault the FBI is in not passing those tips along to appropriate local LE in FL. They appear to have dropped the ball there – even though, as you noted, the FBI does get thousands of “tips” annually if not monthly.
As usual, it seems we’re largely in agreement and only debating a minor detail. (smile)
Hondo – don’t forget about the School board. They also failed by not doing a damn thing to keep the perp out of the school, even with his prior history of trouble.
Long story about how the district ignored things:
https://www.thetrumpet.com/17094-the-parkland-shooting-the-shocking-story-you-have-not-heard
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-school-shooting-fbi-tips-problems-20180828-story.html
“Being a coward is despicable, but it might not be criminal”.
MRS D and I discussed this arrest yesterday, came up with pretty much the same conclusion. I don’t claim to know Florida law, maybe there’s some statute he violated by not acting, a legal version of a “sin of omission”. I’d love to see this clown jailed for his responsibility (or lack thereof) in this shooting. I’m not betting that way , though. I’m thinking we’ll see guilty on the perjury charge, and dismissal on the rest.
How would he enjoy his $100K annual pension if he were dead? Police do not have a federal or state mandated duty to protect citizens, except those who are legally in their custody. This is a slippery slope for Florida’s elected leaders. Forcing public employees to do their jobs is what undermines the seniority system leading to merit based pay reform which weakens the political and financial influence of unions in the election process. Free the LEO!
{The above comment is made with plenty of sarcasm and a healthy dose of realism.}
I think there was a TYPO in your story you wrote the former deputy i believe the computer auto corrected from the cowardly SOB who waited outside of the school for children to die.
Nah, it was just “copy & paste” in this case.
As pointed out above, there must not be a law against being a self preserving chicken sh^tted asshole. They had to find something that was on the books. And as this trudges its way thru the court system, his lawers will throw all the blame on his “training” or the lack thereof. The video will be damning and hopefully it will be shown that other officers were charging toward the “sound of the guns”.
Every LEO that I know, friends and relatives, have stated that a real LEO, despite what official policy was, would have been doing whatever they could to take the shooter out.
Rot in hell, POS Scot Peterson, and take the other chicken sh^t POS with you.
As many vets here can attest, you don’t necessarily know how someone will perform under fire until it happens. It’s entirely possible (maybe even highly likely) he’s a yellow belly coward that didn’t want to die and so froze up. It happens. Usually not to someone with near 30 years experience. I really don’t know how he can live with himself, and I’ve said it here before that I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he eats his gun over it.
It’s also possible, and from what I can gather from reading reports, that the BCSO’s SOP in regards to an active shooter was horribly out of date. Criminally so. We learned that containment would lead to more deaths after Columbine. Every law enforcement agency in the country (and probably internationally) changed their protocols since then. We’ve refined them a bit, but they’ve remained essentially the same since ’98, which is to go in an confront the threat. BCSO (all personnel, not just the Coward Peterson) failed those kids that day. This will be presented and will provide a convincing mitigating factor. To be convicted of a crime you have to show intent or gross negligence. If his training was to contain, then he was not of a depraved mind and had no intent not to act.
I think this is a vengeance prosecution. He deserves to be scorned and used as an example of what not to do, but I don’t think it rises to the level of criminality. I think he might be getting scapegoated here. All the BCSO personnel there failed to act that day. Now Coral Springs did what cops are supposed to do, and what you’ve seen other departments do recently (even as far away as New Zealand) in response to an active shooter.
Mason,
I believe you are 100% correct that as far as the negligence charge, it will depend entirely on the training he received. Of course, depending on what that was, it could well be used against Israel…
The perjury charge is another thing entirely, If they can’t make that stick, they’re not trying
Ditto. The powers that be are going to flog his hide as hard as they can before he walks. Best they can do, and it will play to the base, so win-win from their POV.
But I expect him to walk, otherwise -maybe- with a perjury conviction at most.
Yes, my understanding is that nationwide, LEO practices in regards to school shootings changed to “don’t wait for SWAT” after Columbine.
I went to a rural Christian high school, where the only real concern with guns was a request that hunting rifles be stored in the office during school hours and not in the rifle racks of trucks in the parking lot. And yes, this was after Columbine. But anyone thinking they could mow down cornfed boys with Dutch heritage (I swear, the average height was 6’0″) who hunted on weekends and felt a God-given duty to protect girls from harm…. Well, that person would have to be an idiot.
Strange because he lied and made contradicting statements. BSO then released tapes and evidence showing he lied and bow he wants to claim any of this is true?
This guy is embarassing himself. Fall on your sword, you lied.
Good. Coward should get prison.
I get a lot of IPN texts on my cell when there are shootings in Broward County and Perimeters being set up are mentioned among another technical word which I don’t remember so it sounds like the LEO’S on scene are maybe waiting for SWAT or doing it for another reason. I never bothered to ask any of the Palm Beach County LEO’S I sometimes talk to. Can anyone out there define the above “perimeter” I mentioned above.??
Perimeter in this situation can mean multiple things Jeff. One is that they are isolating the scene, so that none can get in, unless they are needed . (LEO, Fire / EMS). Another purpose is to ensure that everyone inside the perimeter stays there, and can be accounted for, both victims and perps.
Thanks for the info on my perimeter question Fyrfighter.
No lawyer, but I’m going to throw in my $0.02 worth. Any lawyer commenters, please correct me if I’m “out to lunch” below. This seems to me to be a textbook example of Federalism in action. There are two distinct sets of laws and (now) three different courts involved. As I recall, the case back in Dec that was tossed by a Federal judge was a civil case in Federal court against Peterson and others alleging violation of the injured students and their families’ Federal civil rights. That case was tossed – correctly, IMO – by the Judge on the grounds that under Federal law the police present had no “duty to protect”. Gonzalez v. Castle Rock fairly well settled that point with respect to Federal law (Warren v. DC was similarly Federal-only, since DC is a Federal enclave with its own local laws), and the Judge applied that precedent. Also as I recall, a second civil case against Peterson was filed in Florida state court. Best I can tell, that case is still ongoing. Florida statue and case law may impose duties and/or responsibilities over and above those specified by Federal law on public employees within the state of Florida. Assuming that case is still ongoing, I’d guess the fact that the case is still ongoing is significant and indicates that may, to some degree, be true. This new case is a Florida state criminal case, and alleges felony child abuse/endangerment through “failure to protect”. (I haven’t seen the actual charge sheet, but I’d guess there are a few other charges as well; DAs seem to love to “stack” charges, IMO often in hopes of getting the defendant to plead guilty to a lesser offense.) Whether that charge sticks will depend on whether Florida statute and/or case law gave Peterson a “duty to protect” in this particular situation – and is completely independent of Federal law. State law can often be different from Federal law in what it allows/requires/prohibits in a particular situation, and may well be in this case. And so long as it’s not been previously ruled… Read more »
Duty for civil liability purposes is entirely different than criminal liability. Criminal law in this nation is a creature of statute. The statutory law is different in each state. Civil law is primarily based upon common law (case law). The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (consistent with case law in most states) that LEOs have no civil tort duty to protect individual citizens from criminal acts. Civil tort law duty does not control criminal law liability. A person may be guilty of violating a criminal statute even though not liable for a civil tort such as negligence. Whether he beats the charges depends on the wording of the Florida statutes involved and how they are interpreted.
His union claims he was not acting cowardly.
He stood outside and listened to unarmed students and teachers being shot for 45 minutes.
He only saved two lives that day; his own life and the shooter’s.
One of the few time you’ll hear me say this, Lars.. I agree.
Concur 100%.
I must be dreaming…..
No, you’re not. Poodle does on occasion have brief moments where he appears lucid and displays common sense. This was one of them.
I believe that’s called the “stopped clock principle”. (smile)
Or he’s therapeutic on his meds…
While these are indeed criminal charges, what I’ve not seen is anyone mentioning whether or not a formal contract existed between the school district and the sheriff’s department for the provision of security services. This is where the civil suits brought by the parents could hammer that despicable Peterson and his equally despicable boss, as well as the school administration and the county.
In the contract law of many states, including Florida, a defendant can be sued under the legal doctrine of detrimental reliance, a form of promissory estoppel law, wherein a party relies on the promises of of the defendant party to perform certain duties which if not performed in a timely and reasonable manner can bring harm to the plaintiff party.
Where this gets iffy is not so much what is specifically spelled out in the contract but what the possible unforeseen, but reasonable, implications are for the plaintiffs from what is actually stated in the agreement. If the sheriff’s office agreed to provide campus security, surely, at the very least had to be some written agreement as to how those services were to be provided.
From such an agreement, the students’ parents should have been able to reasonably assume that they could rely on the sheriff’s department to have an up to date, effective plan for a school shooter and that the department’s armed representative would not hide, protecting himself, while the shooter continued to kill.
In short, it’s pretty clear that these families relied on the school administration and the sheriff’s department to protect their children to their ultimate detriment. The defendant parties all failed in their duty to protect due the cowardice of a S.O. employee, whose armed and sworn status, carried with it the implication that they, the parents, could rely on him, his department and the school administration.
I agree with Hondo that the criminal charges are less than convincing but, under this doctrine, they should have one helluva civil case.
Agreed. But if so, it will be a state civil lawsuit under Florida civil law, not a Federal civil suit. The Federal lawsuit alleging civil rights violations was already (and IMO correctly) tossed due to the precedent set by Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
And both are completely separate matters from this latest state criminal case.
Am I misremembering, or were the on-scene SOs ordered by their superiors to stand down during the incident?