Coward going on trial

[JustRalph]

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2023/05/...-trial-n554758

Cannot say how I feel about this guy

[xtb]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2023/05/...-trial-n554758

Cannot say how I feel about this guy

It will probably come down to his training and whether he was trained for a situation like this. If he was then at the very least, he should not be collecting a pension.

[thaskalos]

"There was no duty on the part of Peterson to protect the victims"...Scot Peterson's lawyers said. So, what was Peterson's "duty" then?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

"There was no duty on the part of Peterson to protect the victims"...Scot Peterson's lawyers said. So, what was Peterson's "duty" then?

Well...he did protect other cops by telling them to not enter the building.

[Inner Dirt]

As by definition I don't see how he could be found guilty of any of the charges other than perjury. How could he be guilty of child neglect when those children were not under his care or supervision? As for culpable negligence it was the action of the shooter that caused the deaths and injuries with no evidence he would have neutralized him.



Don't get me wrong the guy disgusts me, but under the law the charges don't
seem to be appropriate. Can you charge a cop with dereliction of duty? That seems to fit what he did. What I find appalling is the officer has the advantage in that situation. I can't believe his attorney played the AR-15 card. I wonder if you will get testimony of people lying about what it can do?
I wonder what the Court TV coverage will be?

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

As by definition I don't see how he could be found guilty of any of the charges other than perjury. How could he be guilty of child neglect when those children were not under his care or supervision? As for culpable negligence it was the action of the shooter that caused the deaths and injuries with no evidence he would have neutralized him.

Don't get me wrong the guy disgusts me, but under the law the charges don't
seem to be appropriate. Can you charge a cop with dereliction of duty? That seems to fit what he did. What I find appalling is the officer has the advantage in that situation. I can't believe his attorney played the AR-15 card. I wonder if you will get testimony of people lying about what it can do?
I wonder what the Court TV coverage will be?

Every police department has “General Orders” of conduct etc

They also have written orders for the positions they are assigned. The orders assigned to that position are going to mean something in this trial.

I disagree that those children were not under his care. He is assigned to protect every inch of property and person in the school. He has a duty of care that is implied

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

Every police department has “General Orders” of conduct etc

They also have written orders for the positions they are assigned. The orders assigned to that position are going to mean something in this trial.

I disagree that those children were not under his care. He is assigned to protect every inch of property and person in the school. He has a duty of care that is implied

Are they legally actionable or just used as cause for dismissal and forfeiture of a pension?

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by JustRalph

I disagree that those children were not under his care. He is assigned to protect every inch of property and person in the school. He has a duty of care that is implied

As someone who has risked his own ass as a civilian multiple times to help a stranger I find this retired officer repulsive and believe he should get charged with anything that will stick. I am just giving my interpretation of the definition of the crimes he is charged with. Not sure about perjury in Florida, but in Virginia that could get him 5 years.

[JustRalph]

Originally Posted by Inner Dirt

Are they legally actionable or just used as cause for dismissal and forfeiture of a pension?

They can be used to prove elements of a crime. You cannot say that you didn’t know the directives.

Such as:

“United States v. Harmon, 68 M.J. 325 (willful dereliction of duty requires: (1) that the accused had certain duties; (2) that the accused knew or reasonably should have known of the duties; and (3) that the accused was willfully derelict in the performance of those duties).”


I’m guessing they start here and go on.

[thaskalos]

Should a 60 year old cop be assigned such a vital responsibility?

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

Should a 60 year old cop be assigned such a vital responsibility?

He was 55 at the time and I believe close to retirement. From what I gather reading on the internet, many see working a school in a good neighborhood as easy duty.

[Inner Dirt]

Not guilty on all counts. I cannot believe it.

[Marshall Bennett]

Amazing this piece of shit coward isn't held accountable for not only his moral blunder, but likely caused the deaths of a number of children.
Our justice system is struggling to maintain any decent level of respect over botched court cases just like this one.
He cried when he was found not guilty. How fitting for such a worthless coward.

[Dave Schwartz]

Contrast this with Allen, TX.

[mostpost]

I agree with the verdict. Peterson was carrying a revolver. The shooter had an AR 15. Peterson didn’t know where the shots were coming from because of the echoes. He was a fifty six year old facing a 19 year old. He had spent decades as a school resource officer, not as a member of a swat team.

There is no guarantee he would have found the shooter and if he had the only difference is there would have been one more victim.

So all you armchair heroes should just keep your opinions to yourselves.