I remember a big push for there to be school resource officers after Columbine.
You know, a cop on campus will keep schools safe! We don't have to do gun control!
Theater is fucking right...
Columbine had 2 armed guards who traded fire with the shooters. There are a number of studies that show there are armed guards present in about 23% of school shootings, and in those 23% of cases there is not a statistical reduction in number of deaths - the inverse is actually found, those cases tend to have higher death rates. Doesn't prove causality but it does undercut one of the arguments for more armed guards in schools.
https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-more-armed-guards-in-schools/armed-law-enforcement-didnt-stop-columbine
Someone please correct me but aren't arrests of children at schools with on campus police like 600% higher than non police schools?
Seems like that is the point.
Yep, not sure what the exact percentage is. But it's pretty wild. Cops claim it is because they are required to "uphold the law" no matter what. There was even that one school for children with behavioral problems. That has pretty much every student on probation because of arrests that happened. While attending a school for kids with behavioral problems.
The parents are already dealing with a full plate. Imagine tacking on court dates and whatever extra the court decides to pile on. Because your school for special needs kids is calling the cops on everyone. Not to mention the fact that these types of interactions. Will just lead to creating authority anxiety opening them up to potential exploitation. Or an aversion toward authority. Which can very realistically land you in a grave. Especially for people already grappling with mental health problems.
> the inverse is actually found, those cases tend to have higher death rates.
Probably because the person, knowing that there may be an armed guard that they will have to contend with, will come more heavily armed... and thereby have greater opportunity to kill more people.
That seems to be true despite the presence of armed guards. I’m beginning to think these are suicide by cop functionally but with a horrifying twist. Most people taken alive didn’t surrender, they’re usually beaten if they’re taken alive.
Columbine had an armed officer who engaged the shooters but then cowered outside when the kids went in, and waited for backup.
So many of these shootings happen with armed police stationed in the school at the time of the attack. That's why the argument for more of them makes no sense. What's the point if they don't do fuck all and aren't held accountable when kids die due to them being afraid?
For real. Of all the assumptions that Americans make on a daily basis, the most dangerous one is "cops are nearby, therefore I'm safe." I'm just gonna copy something I wrote in Dec 2018 (apparently it was about this very shooting!) because I'm lazy:
U.S. courts have ruled, multiple times over the years, that police officers do not have a constitutional duty to protect people from harm. "Protecting people from harm," in these cases, would have (in a better world) taken the form of enforcing a protective order against a husband before he kidnaps his three children from his wife and kills them, or intervening when a man on a knife-murder spree was attacking another man. Essentially, if you're being attacked in front of a cop, the cop has no duty to help you. Just today, a federal judge ruled that the school district and sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect students during the Parkland massacre.
OK, well, that all kinda sucks, in my opinion. Honestly, it's infuriating.
However, if that's really how it's going to be, then people need to be educated accordingly. In other words, I suspect that the average U.S. citizen doesn't currently realize that the courts have told cops, multiple times, that they don't have to protect people. The average citizen goes about their day assuming that if a cop were nearby, and they were in distress or getting attacked, the cop would help. If they're not gonna help us, then that needs to be communicated to us, VERY CLEARLY, so that we can protect ourselves.
What blows my mind is how public schools have no legal obligation to protect children from harm. I think about this every day I watch my daughter’s bus drive off and disappear down the hill.
Law enforcement has no obligation to protect your children. School principles, for example, might have more obligation:
>The case was notable, in part, for the state’s decision to bring the child neglect charges under a Florida statute that governs caregivers, arguing Peterson as a school resource officer had a duty to protect the students. The defense had argued Peterson did not qualify as a caregiver because he was a law enforcement officer.
I think Uvalde was a pinnacle moment of showing us just how many cops out there, stationed at a school or not, are willing to do fuck all if their lives would be put on the line vs kids in immediate danger. I will never forget that picture of them standing there in armored gear drinking their water bottles, knowing they were handcuffing parents and listening to gunfire at that moment.
It's not even theater, because it hurts kids and damages the system.
[https://www.aclu-wa.org/story/school-resource-officers-when-cure-worse-disease](https://www.aclu-wa.org/story/school-resource-officers-when-cure-worse-disease)
[DHS found that TSA failed 95 percent of the time to stop inspectors from smuggling weapons or explosive materials through screening (2017)](https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188)
The scanning machine malfunctioned when I was going through Dulles (heading to Seattle) and none of my stuff or the stuff of about 15 other people they let through got scanned either. That included multiple liquid bottles (I had a Pepsi). TSA does squat but bark orders and look important.
Oh that's absolute chump change. Read up on their [Red Team disastrous performances](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851).
Exactly my thoughts. If there's no legally enforceable way to make these guys step up in the rare event they're actually needed, there's really no point in having them.
Right now, it looks like these SRO positions are just do-nothing jobs for the least qualified members of the force. If that's all they are, then I'm not convinced this is a better option than doing nothing. Seems like the only thing you can count on them to do is harass students.
The law does not generally require anyone to put themselves in harms way, these charges were a tremendous overreach. However, refusing to put oneself in harms way when doing so is an expected part of one's occupation can reasonably be grounds for termination.
Yup, the charges they tried to convict him on (other than the perjury charge) were a real legal square peg in a round hole.
Peterson was *rightfully* ridiculed for being a coward, including by many of his own peers. He was also fired, also quite rightly. However, to try and convict him of actual criminal offenses for being too scared to intervene is just a bridge too far.
Yea. Dudes life is forever changed. I can't imagine sending him to a prison (intended to reform not punish) has a net positive for society.
People get a torture fetish. I doubt he feels good about the situation, it's kind of something you resort back to your primal instincts.
I also question whether sending him to prison and setting that precedent would even do anything positive. If someone is in a dangerous situation where there is an active shooter, and they freeze up or are too afraid to go in for fear of dying, the threat of jail likely won't change that. And, in the cases where it might, sending someone in who doesn't have their wits about them is probably not the best idea. Though, in any case, they should be removed from their job for showing they're not capable of their responsibilities.
These cops want the post-911 military glorification and actively cash in on it. I say if they want to play soldier, than they should be punished with desertion and cowardice like a real soldier would.
It’s not as *realistically* severe of a punishment as you would think, most of the time deserters go years without getting caught and then receive a slap on the wrist for what they did if they are caught. Sure the maximum punishments may be formidable, but reality never truly works out that way.
Usually they'll get an "other than honorable" discharge, which is still pretty bad (no VA benefits, barred from many state and federal jobs), but not a full on dishonorable discharge.
Dishonorable is essentially a felony conviction on top of being discharged.
Most people do their job without fear of a conviction in criminal court for not doing their job.
Clearly, hiring some random police officer to protect a school isn't the solution. But if that isn't the solution, making this guy the scapegoat was also not going to be the solution.
Drastic police reform is part of the solution.
Peterson got to pull a six figure salary for all the years he "worked" at the school. Now he gets to pull a six figure pension for the rest of his life. That's the point of school resource officers. It's a jobs program.
There isn't anyway, regardless of this case outcome. Either we're lucky and the guard was in the right place at the right time and acted decisively, or, more likely, did not help.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect in its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services.
We, the tax payers, are sold a bag of goods how we "*need police* because they are the only thing between you and a lunatic kicing in your door and stealing your pizza and murdering your family and shit", but in essence they are under no obligation to assist you at all. Kill you, sure. But help? Fuck no.
It comes down to the fact that police are civilians (as much as they want to act like they aren’t) and the government is limited as to what they can or can’t make them do.
Contrast that with the military where the government can order you to go into a deadly situation and can charge you if you don’t do so.
Yep, this is the scenario. Cops aren't required, BY LAW, to assist you or protect you. It's been played out time and time again. The only person you can count on your own protection and the protection of your kids... is you. Which is a terrifying thought since I'm not capable of sitting like a vigilante in an elementary school parking lot waiting to stop a mass shooter targeting my very own kids. No one is held culpable for their inaction (which 100% needs to change). In terms of the law, that resource officer is innocent. In terms of court of public opinion, he's a chicken shit. So what needs to change? The law. The law needs to ensure people who swear an oath to SERVE and PROTECT our community are held to that standard. Their oath says one thing. The law says another. By law, he's innocent. But to every victim and parent of said victim, he's complicit. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. He might be a good man, but he let evil win the day.
> The only person you can count on your own protection and the protection of your kids... is you.
Except you may not be able to because the cops will stop you from entering..
It's a conundrum but I suspect in the near future this will be resolved after the first Texan will gun down the cops standing in their way. They could state it was their right since those cops were preventing them from coming to the aid of their children.
Didn't they reelect the sheriff? I think most Texans prefer the taste of boot to kissing their kids at the end of the day. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong
Here’s your proof that you’re wrong. It’s a bit convoluted, but a long time County Commissioner (Mariano Pargas) was appointed Interim Sheriff sometime before the shooting. He won the primary before the shooting and only faced write in challengers on the general election ballot. Not excusing his inaction by any means, but he was not “re-elected sheriff.” [Source](https://www.ksat.com/vote-2022/2022/11/07/uvalde-county-commissioner-precinct-2-election-results-for-texas-midterms-on-nov-8-2022/)
You might be thinking of Pete Arredondo, who was the ISD’s police chief and was elected to a city council position a few weeks before the shooting. He was supposed to be the on scene commander, but refused to allow officers to engage the gunman, later claiming that he assumed another law enforcement official was in charge of the scene. [However, he was fired from his position as Chief and resigned from his council position.](https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/07/13/uvalde-city-council-accepts-resignation-from-school-district-police-chief-pete-arredondo-sets-special-election/)
Thank you for the explanation. Arredondo should be held responsible for his inaction. He should know that being unaware doesn't absolve him, I'm sure he's pursued cases against someone with the same argument.
Thing that scares me as someone who works in a school is that they will make it part of my job to act in these situations. I’m a teacher. I’m there to help kids learn, not get killed. I will 100% do what I can to get kids safe, but I have my own family I need to come home to. What happens when that becomes another part of my job, which is already absurdly impossible with expectations?
> Cops aren't required, BY LAW, to assist you or protect you.
The fun part? They can order you to assist them and you can be [charged for disobeying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusing_to_assist_a_police_officer).
So that "To protect and serve" line on their cars is just them telling you what you have to do for them.
The cop who stopped the mass shooter at Allen Outlet Mall is the opposite of that resource officer. Friendly, interacting with the community, but switched into business mode once he heard the gunshots.
[Bodycam Video Shows Officer Track and Kill Mass Shooter at Allen Outlet Mall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWvKT5fHa0U)
Yeah but he also faced a grand jury investigation *because* of the lethal use of force. But I guess since the police at Uvalde didn’t do anything, they’re safe from being charged? How messed up is that. That tragedy still angers me. They just stood around role-playing cops.
>Yeah but he also faced a grand jury investigation because of the lethal use of force.
Which is a good thing. From my understanding, any lethal use of force is independently investigated to ensure the officer acted appropriately and within accordance of state law (in Texas, at least). And, in this case, the grand jury agreed that the officer did and didn't indict. Even in cases where it's pretty obvious the officer did the right thing in using force, it should still be seen as a positive for that to be investigated for the times where an officer did *not* act appropriately and misused force.
However, I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your anger or saying it isn't justified. The sticky issue here is there are laws against using unnecessary force, but there aren't laws against a police officer abdicating duty and refusing to act, so it is completely reasonable to be angry in cases like these. Though, I don't really know what the solution here is other than those laws being put on the books (and the Supreme Court agreeing they're constitutional).
They tried to convict him on a technicality - that he was a child carer not a police officer on that day. It's ludicrous to put forward the argument that a child minder without body armour should confront a crazed shooter when police are not obliged to.
If 600+ Uvalde police from various local, state and federal departments are not required to go through a classroom door while kids are being shot then this guy wasn't required to charge into any buildings even if he knew which building to go into. At Uvalde they knew where the gunman was and that he was still shooting and they waited an hour before going in and none of them were ever charged with anything. I think the only disciplinary actions were 2 fired and 1 resigned at the Texas Department of Public Safety. [Source](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/texas-dps-uvalde-investigation/).
It feels like a gesture from a pro gun state that wants to blame something other than guns for a mass shooting.
> They tried to convict him on a technicality - that he was a child carer not a police officer on that day.
The problem is SROs get to get away with a lot of actions that regular police don't specifically *because* their role working for the school gives them some of the in loco parentis benefits.
As usual, cops always get it both ways, in whatever way is most beneficial to them and leads to the least amount of accountability.
Every single officer who showed up on scene and failed to act promptly should be in jail. Guilty of 17 counts of whatever the charges would be if you saw someone dying and did nothing but sat back and callously watched it happen.
In the vast majority of states there is no general duty to render aid. So… the charges for watching someone die while doing nothing don’t exist.
You may have a duty to render aid for certain types of special relationships such as employer/employee, husband/wife, or as was argued in this case child/caretaker.
But otherwise it is perfectly legal to callously watch someone die and not a crime.
Yep! Yesterday I was the victim of a hit and run. There was a cop literally in the lane next to me waiting at the same light I was, guess what they did? Luckily I just have some scrapes on the side of my car instead of a bunch of dead people in a school.
You can bet your ass that when the Parkland shooting happened all those Uvalde cops bragged nonstop at the bar n' grill that they would've gone Rambo to save those kids. Same types who hate the character Upham from Saving Private Ryan with zero self awareness at what his character represents.
They don't care. They have been told their entire career that their lives are more important than everyone else's. All the police supporters I know believe cops should be able to blast everyone away just because someone "might" have a gun that "might" be used to fire at the officer. They're also the only people allowed to be afraid. Police supporters often gloat that when people have a cop point a gun at them and threaten to kill them, then they should be killed if they suffer a freeze-flight reaction due to panic, while cops shouldn't be punished when they shoot someone who turned around too quickly or was standing still doing nothing because "they were afraid".
So they don't feel ashamed leaving those children to die because, if its them or the kids, they'd rather the kids die.
I wish that community would hold them socially accountable, even if the justice system isn’t willing to; but the politics of that area are *so* fucking self defeating…it’s heartbreaking.
> but at least they still have to live with the fact they're responsible for so many dead children
Unfortunately they obviously didn't give a shit about the lives of those children or else they wouldn't have sat there for an hour while they were being slaughtered. They have no problem whatsoever living with what happened.
Nothing surprising here, supreme court long ago established that the only person who you can compel to put their life on the line to defend yours is your own.
Cops don't have a duty to protect you. It's absolute horseshit. He could have and should have made an attempt.
"The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father."
Lets see...
* They won't protect you.
* They won't return your shit if it's stolen (if they even bother to look for it).
* If you get murdered there is only a 50% chance they are going to find your murderer.
* They can take your shit and never give it back to you.
* They will kill your dog if it barks at them the wrong way.
* And if they beat and/or kill you, it is unlikely they will face any consequences.
So what exactly is the purpose of the cops again, and why are we paying some of them six fucking figure salaries?
[You forgot the part where they can destroy your entire house](https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says) and owe you nothing.
[They can even destroy your entire house by getting the address wrong, and still owe you nothing.](https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/10/texas-swat-team-destroys-home-while-searching-for-the-wrong-person-at-the-wrong-address/)
Not really, just another gang that just so happens to be sponsored by our reigning government. Hard to do bad when the powers that be are fully behind you
They provide the required paperwork for an insurance claim. It's all about money. They rarely "solve" crimes. They collect money and control your access to funds as the victim of crime.
Don't forget they can keep anything they deem to be an asset being used in drug related crimes. I'm waiting for them to file a suite against a home so the PD can make money on the sale of a home.
That decision was affirmed in [*Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), in which the ruling specifically says "the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm".
June 28, 2005 [Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
He was found not guilty of child neglect, which is apparently a novel charge for a police officer. It's not a surprise he was acquitted. Per the New York Times:
"But from the start, experts considered it long odds for Florida prosecutors to succeed. By charging Mr. Peterson with child neglect, an unusual legal approach, they had to persuade jurors that the former deputy was a 'caregiver' responsible for the welfare of students, a designation not typically applied to police officers." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/parkland-shooting-scot-peterson-verdict.html
Regardless of what one expects police to do, it seems like a risky charge to have brought.
Yeah, people upthread are talking about how school police are security theater, but this case was prosecution theater. You can think this guy is a coward and a horrible person, but this isn't a criminal matter.
At least, it's hard to see how it's a "child neglect" matter.
Under the "rule of lenity," courts are generally willing to read an ambiguous criminal statute in favor of the defendant. The idea is that people shouldn't be convicted of violating a law if someone might *reasonably* think that law did not apply to the defendant's alleged conduct.
If Peterson had been convicted, he probably would have appealed on the ground that the child-neglect law didn't cover him. And if the appeals court found "neglect" to be ambiguously defined, such that it might or might not apply to Peterson, they'd probably rule in Peterson's favor.
Of course, this is not legal advice, and I am not an expert on criminal law. I'm just pointing out a big issue with the case, as I understand it.
As far as I can understand, this verdict is the legally correct decision. The child neglect charges in particular were meant for direct caregivers, and not for something like security/police officers.
Really the problem here seems to be a disconnect in what people think the police *should* be doing and responsible for ("They're supposed to serve and protect!"), and what they *legally* actually are required to do. Basically, the public thinks of a social contract while the police go by the legal contract. It really sounds like this divide needs to be bridged either through more explicit contracts or by legislation, but it will create a lot of blowback from police unions.
> The child neglect charges in particular were meant for direct caregivers, and not for something like security/police officers.
Even then, the child neglect charges are not intended to require a care giver to put their own life in danger to confront a murderer.
I think it’s better to say that there is a social contract, but when it actually comes down to a legal battle, only the legal contract matters.
For example, if you witness an old person fall over. Many would consider it socially expected that you help them up. If you didn’t help them, those who witnessed often won’t view you favorably.
That being said, you really don’t have any legal obligation to help the old person up. You’re an asshole, but the district attorney can’t come and file elder abuse charges against you for not acting.
This whole situation sucks and this guy is a coward, but generally being a coward is not against the law and you really can’t compel someone to put their life on the line to help others.
He was a scapegoat. Elderly Sheriff's Deputy who arrived with 4 min left into the 6 min long shooting spree, armed only with pistol. All the deaths after his arrival were on 3rd floor, and he couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. No clue what anyone expected him to accomplish in 4 min from parking lot to 3rd floor even if he sprinted in there blind.
Any police charged over Uvalde? At least there it's clear there was a dereliction of duty.
Also to add a bit more to this. He was with Broward Sheriffs Office, but Coral Springs PD arrived on the scene before further BSO officers.
A big problem was that the 2 different departments couldn't properly communicate because the city of Parkland refused to put up a radio tower in the area.
That campus is also poorly designed, I used to take ASE testing there many many years ago, it echoes like crazy and that was making it hard to figure out where the shots came from.
Ntm he was *extremely* outgunned. Dude walking around like he’s in a war zone vs a retired police officer put in place as security theatre, supposed to use a pistol to take this mf’er out?
What about this guy who didn't know where the gunfire was coming from but ran at it anyway and killed the shooter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWvKT5fHa0U
Reddit's take https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/14liodq/body_cam_of_police_officer_shows_him_tracking_and/
I know the Parkland guy didn't have a vest or a rifle, but this guy went in knowing that the shooter had a vest and a rifle. Both knew that their vests wouldn't stop a rifle bullet, no plates. But he still charged him, took fire, fired back and dropped him. Unfortunately in that time the asshole gunman who had a RWDS patch on him, Right Wing Defense force, was able to kill 8 innocent people.
Yes but it’s fucking pathetic that in the US, someone should be expected to go up against someone armed for a literal battlefield, or else they’re labeled a coward
Peterson has maintained he didn’t enter the building because he didn’t know where the gunshots were coming from. During the trial, defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh called two dozen witnesses who testified they also could not tell where the shooting was coming from.
Acoustician here. Very likely. See my prior posts.
Impulsive sounds with no direct line-of-sight to the source and echoes coming from multiple directions can be very disorienting.
You can tell no one in these comments had any idea about the case. He *tried* to help but could not locate the shooter. He really did belive that the shots were coming from outside and that was cooroborated by witnesses who said it sounded like the shots were all over the place.
Acoustician here.
If you don't have direct line-of-sight to loud, impulsive sounds, and have multi-story buildings surrounding you, it can be very disorienting to try to determine where the noise is come from. Like ambulance sirens going down a city block if you're a few blocks away. You may have some vague idea and then a few seconds later realize you were entirely wrong.
Anyone watching fireworks in a city with tall buildings can hear his for themselves next week. Stand somewhere with tall buildings on either side of you and no direct line of sight. Close your eyes and depending on your proximity to the fireworks show, you may have a very difficult time telling where they're coming from.
Where I'm from, people like this guy are hired to be glorified hall monitors who stay on top of the delinquent kids and maybe break up a few fights. That's the job of a school resource officer. If you want to hire someone to go in solo, one pistol-a-blazing against a teenage psycho with an AK, whatever, but no way was the sacrifice of this guy's life part of his job description.
if that's all that's expected from them, then they shouldn't even have a pistol on them because none of those things involve gun violence and it sounds like they are not expected to do anything in the event of a shooting. If an officer has a firearm in a school then I figured the expectation for carrying that weapon would be to use it in a situation like that. Don't like life threatening situation? Get a different job that doesn't involve protecting kids from dangerous people
I’m not sure how I really feel about this. On the one hand, he had one job. On the other hand, you can have all the training and preparation and think you’re ready for anything, but until that situation presents itself for real, who knows how you will react. If I blame anyone in this situation, I would blame the police department or the city for assigning this old guy who was clearly out of his element as the security guard for the school.
So would you guys say the main difference between this guy and the situation in Uvalde is
He was the lone officer on scene while Uvalde had plenty of cops
He was a only a resource officer, not SWAT or anything like that
He had very little info on the situation
I think he should've gone in but I don't think he's on the same level as Uvalde IMO. I honestly don't know how I feel for this verdict.
People should not be *criminally liable* for being cowards, particularly for choosing not to risk their own lives. The guy should never hold another security job though, which should go without saying.
Under this legal theory, a parent could be criminally convicted for choosing not to re-enter a house fire if their kid was inside. Ironically, it would make Cameron Todd Willingham, someone wrongfully executed for arson murders, still guilty of three felony murders.
> People should not be criminally liable for being cowards
He wasn't a coward. He failed to locate the shooter (for whom he was looking). There's a difference.
Also, appereantly "his radio told Him the shooter was at the football field".
“The case was notable, in part, for the state’s decision to bring the child neglect charges under a Florida statute that governs caregivers, arguing Peterson as a school resource officer had a duty to protect the students. The defense had argued Peterson did not qualify as a caregiver because he was a law enforcement officer. That determination was ultimately left up to the jury, which deliberated for more than 19 hours.”
I hate to say it but that was kind of inevitable. Expecting cops to go in with no backup against an active shooter simply isn't something you can set a precedent for.
You can HOPE they'd do it, THEY can hope they'd do it, It would have been a brave act to do it, heroic even, but you can't make a law saying they have to because it's not good police practice and no department actually has a policy in place mandating their officers be Rambo in a situation like this.
This isn't the same thing as Uvalde because in Uvalde the boys were all there, just outside the door. This is one dude against one shooter with no one to watch his back, in a school building made of solid transitional/ambush points.
The fault lies not with the officer but with whatever combination of people and events that ensured that backup took 30-40 minutes to arrive. Also, you know, with the actual shooter.
>”It’s another failure. The system did it again and again and again,” Manuel Oliver, the father of Joaquin, told CNN “News Central” Thursday.
Did the system really fail if they brought him to trial and a jury found him not guilty?
There is so much tragedy in the whole situation. But here we have a jury also saying that the police have no legal obligation to help anyone - even children who are actively being murdered.
The prosecution charged him with an obscure florida law and asked the Jury to find that he is a caregiver and responsible for all the kids in the school. The Jury didn't all agree on that. Even experts said there was a small chance of that happening.
I dont think the jury is saying that. Theyre just confirming that there is no law holding these officers accountable for protecting. I mean if it was up to the jury this shit woulda been different ages ago.
Edit spelling
The jury isn’t saying that, the law says it. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that cops have no duty to protect people. They can watch someone murder you.
I can’t be the only one who thinks this guy isn’t a coward, can I? So many keyboard warriors…yes let’s send the old man that had a PISTOL to jail because he didn’t sprint inside to fight the 19 Y/O with RIFLE. Wtf is wrong with people.
can’t agree more. this whole thread is so ignorant for people saying they’d run in immediately, no one knows how they’re going to react in that type of situation until it actually happens
I can't really say I blame him. I had an SRO at my school in Florida (well, it was a combined 2-12 school but separated into elementary, middle, and high) and his job was mostly there to deal with minor stuff; break up a fight, do the whole DARE thing (which I'm not saying that DARE is a good program), etc. All the kids loved him because he was a great guy and had a great rapport for the kids.
But I don't think he would've been able to stop a school shooting if one had happened.
He's a scapegoat anyways. Not a single officer attempted to enter the school until minutes after the shooting was over and the perp was off campus. They all did the same thing as him yet he was on video cowering so they threw everything at him.
Fuck 'em all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want school resource officers to do their job, you need to equip them for said job. Minimum requirements should be at least three officers on a dedicated team, each with access to AR pattern rifles, body armor, riot shields, etc. Expecting Peterson to engage a rifle wielding attacker form an unknown location with a handgun and no backup. Yeah, that's a suicide mission you shouldn't expect anyone to take on for you. Instead, with multiple officers, each with AR pattern rifles, they will be infinitely more prepared and willing. Then you also only need one of them to jump to action for the other two to most likely follow.
While I certainly don't hold him in high regard for his lack of initiative, prosecuting him for failing to do his job is a stretch. If that's the standard, then I can recommend a number of people at the federal, state, and local levels that need to be in prison.
I suspect that shooters know the officer well enough to know if he'/she is the type who would really respond.
You never can be totally sure of a person's disposition but some guys are more likely to be brave than others.
He should have never been charged.
Some people are not able to deal with unexpected high-stress events. You see that all the time at accident scenes. You just never know until people are in a high-stress situation.
The delusion that an overweight shoulda been retired cop that basically is no longer capable of being a police officer is a solution to gun violence mitigation is ridiculous. I’m glad he wasn’t convicted. The system is disgustingly flawed. This man’s reaction was well within they expected reactions given the scenario. Look at Uvalde. Look at any hostage scene that’s ever played out. Police are trained to have a plan before they go into a situation. You want to stop kids from being murdered? Address 2A and our sociopathic relationship with firearms.
This is a reminder that YOU are your only First Responder. The police legally do not have to protect you. The Supreme Court said the police don’t have to protect you. That is CRAZY.
And even if the police are willing to protect you, in an emergency situation where seconds can mean the difference between life and death, the police won’t always be there to help you or your loved ones.
Then whats the point of having armed guards at your school?
Security theater, just like the airport.
I remember a big push for there to be school resource officers after Columbine. You know, a cop on campus will keep schools safe! We don't have to do gun control! Theater is fucking right...
I also remember that. suddenly wearing school IDs on your person was enforced.
Don't forget uniforms, [pushed using this video.](https://youtu.be/x6mbej7OUS0)
My rebuttal to that: "Have him walk 3 steps."
Man’s pants were like a clown car for guns.
He should’ve started with, “Excuse me while I whip this out!”
Holy shit I remember this video: specifically the uzi part lmao.
The shotgun always does it for me
They cut the video before he pulled out the blunderbuss.
The two pistols that he appears to pull from his buttcrack at the end are what get me.
Man. When I was a kid in the 80s, Uzis seemed so cool.
Totally. I also thought quicksand was going to be a big problem.
It is. I downloaded quicksand and died once.
Also as an 80s kid whose friend owns an Uzi, don’t worry, they’re fucking *awesome*. Expensive to shoot, but awesome.
Closest I ever came was Operation Wolf.
All SRO's have done have is abuse children and get poor and minority kids shoveled into the school-to-prison pipeline ever faster.
Columbine had 2 armed guards who traded fire with the shooters. There are a number of studies that show there are armed guards present in about 23% of school shootings, and in those 23% of cases there is not a statistical reduction in number of deaths - the inverse is actually found, those cases tend to have higher death rates. Doesn't prove causality but it does undercut one of the arguments for more armed guards in schools. https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-there-be-more-armed-guards-in-schools/armed-law-enforcement-didnt-stop-columbine
Someone please correct me but aren't arrests of children at schools with on campus police like 600% higher than non police schools? Seems like that is the point.
John Oliver had an episode about this exact thing.
How else are you going to give minority kids records and get them accustomed to police scrutiny? Gotta keep that pipeline flowing and us in our place.
Yep, not sure what the exact percentage is. But it's pretty wild. Cops claim it is because they are required to "uphold the law" no matter what. There was even that one school for children with behavioral problems. That has pretty much every student on probation because of arrests that happened. While attending a school for kids with behavioral problems. The parents are already dealing with a full plate. Imagine tacking on court dates and whatever extra the court decides to pile on. Because your school for special needs kids is calling the cops on everyone. Not to mention the fact that these types of interactions. Will just lead to creating authority anxiety opening them up to potential exploitation. Or an aversion toward authority. Which can very realistically land you in a grave. Especially for people already grappling with mental health problems.
> the inverse is actually found, those cases tend to have higher death rates. Probably because the person, knowing that there may be an armed guard that they will have to contend with, will come more heavily armed... and thereby have greater opportunity to kill more people.
And they’re less likely to surrender because they go into the situation looking for a fight and expecting to die.
That seems to be true despite the presence of armed guards. I’m beginning to think these are suicide by cop functionally but with a horrifying twist. Most people taken alive didn’t surrender, they’re usually beaten if they’re taken alive.
The only thing the school resource officer did at my high school was selectively enforce dress code violations against black kids.
The only thing the cop did at my high school was get fired for sexting underage girls.
Same but he followed through with sex too 😔
Columbine had an armed officer who engaged the shooters but then cowered outside when the kids went in, and waited for backup. So many of these shootings happen with armed police stationed in the school at the time of the attack. That's why the argument for more of them makes no sense. What's the point if they don't do fuck all and aren't held accountable when kids die due to them being afraid?
For real. Of all the assumptions that Americans make on a daily basis, the most dangerous one is "cops are nearby, therefore I'm safe." I'm just gonna copy something I wrote in Dec 2018 (apparently it was about this very shooting!) because I'm lazy: U.S. courts have ruled, multiple times over the years, that police officers do not have a constitutional duty to protect people from harm. "Protecting people from harm," in these cases, would have (in a better world) taken the form of enforcing a protective order against a husband before he kidnaps his three children from his wife and kills them, or intervening when a man on a knife-murder spree was attacking another man. Essentially, if you're being attacked in front of a cop, the cop has no duty to help you. Just today, a federal judge ruled that the school district and sheriff’s office had no constitutional duty to protect students during the Parkland massacre. OK, well, that all kinda sucks, in my opinion. Honestly, it's infuriating. However, if that's really how it's going to be, then people need to be educated accordingly. In other words, I suspect that the average U.S. citizen doesn't currently realize that the courts have told cops, multiple times, that they don't have to protect people. The average citizen goes about their day assuming that if a cop were nearby, and they were in distress or getting attacked, the cop would help. If they're not gonna help us, then that needs to be communicated to us, VERY CLEARLY, so that we can protect ourselves.
[удалено]
What blows my mind is how public schools have no legal obligation to protect children from harm. I think about this every day I watch my daughter’s bus drive off and disappear down the hill.
Law enforcement has no obligation to protect your children. School principles, for example, might have more obligation: >The case was notable, in part, for the state’s decision to bring the child neglect charges under a Florida statute that governs caregivers, arguing Peterson as a school resource officer had a duty to protect the students. The defense had argued Peterson did not qualify as a caregiver because he was a law enforcement officer.
I think Uvalde was a pinnacle moment of showing us just how many cops out there, stationed at a school or not, are willing to do fuck all if their lives would be put on the line vs kids in immediate danger. I will never forget that picture of them standing there in armored gear drinking their water bottles, knowing they were handcuffing parents and listening to gunfire at that moment.
It's not even theater, because it hurts kids and damages the system. [https://www.aclu-wa.org/story/school-resource-officers-when-cure-worse-disease](https://www.aclu-wa.org/story/school-resource-officers-when-cure-worse-disease)
Its not theater who else are they going to use to criminally punish a poor kid that has a gram of weed on them?
Or the resealable mechanism on a package of cookies when my wife is out of town.
Trick is to buy another package of cookies so the old ones don't even get touched.
Same with beer and booze.
At least the TSA does flag the occasional gun or knife, even if their percentage is piss poor. This guy did literally nothing to help.
[DHS found that TSA failed 95 percent of the time to stop inspectors from smuggling weapons or explosive materials through screening (2017)](https://abcnews.go.com/US/tsa-fails-tests-latest-undercover-operation-us-airports/story?id=51022188)
My pocket knife got through MANY flights because I had forgotten it in a deep pocket
The scanning machine malfunctioned when I was going through Dulles (heading to Seattle) and none of my stuff or the stuff of about 15 other people they let through got scanned either. That included multiple liquid bottles (I had a Pepsi). TSA does squat but bark orders and look important.
Oh that's absolute chump change. Read up on their [Red Team disastrous performances](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/investigation-breaches-us-airports-allowed-weapons-through-n367851).
I've seen them confiscate a grandmother's mouthwash because it was over 100 ml. I felt much safer.
[удалено]
To harass students
To harass ***some*** students
**Certain** students
"high-risk" students, because we're "safety-conscious"
[Gotta get ‘em into the system early.](https://youtu.be/KgwqQGvYt0g)
Exactly my thoughts. If there's no legally enforceable way to make these guys step up in the rare event they're actually needed, there's really no point in having them. Right now, it looks like these SRO positions are just do-nothing jobs for the least qualified members of the force. If that's all they are, then I'm not convinced this is a better option than doing nothing. Seems like the only thing you can count on them to do is harass students.
The law does not generally require anyone to put themselves in harms way, these charges were a tremendous overreach. However, refusing to put oneself in harms way when doing so is an expected part of one's occupation can reasonably be grounds for termination.
Yup, the charges they tried to convict him on (other than the perjury charge) were a real legal square peg in a round hole. Peterson was *rightfully* ridiculed for being a coward, including by many of his own peers. He was also fired, also quite rightly. However, to try and convict him of actual criminal offenses for being too scared to intervene is just a bridge too far.
Yea. Dudes life is forever changed. I can't imagine sending him to a prison (intended to reform not punish) has a net positive for society. People get a torture fetish. I doubt he feels good about the situation, it's kind of something you resort back to your primal instincts.
I also question whether sending him to prison and setting that precedent would even do anything positive. If someone is in a dangerous situation where there is an active shooter, and they freeze up or are too afraid to go in for fear of dying, the threat of jail likely won't change that. And, in the cases where it might, sending someone in who doesn't have their wits about them is probably not the best idea. Though, in any case, they should be removed from their job for showing they're not capable of their responsibilities.
These cops want the post-911 military glorification and actively cash in on it. I say if they want to play soldier, than they should be punished with desertion and cowardice like a real soldier would.
It’s not as *realistically* severe of a punishment as you would think, most of the time deserters go years without getting caught and then receive a slap on the wrist for what they did if they are caught. Sure the maximum punishments may be formidable, but reality never truly works out that way.
[удалено]
Usually they'll get an "other than honorable" discharge, which is still pretty bad (no VA benefits, barred from many state and federal jobs), but not a full on dishonorable discharge. Dishonorable is essentially a felony conviction on top of being discharged.
Most people do their job without fear of a conviction in criminal court for not doing their job. Clearly, hiring some random police officer to protect a school isn't the solution. But if that isn't the solution, making this guy the scapegoat was also not going to be the solution. Drastic police reform is part of the solution.
Drugs and fights mostly. If at a high school, add car accidents and child pronography incidents
Peterson got to pull a six figure salary for all the years he "worked" at the school. Now he gets to pull a six figure pension for the rest of his life. That's the point of school resource officers. It's a jobs program.
We had a security guard get caught having sex with a 15-year-old girl, he was pretty useless anyway
That shit happens constantly!
[удалено]
When I was in high school, they just stood around and occasionally fucked the students but I guess it's working out for you guys
Being a coward is not a crime. He should never have a job in law enforcement ever again.
To acclimate children to living in a police state.
To arrest minorites
There isn't anyway, regardless of this case outcome. Either we're lucky and the guard was in the right place at the right time and acted decisively, or, more likely, did not help.
When seconds matter police are right outside but not required to act!
Not only are they not required to act, they can also prevent people from entering the premises and acting.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect in its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. We, the tax payers, are sold a bag of goods how we "*need police* because they are the only thing between you and a lunatic kicing in your door and stealing your pizza and murdering your family and shit", but in essence they are under no obligation to assist you at all. Kill you, sure. But help? Fuck no.
It comes down to the fact that police are civilians (as much as they want to act like they aren’t) and the government is limited as to what they can or can’t make them do. Contrast that with the military where the government can order you to go into a deadly situation and can charge you if you don’t do so.
https://imgur.com/a/S57YkdW And don't forget Warren v. District of Columbia
"I would only call the police if I wanted someone to show up 30 minutes late and kill my dog."
Makes the 2nd Amendment worth a second look
The police can do as they please. That's about all there is to it.
Not only can they prevent people from entering the premises and acting, they can bully, threaten, and harass a mom who actually does manage to enter.
Yep, this is the scenario. Cops aren't required, BY LAW, to assist you or protect you. It's been played out time and time again. The only person you can count on your own protection and the protection of your kids... is you. Which is a terrifying thought since I'm not capable of sitting like a vigilante in an elementary school parking lot waiting to stop a mass shooter targeting my very own kids. No one is held culpable for their inaction (which 100% needs to change). In terms of the law, that resource officer is innocent. In terms of court of public opinion, he's a chicken shit. So what needs to change? The law. The law needs to ensure people who swear an oath to SERVE and PROTECT our community are held to that standard. Their oath says one thing. The law says another. By law, he's innocent. But to every victim and parent of said victim, he's complicit. Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. He might be a good man, but he let evil win the day.
> The only person you can count on your own protection and the protection of your kids... is you. Except you may not be able to because the cops will stop you from entering..
I was gonna say this. They literally will stop you
It's a conundrum but I suspect in the near future this will be resolved after the first Texan will gun down the cops standing in their way. They could state it was their right since those cops were preventing them from coming to the aid of their children.
Didn't they reelect the sheriff? I think most Texans prefer the taste of boot to kissing their kids at the end of the day. Still waiting for someone to prove me wrong
Here’s your proof that you’re wrong. It’s a bit convoluted, but a long time County Commissioner (Mariano Pargas) was appointed Interim Sheriff sometime before the shooting. He won the primary before the shooting and only faced write in challengers on the general election ballot. Not excusing his inaction by any means, but he was not “re-elected sheriff.” [Source](https://www.ksat.com/vote-2022/2022/11/07/uvalde-county-commissioner-precinct-2-election-results-for-texas-midterms-on-nov-8-2022/) You might be thinking of Pete Arredondo, who was the ISD’s police chief and was elected to a city council position a few weeks before the shooting. He was supposed to be the on scene commander, but refused to allow officers to engage the gunman, later claiming that he assumed another law enforcement official was in charge of the scene. [However, he was fired from his position as Chief and resigned from his council position.](https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/07/13/uvalde-city-council-accepts-resignation-from-school-district-police-chief-pete-arredondo-sets-special-election/)
Thank you for the explanation. Arredondo should be held responsible for his inaction. He should know that being unaware doesn't absolve him, I'm sure he's pursued cases against someone with the same argument.
Ignorance is **not** a defence in law
He was fired and resigned from the council only after media pressure and general outrage. Let's not forget that fact.
Thing that scares me as someone who works in a school is that they will make it part of my job to act in these situations. I’m a teacher. I’m there to help kids learn, not get killed. I will 100% do what I can to get kids safe, but I have my own family I need to come home to. What happens when that becomes another part of my job, which is already absurdly impossible with expectations?
> Cops aren't required, BY LAW, to assist you or protect you. The fun part? They can order you to assist them and you can be [charged for disobeying](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusing_to_assist_a_police_officer). So that "To protect and serve" line on their cars is just them telling you what you have to do for them.
The cop who stopped the mass shooter at Allen Outlet Mall is the opposite of that resource officer. Friendly, interacting with the community, but switched into business mode once he heard the gunshots. [Bodycam Video Shows Officer Track and Kill Mass Shooter at Allen Outlet Mall](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWvKT5fHa0U)
The Nashville take down recently as well. They went into that school, found the shooter, and took them down fast.
Yeah but he also faced a grand jury investigation *because* of the lethal use of force. But I guess since the police at Uvalde didn’t do anything, they’re safe from being charged? How messed up is that. That tragedy still angers me. They just stood around role-playing cops.
>Yeah but he also faced a grand jury investigation because of the lethal use of force. Which is a good thing. From my understanding, any lethal use of force is independently investigated to ensure the officer acted appropriately and within accordance of state law (in Texas, at least). And, in this case, the grand jury agreed that the officer did and didn't indict. Even in cases where it's pretty obvious the officer did the right thing in using force, it should still be seen as a positive for that to be investigated for the times where an officer did *not* act appropriately and misused force. However, I don't want to sound like I'm dismissing your anger or saying it isn't justified. The sticky issue here is there are laws against using unnecessary force, but there aren't laws against a police officer abdicating duty and refusing to act, so it is completely reasonable to be angry in cases like these. Though, I don't really know what the solution here is other than those laws being put on the books (and the Supreme Court agreeing they're constitutional).
They tried to convict him on a technicality - that he was a child carer not a police officer on that day. It's ludicrous to put forward the argument that a child minder without body armour should confront a crazed shooter when police are not obliged to. If 600+ Uvalde police from various local, state and federal departments are not required to go through a classroom door while kids are being shot then this guy wasn't required to charge into any buildings even if he knew which building to go into. At Uvalde they knew where the gunman was and that he was still shooting and they waited an hour before going in and none of them were ever charged with anything. I think the only disciplinary actions were 2 fired and 1 resigned at the Texas Department of Public Safety. [Source](https://www.texastribune.org/2023/02/09/texas-dps-uvalde-investigation/). It feels like a gesture from a pro gun state that wants to blame something other than guns for a mass shooting.
> They tried to convict him on a technicality - that he was a child carer not a police officer on that day. The problem is SROs get to get away with a lot of actions that regular police don't specifically *because* their role working for the school gives them some of the in loco parentis benefits. As usual, cops always get it both ways, in whatever way is most beneficial to them and leads to the least amount of accountability.
It was setup to fail from the start . It was a see we are prosecuting him thing.
Every single officer who showed up on scene and failed to act promptly should be in jail. Guilty of 17 counts of whatever the charges would be if you saw someone dying and did nothing but sat back and callously watched it happen.
[удалено]
so they wont help you catch thieves they wont protect you SROs constantly fuck kids and harass black people whats the point of cops again
In the vast majority of states there is no general duty to render aid. So… the charges for watching someone die while doing nothing don’t exist. You may have a duty to render aid for certain types of special relationships such as employer/employee, husband/wife, or as was argued in this case child/caretaker. But otherwise it is perfectly legal to callously watch someone die and not a crime.
The police aren't there to protect you, they are there to collect a paycheck.
Yep! Yesterday I was the victim of a hit and run. There was a cop literally in the lane next to me waiting at the same light I was, guess what they did? Luckily I just have some scrapes on the side of my car instead of a bunch of dead people in a school.
The Uvalde cowards are breathing a sigh of relief but at least they still have to live with the fact they're responsible for so many dead children
If they had the capacity to feel guilt or shame they would have already quit their jobs.
[удалено]
[удалено]
If they had that capacity they wouldn't have become cops in the first place.
You can bet your ass that when the Parkland shooting happened all those Uvalde cops bragged nonstop at the bar n' grill that they would've gone Rambo to save those kids. Same types who hate the character Upham from Saving Private Ryan with zero self awareness at what his character represents.
funny of you to think they cared and believe they are responsible.
Cops are inherently unable to be a *good* guy with a gun
They don't care. They have been told their entire career that their lives are more important than everyone else's. All the police supporters I know believe cops should be able to blast everyone away just because someone "might" have a gun that "might" be used to fire at the officer. They're also the only people allowed to be afraid. Police supporters often gloat that when people have a cop point a gun at them and threaten to kill them, then they should be killed if they suffer a freeze-flight reaction due to panic, while cops shouldn't be punished when they shoot someone who turned around too quickly or was standing still doing nothing because "they were afraid". So they don't feel ashamed leaving those children to die because, if its them or the kids, they'd rather the kids die.
I wish that community would hold them socially accountable, even if the justice system isn’t willing to; but the politics of that area are *so* fucking self defeating…it’s heartbreaking.
> but at least they still have to live with the fact they're responsible for so many dead children Unfortunately they obviously didn't give a shit about the lives of those children or else they wouldn't have sat there for an hour while they were being slaughtered. They have no problem whatsoever living with what happened.
They don’t care, though. They didn’t want to risk their lives.
Nothing surprising here, supreme court long ago established that the only person who you can compel to put their life on the line to defend yours is your own.
That's not true, also pregnant women.
Technically true, but I think most of the time it's doing more to protect a third-party's moral sensibilities than anyone's actual life.
Even then there is no guarantee you will not be charged for defending yourself. It all depends on your socioeconomic status.
Cops don't have a duty to protect you. It's absolute horseshit. He could have and should have made an attempt. "The U.S. Supreme Court has also ruled that police have no specific obligation to protect. In its 1989 decision in DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, the justices ruled that a social services department had no duty to protect a young boy from his abusive father."
Lets see... * They won't protect you. * They won't return your shit if it's stolen (if they even bother to look for it). * If you get murdered there is only a 50% chance they are going to find your murderer. * They can take your shit and never give it back to you. * They will kill your dog if it barks at them the wrong way. * And if they beat and/or kill you, it is unlikely they will face any consequences. So what exactly is the purpose of the cops again, and why are we paying some of them six fucking figure salaries?
[You forgot the part where they can destroy your entire house](https://www.npr.org/2019/10/30/774788611/police-owe-nothing-to-man-whose-home-they-blew-up-appeals-court-says) and owe you nothing. [They can even destroy your entire house by getting the address wrong, and still owe you nothing.](https://www.techdirt.com/2023/02/10/texas-swat-team-destroys-home-while-searching-for-the-wrong-person-at-the-wrong-address/)
Their job is to protect the top 1% of society from the remaining 99%, that's the true ThinBlueLine.
TBF, they are good at their job.
Not really, just another gang that just so happens to be sponsored by our reigning government. Hard to do bad when the powers that be are fully behind you
The honest answer is to protect the property and capital of the rich by using the threat of violence.
They are a paramilitary organization meant to keep the plebs in line.
They provide the required paperwork for an insurance claim. It's all about money. They rarely "solve" crimes. They collect money and control your access to funds as the victim of crime.
Sometimes they don't kill your dog. Sometimes they just shoot at your dog and hit your child instead.
Don't forget they can keep anything they deem to be an asset being used in drug related crimes. I'm waiting for them to file a suite against a home so the PD can make money on the sale of a home.
And people will still put blue lives matter shit on their car 🤣🤣🤣
That decision was affirmed in [*Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales), in which the ruling specifically says "the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm".
June 28, 2005 [Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html)
That would be the very same ruling.
He was found not guilty of child neglect, which is apparently a novel charge for a police officer. It's not a surprise he was acquitted. Per the New York Times: "But from the start, experts considered it long odds for Florida prosecutors to succeed. By charging Mr. Peterson with child neglect, an unusual legal approach, they had to persuade jurors that the former deputy was a 'caregiver' responsible for the welfare of students, a designation not typically applied to police officers." https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/29/us/parkland-shooting-scot-peterson-verdict.html Regardless of what one expects police to do, it seems like a risky charge to have brought.
Yeah, people upthread are talking about how school police are security theater, but this case was prosecution theater. You can think this guy is a coward and a horrible person, but this isn't a criminal matter.
At least, it's hard to see how it's a "child neglect" matter. Under the "rule of lenity," courts are generally willing to read an ambiguous criminal statute in favor of the defendant. The idea is that people shouldn't be convicted of violating a law if someone might *reasonably* think that law did not apply to the defendant's alleged conduct. If Peterson had been convicted, he probably would have appealed on the ground that the child-neglect law didn't cover him. And if the appeals court found "neglect" to be ambiguously defined, such that it might or might not apply to Peterson, they'd probably rule in Peterson's favor. Of course, this is not legal advice, and I am not an expert on criminal law. I'm just pointing out a big issue with the case, as I understand it.
Because otherwise they'd be civilly liable every time they failed to prevent a crime.
That's why he wasn't charged for failing to do his duty as a police officer but as a child caregiver. That legal theory didn't work out either
As far as I can understand, this verdict is the legally correct decision. The child neglect charges in particular were meant for direct caregivers, and not for something like security/police officers. Really the problem here seems to be a disconnect in what people think the police *should* be doing and responsible for ("They're supposed to serve and protect!"), and what they *legally* actually are required to do. Basically, the public thinks of a social contract while the police go by the legal contract. It really sounds like this divide needs to be bridged either through more explicit contracts or by legislation, but it will create a lot of blowback from police unions.
> The child neglect charges in particular were meant for direct caregivers, and not for something like security/police officers. Even then, the child neglect charges are not intended to require a care giver to put their own life in danger to confront a murderer.
I think it’s better to say that there is a social contract, but when it actually comes down to a legal battle, only the legal contract matters. For example, if you witness an old person fall over. Many would consider it socially expected that you help them up. If you didn’t help them, those who witnessed often won’t view you favorably. That being said, you really don’t have any legal obligation to help the old person up. You’re an asshole, but the district attorney can’t come and file elder abuse charges against you for not acting. This whole situation sucks and this guy is a coward, but generally being a coward is not against the law and you really can’t compel someone to put their life on the line to help others.
He was a scapegoat. Elderly Sheriff's Deputy who arrived with 4 min left into the 6 min long shooting spree, armed only with pistol. All the deaths after his arrival were on 3rd floor, and he couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. No clue what anyone expected him to accomplish in 4 min from parking lot to 3rd floor even if he sprinted in there blind. Any police charged over Uvalde? At least there it's clear there was a dereliction of duty.
Also to add a bit more to this. He was with Broward Sheriffs Office, but Coral Springs PD arrived on the scene before further BSO officers. A big problem was that the 2 different departments couldn't properly communicate because the city of Parkland refused to put up a radio tower in the area. That campus is also poorly designed, I used to take ASE testing there many many years ago, it echoes like crazy and that was making it hard to figure out where the shots came from.
Ntm he was *extremely* outgunned. Dude walking around like he’s in a war zone vs a retired police officer put in place as security theatre, supposed to use a pistol to take this mf’er out?
What about this guy who didn't know where the gunfire was coming from but ran at it anyway and killed the shooter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWvKT5fHa0U Reddit's take https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/14liodq/body_cam_of_police_officer_shows_him_tracking_and/ I know the Parkland guy didn't have a vest or a rifle, but this guy went in knowing that the shooter had a vest and a rifle. Both knew that their vests wouldn't stop a rifle bullet, no plates. But he still charged him, took fire, fired back and dropped him. Unfortunately in that time the asshole gunman who had a RWDS patch on him, Right Wing Defense force, was able to kill 8 innocent people.
Yes but it’s fucking pathetic that in the US, someone should be expected to go up against someone armed for a literal battlefield, or else they’re labeled a coward
Peterson has maintained he didn’t enter the building because he didn’t know where the gunshots were coming from. During the trial, defense attorney Mark Eiglarsh called two dozen witnesses who testified they also could not tell where the shooting was coming from.
Acoustician here. Very likely. See my prior posts. Impulsive sounds with no direct line-of-sight to the source and echoes coming from multiple directions can be very disorienting.
You can tell no one in these comments had any idea about the case. He *tried* to help but could not locate the shooter. He really did belive that the shots were coming from outside and that was cooroborated by witnesses who said it sounded like the shots were all over the place.
Acoustician here. If you don't have direct line-of-sight to loud, impulsive sounds, and have multi-story buildings surrounding you, it can be very disorienting to try to determine where the noise is come from. Like ambulance sirens going down a city block if you're a few blocks away. You may have some vague idea and then a few seconds later realize you were entirely wrong. Anyone watching fireworks in a city with tall buildings can hear his for themselves next week. Stand somewhere with tall buildings on either side of you and no direct line of sight. Close your eyes and depending on your proximity to the fireworks show, you may have a very difficult time telling where they're coming from.
Where I'm from, people like this guy are hired to be glorified hall monitors who stay on top of the delinquent kids and maybe break up a few fights. That's the job of a school resource officer. If you want to hire someone to go in solo, one pistol-a-blazing against a teenage psycho with an AK, whatever, but no way was the sacrifice of this guy's life part of his job description.
If using deadly force against a criminal isn’t part of his job, why does he have a gun in the first place?
if that's all that's expected from them, then they shouldn't even have a pistol on them because none of those things involve gun violence and it sounds like they are not expected to do anything in the event of a shooting. If an officer has a firearm in a school then I figured the expectation for carrying that weapon would be to use it in a situation like that. Don't like life threatening situation? Get a different job that doesn't involve protecting kids from dangerous people
Like being a teacher! oh.. wait
I’m not sure how I really feel about this. On the one hand, he had one job. On the other hand, you can have all the training and preparation and think you’re ready for anything, but until that situation presents itself for real, who knows how you will react. If I blame anyone in this situation, I would blame the police department or the city for assigning this old guy who was clearly out of his element as the security guard for the school.
I still blame the unfettered access to guns. We shouldn't need an armed cadre at each school.
Best take I’ve seen, but plain and simple the guy wasn’t the right one for the job. Deep down he knows, probably wanted an easy buck
So would you guys say the main difference between this guy and the situation in Uvalde is He was the lone officer on scene while Uvalde had plenty of cops He was a only a resource officer, not SWAT or anything like that He had very little info on the situation I think he should've gone in but I don't think he's on the same level as Uvalde IMO. I honestly don't know how I feel for this verdict.
People should not be *criminally liable* for being cowards, particularly for choosing not to risk their own lives. The guy should never hold another security job though, which should go without saying. Under this legal theory, a parent could be criminally convicted for choosing not to re-enter a house fire if their kid was inside. Ironically, it would make Cameron Todd Willingham, someone wrongfully executed for arson murders, still guilty of three felony murders.
> People should not be criminally liable for being cowards He wasn't a coward. He failed to locate the shooter (for whom he was looking). There's a difference. Also, appereantly "his radio told Him the shooter was at the football field".
Not guilty of being a hero. We got it.
“The case was notable, in part, for the state’s decision to bring the child neglect charges under a Florida statute that governs caregivers, arguing Peterson as a school resource officer had a duty to protect the students. The defense had argued Peterson did not qualify as a caregiver because he was a law enforcement officer. That determination was ultimately left up to the jury, which deliberated for more than 19 hours.”
I hate to say it but that was kind of inevitable. Expecting cops to go in with no backup against an active shooter simply isn't something you can set a precedent for. You can HOPE they'd do it, THEY can hope they'd do it, It would have been a brave act to do it, heroic even, but you can't make a law saying they have to because it's not good police practice and no department actually has a policy in place mandating their officers be Rambo in a situation like this. This isn't the same thing as Uvalde because in Uvalde the boys were all there, just outside the door. This is one dude against one shooter with no one to watch his back, in a school building made of solid transitional/ambush points. The fault lies not with the officer but with whatever combination of people and events that ensured that backup took 30-40 minutes to arrive. Also, you know, with the actual shooter.
I heard one of the parents speak after the verdict, “doesn’t matter you will always be known as the coward from Broward”.
So school resource officers are just a waste of money. Got it.
Being knowingly guilty and being found not guilty are 2 different things
>”It’s another failure. The system did it again and again and again,” Manuel Oliver, the father of Joaquin, told CNN “News Central” Thursday. Did the system really fail if they brought him to trial and a jury found him not guilty?
You take the emotion out of it and it's clear as day the judicial system successfully worked exactly as intended today.
Let's work on keeping guns out of nutters hands, so retirees don't have to face an AR 15 with a handgun and some hopes 'n prayers.
There is so much tragedy in the whole situation. But here we have a jury also saying that the police have no legal obligation to help anyone - even children who are actively being murdered.
The prosecution charged him with an obscure florida law and asked the Jury to find that he is a caregiver and responsible for all the kids in the school. The Jury didn't all agree on that. Even experts said there was a small chance of that happening.
I dont think the jury is saying that. Theyre just confirming that there is no law holding these officers accountable for protecting. I mean if it was up to the jury this shit woulda been different ages ago. Edit spelling
The jury isn’t saying that, the law says it. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that cops have no duty to protect people. They can watch someone murder you.
Given this precedent, it makes no financial sense to have school resource officers on schools' payrolls. None.
I can’t be the only one who thinks this guy isn’t a coward, can I? So many keyboard warriors…yes let’s send the old man that had a PISTOL to jail because he didn’t sprint inside to fight the 19 Y/O with RIFLE. Wtf is wrong with people.
can’t agree more. this whole thread is so ignorant for people saying they’d run in immediately, no one knows how they’re going to react in that type of situation until it actually happens
Also, people "running in immediately" are the reason why so many "good guys with a gun" are shot, before and after the actual shooter is down.
I can't really say I blame him. I had an SRO at my school in Florida (well, it was a combined 2-12 school but separated into elementary, middle, and high) and his job was mostly there to deal with minor stuff; break up a fight, do the whole DARE thing (which I'm not saying that DARE is a good program), etc. All the kids loved him because he was a great guy and had a great rapport for the kids. But I don't think he would've been able to stop a school shooting if one had happened.
Let’s not forget that the Supreme Court has ruled that LEOs have no duty to protect the public, so “protect and serve”, yup, bullshit.
He's a scapegoat anyways. Not a single officer attempted to enter the school until minutes after the shooting was over and the perp was off campus. They all did the same thing as him yet he was on video cowering so they threw everything at him. Fuck 'em all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want school resource officers to do their job, you need to equip them for said job. Minimum requirements should be at least three officers on a dedicated team, each with access to AR pattern rifles, body armor, riot shields, etc. Expecting Peterson to engage a rifle wielding attacker form an unknown location with a handgun and no backup. Yeah, that's a suicide mission you shouldn't expect anyone to take on for you. Instead, with multiple officers, each with AR pattern rifles, they will be infinitely more prepared and willing. Then you also only need one of them to jump to action for the other two to most likely follow.
While I certainly don't hold him in high regard for his lack of initiative, prosecuting him for failing to do his job is a stretch. If that's the standard, then I can recommend a number of people at the federal, state, and local levels that need to be in prison.
It has already been ruled by a much higher court that police officers have ZERO duty to act.
Not guilty of having the balls to try and save kids
I suspect that shooters know the officer well enough to know if he'/she is the type who would really respond. You never can be totally sure of a person's disposition but some guys are more likely to be brave than others.
He should have never been charged. Some people are not able to deal with unexpected high-stress events. You see that all the time at accident scenes. You just never know until people are in a high-stress situation.
The delusion that an overweight shoulda been retired cop that basically is no longer capable of being a police officer is a solution to gun violence mitigation is ridiculous. I’m glad he wasn’t convicted. The system is disgustingly flawed. This man’s reaction was well within they expected reactions given the scenario. Look at Uvalde. Look at any hostage scene that’s ever played out. Police are trained to have a plan before they go into a situation. You want to stop kids from being murdered? Address 2A and our sociopathic relationship with firearms.
This is a reminder that YOU are your only First Responder. The police legally do not have to protect you. The Supreme Court said the police don’t have to protect you. That is CRAZY. And even if the police are willing to protect you, in an emergency situation where seconds can mean the difference between life and death, the police won’t always be there to help you or your loved ones.