This is a great point. He wasn’t patrolling the street. He was supposed to be protecting the school and more importantly the students. He failed miserably at both.
I seem to have read that the case upon which SCOTUS ruled applied to officers where no crisis had actually occurred. It applied to a situation where the potential for a crisis might exist.
Peterson's situation is different. There was an active shooter and he was a duly sworn officer of the law.
But yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.
And it would seem the perjury charge is a slam dunk. He lied to the authorities when he said he didn't know where the threat was located; and that after he was already taped telling other officers where the threat was located and warning them to stay away. He's currently getting $8,000 a month pension. They're going after that, I'm sure.
I cannot imagine them finding an unbiased jury. That, in itself, would seem to be grounds for appeal regardless.
needs a cell with bubba
Used to be it was a bad thing for a cop if he went to prison and was put in with general population.
Maybe not any more. Used to be it was bad for a child molester to be put in gen pop, but from what I've read on other forums from jailers and prison guards, not any longer.
If the loser cashed that pay check every pay period he should have done his job! Cowards are a dime a dozen. Failing to protect children is in forgivable!
While I hole heartedly agree with this, it will be interesting to see this play out as the SCOTUS has repeatedly ruled that the individual officer doesn't have a duty to protect an individual from harm. Perjury is a slam dunk and I hope that if this sticks others like the former sheriff are taken down too.
yeah, that's why we need the Guns..........
yeah, that's why we need the Guns..........
But do officers have a duty to prevent mass slaughter of innocent children?
I may not remember all the details correctly because it's been several years ago, but I read a story a while back about a woman suing a police officer. A guy or guys were robbing a restaurant, and one of the robbers ***** a woman customer in the process. An off duty policeman was there, but didn't do anything to stop the assault, and she sued because he didn't intervene. I remember part of his defense being that if he had acted, the perp might have killed her and as it was, she at least survived the attack. The courts (I think) ruled that he had no duty to protect her, without regard to whether he was on duty or not, and in fact the police department had no duty to protect her.
Seems like this happened somewhere in Texas, but I could be wrong about parts of the story.
Seems like this happened somewhere in Texas, but I could be wrong about parts of the story.
My legal strategy here would be that he did not have a duty to protect any child. He had a duty to protect the in loco parentis children he was assigned, trained and equipped to protect. He was also obviously aware of a violent felony in progress, rather than investigating a suspicious activity report. Further, he not only failed his primary duty, he acted to prevent other officers from performing their duty! That would completely remove the applicability of Warren v. DC, South v. Maryland or Bowers v. DeVito. Hence the need for new caselaw specific to this scenario.
Sadly I'm a realist and have no illusions that this indictment is intended to hold ex-deputy Coward accountable. It's obviously and attempt to deflect from the culpability of ex-sheriff Israel, MS-DHS principal Thompson and the Broward County School board.
Similar threads
