Reply to Thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nemesis" data-source="post: 3240288" data-attributes="member: 12082">I seem to have read that the case upon which SCOTUS ruled applied to officers where no crisis had actually occurred.&nbsp; It applied to a situation where the potential for a crisis might exist.Peterson&#039;s situation is different.&nbsp; There was an active shooter and he was a duly sworn officer of the law.&nbsp; But yes, it will be interesting to see how this plays out.&nbsp; And it would seem the perjury charge is a slam dunk.&nbsp; He lied to the authorities when he said he didn&#039;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.&nbsp; He&#039;s currently getting $8,000 a month pension.&nbsp; They&#039;re going after that, I&#039;m sure.&nbsp; I cannot imagine them finding an unbiased jury.&nbsp; That, in itself, would seem to be grounds for appeal regardless.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nemesis, post: 3240288, member: 12082"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification