Parkland Florida School Shooting

[TGS]

Interesting. All three cases from Michigan, which apparently does have a "Willful neglect of Duty" section in their Criminal Code for all public officers.

I personally assumed it would have been more prevalent, and coming from an EMS background where failing to act carried criminal penalties I don't necessarily see a problem with it. FWIW, I'm finding more states that have it. I just found a whole bunch of cases from Ohio.

You just gotta find their statute's wording. Dereliction of duty, neglect of duty, etc.

As BBI's hashed out with me, it looks like it's not possible in Florida with their given statutes though.

[Zincwarrior]

The Volokh Conspiracy has an article that basically argues that the charges amount to "cowardice in battle."

I am ok with that. He was paid and accepted the specific responsibility of protecting those children from just such an attack.

[rsa-otc]

A couple of thoughts:

It has been mentioned in passing the supreme court decisions that the police are not legally bound to protect individuals. So does a school full of kids equate to a bunch of individuals or a community?

Also wasn't there a female supervisor who if memory serves: 1. Gave orders to hold in place and 2. Stopped short of arriving on the scene herself? If this deputy is criminally liable, shouldn't she be tarred with the same brush and face similar penalties?

I am not saying that either should face criminal charges, loss of job and pension most certainly. I'm a bit uncomfortable with the criminal charges of "child neglect with great harm" and some what with "neglect of duty". Perjury charges are most certainly warranted.

[StraitR]

If our constitutional rights and personal freedoms are threatened after each mass shooting event, it's not that surprising to see an SRO charged in this way after a school shooting. Regardless of his actions or inactions, I think this was just a matter of time. Even if they laugh all charges out of the courthouse, this will likely be a thing moving forward.

[BWT]

All I’ll add is - this was the premise I put forward in a public speaking class for concealed carry on campus.

I can’t say anyone would go running into gun fire 100 out of 100 times. But the people in those classrooms don’t have the luxury of deciding if that’s a challenge they will have to face.

Let them exercise their rights.

This SRO will be judged / marred by society the rest of his life. That’s a hard road and I’m not sure what to conclude about the guy.

I will pray for all involved that seems to be the wisest thing. There’s simply so much loss, pain, regret, anger, etc. it’s pretty terrible all around. Policies need to change and things improve from this - I don’t know if putting this man to the fire is the answer.

I was listening to Kyle Lamb talk to west pointers about Mogadishu and he said the biggest thing that he saw as a benefit afterwards was the first aid / battle aid that all soldiers and many first responders now receive. Also, all of the awesome products made to stop things like sucking chest wounds.

That’s my aspirations/hopes for this horrible mess - we make it more difficult for this type of thing to happen again.

Anyway, I’m rambling. Good night guys.

[ssb]

Loooong stretch to say a LEO is a "caregiver" per the definition attached to that chapter of the criminal code. He is not legally responsible for the welfare of any specific child.

The law nerd phrase you didn't ask for is ejusdem generis. In effect, it means that when you have a general phrase (like "or other person responsible for a child's welfare") which follows a list of more specifically-defined phrases (like "parent" or "adult household member"), we construe the general phrase to refer to things similar to those specifically enumerated.

That statute plainly speaks to parents or responsible adults in the home (i.e. child living with grandparent or aunt). While I understand the anger towards him, charging him for child neglect under that statutory definition is, in my opinion, overreach.

[Dog Guy]

I have a hard time with the idea of taking his pension. It falls under "be careful what you wish for." In Parkland, the mob is demanding his ruin for not rushing in and killing the bad guy. In Sacramento and Baltimore and Ferguson and "insert city here" the mobs are demanding ruin of officers who shot what PF considers to be bad guys, but the mob sees it differently. Many an officer or fire fighter or paramedic who spoke truth to power has been railroaded out of a job by chiefs or council members or aldermen. Officers get screwed by admin, but they can at least count on getting the pension they earned for the work they already did. If this guy has years of evaluations telling him he's doing an adequate job, then he earned the pension for the work already performed. The time to brand him a cowardly piece of crap who doesn't deserve a pension or a paycheck was before the Sheriff gave him a job and promised compensation for performing work. I'm fine with families filing civil actions to try to get as much of his wealth as a jury sees fit, but retroactively backing out of an agreement after the work is done is a very slippery slope.

[john c]

I'm not familiar with FL law, but how could this case affect his pension in any way? In my state, a state pensioner can technically lose their pension for being convicted of a felony or treason. The fact is that a LOT of pensioners and state workers (including cops and firefighters) have been convicted of felonies over the years, and the state has taken no adverse action against their accrued pension. The state public employees unions don't even bat an eye when the topic comes up, usually in an egregious case like this one. Taking adverse action against an accrued pension would show selective enforcement.

[Thy.Will.Be.Done]

According to Dr. Bruce Lipton, the subconscious mind is literally a million times more powerful than the conscious mind, it will win every time. If the subconscious says 'you will die if you act against the shooter', no amount of will power or knowing it's the right thing to do will overcome this.

Dr. Bruce Lipton - "Do You Know Your Mind?"

https://www.brucelipton.com/blog/do-...tand-your-mind

This is really the same issue of soldiers failing to follow orders, which has been punished heavily for ages. In their case, did they have choice over their actions if the subconscious decided it was the only action that would be most likely to preserve their life?

Radical islamic soldiers believe things will really get better for them after death, therefore they will tend to run into the face of certain death. I would imagine it is easy to spot the ones who don't believe, because they will surrender at a certain point for fear of death.

[PearTree]

I'm not familiar with FL law, but how could this case affect his pension in any way? In my state, a state pensioner can technically lose their pension for being convicted of a felony or treason. The fact is that a LOT of pensioners and state workers (including cops and firefighters) have been convicted of felonies over the years, and the state has taken no adverse action against their accrued pension. The state public employees unions don't even bat an eye when the topic comes up, usually in an egregious case like this one. Taking adverse action against an accrued pension would show selective enforcement.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/...0112.3173.html

What the law says which I linked and how it’s actually carried out is two different matters. Basically if you are terminated for an alleged felony your pension can be yanked.