Parkland Florida School Shooting

[txdpd]

The Warren V. DC case that has been referenced is a civil case...not criminal. The 'Special Relationship' discussed applies to Tort Law. I am not personally aware of another case of an officer being criminally charged in a Neglect of Duty scenario. Administratively....fry him. Civilly....go for it. Criminally? Not so sure about the precedent that sets. If any members are aware of any other case where an officer was criminally charged for what he didn't do, I'd like to hear about it.

All of this seems to be predicated off of the idea that if Peterson had responded he would have located the shooter and successfully engaged him. There's a huge leap of logic going on that absolute failure and absolute success were the only two possible outcomes. I think this is a matter of not just proving what he didn't do, but also proving what would have happened, and don't see how that's going to happen.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 42 USC 1983 lawsuits start rolling in. What’s different here is that FDLE has determined that Peterson was a “caregiver” to the children and had a legal obligation to protect them, this isn’t a case where the plaintiff is trying to establish a special relationship anymore, it’s been done by an independent LE agency.

I feel for the families, this might feel like a little bit of closure but it’s just them getting picked up so they can slammed on the ground a little harder.

[BJJ]

In my view, one of the things that is screwing up law enforcement is that all the liability is a result of taking action so inaction can become a default. For example, if an officer pursues a violent criminal in a vehicle and an innocent person is hurt as a result, there is generally at least a perception of liability for the officer/department. However, if an officer chooses not to pursue a violent criminal who hurts someone a short time later, there is generally no way an officer will be penalized. This is a step in the other direction. It will be very interesting to see where this leads.

As far as the criminal prosecution, my off the cuff guess is guilty of perjury and the rest of it evaporates.

[Coyotesfan97]

I don't know if it's ever been decided by a court, but to me I would think so.

Regardless of common sense, I imagine it's not written in policy or statute that the SRO is there to protect the children, and so I can see it being challenged on those grounds. "Not in my job description" sort of defense.

That’s why we put Officers in schools. It’s to stop active shooters. It might be the reason that doesn’t get a lot of publicity hidden behind the PR fluffy stuff. I’m not an SRO so I’ve never been through their training. If I was in charge of training the first class of the training day would be very explicit about their duty to protect the kids in their school.

If you’re an SRO in a school you’re the first line of defense. It’s your job to stop or at least slow down an active shooter until the cavalry shows up. You aren’t getting the meat eaters applying for jobs in the school. You better make sure the Officer Friendlies know they might be paying the tab on their cushy day shift job/benefits by fighting an active shooter(s).

[Stephanie B]

This will be interesting to see how it develops. It could be a ploy to get out of paying his pension. It's really going to complicate law enforcement. You have states charging you for stuff you do and now you have states charging you for stuff you don't do. Lot of people might decide to become an accountant or something else instead of being a cop.

Mass shootings may statistically be rare events, but the perception is that they aren’t. With the caveat that I am far out of my lane, IIRC, the tactic of “hold a perimeter and wait for SWAT” began to be discredited after Columbine.

SROs have had to know that their job isn’t just a mixture of Officers Friendly and Krupke. SROs are the ones who are on the scene when a school-shooting starts; the only one there with the best tool to end it.

Kids are apparently being taught “run, hide, fight.” Parkland had kids who could have run but didn’t, dying to help others escape.

So I ask: Is it wrong to expect an armed SRO to be at least as brave as unarmed kids? Is it wrong to charge one who was not with the equivalent of cowardice in battle (or, as the Brits used to put it, “lack of moral fibre”)?

[JHC]

This will be interesting to see how it develops. It could be a ploy to get out of paying his pension. It's really going to complicate law enforcement. You have states charging you for stuff you do and now you have states charging you for stuff you don't do. Lot of people might decide to become an accountant or something else instead of being a cop.

I wonder if there aren't electoral politics behind the unprecedented charging. I mean, it sure sounds like justice. But it's a pretty fair leap.

[Stephanie B]

I wonder if there aren't electoral politics behind the unprecedented charging. I mean, it sure sounds like justice. But it's a pretty fair leap.

There may be a little “pour encourager les autres” going on, too.

[hufnagel]

I wonder if there aren't electoral politics behind the unprecedented charging. I mean, it sure sounds like justice. But it's a pretty fair leap.

I think this is a given any time a high profile case comes up. (I.E.: Zimmerman)

[TGS]

All of this seems to be predicated off of the idea that if Peterson had responded he would have located the shooter and successfully engaged him. There's a huge leap of logic going on that absolute failure and absolute success were the only two possible outcomes.

I don't see the situation that way; the way the charging documents are written, it sounds like the legal standard they want is to simply try, which makes sense to me.

[TGS]

All of this seems to be predicated off of the idea that if Peterson had responded he would have located the shooter and successfully engaged him. There's a huge leap of logic going on that absolute failure and absolute success were the only two possible outcomes.

Just to follow up on this, I looked up the statutes.

1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child

So, as simple as possible he violated this one alone for failing to attempt to render medical aid to the kids when he should have.

2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

Here we see the "reasonable effort" standard, not a 100% success/failure requirement like you're interpreting of the situation. Seems legit, and I think it's narrow enough that it doesn't create a dangerous precedent for LEOs.

[BehindBlueI's]

Just to follow up on this, I looked up the statutes.



So, as simple as possible he violated this one alone for failing to attempt to render medical aid to the kids when he should have.



Here we see the "reasonable effort" standard, not a 100% success/failure requirement like you're interpreting of the situation. Seems legit, and I think it's narrow enough that it doesn't create a dangerous precedent for LEOs.

827.01 Definitions.—As used in this chapter:
(1) “Caregiver” means a parent, adult household member, or other person responsible for a child’s welfare.

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.