Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the bill into law Wednesday, despite pleas from gun control activists that he veto it. He stressed at an event Thursday that the program is voluntary and at the discretion of local school boards. “The characterization of it as an armed teacher bill is, quite frankly, spin," DeSantis said. "This is something that if a school district wants then they are allowed to. Nobody is forcing them to do anything.”
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...hbu-story.html
"Peterson has been booked into the Broward Main Jail on 11 criminal charges, including child neglect, culpable negligence and perjury."
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...outputType=amp
Interesting. I'll be looking to see how this one plays out.Originally Posted by scjbash
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Do cases like Warren vs DC have relevance to what fmr. Deputy Peterson is facing?
I'm no lawyer but the Warren v. DC cite (which I knew of, made me Google it). Without reading the whole thing and knowing that Wikis can be crap, I found this part interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren...ct_of_Columbian a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts' dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that "the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists". The Court thus adopted the trial court's determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.
https://law.justia.com/cases/distric...81/79-6-3.html
Does being an assigned officer at a school, given the risk of rampages nowadays - generate a special relationship? Someone with more expertise could weigh in.
Last edited by Glenn E. Meyer; 06-04-2019 at 04:13 PM.
While his behavior and performance are certainly examples of failure, (and admittedly without knowledge of any additional supporting facts), I'd be very surprised if this matter holds up in the courts. Seems like one of those arrests / indictments that get trotted out to assuage the public outrage and then gets settled once it's off the front page.
My gut says this will not stand up. (Again, absent knowledge of additional supporting evidence of criminal wrongdoing.)
There's nothing civil about this war.
What about the perjury charge?
”But in the end all of these ideas just manufacture new criminals when the problem isn't a lack of criminals.” -JRB
Perjury is the wild card, like (federal) 18 USC 1001, that prosecutors have as a last resort. Might get a plea deal if the defense attorney doesn't feel he can beat it on its face.
There's nothing civil about this war.
So basically, except for the perjury charge, the rest of it all for "feelz"?
FFS, can both sides quit standing on the bodies of those dead children? Please?
That is simply my gut take. Please don't take it as some sort of informed opinion as I have done no exhaustive research into the evidence and the statutes and don't intend to.
I completely agree with you that all sides should stop using the children and the event for their political and partisan purposes.
There's nothing civil about this war.
Reply With Quote