Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge rules deputy had duty to protect Parkland students, refuses to toss lawsuit
The Washington Times ^ | December 12, 2018 | Terry Spencer & Curt Anderson-AP

Posted on 12/12/2018 2:37:15 PM PST by jazusamo

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A judge has rejected a deputy’s claim that he had no duty to confront the gunman during the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Refusing to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parent of a victim, Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning found after a hearing Wednesday that ex-deputy Scot Peterson did have a duty to protect those inside the school where 17 people died and 17 were wounded on Feb. 14. Video and other evidence shows Peterson, the only armed officer at the school, remained outside while shots rang out.

The negligence lawsuit was filed by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed. He said it made no sense for Peterson’s attorneys to argue that a sworn law enforcement officer with a badge and a gun had no requirement to go inside.

“Then what is he doing there?” Pollack said after the ruling. “He had a duty. I’m not going to let this go. My daughter, her death is not going to be in vain.”

Peterson attorney Michael Piper said he understands that people might be offended or outraged at his client’s defense, but he argued that as a matter of law, the deputy had no duty to confront the shooter. Peterson did not attend the hearing.

“There is no legal duty that can be found,” Piper said. “At its very worst, Scot Peterson is accused of being a coward. That does not equate to bad faith.”

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: deputypeterson; florida; negligencelawsuit; parkland; schoolshooting; scotpeterson; stonemandouglas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last
Good for this judge. Scot Peterson might not be compelled by law to confront the shooter or cash his payroll check but he always cashed his check.
1 posted on 12/12/2018 2:37:15 PM PST by jazusamo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
Simple rule for manhood: go in the direction of the gunfire.

The bastard had the badge, the gun and the responsibility. He needs to pay the price for his cowardice.

2 posted on 12/12/2018 2:42:01 PM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled on this already. Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm.

He still should have gone in as that was his job.


3 posted on 12/12/2018 2:45:48 PM PST by bubbacluck (America 180)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail
Related image

Exactly! The young people killed and wounded paid the price for this coward.

4 posted on 12/12/2018 2:47:39 PM PST by jazusamo (Have You Donated to Keep Free Republic Up and Running?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

1st the deputy, then go after Sheriff Israel.


5 posted on 12/12/2018 2:48:19 PM PST by DownInFlames (Galsd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bubbacluck
Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm.

That's the way it's been moving the past few decades.

But be sure that if we protect ourselves with any level of serious force we'll be run through the wringer, if not jailed.

6 posted on 12/12/2018 2:49:34 PM PST by fwdude (Forget the Catechism, the RCC's real doctrine is what it allows with impunity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bubbacluck
"Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm."

Which is why we have AR-15s, 30-round magazines, and plenty of practice.

7 posted on 12/12/2018 2:49:40 PM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"Peterson did not attend the hearing."

Didn't have the stones to face the attacker, why should anybody be surprised that he can't face the victims?

POS coward.

8 posted on 12/12/2018 2:50:03 PM PST by Joe 6-pack (Qui me amat, amat et canem meum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo

Finally, if you are going to get paid to provide security, then provide security. Hopefully this ignites a good conversation about what security police CANT provide, and why citizens should not rely on police for safety while being disarmed.


9 posted on 12/12/2018 2:50:57 PM PST by Magnum44 (My comprehensive terrorism plan: Hunt them down and kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

“Simple rule for manhood: go in the direction of the gunfire.”

Take a serious firearm, not a duty 9mm.


10 posted on 12/12/2018 2:51:43 PM PST by carriage_hill (A society grows great when old men plant trees, in whose shade they know they will never sit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

Agreed.....
You want to wear the badge, have the authority and be granted arrest powers.
Now when it comes time to stand up and do the job the public expects,...... you go ahead run.
Hence the term ‘going Columbine’ working its way into the language.
I hope this case receives wide coverage.


11 posted on 12/12/2018 2:52:16 PM PST by LFOD (Formerly - Iraq, Afghanistan - back home in Dixie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill

If all you have available is a .22LR and kids are in danger, you go in.


12 posted on 12/12/2018 2:52:40 PM PST by Chainmail (A simple rule of life: if you can be blamed, you're responsible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

You can take that to the bank, FRiend.


13 posted on 12/12/2018 2:52:54 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Chainmail

Never underestimate a .22 LR. It can ruin your day.


14 posted on 12/12/2018 2:54:13 PM PST by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: bubbacluck

Even with the SCOTUS decision in mind, there may be issues with not following sheriff department guidelines/protocol in place at the time.

Even Broward Sheriff Israel stated as much:

New York Times (2/21/2018) “In School Shooting’s Painful Aftermath, Sheriff Faces Questions Over Police Response”

Excerpt:

“That’s exactly what we’re examining,” Sheriff Israel said, noting that active shooter protocols require confronting suspects as quickly as possible. “You don’t wait for SWAT, you get in, and you push toward the shooter.”


15 posted on 12/12/2018 2:55:22 PM PST by MilesVeritatis (Devote yourself to the truth, no matter where it leads you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Merry Christmas!

Let's Wrap This Baby Up, Folks!

Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a monthly donor!

16 posted on 12/12/2018 2:55:35 PM PST by jazusamo (Have You Donated to Keep Free Republic Up and Running?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bubbacluck

> I am pretty sure the Supreme Court has ruled on this already. Police do not have an obligation to protect us from harm. <

But I wonder how broad that ruling was. Is there a difference between the cops not responding for whatever reason, and a cop being on-scene, but doing nothing?

Because the Supreme Court ruling was about the former. Cops didn’t respond to a plea for help. But in the Parkland case, the cop was right there. And he knew for an absolute fact that his help was needed. That’s depraved indifference in my book.

Here’s an article about that Supreme court ruling.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html


17 posted on 12/12/2018 2:59:52 PM PST by Leaning Right (I have already previewed or do not wish to preview this composition.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bubbacluck

” pretty sure”

You’re correct. I think the only thing they can claim is that he didn’t follow the department’s procedure.


18 posted on 12/12/2018 3:02:51 PM PST by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jazusamo
"Good for this judge."

The Supreme Court ruling regarding the fact that the police have no duty to protect any particular person is a tremendously significant decision which supports the Second Amendment.

The dead girl's parents entrusted the welfare of their daughter to anti-gun liberals. Any expectation that they would protect her was unreasonable given the known attitude of liberals toward self-defense with firearms.

The recent decision of some schools to arm their classrooms with buckets of rocks to throw at attackers is an ever-so-slight movement in the right direction. I am reminded of a story attributed to Churchill:

“Churchill: "Madam, would you sleep with me for five million pounds?"
Socialite: "My goodness, Mr. Churchill... Well, I suppose... we would have to discuss terms, of course... "
Churchill: "Would you sleep with me for five pounds?"
Socialite: "Mr. Churchill, what kind of woman do you think I am?!"
Churchill: "Madam, we've already established that. Now we are haggling about the price”

Liberals who support having buckets of rocks in the classroom are just haggling over what the most effective weapon is for stopping an armed attacker. They have already agreed that the students and teachers must be prepared to defend themselves.

19 posted on 12/12/2018 3:05:16 PM PST by William Tell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bubbacluck

This is true of the general public at large.

But a school is not the general public. It is minors in a government facility where they are required by law to attend, making the government “in loco parentis” and therefore responsible for their safety and Mr. Peterson was specifically tasked as a school security officer.

Mr Peterson now has a large legal problem because there is an argument to be made and this may wind up in front of the supreme court.


20 posted on 12/12/2018 3:05:42 PM PST by Valpal1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson