Posted on 02/26/2018 11:18:51 AM PST by conservative98
The Florida sheriff’s deputy who did nothing as a killer stalked the halls of Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS spoke out for the first time Monday, saying he’s not a coward, according to a report.
Deputy Scot Peterson — who resigned in disgrace from his position as a school resource officer last week — said through a lawyer that he believed the shooter was outside the high school and that protocol demanded he “seek cover,” according to the Miami Herald.
“[He] heard gunshots but believed those gunshots were originating from outside of the buildings on the school campus,” his Fort Lauderdale-based lawyer, Joseph DiRuzzo, said in a statement.
“Broward Sheriff’s Office trains its officers that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes with other law enforcement,” it notes. “[His actions] were appropriate under the circumstances.”
“Allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue,” DiRuzzo said in the statement.
Peterson claims he took cover after responding to a report that firecrackers were going off at he school, his lawyer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Peterson is not the only one. As I wrote a moment ago, “Who are the other three cowards? Odd this coward is the only one named. Why? Are the other three protected by thin blue line, by union and this guy not? Are the others white or Hispanic while this coward is African-American?” I just did some online search and see repeated mention that “at least three other deputies also did not go inside. And occasional mention that the sheriff is investigating (ha!). Well, my conclusion is that that Peterson was named before they could could protect their own, now the other three are protected by a wall of silence. Shameful. They all, from the sheriff on down, have blood on their hands. Name them, fire ‘em.
If you can’t tell firecrackers from gunshots you shouldn’t be in front line law enforcement.
what SCOTUS case was that ?
True Story - In the mid-80s, I was in a church service and heard a loud pop. My first thought was "Fire cracker"
But then there was a second pop and my next thought "That is not a fire-cracker". I pushed my family down beneath the pews and began to run toward the sound.
The story was that a lot of unarmed men all moved toward the fire to take the gun away from a Knot-Head. They did not hesitate.
The event ended well as the offender had taken a shot through his girl-friend's head for giving her heart to Christ, then turned the gun on himself. The bullet passed through her mouth from one cheek to the next, only hitting soft tissue. She was back a couple of week later telling us as how now she had perfect vision, something she lacked before. The shooter also recovered, having first giving himself a frontal lobotomy.
It is not my place to call the deputy a coward, but as a retired LEO, you move to eliminate the threat of deadly force, seek cover as necessary, but return fire. Otherwise, if you can't pull the trigger, then turn in your gun, you are worthless.
I bet we have thousands of Scot Peterson’s in departments all across the country. They are unknown to us and hopefully it stays that way til they retire. Not everyone can run towards gunfire and danger. Our police departments aren’t looking for bravery as much as they are public relations. I hope more departments put an emphasis on bravery when they hire new police officers.
He needs to get his hearing checked.
Firemen run into burning buildings.
And then storm away in a satisfied dudgeon huh.
Except that not being the supervision you don’t have the power.
The system looks like Keystone already, and it would not take much to get it completely off track. That’s probably what the kids already know when screaming for gun control (as if it could work any better than the Keystone cops charged to enforce it, but treat one logical link at a time).
Just because his lawyer says it does not make it so. That’s the face of a gutless coward who was counting down the days to retirement.
Cops:
“We protect each other, citizens, not so much, and never if it means a scintilla of danger for us personally!”
Yep.
But who, in the cavalcade of clowns involved in this matter, do you think could run a brutally honest AAR?
WTF?
A minute by minute timeline for the Sheriff’s whereabouts and his actions that afternoon would be interesting.
I have a bad feeling that he’s going to hold on to his position like grim death, and nothing will happen to him.
The interesting thing about this particular event is that it is a posterchild for why we need to get rid of “gun free” zones.
So when all the students were running out of the building, did he still think the shooting wasn’t taking place inside? Nothing he witnessed as the situation unfolded or anyone may have said when he encountered them coming outside suggested or even remotely indicated an active shooter was inside? Really? Really?
I would love to see the phone logs for incoming/outgoing calls.
I don’t know about you, but I always hide behind a car with a drawn handgun when I hear firecrackers going off! Because you never know when some perp is going to run by and drop an M-80 in your shorts! But in Peterson’s defense, since there’s nothing in his shorts to protect, all of his hiding was to no avail.
The new police motto: “Observe, Not Protect”
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.