Former deputy Scot Peterson arrested for child neglect, culpable negligence in connection with Parkl

Even if a guilty vote is emotionally based and not legally based?

 

Officer Friendly will still have the appeals process

If he’s wrongly convicted some lib judge will fix it

 

depends on your definition of being brave? being a combat soldier putting you self at risk of being shot at in my opinion is being brave and that is what combat soldiers do put them selves in the line of fire
firemen entering a burning building their job is being brave
policeman confronting an armed suspect their job is being brave

 

Or a conservative basing it solely on the law.

 

yes it is they sign an oath to protect and serve
cowardly standing outside and not acting during a school shooting is not even close to protecting

 

You mean finding pederson not guilty of neglegence and dereliction of duty

I would vote guilty on both of those charges

 

The person responsible for the deaths is the guy who shot them, not the security guard.

 

You liberals are a peace of work

You want to take away an individuals means of protecting themselves and now you are saying the police have no duty to protect you either

You just want to give murders free reign to murder

 

Disagree. We hire them to do the job. I was a solider, and, yes, we are expected to go in harm's way. That's why soldiers and cops are paid.

 

I feel that the guy has been punished enough after having the international reputation of being a "coward" & by a lifetime of bearing the guilt of failing at his critical job.
Just think of the whispering & pointing that Peterson deals with every day & everywhere he goes.

It feels like he's become the primary scapegoat when there's more than enough blame to go around for this tragedy.

As a fellow devil's advocate, can anyone here be absolutely sure that they would have behaved differently during those critical few minutes?

 

So to be clear, cops should be aggressive, charge in and use their guns immediately if they sense threat and should be prosecuted if they don't AND if they are aggressive, charge in and use their guns mistakenly they should be prosecuted for the people they harm. Question..... who in the hell would take a job like that?

Fight or flight is instinctive and it is really impossible to know which instinct will override until it is your own life on the line. I would not prosecute in this instance and would consider a prosecution unjust and pure scapegoating of an already ruined human being.

 

I am tired of the spouting off of posters who have no idea what it means to be a cop or soldier.

You are supposed to "march toward the gunfire". That is what you do.

 

Studies? Other than Marshall's name one.
Again, this is an argument to show that teachers carrying guns is a bad idea. Also shows that open carry is really worthless unless you want to cause havoc.

 

Then what (in your mind) was his function? Why was he there?

 

I agree with all of this. I also didn't want to slander soldiers by saying that most of them don't engage, I just wanted to point out human nature, and that cowardice is probably much more widespread than heroism when it comes to situation like an active shooter. And I don't exempt myself from this, I honestly do not know how I would react in such a situation. I would hope that I would react heroic, but statistically speaking, it would be much more likely that I would go and hide, just like most anyone else.

 

Yes, all BSO deputies are required to wear body armor.

 

I know for a fact I would, been there done that.

 

I've heard several former DA's now say that the courts have never ruled that the law, even for law enforcement, requires one to put their own life in imminent danger to save another persons life. Are law enforcement supposed to be willing to do so, yes that is why we hire them. If they are presented with such a case and they don't should they be sanctioned with a firing and as in this case even losing your pensions, yes if that is what the investigation shows. But prison? The law and a jury is supposed to take the emotions out of it and go strictly by the law. I have not seen the actual law here and how it would apply, will be interesting to see how this progresses.

 

Police do not come under the UCMJ.

 

I am not a lawyer

But even if I were real lawyers disagree with each other all the time

So your opinion is as good as mine

 

One thing that deserves attention is that government employees dream of retirement and a government pension for the ladt 30 or 40 yearss of their miserable lives

Peterson could avoid jail and still suffer a fate worse than death

 

I've said no different but I have not seen a law yet that says a police officer SHALL enter the building and place his life in imminent danger.

 

To call in others and help them when they arrived.. He had no way of knowing how many shooters there were and where they were at. IMO the police who did go in were foolhardy, they should have waited for SWAT, this is their job.

 

Very good! But they do come under the law, and they are paid to preserve and protect citizens as well as their own pensions.

 

Soldiers maybe, and only when it's totally unavoidable even with them. The reason we have officers and strategy is so you can do an extremely dangerous job with as little harm to yourself as possible. Anyone can just throw bodies at the enemy or run willy nilly into dangerous situations but "to win without fighting is the acme of skill" is the basic principle of all warfare and that applies double to policemen.