I read Miguel’s posts on this topic and thought I would give a summary of my own take.
I agree with Miguel, the majority of this trial is for show.
The media and county went all in to protect Scott Israel and the chicken shit Scot Peterson in the days following the shooting.
A year later, after all the details and witness testimonies were made public, and the truth of the entire incompetent, ham-fisted, cluster-fuck, shit-show debacle came out, everybody who rode to the defense of the BSO had egg on their faces.
Governor Ron DeSantis scored a blow for justice by removing Scott Israel from his position. Scott Israel was further discredited by the ruling in his appeal.
Now it is time for Broward County to clean the egg off its face, so it is going forward with this show trial. The problem will be that this case will be dismissed and it will make everyone look even worse.
Here is the real issue in this case.
Moral culpability versus legal guilt.
Clearly, the chicken shit Scot Peterson is morally culpable. He took a job as a school resource officer, with a moral duty to protect the children of the school he was assigned to. We as a society trust that our police officers, armed and armored by the state, paid with tax dollars, and given special privileges and protections will do their moral duty to protect us in moments of crisis.
That is part of the fabric of good social order.
But that is not the law. The chicken shit Scot Peterson did not have a special duty to protect those students as a matter of law or statute. This has been the position of the courts for decades.
So while he violated society’s trust in him, and abdicate his moral responsibility, he never actually broke the law.
He is morally culpable but not legally guilty.
That tears at our hearts because we WANT moral culpability and legal guilt to overlap. We don’t like to see a bad person get away with a bad act without consequence. But that is what is going to happen here.
The only part of the indictment that might have any weight is the perjury part, and that feels like it is only there to get him some jail time after the rest of the charges are dismissed. All the outrage (and rightfully so) is at his inaction, and not that he lied to cover his ass after his inaction became public.
Scot Peterson is a dickless, feckless, gutless, yellow-bellied, chicken shit fucking coward.
He deserved to be called out and publicly shamed wherever he goes. When he dies, people should visit his grave to piss on his headstone. The moral culpability for at least six deaths weighs on his head.
But he is not guilty of a crime according to the laws of the State of Florida.
There may be one or two positive unintended consequences of this case being dismissed:
The legislature could change the law to make there be a legal duty to protect under certain circumstances.
A better public understanding of “no duty to protect” leading to more support for armed teachers and concealed carry, i.e., “if they don’t have to protect us, we will have to protect ourselves.”
As for this case, we as a society will have to have to accept not seeing the chicken shit Scot Peterson die in prison, because moral culpability is not necessarily legal guilt, as much as we may want it to be.
Can you imagine what would happen if this case is upheld? It would mean every government in every part of the U.S. would be responsible if you stubbed your toe on your own property. I could sue the city of Austin for the 3 break ins I suffered in the years I lived there and the city would have to pay off instead of my insurance with a “deductible”. As much as people would like this High school chicken shit to be found guilty such a finding would turn society on its head. His punishment will be the days he spends in jail til he bails out and having to pay the attorney to get the case thrown out.
Point of order:
“… and advocated his moral responsibility…”
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/advocate
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/abdicate
Pedantic Man… up, up and AWAAAAAaayyyyy…..
I know the difference. Grammerly does not. Ducking spell check.
We awl hate smell checkers.
I think I just figured out what they are going after in piling on all the charges against the former deputy. I’m eligible for a public safety pension from a small municipality in South Florida. In our pension language you can lose your pension if you convicted of a crime of moral turpitude ie perjury. I don’t know if the Florida retirement system has the same language but I bet that they do. So in the end the former deputy will probably spend all of his DROP money defending himself from these charges but will probably only be convicted of the perjury charges thus losing his pension and FRS will probably claw back any pension payments he has received so far.
https://www.myfrs.com/Faq_PensionPlan.htm
Found check section 10102 halfway down the page
I keep seeing people harp on the “no duty to protect” any particular individual unless a “special relationship” exists (i.e. the individual is in police custody).
I see one — and only one — narrow way the neglect and negligence charges don’t get thrown out:
Scot Peterson didn’t have a duty to protect any individual(s). He DID have a duty to reasonably intervene in a violent crime-in-progress to enforce the law and protect the community — and a school full of upwards of two thousand kids is a key fixture of the community.
He had no duty to protect Meadow Pollack or any other individual. He had a duty to protect the high school at large.
If the court finds that he had no duty to protect the community, one possible unintended consequence of that precedent is that a sheriff’s deputy has no duty to intervene in ANYTHING in an official capacity.
Guy setting fires in city parks? No duty to protect.
Lady driving 90 mph through a school zone? No duty to intervene.
Sumdood plowing a delivery truck through a parade (a la Nice, France)? It’s just a bunch of individuals, no duty to protect them.
Guy vandalizing a Krispy Kreme parking lot? Holy crap! Gotta respond! Not to stop him, mind you, but because I want a donut.
Everyone’s focus is on the “no duty to protect” bit, but forget that LEOs have no duty to protect individuals. A high school full of kids is not an individual.
Yes, I believe ultimately those charges will get tossed; the courts will be extremely hesitant to set ANY kind of new precedent.
However, if I were arguing it, this is part of the case I would make. A community was under active threat from a violent criminal, and he had a duty to reasonably respond to enforce the law and protect the community. Not any individual; the community. And he failed in that duty not only for himself, but by telling other responders to stay back while the violent crime was still in progress. (And then, yes, he lied about it later.)
That’s the only way I see any of the charges sticking.
Another way to look at it is that these charges expose the “no duty” thing to the public. We’ve known about it for ages, but most people have no idea that such an aberration could possibly exist.
There are a couple of possible outcomes.
1. Archer’s reasoning (duty does exist “to the community”) prevails, and he goes to jail. FiftyCal’s concern doesn’t come into play there, because that is still covered by the “no duty to any single individual” notion.
2. He walks, but the legislature realizes this is unacceptable and passes a law covering “dereliction of duty” similar to the one applied to the military.
3. He walks and the legislature does nothing, at which point the public will start wondering why they should continue to waste tax money on a police force that doesn’t actually do anything — or at least, isn’t required to do anything.
I agree that he had no legal duty to enter the building and engage the shooter, but I wonder if his interference with other first responders could enter into the equation.