FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — Many have called him a coward, but former sheriff’s deputy Scot Peterson had no legal duty to stop the slaughter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, his attorneys say.
Peterson took shelter rather than confront the killer, but he did not act with malice or bad faith, according to his attorneys, Michael Piper and Christopher Stearns of Fort Lauderdale. Therefore he can’t be held legally responsible for the deaths, they say in court documents.
Allegations against Peterson suggest only that he “opted for self-preservation over heroics,” the attorneys wrote.
…
A Florida statute gives immunity to officers for injury suffered as a result of what they do while on the job unless they acted in bad faith or exhibited “wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property, ” the attorneys say.
Lawyers: Parkland deputy wasn’t legally required to stop
I went looking for the particular statute and other than one offering immunity for false imprisonment, I can’t find anything like the lawyers quote.
Another source uses words that are more familiar to us:
The motion claims, “No duty of care exists at common law for an individual to address the killer and kill the killer.”
Scot Peterson’s Attorneys Say He Had No Duty To Stop Parkland School Shooting
Finally I was able to find Scot Peterson’s Motion to Dismiss and it gave me the proper statute: 768.28 Waiver of sovereign immunity in tort actions; recovery limits; limitation on attorney fees; statute of limitations; exclusions; indemnification; risk management programs.
(9)(a) No officer, employee, or agent of the state or of any of its subdivisions shall be held personally liable in tort or named as a party defendant in any action for any injury or damage suffered as a result of any act, event, or omission of action in the scope of her or his employment or function, unless such officer, employee, or agent acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.
This is obviously legally important, but something else is in the Motion to Dismiss and that is quotes of cases siding with the Defendant. I think I heard it from Andrew Branca about the importance of jurisprudence on case and this motion is full of that, well over a dozen court cases in Florida that are quoted in favor of the defendant.
Also on the article, we find this quote from Peterson’s lawyer
“Passion and emotion of any kind, whether it’s sympathy or anger or desire for catharsis, whatever it is, has no place in a legal analysis if someone is responsible for damages,” Piper said in an interview.
That is referred to the language used in the lawsuit against Peterson and others. Here are some screen captures :
I am not a lawyer and only read a few lawsuits and court papers compared to one, but I think that is pretty incendiary name-calling that fits better social media rather than court documents. I support the sentiment wholly, but I think it is not the proper location to display it and it could sabotage the case even more. I cannot see why lawyers would use that language unless they were forced by their client.
On that last thought, I don’t think Mr. Pollack is expecting to win, but he is enraged enough to just drag Peterson’s name through the mud and have a legal record of doing so. Again from the article:
“I really feel that we exposed him to everyone in the country, and we are going to keep exposing him,” Pollack said. “He hasn’t seen the last of (my lawyer) and myself.”
No doubt that Peterson is scum (OK, lower than), but I am afraid that Mr. Pollack is gonna end up ruining his life because of him. Anger must be properly targeted and used in a meaningful way. I would not be surprised if in the future we hear that Peterson was seriously injured or killed by Andrew Pollack, specially if the lawsuit is thrown out.
So we have two options:
1. Change the law, all the way up to the Federal level, such that government officials can be held personally accountable. That includes reversing the “no duty to protect” findings.
2. Take responsibility for self protection, because even if by some miracle #1 is accomplished, it still won’t affect response times unless we’re willing to have most of the population paid as LEOs. I think we don’t want that, and couldn’t afford it if we could.
Option 1 might not be as outlandish as it might have been even a year ago.
Lots of people are encountering this statutory situation for the first time with these murders and lack of police response.
They’re baffled at the idea that we’re forbidden to do something in the event of a murder spree at a school while at the same time the police are not compelled to do anything. They near universally exclaim that they supported giving the police more powers, at the expense of us citizens, because the police HAD to do it.
Now they are learning they was took.
Boris, the right answer is your #2. I have no faith in #1. Mostly because “if second matter, cops are only minutes away”. And also because the government always weasels out of laws, so creating a duty to protect won’t actually work.
There’s also the question of whether a statutory duty to protect will do more harm than good. Worth thinking about.
Again, this brings home the scotus ruling of no obiligation to protect. Maybe at some point the libtards will get this in their thick skulls and stop going after guns, but that is wishful thinking.
Sovereign immunity needs to be repealed immediately.
There also needs to be a lower standard like dereliction of duty. Since Columbine we’ve know that the best thing to do with an active shooter is confront him right away. That was BSO policy. He failed to do that.
He violated 19 years of known policy. He was derelict in his duty.
“unless such officer, employee, or agent acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of human rights, safety, or property.”
I would say he certainly acted with willful disregard of human rights and safety. How can they ignore this section of the law?
same as with duty to protect, he did not have direct “contract” with the young girl.
Imagine if he had a child in that school. He would have gone in guns blazing. It clearly demonstrates his dereliction of duty. He just did not care enough to do what he was paid to do. So he stole his salary the whole time he was there.
No, he earned his salary from Sheriff Israel when he covered for Parkland and Israel after he helped cover up an assault by Israel’s 17 year old son.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article211908439.html
Some pigs are more equal than others. Just ask Comey and Mueller.
That is the reason I support arming volunteer teachers, administrators, and support staff. They may have different politics than me, but every teacher I know loves and cares for at least some of their students. Many would stand in the breach on that dark day.
Compare and contrast with the Law Enforcement Professionals and the hired Security Monitors at Parkland. One even hid in a closet.