The Honey-Do list had accumulated to the point of near avalanche so I had to take care of some items.

To give you an idea how things are going, I finally decided that the fire extinguisher in my office should  no longe be on the floor but properly mounted. I chose the side of one of the bookcases, measured twice and installed the bracket.

Upside down.

Apparently the stream of profanities ws such that even mom came back inside from her gardening chores to see what happened.

And that is another thing:

It is 11:20 am and the temp is in the low 90s. Yesterday she did the same thing and came back inside flushed and complaining she was not feeling well.  And do you think she learned her lesson? Nope.

I think this has been one of the best tributes made to the soldiers partaking the invasion of Fortress Europa.

We still stand in the shoulders of giant warriors.

I posted back in December about a paper I found online explaining what was legally needed to establish/prove Special Relationship so No Duty to Protect doe not count.  I urge you to read it and to understand what is the law which means it is not the same as we wish we wanted the law to be in this case.

To establish a special relationship, a plaintiff has the burden of proving: (1) an assumption by the municipality, through promises or actions, of an affirmative duty to act on behalf of the party who was injured; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality’s agents that inaction could lead to harm; (3) some form of direct contact between the municipality’s agents and the injured party; and (4) the injured party’s justifiable reliance on the municipality’s affirmative undertaking. All four elements must be proven, and if not, the claim will fail.

With the talk going around about Trump banning silencers, I hear now the same assholes on “our side” who wanted the NRA ‘burned to the ground now!’ (and even went as far as to constantly repost articles from Bloomberg’s anti gun  “The Trace”) complaining about why are the Republicans not showing a bigger backbone and how come the NRA is not doing anything to stop it.

Guess what? The bovines are their way to their abode. Stop complaining, get on your suit and go to Washington D.C. to lobby the congresscritters. You guys said you did not need the NRA, right. That anybody could do a better job without compromise?

Put up or shut up.

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.

I was sent this just now. It seems I was not far off the baseline:

Interesting: No mention of perjury. I wonder why.

The charges are seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury.

According to Florida Statutes 827.03:

(e) “Neglect of a child” means:
1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.

Peterson was not a caregiver. There is nothing in Florida Statutes 1006.12 – Safe-school officers at each public school,  that says a SRO is a caregiver but only a police officer allowed to be in school and enforce the law.  And remember, it is what the law says, not what we want the law to be so it makes us feel good. And even in school No Duty to Protect applies.

Now, the charges of culpable negligence if they were to stick (doubtfully) are a best a misdemeanor if found guilty.

So we end up with perjury:

837.02 Perjury in official proceedings.—(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) Whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding that relates to the prosecution of a capital felony, commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

So they are applying to Scott Peterson the same thing the FBI and other federal entities apply to minions in investigations: “I don’t have the evidence of the main evil deed we are charging you with, but this statement you made under oath does not match what really happened so screw mens rea,My take on the  you just committed Perjury. We got you by the short and curlies”

And BINGO! Scott Peterson gets a term from 5 to 15 years in prison and most everybody is happy.

This is a legal poisoning of the well. We can’t get you with our original complaint but we will make sure you are sorry you are even alive by pulling sneaky legal maneuvers.

Let this be a teaching moment: “Anything you say will be used in court” should have a very scary meaning and you should consult with a lawyer before any interrogations. Miranda is there for a reason.