Posted on 12/12/2018 2:37:15 PM PST by jazusamo
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A judge has rejected a deputy’s claim that he had no duty to confront the gunman during the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Refusing to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parent of a victim, Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning found after a hearing Wednesday that ex-deputy Scot Peterson did have a duty to protect those inside the school where 17 people died and 17 were wounded on Feb. 14. Video and other evidence shows Peterson, the only armed officer at the school, remained outside while shots rang out.
The negligence lawsuit was filed by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed. He said it made no sense for Peterson’s attorneys to argue that a sworn law enforcement officer with a badge and a gun had no requirement to go inside.
“Then what is he doing there?” Pollack said after the ruling. “He had a duty. I’m not going to let this go. My daughter, her death is not going to be in vain.”
Peterson attorney Michael Piper said he understands that people might be offended or outraged at his client’s defense, but he argued that as a matter of law, the deputy had no duty to confront the shooter. Peterson did not attend the hearing.
“There is no legal duty that can be found,” Piper said. “At its very worst, Scot Peterson is accused of being a coward. That does not equate to bad faith.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
One of the most disgusting displays of police cowardice ever.
I think more deer are killed by poachers with 22 LR than any other weapon. Having said that I could sure ruin someones day with a 22 LR rifle.
A .22LR will make you sick.
That’s the way it’s been moving the past few decades.
Oh, you’re one of those guys “don’t bring it unless it starts with 4”?
I recently had the chance to train with a SWAT commander and some buddies.
They all had .45ACP hand cannons. I brought my “europellet gun” (Glock 17).
Lots of movement, shooting from cover, pop ups.
I shot their asses off. It’s all about hits.
I.e., you should apologize to that officer. It was his superiors who screwed up, and that was a procedure issue coupled with moral, not physical cowardice by superior officers. They froze when faced with surprise.
BTW, I know someone who was an instructor at a teachers' college in Colorado at the time. They refused to let any of their students serve as student instructors at Columbine High School because its reputation was so bad. The superiors at his college felt Columbine High School was a bomb waiting to go off. It was a predicted-in-advance tragedy due entirely to wrongdoing by its administration.
Really bad high schools kill their students.
The judge should rule that if that is the case, then the deputy should be required to repay his salary for the length of his service and the judge should take action to place liens against all his property and discontinue his pension.
won’t this bump into the 2005 SC decision that “police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm”?
Incorrect. See here:
https://www.officer.com/tactical/ems-hazmat/article/12250625/columbine-attack-response
Obviously this judge disagreed with the USSC Castle Rock opinion, but cops have zero duty to protect, and this judge will lose.
“Exactly! The young people killed and wounded paid the price for this coward. “
They paid the price for their parents cowardice, for being liberals and demanded school be unprotected target rich environments.
The court also ruled that once on scene cops have no duty to take heroic measures.
“I shot their asses off. It’s all about hits.”
So, you’re one of those that think a 45 isn’t usable to gain hits??
No, not at all.
Even I can get reasonable accuracy given time, good breath control, etc.
But not all .45ACP shooters, under stress and with movement, can shoot as well as they could with a 9mm.
If this doesn't apply to you, good for you.
In the case of my shooting buddies, on a certain day given a certain set of drills, their .45s would not have given them good self-defense accuracy, despite their pre-range brags about how staring down the barrel of a .45 would be enough to end any confrontation.
Everybody should carry and shoot what works best for them. If that's .45ACP, great.
I never saw that officer or heard of him. All I remember is they stalled for hours outside and when they finally went in the cowered behind a fire truck leading them in. The fireman driving the truck was only shielded by the big wind shield on the truck. That is what I remember. Then I remember D-Day.
For those who rely on law and common sense, the possession of firearms is clearly "a constitutionally protected right". Regardless of this truth, most states require a citizen to pay a "fee" (registration or background check "fee") in order to obtain a "license" (concealed carry "license") before keeping and/or bearing a firearm. And, a federal and/or state "tax" (firearms and ammunition sales "tax" or machine gun "tax" collected by the BATF) is always levied at the time of firearm transaction.
Criminals can not be compelled to register guns. The U. S. Supreme Court determined,
"...that a felon who has a gun cannot be compelled to complete such forms, because it violates the Fifth Amendment right against self incrimination. That's right, registration -- not in your case of course but in the case of a criminal -- is a self-indictment of a crime, and is therefore prohibited."
Haynes vs United States (1968).
In 1856, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled,
"Local law enforcement has no duty to protect individuals but only a general duty to enforce the laws."<
South vs. Maryland, 59 US (HOW) 396, 15 L. Ed. 433 (1856).
A U. S. Federal Appeals Court declared in 1982,
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."<
Bowers vs. devot, U. S. Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 686 F. 2d 616 (1982).
The U.S. Supreme Court declared,
"The Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect citizens from criminal harm."
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998, 103 L. Ed. 2d 249 (1989)
"The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia."
U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir.1992)
Because if we don't hand over our money, the government will send these 'brave' individuals to our homes to arrest/kill us.
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.