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 ...
As a retired Police Officer I would say I still have a duty to protect any citizen!
Sadly, the USSC already ruled sometime ago that Law enforcement has no duty to protect anyone. So legally the deputy is on solid ground when he makes his claim.
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Is there a difference between a “Sheriff” and a “Police Officer”? And did SCOTUS use the term “police” in a broad sense or a narrow one?
> This is true of the general public at large. But a school is not the general public. It is minors in a government facility where they are required by law to attend... <
Excellent point! If you’re not a lawyer, you should be.
I believe you got to the core of the matter.
Peterson’s specific duty was security at that school and department policy was to go after a shooter and not wait for backup.
Good post.
Nope, the Judge is not following precedent, namely Warren v. District of Columbia.
This case is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.
I really think an argument can be made that the Castle Rock case doesn’t apply here. In that case, the police were not on-scene. They just failed to respond.
Suppose you called for an ambulance because Great Uncle Gus was complaining of chest pains. But the dispatcher didn’t think the problem sounded serious. So no ambulance. And Great Uncle Gus died. Could you sue the ambulance company? Maybe not.
But now suppose the ambulance happened to be parked right next to Great Uncle Gus, and they just stood there and watched him die. Could they be sued then? I sure hope so.
Check post 20, it makes good points.
What is your opinion of it?
Prima Facie Duties
A prima facie duty is considered to be a duty that is binding on first glance - on the surface - but which might, under certain circumstances, be overridden by a more pressing (or, “higher-order”) duty.
For Mr. Peterson to not have a “duty” to try and stop the killing makes him being there a Fraud.....in my humble opinion.
“If all you have available is a .22LR and kids are in danger, you go in.”
Well said!!!!!
Amen to that.
“As a retired Police Officer I would say I still have a duty to protect any citizen!”
I wish there were more people in law enforcement like yourself.
You take a baseball bat if that’s all you have; a real AMERICAN MAN ALWAYS MARCHES TO THE SOUND OF THE GUNS!
I think the SC ruling ruled that no individual person was owed protection. But this case has many unique characteristics.
This will be an interesting trial: it seems to me that Deputy Peterson is guilty of gross negligence. Well, lots of gross negligence by others up the chain. And that will be a very important finding.
Yep, at least two, if not three, times that I can recall.
I kept a running record of posts placed in Free Republic with links to them Documenting the disastrous result of policies known as Promise put into place by the Obama regime. Hoping that the focus would be put on them and not on guns or the NRA
http://www.theusmat.com/index.htm
I always have guns and ammo to take care of such things.
That particular deputy KNEW the guy. The guy knew he wasn’t supposed to be there, either.
Had the deputy followed the guy in and confront him, the whole thing might have been averted.
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.