Posted on 06/04/2019 4:11:19 PM PDT by Texan4Life
“Complete dereliction of duty.....resulting in death of innocents....”
Ironic that the same can be said
of democrats and immigration.
Not in the way you mean it.
Peterson has been chosen as the 'scapegoat'. All legal actions will be directed against him. The media will be directed against him. All tactics designed to keep the public from understanding that the whole situation was caused by the politicians who decided to just lie about the problems in the school district to make themselves all look better.
Peterson, the officer on duty at the time, was limited by the SCHOOL ADMIN/State Politicians/Fed Politicians all the way up to the highest levels.
His presence was for 'show'.
If the students committed any crimes, he was not allowed to interfere or arrest any of them. He was not allowed to use his service weapon against any of them.
He was completely boxed in.
When the shooting started, he got out and waited for other officers to arrive. He was not given authority to make 'decisions' about an incident like this on his own.
Prior to this incident, had he even physically accosted a student, he would have been fired.
Now, put your self in his shoes. Would you have just rushed in and started firing away ?
Those kids and that woman were not told by their bosses to wait for a higher authority to arrive and make decisions.
Had he ignored the orders from his superiors and charged in, possibly injuring more students during an attempt to take out the shooter, the politicians/MSM/and many Freepers would be demanding he be hung for that.
No that is not true.
Not everyone is Rambo.
Perhaps the department should have put a Rambo in Rambo-Rig into the job, but they didnt. The put in officer friendly.
I cannot blame the man for fearing for his life and without enough options.
It is criminal that he is charging him.
Damned the internet and its inherent mob lynchings.
Let's say you are Peterson. The Captain tells you to fall back and enforce a perimeter. He tells you that SWAT is on the way and that you are to DO NOTHING ELSE until they get there, and to stay the hell out of their way. This is a direct order from your superior.
Now.... do you charge in ?
True. He wasn't put at the school to be Rambo. He was put there and told to do nothing.
Seeing his age, he probably isn't as good/accurate at using his service weapon. Matter of fact, the only people who always hit their targets in a situation like this as MOVIE STARS.
If Peterson went in, there is probably only a %5 chance he could have hit the shooter, and a %50 chance some of the shots would have hit the other students/staff.
Many people believe that if Peterson had rushed in (against direct orders) he could have stopped it all.
It is more likely that it would have been worse. That is why they call in SWAT TEAMS with better, more accurate weapons and better armor, and combat training.
thank you for your clear eyed assessment.
Keyboard drama queens with Rambo dreams are getting on my nerves.
P.S. Those who insist that Peterson should have/could have gone in and accurately taken down the shooter should be given a .45 caliber pistol, and taken into the woods. Have them stand 20 feet away from a tree and fire at a 10” circle drawn on the tree. Many cannot even hit the tree, and it doesn’t move.
The worst part is he told the responding officers to stay back 500’?????
The military UCMJ treats such behavior thus:
899. ART. 99. MISBEHAVIOR BEFORE THE ENEMY Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy--
shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court- martial may direct.
I saw the picture of Peterson and immediately wondered why a guy that age was hired to serve as a resource officer in a high school. There is no way he was going to be able to “tussle” with an out of control teen, never mind an active shooter situation. “Putting armed security into schools” (in light of the recent spate of such horrific school incidents) needs to be more properly addressed at the time of hiring for the position.
He may well have had the mindset that “hey, I’m just coasting to retirement here,” never expecting there might be an actual situation he would be called on to handle. “Misbehavior Before The Enemy” was probably pretty low on his “Gee, I wonder what will happen at work today” list (as compared with a soldier who, once in a battle zone is in full “lock and load” mode.
I'm going to watch this with some interest. It kind of seems to fly in the face of Supreme Court precedent that basically says that the government has no duty to protect any specific individual. In general, the police has no duty to protect anyone. I would wonder how such a prosecution would affect ordinary folk who might happen to be within proximity to something happening as well.
Personally, I think the fellow, (and others) should have been immediately fired because it was manifestly evident that he wasn't suited to the job. If the state is able to successfully prosecute him for inaction, it will be a huge change. I'm not entirely sure this change is all that unwelcome, but I'm pretty sure it will be quite unwelcome to the police state.
Depends. If I had a Positive bead on the perp accompanied by a high confidence that I could end him, then yes I would contramand the order and do what needed doing.
this ain’t the military.
I agree we are in a war. Our leaders do not believe this.
This name was not a combatant. Neither was the shooter.
What you are quoting is for military men, not officer friendly.
Officer Useless.
Could you cite the U.S. Supreme Court Case. I’d like to read it.
Cases like that are one of the biggest arguments for the 2nd Amendment.
Yes, but uselessness is not a crime.
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.