While I certainly understand the desire to make this guy pay for his failure to act, charging a police officer with a crime for failure act really gives me pause. Should a police officer put himself in harms way to save innocent people? Sure, the public expects it and most police courageously do it willingly. But to charge them if they don’t? How many police radio for backup before they go into a dangerous situation? Will they be required to charge in now on their own? Once again, I’m not making excuses for Peterson but if he is convicted, I see all kinds of bad unintended consequences coming from the decision.
Actually I agree with you.
There is no constituional duty to protect, only a duty to enforce the law.
An outgunned and outmanned officer does not have a duty to die.
The keyboard cowboys are having a big night tonite.
“Should a police officer put himself in harms way to save innocent people?”
No one put a gun to his head and forced him to become a cop. With the great power authority that a cop wields, also comes a greater responsibility, along with pay and benefits. He defaulted on the contract, and thus should bear some consequences for his cowardly conduct. At a minimum he should lose his pension and be forever shamed for his cowardice.
I agree. I think everyone would agree to incompetence, but that should result in civil penalties, loss of job, fines, benefits. But there is a dangerous trend in this country to find scapegoats and criminalize their actions whenever there is a bad outcome.
It’s much more likely that the guy was a coward or incompetent rather than someone that intended to create a bad outcome. Now if he were in the military and abandoned his post during a fight that would be different because he would be under a much different set of laws.
The fact that he’s a police officer should not put him above the law however. We have seen cases of police misconduct that should have resulted in criminal penalties. The “can’t breathe “ Staten Island comes to mind,
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.