Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moshe

Cowardly Former SO in Florida Prosecuted

Recommended Posts

I suspect the systemic problem had its origins:

Image result for Hillary Clinton shaking hands with Parkland Florida Sheriff

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate to repeat myself...but it’s politics. Won’t go far

WASHINGTON, June 27, 2005 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a 4-3 decision, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ dismissal of the complaints against the District of Columbia and individual members of the Metropolitan Police Department based on the public duty doctrine ruling that “[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”

The Court thus adopted the trial court’s determination that no special relationship existed between the police and appellants, and therefore no specific legal duty existed between the police and the appellants.

The police are a crisis response unit, not the protector of the public.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that police officers at all levels of the government have no duty to protect the citizens of this country.

Feb, 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In cases such as DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Supreme Court has declined to put police and other public authorities under any general duty to protect individuals from crime. The decisions have been broadly unpopular, but Mike McDaniel at PJ Media takes the Court’s side on policy grounds: “This [lack of a particularized duty] might seem absolutely outrageous, but it is logical, rational, and unquestionably necessary.”

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren v. District of Columbia

Warren v. District of Columbia - 1981

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

WASHINGTON – June, 2005

Davidson v. City of Westminster , 32 Cal.3d 197

Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) , 46 Cal.App.3d 6

Linda Riss v. City of New York

DeShaney v. Winnebago County

Susman v. City of Los Angeles269 Cal. App. 2d 803

South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.)

Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (no federal constitutional requirement that police provide protection) 

Calogrides v. Mobile, 475 So. 2d 560 (Ala. 1985); Cal Govt. Code 845 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Calogrides v. Mobile, 846 (no liability for failure to arrest or to retain arrested person in custody)

Davidson v. Westminster, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185, Cal. Rep. 252; 649 P.2d 894 (1982) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Stone v. State 106 Cal.App.3d 924, 165 Cal Rep. 339 (1980) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C.App. 1983) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C.App 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Sapp v. Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla. App. 1st Dist.), cert. denied 354 So.2d 985 (Fla. 1977); Ill. Rec. Stat. 4-102 (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Keane v. Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1st Dist. 1968) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Jamison v. Chicago, 48 Ill. App. 3d 567 (1st Dist. 1977) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. App.) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Silver v. Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. 1969) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Wuetrich V. Delia, 155 N.J. Super. 324, 326, 382, A.2d 929, 930 cert. denied 77 N.J. 486, 391 A.2d 500 (1978) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Chapman v. Philadelphia, 290 Pa. Super. 281, 434 A.2d 753 (Penn. 1981) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)

Morris v. Musser, 84 Pa. Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 (1984) (no liability for failure to provide police protection)



Those are all SCOTUS rulings.

you can say that he is not a man, you can call him a coward, you can say he doesn’t deserve to live and all the other stuff people can come up with.........but he isn’t going to jail.

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw on the local news today he was released, bail cut in half, allowed to travel to his home somewhere in the carolinas, no more wearing gps ankle device and must surrender his passport, experienced attorneys state it will be a stretch if he gets convicted of anything, not much case history, all interpretation of the law as it exists  he was truly a coward and turned his back to the situation that occurred but they need to clarify what his job classification was in relation to what his obligation to protect the children and people were, it's very complicated but come judgement day tho all will be paid to his maker in full and until then he has to live with the decision he made ...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His job was a Deputy that worked as a School Resource Officer was to protect the school.  Instead he was a coward.  He pissed himself outside in safety and let 11 people die.  He was on scene, under the color of law, and he was derelict in his duty.  What happens to soldiers who desert and let their comrades and arms to just die?  Did they have a duty to, well, anyone?  Do, we as armed civilians need to butt stoke *******s like this, and take over ourselves?  I think they could be hugely sued and charged if their motto is "protect and serve."  If they are not protecting or serving, they are clearly superfluous.  Even the POTUS, as blusterous as he is, deemed it a cowardly act, and he himself would have intervened on?  I would like this introduced to the Supreme Court.  What if when I was working with VCAS, or with JTTF decided not to act.  Here comes some more violent gang members, who rape a prom girl, or another 9/11.  Think anyone would have said, "Aw shucks, a dirty bomb just went off and killed 10,000 people, he had no duty to act."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Moshe said:

I would like this introduced to the Supreme Court.  

All those court decisions I listed are SCOTUS decisions

to serve and protect is marketing. Their is no duty to act

nobody says this puke is a good guy. But he hasn’t committed an actionable offense.

sorry, just is

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, Mike said:

He was charged with Child Neglect, which is interesting. This is not a duty to protect case, or a qualified immunity issue. The state of Florida is taking a very interesting angle with this. 

https://www.local10.com/news/parkland-school-shooting/former-bso-deputy-scot-peterson-arrested

He must be in custody or legal guardian of the child for neglect (no, the school resource officer is not de facto guardian), child endangerment or negligence would be a better bet.

But it still won’t go anywhere.

you cannot charge a cop for being chicken****, you cannot sue the police for not protecting you from criminal acts. A firefighter is not required to go into a burning building to save you. They can stay outside and hose it down to keep the fire from spreading. They cannot be charged and you cannot sue them for not endangering themselves to save you.

they do, because that’s the kind of people they are in that profession. 

Not all of them

.

Edited by Dric902

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, then, I guess you should share that with some of the boys on the Border, so they can put their feet up.  Don't forget some of my old comrades with VCAS, I guess it cool to cool their heels, so the prom queen gets raped by MS-13.  And well, my former associates with JTTF:

Image result for nuclear explosion in city gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Terms for the day:  Malfeasance, Writ of Mandamus.

Edited by Moshe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a further perspective.  We were the be-all, do-all in the USBP, and responded to anything-everything.  Why?  Not enough Webb County SO's, PD, or DPS in the area.  To not respond to crazy ****, would be considered cowardly and an ass ripping by a Supervisor.  With 300 plus USBP in one area compared to the other LEO's we were always going to things usually handled by the above.  That mean putting your life, limb, and safety on the line for the public, for disasters, for security, for all of it.  If you ran from crazy ****, they would find a way to get rid of you either officially, or unofficially.  When you take an oath,  you are held to it.  I am glad pee pants is in his neck of trouble.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you were required, as a condition of your employment, to endanger yourself?

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The condition of my employment involved danger on a continual basis,, as does everyone carrying or wearing a badge.  If you want to idolize a man who stood by and let children die on his watch, in his assigned territory, while armed, well that is your decision.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Not idolizing a chicken**** cop

not knocking you profession

 

legally he can’t be charged but for political headlines and making him go broke with lawyers fees getting it thrown out.

society cannot require anyone to endanger themselves as a condition of employment per SCOTUS.

 

you can bang on your puffed up, hairy chest all day. The law doesn’t work that way

 

 

.

Edited by Dric902

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 8:35 AM, Dric902 said:

Not idolizing a chicken**** cop

not knocking you profession

 

legally he can’t be charged but for political headlines and making him go broke with lawyers fees getting it thrown out.

society cannot require anyone to endanger themselves as a condition of employment per SCOTUS.

 

you can bang on your puffed up, hairy chest all day. The law doesn’t work that way

 

 

.

Well, never call 911, your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Moshe said:

Well, never call 911, your choice.

I know lots of cops, a couple lawyers, and two judges.

they would all agree;

if the law was decided on passion, we would all be hung by now.

one cop panicked, froze, cowered, probably peed his pants a little.

everybody can’t be super duper, ultra black budget, ninja suit wearing operators.

you can’t charge him for that.

thats just the way it is. I’ll still call 911 if I need to. Even if they don’t live up to your expectations 

.

Edited by Dric902

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Yup.  Do you know what the term malfeasance means?  Scott Peterson was the School Resource Deputy.  His whole job was to job was the school and its safety.  One, thing I have noticed you have to be about to retire or be the world's biggest **** up to be placed in that position.  However, he had one job, and he couldn't even do that.  He refused to do his job.  In his refusal 17 people were murdered.  So, by his complete dereliction of duty he is being charged with 11 felony child neglect counts.  Why?  Because, by his malfeasance 11 children were murdered while he pissed himself.  That is a ****ty human being let alone a supposed law enforcement official.  How I feel about it to this day?  I would limp my way in there and exchange rounds with the shooter even if it cost me my life.  You retire the boy from law enforcement, but you cannot take the law enforcement out of the boy.  In this case, he might as well been a boy with a tin star on his chest, because that was all the use he was. 

Law Enforcement people put their lives and treasure on the line everyday.  I have lost people, good people in my career.  None of them to cowardice.  He is a monumental **** on all those lives that have been laid down in the line of duty.  I hope they convict him on all 11 counts, and then the bereaved file a Bivens suit against the SO Department there in general.  I hope they loose their asses, respectively.

Edited by Moshe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember, those kids aren’t dead because the cop didn’t save them, they’re dead because the killer killed them.

its an easy legal threshold to meet: if the cop had called in sick and not been there, would those kids be alive today?.....no, then that’s not where the blame is

If the shooter had not shown up that day, would those kids be alive today?.....yes, there’s your guilty party

He committed the criminal act, not the cop who failed to act. Is he a good cop. Hell no, but that’s not a crime.

I know you’re a secret squirrel and would have “John Wick’d” it. Making entry, doing two Captain Kirk rolls, freeze framed, engaged the Tango with a Mozambique, performed a perfect tac reload, and cleared the rest of the building before the bell rang for the next class.

he didn’t, and that’s not criminal.

you want to throw the cop in the deepest darkest cell in the prison and throw away the key for not saving those kids. I would rather throw the shooter in the deepest darkest prison cell and throw away the key for killing those kids. 

I hope the cop gets a job washing cars for the rest of his life, and the nutcase killer get life without parole. (I don’t know if Florida has the death penalty anymore)

There are decades of court decisions, case law, precedent, and SCOTUS decisions that agree. Put the blame where it should be.

What I think you have is a new Sheriff in town and he wants to set a tone, maybe a Prosecutor who’s up for re-election. We elect our Judges here, I don’t know how it is for that jurisdiction. The charges will be quietly dropped after the headlines have served their purpose.

 

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dric902 said:

Remember, those kids aren’t dead because the cop didn’t save them, they’re dead because the killer killed them.

its an easy legal threshold to meet: if the cop had called in sick and not been there, would those kids be alive today?.....no, then that’s not where the blame is

If the shooter had not shown up that day, would those kids be alive today?.....yes, there’s your guilty party

He committed the criminal act, not the cop who failed to act. Is he a good cop. Hell no, but that’s not a crime.

I know you’re a secret squirrel and would have “John Wick’d” it. Making entry, doing two Captain Kirk rolls, freeze framed, engaged the Tango with a Mozambique, performed a perfect tac reload, and cleared the rest of the building before the bell rang for the next class.

he didn’t, and that’s not criminal.

you want to throw the cop in the deepest darkest cell in the prison and throw away the key for not saving those kids. I would rather throw the shooter in the deepest darkest prison cell and throw away the key for killing those kids. 

I hope the cop gets a job washing cars for the rest of his life, and the nutcase killer get life without parole. (I don’t know if Florida has the death penalty anymore)

There are decades of court decisions, case law, precedent, and SCOTUS decisions that agree. Put the blame where it should be.

What I think you have is a new Sheriff in town and he wants to set a tone, maybe a Prosecutor who’s up for re-election. We elect our Judges here, I don’t know how it is for that jurisdiction. The charges will be quietly dropped after the headlines have served their purpose.

 

.

 

If your one and only job is to protect a building, and you refuse to do that, people have been fired for less.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moshe said:

If your one and only job is to protect a building, and you refuse to do that, people have been fired for less.

The building is fine

What about Sheriff Israel? Is he free and clear?

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup.  The building is fine, the people inside are dead.  And I just mentioned Bivens.  Look it up.  Call the fire department if your house is on fire and your family is inside and they roast marsh mellows instead they had no obligation to save them, right?  Or, is it just other people's lives that don't matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...