Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ex-Deputy Charged for Not Responding to Parkland Shooter

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ex-Deputy Charged for Not Responding to Parkland Shooter

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/ex-deputy-charged-not-responding-141729910.html

    So this POS basically froze while in ear shot of innocent children being slaughtered by this maniac! I hope they throw the book at him! He's a disgrace!

    What do you guys think?

  • #2
    He didn’t violate any laws except possibly perjury.

    Comment


    • #3
      Unless the case can determine that the students were under his custody the SCOTUS has already determined that the police have no duty to protect you.
      Confronted with the choice, the American people would choose the policeman's truncheon over the anarchist's bomb.
      Spiro Agnew

      Why yes I am a glorified babysitter , I am here to politely ask you to follow the rules , if not daddy comes to spank you and put you in time out its your choice - Me

      Luck is a red hair woman , if you ever dated one you know there remarkably dangerous , my personal preference is to be competent and let luck join the ride if she so chooses .- Clint Smith

      Comment


      • #4
        Yeah, it does seem like he is being made to be a scapegoat. It's not like he found out about the shooting and said "F*** this, I quit" and drove away or ignored it. He secured the area and waited for backup, which is what the police are trained to do.

        Generally speaking, because of the nature of the job and the oath they swear, the police are expected to take risks that others are not. However, the risks have to be "reasonable" and not excessive. For example, if I am trapped in a burning building, firefighters are generally expected to enter it and save me. However, if they have reason to believe that the building's going to collapse on them, then they would not be expected to enter.

        Comment


        • #5
          Console hit the nail on the head. Without the full details of the situation and what his decision making process was, the rest is the usual media noise. When I took CERT training they emphasized that you and your team have to stay safe - because if you get killed, then they ( the first responders) just lost an asset to help with the emergency, and you've now added to the body count. It sounds cold, but there is a logic to it when you think about it.

          That having been said, I will be interested in the jury's decision when it comes, minus all the hype.

          Comment


          • #6
            This is the difference between security guards and LE. LE are EXPECTED and TRAINED to respond and go in, NOT set up a perimeter and wait. Your CERT training has no application to an AS response by LE.

            I have read the AARs and investigation findings from this. You are all way off base.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Soper View Post
              This is the difference between security guards and LE. LE are EXPECTED and TRAINED to respond and go in, NOT set up a perimeter and wait. Your CERT training has no application to an AS response by LE.

              I have read the AARs and investigation findings from this. You are all way off base.
              Unlike (non-sworn) security, LE does have a duty to respond and go in, but that does not mean that an individual LEO has to enter a situation where they are reasonably expected to be outgunned. Generally speaking, they're taught to wait for backup.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

                Unlike (non-sworn) security, LE does have a duty to respond and go in, but that does not mean that an individual LEO has to enter a situation where they are reasonably expected to be outgunned. Generally speaking, they're taught to wait for backup.
                I think what is not being talked about here is what was his training and what were his duties pursuant to his training. Here is a quote from the New York Times...

                Here’s what officials said Mr. Peterson failed to do: He didn’t go into the building during the shooting or investigate the source of the gunfire.

                Mr. Peterson had been trained that officers responding to an active shooter must “immediately go to confront the shooter” and “move directly and quickly toward known threat.”
                But he did not enter the 1200 building at the school, where the gunman was shooting students and teachers, according to an affidavit filed in support of the warrant for his arrest.


                I have also linked the article https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/u...-shooting.html

                I know that whatever comes of this, it will set a precedent for the future.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Consolewatcher View Post

                  Unlike (non-sworn) security, LE does have a duty to respond and go in, but that does not mean that an individual LEO has to enter a situation where they are reasonably expected to be outgunned. Generally speaking, they're taught to wait for backup.
                  No. You are wrong. They are taught to go in alone if need be, as waiting equates to dead bodies. Your information and training, if any, is old and outdated. You may wish to stick to security, not LE tactics.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Soper View Post

                    No. You are wrong. They are taught to go in alone if need be, as waiting equates to dead bodies. Your information and training, if any, is old and outdated. You may wish to stick to security, not LE tactics.
                    I don't see the need to be rude. If you are only interested in hearing the advice of police officers, there are numerous police forums. By chance are you a police officer?

                    There is no uniform rule on how law enforcement should react to "active shooter" situations. Since Columbine, there has been more focus on entering immediately instead of waiting, but that still does not mean that waiting for backup is not the ideal solution.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I’m just pointing out that you are 20 years out of date and are posting erroneous information. The STANDARD now across the US is to immediately go after the attacker, not wait, not set up a perimeter, not team up. Time equals bodies. There ISN'T an “ideal situation “.

                      Your knowledge is based on security guards, NOT LE. Just because this is a security guard forum, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be accurate. After all, don’t you want to be seen as a professional?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Soper View Post
                        I’m just pointing out that you are 20 years out of date and are posting erroneous information. The STANDARD now across the US is to immediately go after the attacker, not wait, not set up a perimeter, not team up. Time equals bodies. There ISN'T an “ideal situation “.

                        Your knowledge is based on security guards, NOT LE. Just because this is a security guard forum, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be accurate. After all, don’t you want to be seen as a professional?
                        Yes, Immediate Action Rapid Deployment has become a general standard since Columbine. It does encompass the idea of "regular" police officers engaging instead of holding a perimeter and waiting for specialized units. However, that does not mean that a single officer is expected to enter by himself where he is outgunned. We expect police officers to take reasonable risks, not unreasonable risks.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Again. You aren’t LE. You don’t know what you’re talking about. AS Response is what we are talking about. Even FLETC teaches Single Officer Response.

                          Single Officer response IS expected and is policy in many agencies.

                          And before you respond with another incorrect statement, I’m a FLETC and POST Active Shooter Response Instructor.

                          Who is this “We” you keep referring to? The security lobby?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Soper View Post
                            Again. You aren’t LE. You don’t know what you’re talking about. AS Response is what we are talking about. Even FLETC teaches Single Officer Response.

                            Single Officer response IS expected and is policy in many agencies.

                            And before you respond with another incorrect statement, I’m a FLETC and POST Active Shooter Response Instructor.

                            Who is this “We” you keep referring to? The security lobby?
                            It appears you are right about Single Officer Response. I apologize if it seemed like I was questioning you, but I've seen a lot of people in this industry who have absolutely no idea what they're talking about on a lot of things.

                            That being said, SOR places a lot of risk on individual officers. Society as a whole (the "we" I was referring to ) and the courts limit the amount of risk police officers and similar workers are expected to undertake, so even if an officer has received training in SOR, it's questionable if the courts would find him criminally negligent for refusing to use it. The fact this situation is quite rare (an active shooting where a lone officer is on scene) means it may not have really be considered

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The courts cannot find an officer guilty as there is no criminal action. SCOTUS ruled on that years ago.

                              The courts cannot “limit the amount of risk police officers take”. The position is expected to be dangerous. Society EXPECTS that, and if a death occurs...that’s too bad, they just expect another Officer to show up.

                              There are multiple ASI where one Officer responded, then others showed up. It is not rare. By the time you are reading about it, hundreds of cops are on scene, but there is always the first one into the door.

                              Comment

                              Leaderboard

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X