Perjury: Scot Peterson Lied About Hearing Gunshots During Parkland Shooting

scot peterson parkland broward coward

Scot Peterson (Broward County Sheriff’s Office via AP)

Yesterday, disgraced former Broward County deputy Scot Peterson was arrested and charged with seven counts of neglect of a child, three counts of culpable negligence and one count of perjury. The charges resulted from his failure to engage the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School last year as 17 people were murdered inside the building while Peterson remained outside.

The neglect and negligence charges could prove difficult to successfully prosecute. In cases such as Warren v. District of ColumbiaCastle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County, courts have ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens. Those precedents have been used to dismiss civil suits against Peterson, former Broward Captain Jan Jordan and former Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, among others.

Then there’s the perjury charge. According to various reports, Peterson allegedly told investigators under oath that he didn’t hear the gunfire inside the school that day. That claim is contradicted by security video and his own radio calls as the shooting took place.

Peterson is being held pending a $102,000 bond and surrender of his passport. Here’s the AP’s report . . .

By CURT ANDERSON

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (AP) — A former deputy assigned to the Florida high school where 17 people were fatally shot will have to stay in jail for now on charges of child neglect and negligence for failing to intervene.

Broward Judge Jackie Powell ruled Wednesday that Scot Peterson must first surrender the passport, which is now at his home in North Carolina, before being released on a bond set at $102,000. He must also show the court that he has collateral, such as real estate, before he gets out of jail.

Peterson, wearing beige jail garb, stood silently with his hands cuffed during the hearing, which followed his arrest Tuesday on 11 charges.

Peterson was the officer assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School but never went inside as the gunman opened fire in hallways and classrooms. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement determined through a 14-month investigation that he “did absolutely nothing to mitigate” the shooting.

Defense attorney Joseph DiRuzzo III said Peterson is being made a scapegoat. He called the charges “a thinly veiled attempt at politically motivated retribution.”

He said he believes the bond issue will be worked out quickly. “Of course, Mr. Peterson expects to be treated fairly just like every other person,” he said.

After the shooting, Peterson, 56, took retirement rather than accept a pension. Broward Sheriff Gregory Tony said he’s now been formally fired, adding, “it’s never too late for accountability and justice.”

Peterson also is charged with perjury over a statement he gave under oath to investigators, contending that he didn’t hear any shots fired after taking up his position outside the school. Investigators determined through video, witnesses and other evidence that this was not true.

comments

  1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    The guy may be a complete ass, but given the federal and various supreme court rulings saying that police do not have a duty to protect people I don’t see how this can stick. It seems like this is just an attempt to scapegoat this guy and let everyone else off the moral hook.

    1. avatar Rothweiler says:

      We haven’t the slightest idea how the prosecution intends to present their case. It might hinge on the fact that he told other officers to stay out of the building – he was in no personal danger by staying outside but if he prevented others from taking action then he would be guilty by an act of interference.
      Time will reveal if the move is political or grounded in other concepts beyond what seems obvious of his choice to not be in personal danger.

    2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      This is not about protecting it is about committing several counts of perjury in an attempt to cover his ass… If he felt the need to lie he must have also felt that he did something wrong that needed to be covered up…

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        He is charged with perjury, I have no comment, we will see. But he is charged with all manner of other shit which I believe there is no chance of proving, from child endangerment to you name it. Might be an attempt to bankrupt him with legal fees before even arriving at a real question. I don’t need the turd, but this may not be fair.

        1. avatar Full Otto says:

          Agreed. One likely outcome is that it will make the concept of an on-site armed school security guard a moot point. What is needed is a hired gun contracted to kill anyone that represents a life endangering threat to any student. While I applaud that idea most public school systems would have difficulty promoting the concept. Additionally the $15 dollar/hour retired leo would transform into a trained killer making six figures. Some dogs attack, some dogs bark and some dogs run away.

    3. avatar WhiteDevil says:

      If that’s true, then what purpose do the police serve? Legalized state enforcers and thieves? I’m honestly wondering what the Supreme Court supposes they are if they are not here to “protect and serve.”

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        Basically, it’s that the *idea* of the police being there protects the community as a whole. Individuals are on their own.

        It’s a pretty realistic judgment tbh.

        1. avatar Donttreadonme says:

          People are correct when they say that police do not have a duty to protect individuals (afterall, this is all the more reason why private citizens should be armed and trained to protect themselves, and there should be no infringements), but it wasn’t just an individual under attack, it was an entire school which represents the community/the public.

          It is also stated in the Broward County school resource officer handbook that the specific Duties are to protect the school and its occupants.

          Of course there is the moral side of this and he fails terribly in that regard. And he also violates the oath he took upon becoming a sworn police officer.

          Here is a link for Fl SRO information that also lists duties of an SRO.

          https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou…FjACegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw2iN7i8AXKewcUltL_rrE-4

      2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

        A cops Main function is revenue sharing (you have revenue and local, county and state jurisdictions want a share of it) the dreaded non existent “ticket quota”‘ comes to mind.. If you are NOT your own 1st responder and you do not have that mindset then you will wind up in a world of hurt should the fickle finger of fate ever point at you…

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Ticket quotas are an anti-corruption measure. If police are required to issue a certain number of tickets then they will not have an incentive to allow violators to “pay” their fines to to the officer. The surest way to avoid the revenue collection is to obey traffic laws.

        2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          I guess you have never been in a rural area where a local cop and a “judge” work together to set up speed traps on main highways, levy big fines when they “trap” someone and then split the fine three ways with the mayor… I’ve driven over 3,000,000 (million) miles across this country and I have actually been stopped in Ohio on an Interstate in a construction zone for impeding traffic while doing the speed limit (he lost) and if I had exceeded the speed limit by one MPH I would have been stopped for that (in Ohio} point is following the law does not guarantee you won’t be stopped and cited for something, hell I used to get stopped two and three times a day just because I rode a Harley and “looked” suspicious.. VIN checks were very common in the 60s/70s and you didn’t have to be doing anything other than riding.. And if you honestly believe that quotas are all that keeps a dishonest cop from doing what he’s going to do well “bless your little heart”

        3. avatar strych9 says:

          Maxx:

          70/75 interchange area just North of Dayton? They used to love that shit in that area and that area was under construction for-freakin’-ever.

        4. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          This was on I-80 coming out of Indiana, another perpetual construction zone.. most of the truckers problems in Ohio were the product of Herr Kommandant Voinovich that guy hated trucks but loved the truckers money.. split speed limits (cars 70 trucks 50) write a trucker for being in the left lane, one mph over speed limit, log book checks two and three times across the state…

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Today, we have a different situation. If your in-car camera has recorded the nice officer demanding money, shoot the nice officer dead and present the evidence in order to be completely exonerated, the nice officer’s superiors defending themselves or also executed. The idea this is going on forever is just silly.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          Maxx:

          Ah, up by Toledo. I’m not particularly familiar with that area of Ohio but I know the general idea of what you’re talking about. I’ve been pulled over twice while driving a passenger vehicle, both times in Ohio along I-70, and both bullshit stops because I had out of state plates.

      3. avatar MaddMaxx says:

        “TO PROTECT AND SERVE” Damn near every marked cop car in the country has that phrase predominantly displayed on it.. Bet it was on Petersens car, if they do not mean PROTECT and SERVE then perhaps they need a new slogan like “I’m only here for that big ass pension” or “I’m too lazy to get a real job” or maybe “I’m just looking for that drug dealer with a big pile of cash”…. False advertisement is a crime…

        1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          The local sheriff replaced “Protect and Serve” with “Professionalism”. Then he had the cars painted black and switched the uniforms from neutral tan/brown to black/gray complete with flashy silver insignia. Now he has started a “Storm Team”. I am considering writing him a letter to ask if “Schutzstaffel” or “Schutzkommando” were considered.

        2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          Kinda SS/Gestapo-ish, fashion chique yet says “respect my authoritI” don’t mess with us cause “we bad” “failure to communicate will not be tolerated” yeah makes sense…

    4. avatar CWT says:

      They do have a duty to enforce the law and last I heard discharging a firearm in or around a school is illegal. Personally there are some ‘grenades’ we not only expect law enforcement to jump on we require it.

      1. avatar bob says:

        If he arrested the student after he ran out of ammo and was no longer a danger, would he not still be prosecuted for the illegal discharge and therefore the law is enforced?

        I don’t believe the law states “it is illegal to discharge a firearm and not be immediately detained by an officer”

        Plenty of people, such as this article is about, are arrested long after a crime is committed, but you seem ok with that.

    5. avatar Steve says:

      The public duty doctrine is pre-empted by the special duty of care doctrine.

      Police DO have a duty to protect an individual if a special duty of care exists.

      I would imagine that the prosecutor will be making the case that his SRO assignment created a special duty of care.

      1. avatar Mark H says:

        This. The police have no duty to protect the public. School Children (at a Government School) or prisoners or folks who are detained are a different category.

        Thus the special duty doctrine of care.

        If you are arrested, and in police custody, they have an affirmative duty to keep you from harm. The argument, is that school-children are also in the custody of the state, and thus a SRO has a simillar duty.

    6. avatar TomC says:

      This may be a different take on the question of whether “police” have a legal duty to protect citizens. Most of the previous cases have been based on the notion that a police force has a duty to protect citizens and courts have rejected the idea that the collective duty applies to individual citizens. Basically the courts have said that police collectively protect citizens collectively, but not specific individual citizens.

      At least from the cases I have seen cited, I don’t see any where the courts have been asked to rule on the duty of an individual officer who was ASSIGNED THE DUTY of protecting specific individual citizens and so obviously completely failed to perform that duty.

      It’s going to be a tough case for the prosecution. If the judge lets the charges go to a jury they might get a conviction based on emotions, but obviously any conviction would be appealed at every level until overturned — one additional problem the prosecution will have on appeal is that every law enforcement agency in the country will be filing amicus briefs opposing the conviction because any break in their wall of immunity would put them at increased liability.

    7. avatar George Z says:

      A Florida prosecutor overreaching on charges…that’s unheard of!

    8. avatar Craig in IA says:

      “The guy may be a complete ass, but given the federal and various supreme court rulings saying that police do not have a duty to protect people I don’t see how this can stick.” My initial thoughts as well, however, there may be an easy Florida state perjury case/conviction. Yeah- that’ll make everyone feel better…

      WTF? It won’t bring any of the dead back, and who knows how much a conviction would help the next time a person takes his/her/its own life and protection over the lives of someone else. Allow the teachers and oither school personnel to be armed- that’s the only solution that will end such events earlier if not prevent many outright once it becomes known.

  2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    federal and various STATE supreme court rulings

  3. avatar NORDNEG says:

    Just another payroll cop,,, bring back the Dirty Harry type cops for real accountability of your actions..,
    America was always better off with the cops that people respected or feared, whatever your roll in life is.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      America was better off when government employees were in fear of being tarred and feathered by the citizens and we didn’t have cops.

  4. avatar MaddMaxx says:

    The perjury charge comes from the three times he said on the radio that shots (he first identified as possibly firecrackers) were coming from building 1200.. He later testified that he could not tell WHERE the shots were coming from… Video clearly shows him hugging the wall near a doorway as he calls in shots fired from building 1200 three different times.. and if he also stated under oath (not reported locally) that he did not hear ANY shots then he changed his story and lied twice under oath to investigators… Either way he’s been fired and there is movement toward taking away his $100,000 > annually retirement and life will not be nearly what he expected for quite some time.. He should also be charged with impersonating a police officer, hell impersonating a man….

  5. avatar ro says:

    it the government want to get you, they have a lot of tools in the shed to destroy you, or ground you into the dirt

    just remember…..when someone from the govt come calling and ask questions, REMAIN SILENT and ASK FOR AN ATTORNEY…PERIOD……..you can never talk your way out of trouble if they want to get you

  6. avatar MarkPA says:

    It will be a dangerous precedent to impose a duty-to-act upon officers of the state. It is easiest for judges to conclude that there is zero duty to act. It is easier for judges to conclude (as they have) that the duty to act applies only when the officer has a special relationship. (E.g., if a cop has placed a suspect under arrest then the suspect can’t flee a lynch mob. The cop has a duty to either release the suspect to his own resources or to defend him against the mob.)

    It will be very hard to construct the judicial reasoning for where to draw the line beyond the “special relationship” rule. Did this cop have the authority to prevent kids from leaving the campus? Were they in his lawful “custody”; if not, no duty to protect. Judges will be loath to open the slippery-slope to imposing liability upon state actors, and therefore, the state.

    The same will apply to others, teachers and administrators. Did a teacher have a duty to “bar the door”? Did an administrator have a duty to raise an alarm? Having failed to do so, do they have personal liability? Liability for the government institution (school)?

    Perjury. How different is this charge from the analysis above? As angry as everyone is about this cop’s particular failure, he is (or was) an officer-of-the-state. What would be the implications for state actors if they could be held to account for their perjury in the interest of CYA?

    If a lowly cop can’t lie to CYA, then the question arises as to what higher officers could be held responsible? A chief/sheriff? A mayor/governor? How about an FBI or CIA agent or high official? What if an Attorney General were plausibly accused of perjury?

    Would the criminal justice system ultimately hold that a high official can’t perjure himself to CYA? Such a radical notion could reach as high as Comey, Brennen, Loretta Lynch, Eric Holder. Why, even a president might be held liable for perjury!

    Oh, sorry. I forgot. This matter has already been resolved, politically. A president can lie under oath. Nothing will be done about it. Never mind.

    1. avatar WARFAB says:

      “If a lowly cop can’t lie to CYA, then the question arises as to what higher officers could be held responsible?”

      Ideally, nobody should be allowed to lie under oath for CYA purposes. But, this gets into the two tiered legal system we currently have in the US. If Peterson is found guilty of lying under oath to cover his behind, there’s no reason to believe politicians or people with the proper connections will suddenly start getting prosecuted for the same. I’m pretty sure Peterson is low enough on the political totem pole that a perjury charge will stick.

    2. avatar Ian in Transit says:

      “It will be very hard to construct the judicial reasoning for where to draw the line beyond the “special relationship” rule. Did this cop have the authority to prevent kids from leaving the campus? Were they in his lawful “custody”; if not, no duty to protect. Judges will be loath to open the slippery-slope to imposing liability upon state actors, and therefore, the state.”

      There is already some case law surrounding this. One example . . .”Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995), the Court emphasized that the nature of the power over students is “custodial and tutelary,” permitting a degree of supervision and control that could not be exercised over free adults. The Court pointed out that custodial power over children is that power often associated with parental control over children. A dictionary definition of custodian refers to a keeper or guardian. Tutelary means having the position of guardian or protector of a person, place, or thing. Both definitions, custodian, one who exercises custodial power, and tutelary, a guardian, encompass the meaning of in loco parentis.” excerpt taken from http://usedulaw.com/345-in-loco-parentis.html

      By my way of thinking this is a very different situation than the Castle Rock, DC, etc. cases. SRO salaries are often (usually?) paid partially by the school district for the exact purpose of providing the students protection. Unlike a normal patrol officer it was this guys expressed duty TO protect them. If not the headcount at the sheriff’s department would have been reduced by one.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      “If a lowly cop can’t lie to CYA, then the question arises as to what higher officers could be held responsible?”

      Fortunately mass corruption of this sort has not been institutionalized at the FBI and DOJ.

    4. avatar bob says:

      So basically the worst he’s looking at is that he lied under oath…..

      Like thousands do every day in court, all over the world…. Its not exactly a rare occurrence.
      Don’t remember the death penalty being handed out for lie’ing under oath.

      MarkPa, I wish more people here could wrap their heads around what is fact and what is fiction.

      Police officers are not GODS who must throw themselves in front of danger for you because you pay them a salary, they are not infallible individuals who shall never cheat, lie, or misbehave.

      They’re regular people doing a specific job.

      This one in particular got scared and didn’t want to die and lied about it. Tell me you don’t expect that out of 90% of the public….

      But no, Joe Safeathome is big crap and would of ran in Rambo style and saved all the kids bare handed.

      Reality and statistics say that 95% of the people on this board would freeze when faced with a psychopath gunman.
      Our military has spent trillions of dollars and man hours finding out that people naturally do not want to confront danger NOR kill.
      They say 5-10% AT BEST won’t choke when the time comes.

      Ask anyone who has fought in combat and they will tell you of dozens of guys who where great for support but were not front line men.

      So this guy wasn’t, nothing you can do.

      Like you said Mark, it’s not everyone else’s job to protect you, it’s yours.

      In this case, the school and or teachers had the duty to protect the kids. The police were called to help with a problem.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        You didn’t say it, but I will. The major failure was from the school and the TEACHERS! The children were in their care, and they failed to protect those children, and they should be shot for it. Literally shot. Not sued, not embarrassed, SHOT! Sandy Hook even more so!

        1. avatar KarlB says:

          Just wondering what the teachers did that was wrong? Do you have any specific evidence of wrong doing or are you just saying that they should have organized some sort of attack?

        2. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          LarryinTX: We don’t know what other teachers did at Parkland but we do know what CHRIS HIXON did. While an ARMED allegedly trained COP hid outside and made incoherent radio calls for help as children were being slaughtered inside building 1200.. So should HE be dug up and shot again alongside all those other teachers whose actions were unreported and unknown?
          CHESTNUTHILL TOWNSHIP, Pa. — A TEACHER who gave his life saving his students during the school shooting in Parkland, Florida was honored tonight by his former school community in Monroe County.
          CHRIS HIXON, a graduate of Pleasant Valley High School, now has a fitness center at the school that bears his name.

        3. avatar MaddMaxx says:

          LarryinTX: A little something else to help assuage your bloodlust for “PUNISHING” those dastardly coward teachers….. Geography teacher Scott Beigel was killed after he unlocked a classroom for students to enter and hide from the gunman. Aaron Feis, an assistant football coach and (unarmed) security guard, was killed as he shielded two students. Chris Hixon, the school’s athletic director, was killed as he ran TOWARD the sound of the gunfire and tried to help fleeing students. I guess they could have done more particularly if they had access to fucking guns, but somehow they were deemed not responsible enough to carry a gun.. The COP signed up for that shit he had a gun, training, body armor, the teachers were just teachers dedicated to helping educate those children and prepare them for a world they could not possibly comprehend… The cop lives pulling down a hundred grand a year (or did) for being a chicken shit asshole, the families of the DEAD TEACHERS get some insurance money (maybe) and a fuckin plaque.. Now that is JUSTICE….

      2. avatar Alan Potkin says:

        Actually, my first hand observations as a grunt in Eye Corps in ’68-69 is that I never once saw anybody slinking away from a firefight, or otherwise not rising to do his fateful duty in front of his fellow troops. I also never saw any soldiers with combat experience ever call anybody a “coward” —justifiably or not— nor even dump verbally on draft dodgers. That said, I’d imagine that almost none of these righteous butch dudes on this thread and amongst the general public who haven’t been there done that could possibly know how they’d act if/when the SHTF.

      3. avatar Huntmaster says:

        You’re throwing a lot of numbers out there with out any sources.

        1. avatar bob says:

          “On Killing” by Dave Grossman (Lt Colonel US Army)
          “The warriors, reflections of men in battle” by J. Glenn Gray (US Army WW2)
          “Acts of war” Richard Holmes

          Also think of the argument for the adoption of the 5.56 round and the round count to hit ratio in Vietnam.

          Even my own experience with over 20 years in emergency services I have seen this first hand countless times. People freeze up or they delay action because they don’t want to be the first one in leading the way, they’d have no problems following others in and helping, but they’re not lone wolf leaders.

          Bullshit aside, it happens, its ok. I would never call someone a coward and piece of crap for not jumping in and taking a bullet for anyone, being scared to die is natural and ingrained in everyone.
          I do not believe that its a police officers absolute duty to take a bullet for my kid, I would be eternally grateful of they did, but I cannot demand someone else sacrifice their lives for mine or anyone else.

          Being so close to retirement, at his age, probably poorer eye site, slow reflexes, out of shape, out of training. I mean, I get it why he didn’t go in. It sucks, but I get it.

          Like said above, the school had more of a responsibility to protect the kids than the Sheriffs department did.

    5. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      No government employee should be allowed to lie for any reason, including to “enforce the law” and especially not to CYA. Any lie told by a government employee should be a felony.

    6. avatar frank speak says:

      attorney generals have gone to prison…in PA it’s practically a trend….

  7. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    How interesting having an imposed duty to retreat — er, act, I mean — in the confusion of an instant second-guessed in the flourescent light of court houses at leisure.

    Well, at least there’s a shot at some process crimes…

    1. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      “in the confusion of an instant”? That particular INSTANT lasted for nearly four minutes and in this case 17 individual “lifetimes”…

  8. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    Some might not agree with me but..

    Being labeled a coward in front of the entire nation goes a long way IMO.

    Whats a perjury charge compared to that?

    I would have already checked out of the net if it was me.

  9. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    He lied under oath. “I did not have sex with that woman.”

    He lied under oath. “I did not hear shots in the school house.” On the radio, “I hear shots coming from inside the school house”.

  10. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

    “He must also show the court that he has collateral, such as real estate, before he gets out of jail.”

    No, he has to prove to his bail bondsman he has the collateral. The court could care less, the bail bondsman is the one sticking his neck out for the 102 thou he’s fronting.

    And I don’t see a line of people who want to do that guy any favors.

    He may well be there for a while…

  11. avatar Huntmaster says:

    Again…. this is a Black Swan. Forget about everything we thought we knew. It’s changed.

  12. avatar will says:

    This is complex – Does the Army teach us to commit suicide or improvise and find a way to turn the fight in our favor. If I have a 3.8 in barrel 40S&W I will last how long in a fight with a rifle with 16″ barrel. If you can hit a bullseye at 50 yards with a small pistol, do that in about 1.5 seconds, be my guest run in there. Oh I hope your will is in order and insurance is paid. I thought deeply about this and while I clearly would have no choice but to run, as it is a no gun zone, if I did have a gun 3.8 barrel, my son would have to be inside before I consider what is clearly suicide.

    1. avatar Feet or Knees says:

      I hope you were not in the military, if you think going up against a mentally and emotionally inferior 19 year old, is suicide. The rifle’s advantage of distance is gone by the close quarters.

      It is the person behind the weapon that is the real danger, and not the tool in their hands. Use over to get closer, or take the fifty yard shot down the hall way and watch the coward run. If no innocents were around, then dump your magazine at the threat, and reload. It only had ten round magazines and no armor, and was outgunned by the armored cop, with at least 3 15 round magazines. Yes, a .223 will zip through level 3A but the attacker would not have engaged in a gun battle, as it would have killed itself once engaged.

      1. avatar NoOneofConsequence says:

        You’re spreading misinformation. Read the Parkland Commission report and you’ll find a total of eight 30 and 40 round magazines were recovered from the scene. Page 262

        http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/MSDHS/CommissionReport.pdf

        1. avatar PS says:

          Kids had no chance (no training, weapons (beyond improvised actions & weapons).

          As to pistol (or only improvised weapons) vs rifle, some odds are better than others. My odds would beat that of an above average of teen football player. And yea, I can engage a target with rifle at distance with a pistol. Even with a mouse gun. Tactics & more matter more than the weapon & ammunition supply as pointed out above.

          Just one example:

          https://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/419451006-Cop-shares-gunfight-lessons-from-ISIS-inspired-Draw-the-Prophet-terrorist-attack/

          I will not bother with follow up on this site so have at it. smh

      2. avatar will says:

        Yes I was and in a combat unit then a medic. But you are wrong 19 yo boys. The army loves 19 yo boys as they are the most vicious of killers. They start to become harder to train to kill after they mature and parietal instinct over comes baser instinct. That was a defense study btw.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      If you are a cop, that is what you are paid to do. If you don’t want to do that, find honest work where you are not living off the sweat of the tax payer’s brow.

      1. avatar will says:

        I agree but human resource officers should not be in poor condition with a hand gun. All should carry rifles, give me a rifle and I have a offensive weapon. Then it makes it easier to pursue a shooter. Some of those hallways are long. The rifle has the advantage. Hand guns are last resort defense weapons.

    3. avatar frank speak says:

      what chance [or options] did those kids have?….

  13. avatar Ralph says:

    “In cases such as Warren v. District of Columbia, Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County, courts have ruled that police have no constitutional duty to protect citizens.”

    Those cases were CIVIL cases brought by individuals claiming that the police owed them a duty. The Courts ruled that there was no such duty, invoking something called the public duty doctrine.

    This is a State law CRIMINAL case and State law will determine Peterson’s culpability. The case is based on negligence, neglect and knowingly making false statements.

    I don’t know what the outcome will be, but SCOTUS decisions on the public duty doctrine should have no application to this case.

  14. avatar Billy Bob says:

    The guy is guilty of being a coward. He failed in his moral obligation to protect the lives of those in his care. I dont know if he committed any crimes, legally speaking. Any person with a conscience would die a little everyday if they had acted the way he did.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Exactly.

    2. avatar Bob B. Bill Jr. says:

      Sounds like he is going through hell already. If this is what happens when a person reverts to acting human while under stress, it is a wonder why anybody would want to be a cop. No one else was expecting a gunman that day either. He, the gunman is dead yet there is still this need to serve vengeance on somebody; anybody. Moral and/or Legal obligations do not go hand in hand so who has the right to judge what is or isn’t the “Moral Obligation” of another man. Also the gunshots would indicate that people where already being shot so an officers reaction afterwards would be to late anyway-It was the act of people being shot that was the source of the mentioned gunshots.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Generally speaking, I agree. However, someone who has been paid for 30+ years to protect innocent children, and who then demonstrates that he *NEVER* was protecting innocent children, just taking paychecks without ever earning them, should certainly not spend the next 30 years picking up 100+K/year for his exemplary service. Drop his retirement pay, And if someone shoots him dead, do not investigate.

  15. avatar WI Patriot says:

    “Perjury: Scot Peterson Lied About Hearing Gunshots During Parkland Shooting”

    Of course he did, he’s a coward, and he knew it at the time…wanted the badge, wanted the gun, wanted the authority, but didn’t want the responsibility that came with the badge, the gun and the authority…

  16. avatar Jason says:

    I’ts a pity the para-military wanna-bees aren’t governed by the same set of rules:

    UCMJ Art. 99

    Any member of the armed forces who before or in the presence of the enemy—
    (1) runs away;
    (2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;
    (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;
    (4) casts away his arms or ammunition;
    (5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;
    (6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;
    (7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;
    (8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or
    (9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;
    shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

  17. avatar Hannibal says:

    Yeah. I see the other charges as being overreach in the wake of outrage, which is bad way to prosecute. But perjury is black and white. Civilian US law has never, to my understanding, held to a criminal standard that a person must risk their life to save another. But lying on official documents? You dun goofed.

  18. avatar James says:

    It always comes down to ‘no one is coming to save you’.

    A pox on those that have no culpability when they are entrusted with protective duties. While at the same time preventing you from proper defenses.

  19. avatar Bo Danuba says:

    “It seems like this is just an attempt to scapegoat this guy and let everyone else off the moral hook”

    It does seem like he is taking heat for everything but the actual act itself.
    Saying that he didn’t HEAR the gunshots is not the same as saying there where NO gunshots, he just didn’t hear them. He shouldn’t be blamed for any physical shortcomings. I suspect that he was assigned to school yard duty rather than an “Active Shooter Task Force” based on his historical effectiveness and abilities.
    The best man for the job is going to be assigned to the areas of higher crime potential where he is needed most and not sent to babysit the schoolyard.
    He was a known quantity to his supervisors who misused their resources.

    1. avatar MaddMaxx says:

      The asshole clearly “HEARD” the shots, in fact his initial radio call reported “sounds like firecrackers, maybe gunshots coming from building 1200” which was his “OTHER” lie when he testified he could not tell where the SHOTS were coming from.. It’s all on video “WITH” legible audio…..

  20. avatar Buff cousin Elroy says:

    Dude should just shoot himself in the head. It’s what he deserves, there would be more kids alive today if a real man would have been on site instead of Scot the Coward.

  21. avatar enuf says:

    Police officers from further away, who arrived after him, ran past him as he cowered in fear. They ran into the school with guns drawn not knowing where the shooter or shooters were. Not knowing the shooter was gone, or if there could be ambushes ahead. Risking their lives they thought, as they ran inside, passing the coward on their way in. Not finding any bad guys they set to work on the wounded, trying to save lives.

    While the one cop who’s specific task in life and career was to protect those children continued to cower outside.

    Whatever punishments can be successfully applied to that coward, they are inadequate.

  22. avatar NTS says:

    Perjury only. The rest won’t stick due to prior Supreme Court precedents regarding police having no obligation to protect anyone.

    Now, maybe reviewing Peterson’s prior relationship with former Sheriff Israel, revolving around helping Israel’s son on a sexual battery rap (on a younger boy), may be more productive. Don’t know if the statute of limitations has passed for accessory to sexual battery.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email