Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this the price of refusing to be disposable?

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

  • Is this the price of refusing to be disposable?

    Hi,

    Officer Scot Peterson is being charged with not entering Parkland school during shooting, with max. penalty up to 100 years in prison:

    https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ering-n1013831

    Comments?


    M

  • #2
    I do think the guy cowards there... but I don't think that is a crime.

    It is easy for guys to talk hard, like Trump who claim that if he was around there he will have getting inside the building and do something... and as your link show, he is not getting any love from the other side of the spectrum... so he did mange to get hated left and right.

    Putting things on perspective, his mistake was to get a cop job... sold himself to beat up citizens... except if that citizen have a gun... then he just stay outside the building... so not much love for him from me... Cops are well trained to give minor traffic infractions, never coward to one of those, and they talk about it like if they want people to think they are heroes for giving traffic tickets... "I am putting my live in the line each time I stop a car..." Yeah, right... when I become a man I want to be like you... LOL. For me, this guy is pretty much the average cop.

    To be honest, if I was around there, I would not have get inside the building... but then again, I have not badge, I don't pretend to be useful to society, or seek for people to see me as "an hero"... but think about it... you getting into a situation where you don't really know what to find... how many are there? what training they have? did they install traps around? Now we know it was 1 kid with a gun, so yeah, easy to talk now... but... standing outside a building, hearing gunshots and seeing a bunch of people running and screaming and not giving any useful information of what is going on inside... that is a different situation...

    Perhaps some macho-man high in so call "toxic masculinity" would have jump right in... and maybe help, or maybe make things worse... And this is not coming from nowhere... in the video the guy is saying "those are my kids"... and not... they are not... the fact that he say that give me one or 2 insights on his mind... and it is it not pretty... I get the idea that he either is trying to manipulate and lie in order to come out of this with a somewhat clean reputation of being the hard man he wish to be... or he really think those are his kids, and he is just mentally challenge.

    What is next? putting in jail a firefighter because he didn't jump inside a building on fire right away?

    Maybe we can also put in jail some guy for not going to restore electricity in the middle of a storm... it all sounds possible to me... Good thing my job is in publishing, marketing and advertisement... so I can't get sue for... No photo-shopping a burger when shit hits the fan... LOL.

    By the way, I think this charges against him are not goign to stick... I think he will walk out of it with some months of jail, and with the motivation to find a job on something else... very common in the military to hear that soldiers freeze up the first time they are in combat... even after months of training, that happens... but then again... sometime I hear stories on the military where this guys can get punish by it.. in some cases executed... so...

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by simpleman View Post
      By the way, I think this charges against him are not goign to stick... I think he will walk out of it with some months of jail, and with the motivation to find a job on something else... very common in the military to hear that soldiers freeze up the first time they are in combat... even after months of training, that happens... but then again... sometime I hear stories on the military where this guys can get punish by it.. in some cases executed... so...
      I saw an attorney on the news talking about it and I'm inclined to agree with her. He will most likely be convicted on at least some of the counts. And then, the overwhelming likelihood is that his conviction will be very quickly overturned at appeal.

      There's two things at play here and in this case.

      The first is prosecutorial overreach. It happens whenever an ambitious prosecutor thinks they can make their bones by twisting the facts and the law to fit a situation for which it was never intended. A prime example would be prosecuting a teen-aged girl for "production of child pornography" for taking nude or topless selfies. It "technically" meets the law, but the law was intended to stop children from being exploited, not to punish children for being stupid.

      The second drives the first, and it's public outrage. It's essentially the bargaining stage of grief projected onto a larger group of people than an individual or a family. It's a whole community, a whole country. People think they'll somehow feel better if this guy is punished through the legal system. As though somehow locking this guy up is going to produce any justice for the victims. He should almost certainly lose his job as the community doesn't trust him anymore. He should probably live a life of having to answer the question "Hey, aren't you the pussy who let a bunch of kids get shot?" But I don't think anything he did or didn't do rises to the level of a crime. I mean, given that the supreme court has ruled that the police have no Constitutional Duty to protect people, I'm somewhat surprised a judge wouldn't dismiss the case out of hand, but then I guess judges are political creatures too.

      What concerns me is the weaponizing of law. Yes we have laws and the rule of law matters. But we don't honor the intent the law, instead we have an army of semantic bureaucrats trying to argue the letter absent the intent. Twisting and twisting the law to meet unwritten moral demands or soothe public outrage. If you twist anything enough it's going to break.
      "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
      "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

      Comment


      • #4
        You can actually hear it directly in the video around the 0:54 mark. Lori Alhadeff says:

        "He needs to go to jail and he needs to serve a lifetime in prison for not going in that day and taking down the threat and...that lead to the death of our loved ones"
        That is grief, not justice. And I'm deeply sympathetic toward her grief. But grieving is more like drunk-goggles when it comes to justice. You may know something's there, but it's blurry as shit and 4 feet farther to the left than you think it is.

        I'm not sure it's precisely "bargaining" but it's the same kind of thinking...."if he had gone in my son/daughter wouldn't have died!". Well, maybe yes and maybe no. It's possible he walks through the door, immediately gets shot in the face, and the gunman goes right back to what he's doing.

        Punishing anyone or everyone or no-one most likely won't actually make any of the victims' families process their grief any more quickly or any "better". But when you're grieving it can sure seems like dropping suffering at someone else's door will somehow make you hurt less. I don't think it ever works.
        "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
        "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by simpleman View Post
          Perhaps some macho-man high in so call "toxic masculinity" would have jump right in... and maybe help, or maybe make things worse... And this is not coming from nowhere... in the video the guy is saying "those are my kids"... and not... they are not... the fact that he say that give me one or 2 insights on his mind... and it is it not pretty... I get the idea that he either is trying to manipulate and lie in order to come out of this with a somewhat clean reputation of being the hard man he wish to be... or he really think those are his kids, and he is just mentally challenge.
          He's saying "my kids" the way a teacher would say "my kids". Neither believe that those kids are biologically theirs. It's something people say when they've been given responsibility for a group of children and formed an attachment to them. I don't think it's anything nefarious or twisted.

          In fact I think what you see in that clip is genuine remorse. Whether he's remorseful that he didn't act simply because he thinks he should have, or whether it's because of the backlash he's gotten since, I couldn't say, but I do think that catch in his voice was honest and not affected.
          "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
          "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Mifune View Post
            The first is prosecutorial overreach. It happens whenever an ambitious prosecutor thinks they can make their bones by twisting the facts and the law to fit a situation for which it was never intended. A prime example would be prosecuting a teen-aged girl for "production of child pornography" for taking nude or topless selfies. It "technically" meets the law, but the law was intended to stop children from being exploited, not to punish children for being stupid.
            This is why I think the charges are not going to stick... I think he acted accordingly to some training or procediment of some sorts... The trial will end up being about people deciding if he did his job, when he is the expert of his job... If at that moment he made the call of judgement that it was best for all to stay outside and secure the parking lot... Who am I to say that his decision is wrong?

            The second drives the first, and it's public outrage. It's essentially the bargaining stage of grief projected onto a larger group of people than an individual or a family. It's a whole community, a whole country. People think they'll somehow feel better if this guy is punished through the legal system. As though somehow locking this guy up is going to produce any justice for the victims. He should almost certainly lose his job as the community doesn't trust him anymore. He should probably live a life of having to answer the question "Hey, aren't you the pussy who let a bunch of kids get shot?" But I don't think anything he did or didn't do rises to the level of a crime. I mean, given that the supreme court has ruled that the police have no Constitutional Duty to protect people, I'm somewhat surprised a judge wouldn't dismiss the case out of hand, but then I guess judges are political creatures too.
            The link on the OP says he already got fired... anyway... I think the problem with all this is the message that men have to take great risk on their lives if that represent a small change to save someone else life... or as Manalysis put it in the title... being disposable. If you don't take extreme risk, we will punish you with the legal system... that is the message... it is not about punishing this man but about sending a message to all other men out there... specially the men that took a job related to crises response.

            He's saying "my kids" the way a teacher would say "my kids". Neither believe that those kids are biologically theirs. It's something people say when they've been given responsibility for a group of children and formed an attachment to them. I don't think it's anything nefarious or twisted.
            If that is the case, then he is just a fool... those are not his kids... under any context. And the teacher in that example is another fool.

            Comment


            • #7

              The police is never meant to be a solo hero, but part of a department or bureacracy that perform a heroic function consistent with the training and proven techniques. They do not win against the criminals because each individual cop is a bigger badass than the individual criminal, but because the entire organization, training and procedures provide no other outcome than "there's 30,000 of us and only 4 of you, come out with your hands up, it's over."

              Just like the army is not meant to be a solo Rambo going in by yourself to invade Panama, the organization, training and procedures win the battle, not the cojones of the individual soldier.

              "Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."

              In other words it's not about whether 1 cop can go in and shoot the criminal in the face, but rather what is the response time, how many swat teams do we have on rotation, etc etc.

              I think Scott Peterson is the matyr of a society that don't have any answers.

              Why are schoolkids shooting up schools?
              How are you supposed to secure an area the size of Florida where anybody can get a glock and just start shooting their coworkers?

              Society does not have these answers.

              So they blame 1 guy for not running into the building guns blazing.

              I don't think it has anything to do with personal cowardice, the first thing you do in a shooting is gather information and establish a perimeter.

              If anyone is guilty of cowardice it's the DA and local chickenhawks for not confronting the wider sociological implications of the fact that 17 year old boys are getting armed and shooting their classmates. But sure, let's just ignore that and put it all on the school resource officer, then we don't have to think too hard.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'd like to hear more details about his department's procedures for a situation like that, and what his training prepared him to do. I'd also like to hear more about the alleged lie that led to the perjury charge.

                Even the article implies at the outset that he's guilty: "A former Parkland, Florida, school safety officer who failed to confront the gunman" Maybe the trial will reveal that it was a failure, but it's a little early for the media to use that word.
                Last edited by WontStepUp; 06-14-2019, 12:20 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  @WontStepUp

                  I try to find some info about it, basically it looks like the whole perjury deal is related to a statement he gave after the shooting... It looks like they took him to some office and have him tell them everything he knows, or some like that... and now they are pocking holes on things he said and so the base for the charges.

                  This is the best article I found about it, though... some link are so heavy an adds and the so... I will just copy the parts about it here:

                  Loaded with 'inaccuracies': the sworn statement of deputy Scot Peterson
                  https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...122-story.html

                  Broward Deputy Scot Peterson swore under oath that he heard only two or three shots when he arrived outside the freshman building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. There actually were over 70 fired then, though.
                  The detective cast doubts on Peterson’s explanation for his failure to go into the building and confront the gunman. Peterson claimed he didn’t know where the shots were coming from and — in a nationally televised interview — said he thought there may have been a sniper.
                  A fact-finding panel set up under law, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission, released a sweeping report earlier this month of widespread failures by both the school district and the Broward Sheriff’s Office in handling the tragedy. One major focus was Peterson.

                  The commission concluded he was derelict in his duty, finding that evidence overwhelmingly showed he knew the gunshots were coming from inside or around the building. But he made no effort to find out.
                  “And the two to three shots that he claims he heard were actually over seventy shots going off inside the building,” Curcio said.
                  The commission chairman, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri, told the Sun Sentinel in blunt terms Tuesday: “I think Peterson’s a liar and he didn’t tell the truth.”
                  And that is as much as I was able to find about it... he say he hear a couple of shoots, Vs some 70 they counted, and he sid he dos not know where the shoots where comming from, they think he knew it was from inside the building.

                  About his training, it looks the whole police department was under-trained for such situation. Anyway..

                  This is the link for training of School Resource Officer on Florida:

                  http://www.fcpti.com/fcpti.nsf/pages/SROPD

                  So basically all I got is that it is around 130 hours, some of those hours are about crime prevention, some of them are about dealing with young people

                  Definitely does not sound like he is trained for crises response, or a swat team or any of that...

                  But then again the case against him is piling up with cops that want to pose as mean and though now... saying basically that they would have jumped inside the building and killing the shooter right away... or as the DA calls them... "experts"... here an example:

                  Joseph Guida, an expert witness for police-related court cases for NYPDTruth.com and a former New York City police officer, agreed.

                  Although Guida has never heard of a police officer being prosecuted for not doing his job, he also has never heard of an officer waiting outside during a mass murder.

                  “I always thought [Peterson] should have been prosecuted because your job as a police officer is to run toward the danger," Guida said. “When you don’t do that you are actually a coward and shirking your duties and responsibilities.”
                  https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...viq-story.html

                  In another note... this whole thing now is goign to set a prresedent that was not there, and some people is getting worried about how far it can go.. here a nice example of it:

                  If an armed teacher in Florida doesn’t intervene in a school shooting, will they also be arrested?
                  https://www.heraldmailmedia.com/news...ef1b8be40.html

                  I think eventually they will arrest every man, withing 1 mile around a school, that does not run into the building in the middle of a shooting...

                  The state’s teachers union, the Florida Education Association, has opposed the idea of arming teachers in Florida since it was first proposed, arguing more guns in the hands of people who aren’t law enforcement make schools less safe. Tuesday’s arrest of Scot Peterson, however, could make a dangerous law even worse by shifting more liability to teachers, said Fedrick Ingram, president of the union.

                  “What responsibility do you then have as a volunteer who is saying, ‘I’m going to arm myself?’” he asked. “How far does that responsibility go? … That’s a thought process our teachers should not be faced with.”
                  LOL

                  Where is the feminists now saying that police have a problem with toxic masculinity? where are there now to tell us that cops should be less aggressive, and disarmed... ???

                  At last count, 28 of Florida’s 67 counties are participating in some form with the state’s “Guardian program,” which allows districts to partner with local sheriff’s offices to train and arm school staff or to hire their own security guards, according a Department of Education presentation. Of those districts, at least four — Bay, Baker, Okaloosa, Suwannee — plan to allow classroom teachers to volunteer to have guns, according to a survey conducted in May by the Florida Education Association.
                  I remember when things where going on the news after the fact, people was questioning th performance of the whole department, not just of a guy... but here a video of trump sacking the whole department, mentioning in specifics around 5 cops... and of course saying that he is so hard and so male and so strong that if he was around he would have run inside the building and kill the shooter... What man!





                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Simpleman, in case I was unclear, I wasn't asking you to find the answers to my questions. But I do appreciate the answers. My point was that the article should have including that kind of information. The article struck me as basically being driven by the notion the cop didn't run into the building when he heard the shots, and that that was all that really needed to be said.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by WontStepUp View Post
                      Simpleman, in case I was unclear, I wasn't asking you to find the answers to my questions. But I do appreciate the answers. My point was that the article should have including that kind of information. The article struck me as basically being driven by the notion the cop didn't run into the building when he heard the shots, and that that was all that really needed to be said.
                      I think your inference is absolutely correct. Some time back on here there was an argument about the word "narrative", I forget the whole argument, but I believe I was arguing that the word is necessary to highlight how news organizations have become about something other than presenting the facts. Now it's just as important to interpret tone from a combination of what is and what is not presented in the coverage.

                      The "narrative" here is that he should have gone in and that would have saved lives. Even if that's morally true, I think they're going to have a really hard time getting an appeals court to rule that he had a legal obligation to do so.

                      But as I said above, it's not about following the law, it's about soothing people's outrage by misapplying the law. And if the courts allow that it's extremely damaging to the notion of Justice.
                      "...but when she goes off you, she will not just walk away, she will walk away with your fucking skin in a jar." ~~ DoctorRandomercam
                      "The laws of man, they don't apply when blood gets in a woman's eye" - The Black Keys

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by WontStepUp View Post
                        Simpleman, in case I was unclear, I wasn't asking you to find the answers to my questions. But I do appreciate the answers. My point was that the article should have including that kind of information. The article struck me as basically being driven by the notion the cop didn't run into the building when he heard the shots, and that that was all that really needed to be said.
                        Oh... I didn't understood them as rhetorical questions...

                        One of hte links I think I shared talk about teachers worried that they can go to jail if they volunteer to carry a gun... this tells me if society is goign to harsh punish the people that can do something, then I will expect to see a lot more of willing incompetents... as in... If I don't take a CPR class then I will not be sued for not risking my life into a dangerous situation... kind of deal.

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X