Deputy Scot Peterson

[BBYC]

Different people have different priorities in life. Sometimes their priorities don't work out so well for them, so they blame other people (or inanimate objects like guns) for their own failings.

[srothstein]

A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in.

How does this statement (Or is it your opinion?) align with the SCOTUS decision in 2005 that says the police have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... otect.html

Is it a difference between constitutional duty versus the obligation or nature of the job? Especially since they were there at a school for a reason? Or would that SCOTUS decision not really pertain in this case since it was not really an individual per se, but rather the student body and staff as a whole?

My husband and I had this discussion a night or two ago. We finally reached the conclusion that while Peterson, according to SCOTUS did not have a obligation to "Protect", thus he did not have an obligation to "charge in". He, as the only person with a gun, and as a police officer, did have a moral obligation to go in.
Now, this will be interesting when the civil cases come around, as you know they will....

In this case, there is a difference most people forget. While I agree with the moral obligation, which should be the strongest motivation IMO, there was also a legal obligation.

When the SCOTUS said police have no obligation to protect anyone, that is taking a partial sentence out of context. The full decision is that they have no duty to protect any specific person UNLESS there is a special relationship developed between the police and the victim. In this case, by accepting the assignment to the school, the sheriff's office and its employees developed a special relationship with an obligation to protect the victims. Obviously, until the courts rule on it, the existence of this special circumstance is my opinion, but if I were the lawyers involved, I would rely on it until the courts ruled otherwise. I would also find other reasons for the suit just in case, but I believe he had a legal obligation to safeguard the students of the school because of the assignment as the campus officer.

And to answer the questions about the survivability of the officer with a pistol against a rifle, I think it is possible. By being indoors, the rifle loses a lot of its advantage, which is distance. The officer also does not have to get into a face to face gunfight. He can take a position where he can apply suppressive fire to make the shooter take cover. He could even take a covered position where he could just shout and talk to the shooter. All of these, and others I cannot think of offhand, would meet the goal of helping.

On a side note, there is a lot of split in the forum over this. In a way, I see this as a good thing and in a way it is a bad thing. I like the fact that a lot of people are supporting the deputy by pointing out the improbability of him winning a gun fight. I disagree, but I like the support for him. That is the good part. The bad part is I don't like to see how personal some of the attacks have been. I really don't want to see us arguing instead of discussing this (or any point). I am somewhat amazed at how the politics has entered it, but I think that is a symptom of modern society and too many discussions devolve into that.

If it helps anyone, the police forums I am on are almost universal in not supporting the deputy. Police are generally very unforgiving of mistakes made by other officers, but it is usually more of a brotherly ribbing about it. Many of the jokes and memes I have seen lately on police forums are pretty pointed against Broward County Sheriff's Office. There have been a few saying to wait until the investigation finishes, especially since the letter from the lawyer was published. But most agree that the best the deputy can hope for is people to recognize that the training was faulty and had not been updated since Columbine. Generally, police training since then is to go in and confront the shooter as soon as one or two officers get to the scene.

[ELB]

... In this case, by accepting the assignment to the school, the sheriff's office and its employees developed a special relationship with an obligation to protect the victims...

I would like to think you are right, but I would not count on it. I found a footnote in one of David Kopel's writings that listed a bunch of SCOTUS decisions about the police's duty -- somewhere around 15 or so I think - and it seems the drew a very narrow window for "special relationship." The duty to protect has been attacked from numerous directions, and I don't think any have succeeded. I don't recall guarding a school being one of them, that might be one that falls in the special relationship category, but it was a long time ago. I will see if I can find that list and peruse it a bit. Though at heart I am pessimistic about these types of decisions.

[OlBill]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... y.amp.html

Commanding officer initially ordered responding deputies to 'stage' not enter Stoneman Douglas, sources say

[OlBill]

If your profession is arms, does your primary decisional domain include violence? If the essential framework (for applying OODA) does not include receiving and/or delivering violence, you have models in place that have inherently failed before you have contact, right? E.g., if I'm a triathelete, I have to have a plan for changing a bike tire, at speed. It may only happen once in 5 years, but that plan is imperative, if I plan to win.

We have a domain in which we operate, in which certain events are common/probable/possible, and our OODA-loop should be tagged to key event points within that domain, and flexible for greater/lesser resource demands, and capable of cascading, perhaps in some state of chaos, but with direction towards a goal of survivability and maintenance of resources/assets. If I'm "free-flying", in a completely new environment, with unfamiliar resources and no intel, then I am left with only a reflexive loop, with diminishied survivability.

A measure of mental "war-gaming" is necessary to validate a decisional model, and clearly, that didn't happen, so I'm not sure of the disagreement...?

In any event, I do agree, there is quite a bit more to the story, and I would not expect it to be good.

Excellent points! His profession is not arms.

[DocV]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... y.amp.html

Commanding officer initially ordered responding deputies to 'stage' not enter Stoneman Douglas, sources say

An old platitude, "once is an accident, twice is a plan", has led me not to contribute to this thread.
However, the article's claim:

a commanding officer on scene apparently ordered some of the initial responders to “stage” and set up a “perimeter” outside

seems consistent with that platitude.

The article was not initially clear as to what agency was in command but eventually meanders to:

Fox News has repeatedly reached out to the Broward County Sheriff’s office — which was the commanding agency that day — for comment..

One question remaining is at what time during the incident was this alleged order given. If the order was communicated to the deputy while he was, apparently, the only officer on scene, or was a standing policy, it seems to follow his subsequent dismissal would not have occurred. The Broward County Sheriff's office dismissal of the deputy implies the order was given after the deputy had the opportunity to take action.

The Broward County Sheriff’s office has a long fail chain in this incident and richly deserves criticism. I enthusiastically accept their decision to dismiss the deputy but :
https://youtu.be/P2_Ymc4XUvs?t=15s

[rp_photo]

If my job in the private sector provided for me to retire with 75% income for life by my current age of 58, I'd be pretty "chill", and I can also see why it would discourage someone from wanting to go above and beyond.

[Charles L. Cotton]

A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in.

How does this statement (Or is it your opinion?) align with the SCOTUS decision in 2005 that says the police have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... otect.html

Is it a difference between constitutional duty versus the obligation or nature of the job? Especially since they were there at a school for a reason? Or would that SCOTUS decision not really pertain in this case since it was not really an individual per se, but rather the student body and staff as a whole?

My husband and I had this discussion a night or two ago. We finally reached the conclusion that while Peterson, according to SCOTUS did not have a obligation to "Protect", thus he did not have an obligation to "charge in". He, as the only person with a gun, and as a police officer, did have a moral obligation to go in.
Now, this will be interesting when the civil cases come around, as you know they will....

In this case, there is a difference most people forget. While I agree with the moral obligation, which should be the strongest motivation IMO, there was also a legal obligation.

When the SCOTUS said police have no obligation to protect anyone, that is taking a partial sentence out of context. The full decision is that they have no duty to protect any specific person UNLESS there is a special relationship developed between the police and the victim. In this case, by accepting the assignment to the school, the sheriff's office and its employees developed a special relationship with an obligation to protect the victims.

I agree fully. The SCOTUS case on this issue is often misunderstood or extended beyond the holding. The case essentially held that there is no general duty to the public to prevent you from becoming a crime victim. To that extent, the decision was/is correct. If every law enforcement agency could be sued by any and every crime victim, then we soon would have no such agencies.

Chas.

[Paladin]

https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews. ... y.amp.html

Commanding officer initially ordered responding deputies to 'stage' not enter Stoneman Douglas, sources say

At this point, eleven minutes after it was believed Cruz first opened fire, the log indicated one of the commanding officers started ordering responding officers to begin forming a perimeter, which one law enforcement source said would go against all training to first neutralize the threat.

At 2:32 p.m., the dispatch call log indicated the first command to form a perimeter was issued, “17S1…NEED PERIMETER.”

Sources told Fox News the 17S1 insignia on the log that day is important because it is the insignia, or code, for who was making the commands. 17S1 stands for 17 Sierra One.

A short while later, as the dispatch log indicated the whereabouts of the shooter was unknown; the first command to “stage” apparently was given.

2:34:48 p.m., “17S1 STAGE SIDE SAWGRASS.”

Then, three minutes after that staging order, the log indicated the scene was still active as emergency aircrews indicated they would not go because it hadn’t been confirmed the shooter was in custody.

2:38 p.m., “AIR RESCUE ADVISED NOT LAUNCING UNTIL CONFIRMED SUBJ IS IN CUSTODY,” the log read.

At 2:47 p.m., 15 minutes after the first command to form a perimeter was issued and 13 minutes after the first command to stage was issued, the log indicated the SWAT team entered the school.

So the dispatch log shows that, disregarding procedure, "17S1" called for a perimeter and then staging

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[OlBill]

So he followed orders?

[Paladin]

So he followed orders?

It appears Peterson was the first to know about Cruz on school grounds and the gunfire, so Peterson could have acted before the radio calls went out.

[OlBill]

So he followed orders?

It appears Peterson was the first to know about Cruz on school grounds and the gunfire, so Peterson could have acted before the radio calls went out.

Ok.