FL: Active shooter at high school in South Florida

[philip964]

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/brow ... story.html

Life in prison for 17 murders.

Jury bought the although he was adopted and had a loving home the crack-drunk birth mother did the damage in the womb science.

No justice anywhere for the parents. Police, school district, people who were enabling him and now the murderer escapes true justice.

[Beiruty]

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/brow ... story.html

Life in prison for 17 murders.

Jury bought the although he was adopted and had a loving home the crack-drunk birth mother did the damage in the womb science.

No justice anywhere for the parents. Police, school district, people who were enabling him and now the murderer escapes true justice.

This is our problem in society, justice is diluted or even evaporated by a single vote
2 possible fates:
Would not survive for long
Living for the rest of his life alone in 3x5 cell.

[carlson1]

All capital murders in Dallas County ends up with life. The DA can’t spell capital punishment.

[03Lightningrocks]

Personally. I would rather be dead than spend the rest of my life in a five by 10 prison cell. One hour a day exercise. Two showers a week. He is going to live a miserable existence. Even if they had given him the death penalty, he would still not be executed until all his appeals run out in 15-20 years. Costing tax payers far more money than just caging him up.

[carlson1]

Well he gave 26 kids the death penalty and that is exactly what he deserved. The parents were cheated out of justice today.

[BigGuy]

Well he gave 26 kids the death penalty and that is exactly what he deserved. The parents were cheated out of justice today.

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/officer-raced-pa ... 37622.html

Police officer on trial for failing to enter building.

[Paladin]

https://news.yahoo.com/officer-raced-pa ... 37622.html

Police officer on trial for failing to enter building.

They don't mention that Peterson told everyone else to stay away, which in my mind is worse that cowardice.

[puma guy]

I thought Castle Rock VS Gonzaleaz established that police are not obligated to protect you. Another part of the decision was the police had qualified immunity. I'm no lawyer, though.

[srothstein]

I thought Castle Rock VS Gonzaleaz established that police are not obligated to protect you. Another part of the decision was the police had qualified immunity. I'm no lawyer, though.

That case can be a little more nuanced than it looks. The general rule is that police are there to protect society in general and have no obligation to protect specific individuals. But the exception to that rule is that police may have an obligation to protect specific people if there is a special relationship created obligating them to do so. The classic example of this, and the one taught in most police academies (to my knowledge) is when a cop makes a domestic disturbance and forces the aggressor to leave. If the cop says something to the victim like "If he comes back, call us and I will arrest him", then he has created a special relationship and an obligation to protect that specific person from the other person.

It can be argued that employment in a specialized police department such as a school PD, also by its very nature creates a special relationship for that department or the people assigned to the school to protect the students and faculty/staff while they are on campus. I am guessing that in this specific trial, Best (the city cop responding) had no special relationship or obligation (and went in anyway) while Peterson, as a campus officer, will be found to have had the special relationship and failed to meet the obligation. I am hoping the prosecutor knows enough to clarify and make the relationship explicitly part of the questions for the jury (and I assume since I know it, the lawyers should also).

[puma guy]

I thought Castle Rock VS Gonzaleaz established that police are not obligated to protect you. Another part of the decision was the police had qualified immunity. I'm no lawyer, though.

That case can be a little more nuanced than it looks. The general rule is that police are there to protect society in general and have no obligation to protect specific individuals. But the exception to that rule is that police may have an obligation to protect specific people if there is a special relationship created obligating them to do so. The classic example of this, and the one taught in most police academies (to my knowledge) is when a cop makes a domestic disturbance and forces the aggressor to leave. If the cop says something to the victim like "If he comes back, call us and I will arrest him", then he has created a special relationship and an obligation to protect that specific person from the other person.

It can be argued that employment in a specialized police department such as a school PD, also by its very nature creates a special relationship for that department or the people assigned to the school to protect the students and faculty/staff while they are on campus. I am guessing that in this specific trial, Best (the city cop responding) had no special relationship or obligation (and went in anyway) while Peterson, as a campus officer, will be found to have had the special relationship and failed to meet the obligation. I am hoping the prosecutor knows enough to clarify and make the relationship explicitly part of the questions for the jury (and I assume since I know it, the lawyers should also).

What do you think the chances are that he will plead qualified immunity?

[srothstein]

I thought Castle Rock VS Gonzaleaz established that police are not obligated to protect you. Another part of the decision was the police had qualified immunity. I'm no lawyer, though.

That case can be a little more nuanced than it looks. The general rule is that police are there to protect society in general and have no obligation to protect specific individuals. But the exception to that rule is that police may have an obligation to protect specific people if there is a special relationship created obligating them to do so. The classic example of this, and the one taught in most police academies (to my knowledge) is when a cop makes a domestic disturbance and forces the aggressor to leave. If the cop says something to the victim like "If he comes back, call us and I will arrest him", then he has created a special relationship and an obligation to protect that specific person from the other person.

It can be argued that employment in a specialized police department such as a school PD, also by its very nature creates a special relationship for that department or the people assigned to the school to protect the students and faculty/staff while they are on campus. I am guessing that in this specific trial, Best (the city cop responding) had no special relationship or obligation (and went in anyway) while Peterson, as a campus officer, will be found to have had the special relationship and failed to meet the obligation. I am hoping the prosecutor knows enough to clarify and make the relationship explicitly part of the questions for the jury (and I assume since I know it, the lawyers should also).

What do you think the chances are that he will plead qualified immunity?

I had to go look better at the case. I don't think he can since this is a criminal trial and I think QI is a defense in civil trials only.

[puma guy]

I thought Castle Rock VS Gonzaleaz established that police are not obligated to protect you. Another part of the decision was the police had qualified immunity. I'm no lawyer, though.

That case can be a little more nuanced than it looks. The general rule is that police are there to protect society in general and have no obligation to protect specific individuals. But the exception to that rule is that police may have an obligation to protect specific people if there is a special relationship created obligating them to do so. The classic example of this, and the one taught in most police academies (to my knowledge) is when a cop makes a domestic disturbance and forces the aggressor to leave. If the cop says something to the victim like "If he comes back, call us and I will arrest him", then he has created a special relationship and an obligation to protect that specific person from the other person.

It can be argued that employment in a specialized police department such as a school PD, also by its very nature creates a special relationship for that department or the people assigned to the school to protect the students and faculty/staff while they are on campus. I am guessing that in this specific trial, Best (the city cop responding) had no special relationship or obligation (and went in anyway) while Peterson, as a campus officer, will be found to have had the special relationship and failed to meet the obligation. I am hoping the prosecutor knows enough to clarify and make the relationship explicitly part of the questions for the jury (and I assume since I know it, the lawyers should also).

What do you think the chances are that he will plead qualified immunity?

I had to go look better at the case. I don't think he can since this is a criminal trial and I think QI is a defense in civil trials only.

You are most likely correct. I didn't think about it being a criminal charge.

[C-dub]

Well he gave 26 kids the death penalty and that is exactly what he deserved. The parents were cheated out of justice today.

IMHO, what he deserved was not an option the court had.

[philip964]

Florida jury finds former Parkland school resource officer not guilty on all counts

https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-jury ... all-counts

Not guilty of child neglect.