Judge rules deputy Scot Peterson had duty to protect Parkland students, refuses to toss lawsuit

Welcome to ArizonaShooting.org!

Join today!

Welcome! You have been invited by BillyRayJoeBob to join our community. Please click here to register.

Suck My Glock

Member
Joined
May 25, 2018
Messages
10,580
Location
Peoria
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/dec/12/scot-peterson-had-duty-protect-parkland-students-j/

Judge rules deputy Scot Peterson had duty to protect Parkland students, refuses to toss lawsuit


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A judge has rejected a deputy’s claim that he had no duty to confront the gunman during the school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

Refusing to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the parent of a victim, Broward Circuit Judge Patti Englander Henning found after a hearing Wednesday that ex-deputy Scot Peterson did have a duty to protect those inside the school where 17 people died and 17 were wounded on Feb. 14. Video and other evidence shows Peterson, the only armed officer at the school, remained outside while shots rang out.

The negligence lawsuit was filed by Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow was killed. He said it made no sense for Peterson’s attorneys to argue that a sworn law enforcement officer with a badge and a gun had no requirement to go inside.

“Then what is he doing there?” Pollack said after the ruling. “He had a duty. I’m not going to let this go. My daughter, her death is not going to be in vain.”

Peterson attorney Michael Piper said he understands that people might be offended or outraged at his client’s defense, but he argued that as a matter of law, the deputy had no duty to confront the shooter. Peterson did not attend the hearing.
 
SCOTUS ruled some years ago that the Police have no legal duty to protect us.

The Coward cop had a moral duty, though, and he chose to let the kids die.

They need someone like the old timers were to go visit him at night and read him his rights.
 
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
 
well now thats a whole new prospective on cops now isn't it, then what frucking use are they then.

yep, i get it now,

bummer, fella oughta run for cover in some third world shiathole,

jmo
 
The coward from Broward was not legally obligated to confront the shooter. He's not going to go to jail. That doesn't stop someone from suing him. You can sue for anything. Maybe say he's guilty of dereliction of duty.
 
If they have no duty to protect then why do we need any of them? Sure would make things a lot simpler dealing with the criminals and homeless squatters in our neighborhood. Then we can all save that $32 on our vehicle registrations as well. Love how it went from protect and serve to hide and observe.
 
338lapua said:
If they have no duty to protect then why do we need any of them? Sure would make things a lot simpler dealing with the criminals and homeless squatters in our neighborhood. Then we can all save that $32 on our vehicle registrations as well. Love how it went from protect and serve to hide and observe.

This is something I've thought about for years as well. They don't protect or serve and have no legal duty to do so and that being the case, why not dump them. We can handle it ourselves.
 
Flash said:
338lapua said:
If they have no duty to protect then why do we need any of them? Sure would make things a lot simpler dealing with the criminals and homeless squatters in our neighborhood. Then we can all save that $32 on our vehicle registrations as well. Love how it went from protect and serve to hide and observe.

This is something I've thought about for years as well. They don't protect or serve and have no legal duty to do so and that being the case, why not dump them. We can handle it ourselves.
All we really need is a clean up crew and if they get lippy with us call the cleanup crew for the cleanup crew. I have two full time attorneys that work for me alone just to make sure I don't break some law that I have no knowledge of that could cost me my companies. That is how bad this law shit has gotten. That has nothing to do with my personal life just business compliance and I am sick of it. All these guys do is look at laws written and being written to make sure we are in compliance before they even go into effect.
 
Super Trucker said:
Good to hear. I would love to see it consume every nickel of his pension as he certainly didn't earn it.

Sadly the taxpayers will pay for his lawyers and if he loses they will start a go fund me for him and libtards will all chip in and help him out like the Kavenaugh accuser. Sadly if one of us heard the shots and went in and put the animal down we would be facing prosecution for taking a gun onto school grounds.
 
Federal judge overrules the county judge.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-douglas-survivor-lawsuit-federal-judge-20181217-story.html
Cops and schools had no duty to shield students in Parkland shooting, says judge who tossed lawsuit
 
Back
Top