Cops in parkland under criminal investigation?

I can't speak to Florida, but a criminal investigation is launched in every deadly force incident where I reside. I would assume in most states it is de rigueur.

 

Well, trying to read that article involved some wandering all over the place. The known facts could fill a very short paragraph. Perhaps the paper needed a certain amount of filler material that day?

Probably hard to hook many readers with simple and verifiable facts, though.

 

They need to put David Hogg in charge of the investigation with the full powers of a Federal Special Investigato .....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Like blueiron says, there is always a criminal investigation, but I suspect the author of that story either doesn't understand what is going on or is deliberately stretching and bending the truth, to get attention.

There is no criminal charge for not helping fast enough. I'd say she has taken quotes and parts of quotes out of context to construct a deliberately misleading story.

 

The investigation needs to go back a lot further than just the immediate response. They also need to investigate the handling of the numerous interactions with the POS prior to the shoot. Any agreements, policies, stat padding... that contributed to allowing this idiot the time to escalate need to be reviewed and eliminated. People involved with those activities need to be held accountable IMO.

 

The Sheriff's deputies may not have used deadly force, but as a derivative of the use of deadly force by a suspect, is there a Florida criminal statute that requires a minimum due diligence in performance of official duties or a "duty to act"?

 

How many you been in?

 

Fortunately, I have never been in one... even with my training and equipment, I still dont feel comfortable enough to speak so damned decisively as to what I will do, won't do, can do, or can't do nor can I call someone a coward from 1K miles away, months later from the comfort of my fire pit.

I pray that I have the wisdom and strength to take care of business should I ever be called upon but I pray harder that I never am called... only time can tell either way: call or not be called; fight or flight or freeze...

 

You should know what you would do; it should NOT be something you find out when you are in a situation..... Also, you should be praying that you are the one who is "called" , which is to say there, when someone really , really needs the kind of help that you are trained to give.

I am not attacking you, but if you are truly unsure whether you would fight, flee , or freeze, this may not be the right line of work for you, because when we took this job we essentially chose the "fight " option.

 

Ranger, I won't argue that point at all! I should KNOW and I'm nearly positive what I will do based upon what I have experienced in my life in training and my response to events from my deployments as both the responder and the responder supervisor.

If something does happen I would want to be the one called but I have no problems telling God and country I would prefer to never be called as I would prefer the event never arise in which I or any other first responder would be called.

I know what I signed up for and uphold that oath every day in both types of my uniforms and I will continue to do my best on a daily basis. My wife and I routinely weigh what we are doing to ensure we are not in the wrong careers for the wrong reasons and as of this week's conversation with friends, families, and peers, I feel confident that I'm where I should be although my military career is quickly coming to an end

Like you, I'm not attacking but clarifying a bit on the statements we are speaking of.

 

Random observations.

The Sun Sentinel has been in court a couple times trying to get various stuff from the shooting released.

At least once, one of the judges was not at all happy with the
newspaper regarding stuff they published.
https://miami.cbslocal.com/2018/08/...ublishing-information-about-parkland-shooter/

The chairman of the committee, Sheriff Gualtieri is an attorney. Some may remember his press conference during which he said the Florida "stand your ground law" prevented him from arresting the "undocumented parking enforcement specialist" in a convenience store handicapped parking spot shooting. The State Attorneys Office decided to prosecute the shooter.

 

Ranger & LilCop, in my humble opinion ...

If someone is active in the LE profession, the only thing they probably ought to be wondering about is not whether they'll be found wanting for courage and fortitude if ever facing the demands of the moment, if faced with responding to such an event, but whether they'll be able to recognize and effectively employ the best situational tactics for the circumstances.

Such personal soul-searching and decisions ought to have been considered and addressed long before the call comes.

Then again, as many of us have sometimes seen, the profession has sometimes attracted some folks who have seemed to be looking for everything they might gain from the profession, especially career-wise, rather than what they may be able to give to the general public. I can't presume to think what they might have in mind, or whether they might slow their roll when the call goes out.

 

Fastbolt, you KNOW where I am on these things...

As for the BSO guy at Parkland, I have nothing to say, since I have nothing nice to say....

 

annnnd it's a double post.

 

I have searched the Florida statutes for this and also reviewed the FDLE Law Enforcement Officer Ethical Standards of Conduct

http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/CJSTC/Officer-Requirements/LE-Ethical-Standards-of-Conduct.aspx

Even if it were in the statute covering this, it would be subject to the reasonability test. Since there is nothing to compare it to, the officers actions (or lack thereof) would likely be reviewed by FDLE and the result would be more like a finding in an audit. Although I have armchair quarterbacked the officers handling of this incident, it is difficult to say what they (the guys on the ground) should have done. IMHO, they should have moved in quickly and engaged the shooter and I'd like to think that if I were in Peterson's role, that I would have.

I am in no way defending the officers' handling of this tragic situation, but I see no way to prosecute this because of factors such as training and fear for personal safety. We can generally gauge the use of force and determine if it was appropriate for the situation, but how fast is fast enough?

^^This^^

 

I’ve done some digging on this over the years as this is NOT the first time this question has been asked and I’m sure it is not the last time it ever will either.
There is no “duty to act” on the part of police officers and this has gone through the courts in areas and this topic was reviewed back in my academy days.
https://www.policeone.com/police-jo...cops-confusion-over-the-public-duty-doctrine/
“The so-called public duty doctrine provides that “absent a special relationship between the governmental entity and the injured individual, the governmental entity will not be liable for injury to an individual... the governmental entity owes a duty to the public in general. The doctrine has been commonly described by the oxymoron, ‘duty to all, duty to none’ . . . Following these general principles, “California courts have found no duty of care and have denied liability ‘for injuries caused by the failure of police personnel to respond to requests for assistance, the failure to investigate properly, or the failure to investigate at all, where the police had not induced reliance on a promise, express or implied, that they would provide protection.’”5
and....
https://inpublicsafety.com/2014/03/duty-to-act-legal-obligations-vs-community-expectations/
“The term Duty to Act is a legal term that defines an individual or organization’s legal requirement to take action to prevent harm to a person or the community as a whole . . . Legal Reality on Duty to Act
In 1981, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled in Warren vs. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981). The Court stated that it is a “fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Maybe there is no ‘general duty’ to provide public services such as police protection, to which I will agree and counter that there is instead a ‘specific duty’ to provide such services.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk