
School shooting officer charged with inaction. Should ‘cowardice’ be criminal? - howard941
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/09/scot-peterson-charged-parkland-shooting-experts-worry-about-criminalizing-cowardice/
======
olliej
This is what irks me about the current setup: we put people everywhere with
guns. We turn schools into what are essentially prisons. We let officers shoot
unarmed people because they’re afraid, with no consequences. But if there’s
someone actively killing kids it’s acceptable for them to be too scared to do
anything.

The right to be an executioner comes with the potential to be killed - that’s
literally there job and the reason for their elevated privilege: they are
given these tools _because_ they have to put themselves in the line of fire to
protect the public. If they are unwilling to do that they shouldn’t have a
gun. Otherwise the only time they shoot people is when they aren’t in
sufficient danger to be scared.

~~~
randyrand
To achieve that does it require criminal charges though?

It seems we’ve gotten pretty far already without it - but it’s an open
question.

~~~
olliej
Actually I suspect this won’t go anywhere - I recall a story that reached HN a
few years ago from the (I think) N.Y. subway where a wanted criminal attacked
(and stabbed) someone and the police literally just stayed on the other side
of a door while watching and doing nothing. The attacker was eventually
subdued by the _other passengers_. When they were taking to court they were
found to have done nothing wrong: the opinion said something along the lines
of “police are not required to intervene”, eg stopping attempted murder is
apparently not part of their job requirements. Yet they have tasers and guns
“to stop crime”

~~~
olliej
Found it!

"Why The Cops Won't Help You When You're Getting Stabbed"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAfUI_hETy0)

On HN:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15590479](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15590479)

------
hprotagonist
"Duty to act" is a well-defined idea in most places for emergency responders.

In New York State, police and firemen have an unqualified duty to act: if
you're on shift or off, and you see a crime/a fire, you are obligated to do
_something_ about it or you're criminally liable. If you're an EMT, duty to
act only pertains if you're on duty -- but if you initiate care, you are
subsequently bound and liable if you abandon your patient.

~~~
peterwwillis
For EMS, sure. For law enforcement officers, their only duty is to "the public
at large". They are not liable if they let an individual die. (Regular
civilians have this right, too, in most jurisdictions)

IANAL

~~~
hprotagonist
in new york, anyway, it's the other way around. Here are the examples we were
given in EMT training:

If you're an off duty cop at a convenience store getting a slurpee at 3 AM,
and the guy in line in front of you robs the place, and all you do is stand
there, you are (potentially) liable. In practice, enforcement is pretty
lenient here, especially if you don't have a service weapon on you, but you're
legally required to make at least a token effort.

If you're an EMT in the hypothetical 7/11 with your slurpee and not on shift
(or, i believe, in uniform) and the guy in front of you keels over from a
massive heart attack, you can stand there and watch him die and nobody can
touch you. IF you touch him (and start chest compressions or whatever), _now_
you can't leave until you hand him off to an ambulance crew or someone more
medically qualified than you. If you _are_ on shift, you must act no matter
what.

There are additional complications for volunteer EMTs versus paid EMTs that
don't pertain here but relate to at which points which legal statutes cover
you or don't.

------
aphextim
"Peterson’s perjury charge is clear-cut, Martin said. According to the
affidavit, Peterson not only failed to go inside but then lied about how many
gunshots he heard after arriving at the school."

This seems reasonable to go after him for. If they had ordered him inside and
he refused, he essentially is not doing his job and should be
fired/responsible for it. How much responsibility depends on whether he would
have actually saved anyone if he had done his job as intended in my opinion.

For not going into a live situation without orders they should not hold him
accountable for that as there is no clear cut S.O.P. when it comes to school
shootings.

FTA, "According to a 2018 study of the sheriff’s department in Palm Beach
County, which neighbors Parkland, the Forum found there was ambiguity about
how officers should act during active-shooter situations — whether they should
wait for backup or rush inside."

~~~
vorpalhex
> For not going into a live situation without orders they should not hold him
> accountable for that as there is no clear cut S.O.P. when it comes to school
> shootings.

FBI training, which his department had been through, teaches engaging active
shooters, and is absolutely SOP.

~~~
aphextim
Knowing that he had been through that specific training and he failed to
follow S.O.P. then I would be much more harsh on him for acting in that
manner.

------
j2bax
I would definitely question how prepared he was made for this situation. How
many active shooter drills did his employer run him through? Everyone isn't a
natural born hero. In reality, rushing in could have caused more deaths, or it
could have saved lives if he was mentally and physically prepared for it.

Everyone wants someone to blame in these horrific situations, and a cowardly
officer who I would imagine doesn't get paid as much as most of the people on
this forum, is as good a person to blame as anyone. After a single New Zealand
shooting, they vowed to take action in policy. We'll see how it plays out but
it seems a more appropriate response than focusing a lot of attention on one
ill-prepared officer.

------
zwerdlds
IANAL, but hasn't SCOTUS repeatedly ruled that police inaction is not a crime?

~~~
berbec
"Castle Rock v. Gonzales, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the
Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had
led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband."

0:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzale...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales)

------
gnode
Avoiding negligence doesn't conventionally require you to endanger your own
life. This seems a proxy for creating a "desertion" or "dereliction of duty"
charge within policing.

If the expectation of assuming a policing role is to put your life on the line
in situations where that can be avoided, then that should be made explicit,
and enforced with a similar doctrine as with military law.

------
neilv
I'd guess the officer is already in their own hell of regret or second-
guessing, and perhaps also PTSD from the event itself.

Instead of making the officer a target for outrage over the event, why not
instead focus on learning what can be learned from this event, including with
the help of the officer?

If someone wants their pound of flesh, it's not like the officer hasn't likely
already suffered and won't keep punishing themself. And it's not like further
punishment needs to be seen for some kind of deterrent effect.

------
neilv
Uncredited press pool photo by Wes Anderson. It's a somewhat sympathetic
image.

------
Overtonwindow
I’m torn about this. Fear can crush a person, gluing them in place. There’s a
difference between willful in action, and fear.

~~~
drak0n1c
What is the difference? Willful inaction being the internal rationalizations
around the crushing fear?

