Charges in Parkland shooting

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by pac7278, Jun 4, 2019.

  1. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    My gut feeling says this may be hard to prosecute but they wouldn’t charge him if they didn’t think they had a chance.

    I’m curious how they’ll try and make the child neglect charges stick.
    pac7278 likes this.

  2. I wonder about that myself. I know he was a paid to do a job, but neglect might be a stretch. Could they be using it as leverage for a plea deal? Just a thought.
  3. The "Coward of Broward".

    Surely he doesn't own any "icky" guns now that he's retired. I mean, the police will protect him--- right???
    pac7278 and Think1st like this.
  4. Bertus

    Bertus Member

    I think it will be hard to get some of those charges to one knows what they will do until the rounds start flying, and being a coward might not measure up to criminal charges
    pac7278 likes this.
  5. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Especially since the SCOTUS ruling that the police has no obligation to protect us.
    Maybe that’s why they’re going the ‘neglect’ way but sounds like a stretch.
  6. You'd think they should have an obligation not to endanger us through inaction though.
  7. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

    Interesting line of thought.
    And that’s maybe how they’re trying to get him.
    Still smells more of vengeance then justice though.
    lklawson, ajole and Think1st like this.
  8. Yes. Sometimes the line between Justice and vengeance is influenced by our emotions rather than reason.
    Armynurse, AGuyNamedMike and SWAGA like this.
  9. Dane

    Dane Supporting Member

    BC3DD90C-65CE-407C-80D9-C85315AD4CB1.png We covered this in an old post. Most thought no way charges could be brought up against the deputy.
  10. MaryB

    MaryB Supporting Member

    If memory serves me the SCOTUS case came about due to police inaction on a guy with a restraining order...
    Armynurse likes this.
  11. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    You took the words right out of my mouth. The only charge that might have a chance of sticking would be the perjury charge.
    FlashBang and pac7278 like this.
  12. Given the charge is child neglect instead of neglect of duty, maybe it seems the evidence fits that charge more appropriately? It's been all guess work on our part regardless. We have to wait and see what the evidence/rationalization is.
  13. It's just speculation, but there may be evidence and/or court case precidents that we aren't aware of. And having a significant emotional event, like someone shooting up buildings and people in front of you, is something that training helps overcome, but isn't foolproof. Should he have done more? I think he should have, but I am not him and armchair warriors need to realize that we are all human. Failure is always an option when the mind can't compensate for the emotional panic and trauma it receives when overwhelmed.
    moona11, Think1st and Bertus like this.
  14. SWAGA

    SWAGA No longer broke... Lifetime Supporter

  15. It is a mystery on how they are going to prosecute going forward.
  16. Ok. A restraining order means the case is on file and anyone responding (THEORETICALLY) should be aware of it. This situation seems to be the officer had no real suspicion this was going to happen. When he failed to advance toward the sound of gunfire, the theory goes he neglected the children through inaction. A bit sketchy, but it is a way of interpreting his actions. And I get the neglect of duty, but in light of the SCOTUS ruling, is it really a viable charge now? Who knows?
    Armynurse likes this.
  17. But is a law enforcement officer, serving at a school (resource officer may be by different) and not paid by the school district, still not expected by the community he serves to protect and act in a child best safety and interests? A lot of questions and speculations without answers. And maybe no merit to them to begin with. I'm going to sleep on it. Thanks for the food for thought SWAGGA, MaryB and everyone else.
  18. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Yes they would. None of this has much chance of sticking. This is a political prosecution.

    Don't misunderstand, the guy is a coward and it offends me that he's collecting retirement (though I believe he's "legally entitled" to it).

    The rest of it is just B.S. to make voters happy. Prosecute the guy for cowardice by shoehorning anything in we think we can.

    His life is already ruined because he's an internationally acknowledged coward. Just make him go away. I'd prefer it if he had to dig ditches for the rest of his life instead of collecting a cooshy $75K retirement, but I wasn't involved in the negotiations and "cowardice under fire" isn't a thing for cops.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Think1st likes this.
  19. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    There've been several test cases. One revolved around a pair of women who were repeatedly raped. In process they called the cops who did basically a drive-through of the alley but didn't even knock on the door, never-mind actually investigate. ref: Warren v. District of Columbia

    Here's a summary article about the concept:

    Peace favor your sword,
    Armynurse likes this.