I'm curious how they'll try and make the child neglect charges stick.Peterson was charged with seven counts of child neglect, three counts of culpable negligence, and one count of perjury.
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.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.
You took the words right out of my mouth. The only charge that might have a chance of sticking would be the perjury charge.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.
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.
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.I think it will be hard to get some of those charges to stick...no one knows what they will do until the rounds start flying, and being a coward might not measure up to criminal charges
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/40593453...erson-did-during-the-parkland-school-shootingPeterson's attorney, Joseph A. DiRuzzo III, said the charges appear to be "a thinly veiled attempt at politically motivated retribution against Mr. Peterson." He said Peterson cannot be prosecuted as a caregiver since he was acting as a law enforcement officer in an official capacity.
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?If memory serves me the SCOTUS case came about due to police inaction on a guy with a restraining order...
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.
Yes they would. None of this has much chance of sticking. This is a political prosecution.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.
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 ColumbiaIf memory serves me the SCOTUS case came about due to police inaction on a guy with a restraining order...