# What is a Police Officer's legal duty?



## Lefty375 (Jun 4, 2019)

Situation: Former Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson has been charged with* child neglect*, *culpable negligence* and *perjury* in connection with the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. 

First, let's remove the person and consider the situation:

A mass shooter kills _X_ number of people in a school. There was an officer on school grounds but _didn't_ engage the shooter. Besides the perjury charge, is the State correct in charging the officer who didn't engage with child neglect and culpable negligence? We don't have all the facts so we will have to make some guesses for this.

The officer would receive up to 96.5 years if given the full sentence according to one legal analyst on CNN. Is this just? 

Souce: Deputy Who Stayed Outside During Parkland School Shooting Faces Criminal Charges


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 4, 2019)

In my non LEO opinion yes.

I recall the reasoning in connection with his firing was department policy was to go in and engage the threat. I will look it up to confirm or link to any article I find.

However this will be tough to prove as SOCTUS has ruled in the past that the police have no legal obligation to protect an individual from attack.




@policemedic


----------



## Marauder06 (Jun 4, 2019)

I’m not sure the neglect and related charges will hold up, largely because of the precedent referenced above.   I think firing and public shaming was appropriate, and probably the perjury.   I don’t know about the rest.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 4, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> I’m not sure the neglect and related charges will hold up, largely because of the precedent referenced above.   I think firing and public shaming was appropriate, and probably the perjury.   I don’t know about the rest.



Agree with this, if he perjured himself, then yes on those charges....the rest, no.


----------



## Brill (Jun 4, 2019)

Marine0311 said:


> In my non LEO opinion yes.
> 
> I recall the reasoning in connection with his firing was department policy was to go in and engage the threat. I will look it up to confirm or link to any article I find.
> 
> ...



Yep, Castle Rock v. Gonzales and DeShaney v. Winnebago County will most likely come into play for child neglect & negligence but his perjury charge...that may be tough to beat.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 4, 2019)

Tagged for later.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 4, 2019)

Kinda surprised that guy hasn't punched his own ticket? It's state dependent, and I'm not going to research Florida, someone else can do that. Texas peace officer have a duty to act with regards to felonies happening within their presence. 

As for criminal charges? Again state specific with regards to the law, writing and color of intent of the law. I tend to agree with Mara,  that public shaming and firing were appropriate.  Criminal charges, probably not. 

Something else to keep in mind,  agency policy is not law,  failure to follow a policy may be grounds for termination, but doesn't necessarily mean a criminal offense has taken place. Most perjury and or false statement/documents laws are "catchall" laws to prosecute people when they have nothing else they can get them for. Doubtful any punishment will come of it. 

Regardless,  the whole world knows he is a coward...


----------



## AWP (Jun 4, 2019)

If he broke the law, hammer him.


----------



## chickenrappa (Jun 5, 2019)

Not a cop or whatever, but I believe that he took an oath and failed to fulfill his obligation to the people of his community to protect those who couldn't protect themselves. That isn't forgivable in my eyes. I think that he should do some time in a cell for failing to uphold that obligation he undertook when he took that oath.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 5, 2019)

There's seems to be a little bit of lynchmob in the charges...understandable I suppose considering the emotional trauma here...but, yeah, if the evidence shows he broke the law, xin loi Jack, see you at the Big House.


----------



## Grunt (Jun 5, 2019)

I've worn a badge for 30 years and I never needed a SCOTUS ruling to tell me how to do my job. When I was working, I always put others before myself -- it was just that simple. I figured that's what I was supposed to do and did it. I don't expect or want him to be treated any differently than anyone else. If he broke laws, he needs to be prosecuted for them. That's based on logic and not emotion. No one is above the law and yet we see way too much of that in action.


----------



## 757 (Jun 5, 2019)

Here is the Warrant. 

Here is the Florida Statute for Neglect of a Child.

A question I have is: "Does a school resource officer bear the additional responsibility to protect the children within his school?"


----------



## Centermass (Jun 5, 2019)

Regardless of what the Supreme Court ruled, if the concept of PRESERVE, DEFEND AND PROTECT are not forefront and forever present while you are suited up in blue, and carrying out your duties, you have no business wearing a shield. Period. 

The deputy demonstrated himself as a coward. 

The sheriff displayed himself as an idiot by defending him and his actions. 

The entire government of Broward County showed themselves to be incompetent and inept with the school policies they adopted and set forth. 

If you believe otherwise, here's an appropriate suit to wear when on duty and let others know ahead of time the level of your commitment and mentality. 



Only thing I would change is wear nikes to make it easier, when running in the opposite direction.......


----------



## Gunz (Jun 6, 2019)

757 said:


> Here is the Warrant.
> 
> Here is the Florida Statute for Neglect of a Child.
> 
> A question I have is: "Does a school resource officer bear the additional responsibility to protect the children within his school?"



Absolutely. He/she is the only individual on school grounds who (in theory) possesses the training, the authority and the equipment--firearm, direct comm to first responders--to act immediately. To not do so is dereliction, and in this case, cowardice.

Some of the unarmed teachers had more guts than this guy.

It's too bad there's not a FL law for LEO's for cowardice.


----------



## 757 (Jun 6, 2019)

I should have clarified, I meant legal responsibility. I actually just found this article discussing "the public duty doctrine," and the legal aspect that I am very interested in is the "special relationship" element.

That said, I completely agree with everything you wrote @Ocoka.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 7, 2019)

Ocoka said:


> Absolutely. He/she is the only individual on school grounds who (in theory) possesses the training, the authority and the equipment--firearm, direct comm to first responders--to act immediately. To not do so is dereliction, and in this case, cowardice.
> 
> Some of the unarmed teachers had more guts than this guy.
> 
> It's too bad there's not a FL law for LEO's for cowardice.


It actually is. Florida LEOs have a statutory duty to act. I cannot recall the exact statutes that cover this, but it is covered in every single academy in the state and by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission's curriculum. I think that is the only way they will be able to charge him and have a chance at winning a conviction. Even if there is a conviction, this case will likely see the Supreme Court.

Side note, the sheriff of Broward and I were classmates and DT partners at the academy. He knows his stuff and is a very honorable no-nonsense man. Even if he did graduate from FSU lol. Anywho, he owns his own bleed control training company with his wife, and critical shooter incidents are his wheelhouse. It doesn't surprise me that he is going after this former deputy.


----------



## 0699 (Jun 7, 2019)

ke4gde said:


> Side note, the sheriff of Broward and I were classmates and DT partners at the academy. He knows his stuff and is a very honorable no-nonsense man.


You mean the current sheriff, right?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 7, 2019)

0699 said:


> You mean the current sheriff, right?


Yes the current one. The one that was appointed to replace the fired one lol. Thanks for that clarification. I am not old enough to have gone to the academy with the old one


----------



## 0699 (Jun 7, 2019)

ke4gde said:


> Yes the current one. The one that was appointed to replace the fired one lol. Thanks for that clarification. I am not old enough to have gone to the academy with the old one


Thanks.  Just making sure.


----------



## Brill (Jun 8, 2019)

ke4gde said:


> Side note, the sheriff of Broward and I were classmates and DTF partners at the academy. He knows his stuff and is a very honorable no-nonsense man.



Wait, what?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 8, 2019)

lindy said:


> Wait, what?


uhhh not sure about the question?


----------



## SaintKP (Jun 9, 2019)

lindy said:


> Wait, what?





ke4gde said:


> uhhh not sure about the question?



What happens in the igloo, stays out of the AAR.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 10, 2019)

ke4gde said:


> uhhh not sure about the question?


You were misquoted to include ‘DTF’ (as in ‘down to fuck’) in your previous post. You didn’t miss a question. Hallmark of any good joke? It needs further explanation after the punch. 

On the topic- it’s a shitty situation from soup to nuts. The deputy didn’t act how he should of- the public shaming and firing should suffice (considering the amount of times I’ve seen the word ‘coward’ attached to the dude’s name on this thread only). His life is ruined because he froze and couldn’t get into a gunfight and that’s what he signed up to do. Maybe rightfully so, maybe not, who knows. I imagine he isn’t skipping to the corner store every day, happy about who he is. 

But, if it’s the law, and he didn’t act IAW, well, then the piper needs to be paid. And it looks like that’s the case- quick math we have something like 200 years’ experience worth of LEOs weighing in and they’re all the same thing, usually not good.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 10, 2019)

ohhhh I see the correction. I just now saw it. Ok, @lindy you usually have good material, and this one is funny, but you failed to do the classic line strike on the text! I mean really. Who re-reads their quoted work? They wrote it!  You're better than this man! Come on in for the W! 

I am on the fence about if the shaming and firing was good enough or not. IIRC he still retired with full pension and will likely pen a book deal. 

Did he fail to act? Yes. Is it a criminal offense though? I don't think so but cannot remember at the moment. I wanna say it was more administrative than criminal. If it isn't criminal then the state is going to have a hell of a time intertwining the two. 

Now, the real key is how it ties into child neglect. To my knowledge, there is nothing in either statute that can tie into the other. If he had physical care custody and control of the children, the yes he did commit neglect. However, as @AWP 's laws of third and fourth order consequences go, how does that affect Warren v. District of Columbia (LE does not have a duty to protect someone)? How does that affect future SROs and budgets as agencies scramble to spend mass amounts of funding to beef up presence in schools? What about the agencies that abandon their contracts with school districts and force the schools to have their own police or security on site? Thereby causing tax rates to go up nationwide to pay for an increased presence in schools? How will a conviction, or overturning of one, shape the case law? 

Also, what if his defense team can prove the IC (incident commander) or the command staff ordered him to wait outside? As were many officers were ordered to do, even ones from nearby jurisdictions. Although the state could argue, at least according to training, if he was the first or only deputies there then he was the IC until relieved by a supervisor. Remember there were several command staff members that were fired or forced to retire in the wake of the incident and after the recent change of command. 

All in all the state may be overreaching on purpose here. Even knowing that they are likely to lose, they can at least say they tried to hold people accountable, and the state doesn't look so impotent. There are so many what-ifs that this could be the opening of Pandora's box. and not the good kind of box @lindy  see? that's how you do a joke! lol


----------



## Brill (Jun 10, 2019)

Damn those 20th Group Support wieners!!!


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 10, 2019)

I am betting most of his career was the old "hold what you got, contain, wait for SWAT" Columbine mentality....and he could have very well reverted back to that in his high stress mental state.  But if he lied and perjured himself, you gotta pay the piper on that.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 10, 2019)

@Kraut783 , great example of why this site is awesome and thank you for your inputs. Learned a lot from the discussion!


----------



## policemedic (Jun 11, 2019)

First things first.  Peterson is a cowardly weasel who has stained the image of law enforcement nationwide.  Fuck him.  Moving on....



chickenrappa said:


> Not a cop or whatever, but I believe that he took an oath and failed to fulfill his obligation to the people of his community to protect those who couldn't protect themselves. That isn't forgivable in my eyes. I think that he should do some time in a cell for failing to uphold that obligation he undertook when he took that oath.



It isn't forgivable.  It's also not criminal in the vast majority of cases (this one being the exception, for reasons I'll go into).  I specify that only because it's important to understand the distinction between when it is actionable and when it isn't.



757 said:


> Here is the Warrant.
> 
> Here is the Florida Statute for Neglect of a Child.
> 
> A question I have is: "Does a school resource officer bear the additional responsibility to protect the children within his school?"



I would argue that a police officer is stationed inside a school for the singularly important reason of protecting children from harm.  They are acting in loco parentis--as police frequently do--and bear responsibility the same as a teacher or other caregiver.  Note that caregiver is not defined in Florida law, and therefore in my view can be interpreted and defined broadly.  Here's what the law does say, in pertinent part:

27.03 Abuse, aggravated abuse, and neglect of a child; penalties.—
(1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Aggravated child abuse” occurs when a person:
1. Commits aggravated battery on a child;
2. Willfully tortures, maliciously punishes, or willfully and unlawfully cages a child; or
3. Knowingly or willfully abuses a child and in so doing causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the child.
(b) “Child abuse” means:
1. Intentional infliction of physical or mental injury upon a child;
2. *An intentional act that could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child*; or
3. *Active encouragement of any person to commit an act that results or could reasonably be expected to result in physical or mental injury to a child.*
(c) *“Maliciously” means wrongfully, intentionally, and without legal justification or excuse. Maliciousness may be established by circumstances from which one could conclude that a reasonable parent would not have engaged in the damaging acts toward the child for any valid reason and that the primary purpose of the acts was to cause the victim unjustifiable pain or injury.*
(d) “Mental injury” means injury to the intellectual or psychological capacity of a child as evidenced by a discernible and substantial impairment in the ability of the child to function within the normal range of performance and behavior as supported by expert testimony.
(e) *“Neglect of a child” means:*
*1. A caregiver’s failure or omission to provide a child with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the child’s physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food, nutrition, clothing, shelter, supervision, medicine, and medical services that a prudent person would consider essential for the well-being of the child; or
2. A caregiver’s failure to make a reasonable effort to protect a child from abuse, neglect, or exploitation by another person.*
*Except as otherwise provided in this section, neglect of a child may be based on repeated conduct or on a single incident or omission that results in, or could reasonably be expected to result in, serious physical or mental injury, or a substantial risk of death, to a child.*

All of the sections I highlighted can be applied to Peterson in his capacity as a Deputy Sheriff assigned to a school.



757 said:


> I should have clarified, I meant legal responsibility. I actually just found this article discussing "the public duty doctrine," and the legal aspect that I am very interested in is the "special relationship" element.
> 
> That said, I completely agree with everything you wrote @Ocoka.



So, the duty of the police to provide services and protection to society in general and not to any individual (barring special circumstances) has been addressed by the courts multiple times.  Castle Rock v. Gonzales is a classic SCOTUS ruling that speaks directly to the issue.  In general, the cops owe no individual any specific duty.  That's hard to swallow but that's what it is, and for good reason.  However, that all changes when a special relationship exists.  A special relationship can be considered to exist when the police promise protection from harm.

I would argue that stationing an armed deputy at a school is the embodiment of that promise to protect.  The deputy is not an educator, though he may teach DARE or RAD.  He is not counseling staff, nor is he there to provide medical care, though he may do both to varying degrees.  He or she has been placed there--sometimes over the objection of members of the community, mind--specifically to mitigate threats to school children.  I am positive the Sheriff's Office mentioned this in discussions with the school district prior to assigning an SRO, and I am positive that all parties were under the assumption that the deputy would lead the charge in an active shooter if it were to ever occur.  

Peterson can't even be said to have failed in his duty in this respect, because failure implies an attempt to perform that duty.  Peterson made none. 



ke4gde said:


> I am on the fence about if the shaming and firing was good enough or not. IIRC he still retired with full pension and will likely pen a book deal.
> 
> Did he fail to act? Yes. Is it a criminal offense though? I don't think so but cannot remember at the moment. I wanna say it was more administrative than criminal. If it isn't criminal then the state is going to have a hell of a time intertwining the two.



I think it is criminal no matter how you look at it.  Even if the Florida statutes are found to be not applicable in this case, I think civil rights charges might be brought under 42 U.S. Code § 1983 and other statutes.  Quoting the concurring opinion in Warren v. District of Columbia, "The rule of official responsibility, then, appears to be this: That if the duty which the official authority imposes upon an officer is a duty to the public, a failure to perform it, or an inadequate or erroneous performance, must be a public, not an individual injury, and must be redressed, if at all, in some form of public prosecution. On the other hand, if the duty is a duty to the individual, then a neglect to perform it, or to perform it properly, is an individual wrong, and may support an individual action for damages."  Whether Peterson screwed the pooch by neglecting a public duty to society, or a duty to the individuals in the school, he's still liable.  And let's not forget, committing an SRO to protect the community of people in a school against a specific, identified threat may result in the student body being considered as a 'society' to whom the police owe a duty of protection.



ke4gde said:


> Now, the real key is how it ties into child neglect. To my knowledge, there is nothing in either statute that can tie into the other. If he had physical care custody and control of the children, the yes he did commit neglect. However, as @AWP 's laws of third and fourth order consequences go, how does that affect Warren v. District of Columbia (LE does not have a duty to protect someone)? How does that affect future SROs and budgets as agencies scramble to spend mass amounts of funding to beef up presence in schools? What about the agencies that abandon their contracts with school districts and force the schools to have their own police or security on site? Thereby causing tax rates to go up nationwide to pay for an increased presence in schools? How will a conviction, or overturning of one, shape the case law?



 As I read the statute, it applies in varying degrees.  Then again, I'm not a Florida copper, and your mileage may vary.  I do think this will affect how SROs are viewed, deployed, and funded.  The school guardian program in Florida is also an interesting result of this debacle, and no one can say these guys are there for any reason save hunting active shooters.



ke4gde said:


> Also, what if his defense team can prove the IC (incident commander) or the command staff ordered him to wait outside? As were many officers were ordered to do, even ones from nearby jurisdictions. Although the state could argue, at least according to training, if he was the first or only deputies there then he was the IC until relieved by a supervisor. Remember there were several command staff members that were fired or forced to retire in the wake of the incident and after the recent change of command.
> 
> All in all the state may be overreaching on purpose here. Even knowing that they are likely to lose, they can at least say they tried to hold people accountable, and the state doesn't look so impotent. There are so many what-ifs that this could be the opening of Pandora's box. and not the good kind of box @lindy  see? that's how you do a joke! lol



I think Peterson was clearly the IC if only for a limited period of time.  He issued orders over the air.  That doesn't mean he's the only one who bears responsibility--the whole response was a goatfuck--but he bears the majority.  

I agree Peterson is old enough to have been taught the old contain and call SWAT doctrine, but he's also a post-Columbine copper who was surely taught to engage because an active shooter event is not a SWAT problem, it's a patrol problem.  Hell, we even teach solo officer responses these days.

In conclusion, fuck Peterson.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 11, 2019)

policemedic said:


> everything


All great points and I agree with the majority of them. I was only trying to see both sides without emotion filtering in. Easier for me to do I know. However, I could see and argue both sides of this. Seeing that there isn't a specific criminal statute to cover what he did or didn't do, I am just saying that the state is going to have a very uphill battle trying to secure a conviction. Take the Casey Anthony case as an example. The state went for the sexy charge of murder instead of aggravated child neglect. They had enough evidence (based on what was presented) to get a solid conviction. Basically, it is going to take a lot of legal verbal judo on both sides. 

The civil rights charges would be federal though would they not? Correct me if I am wrong please. Now civilly? He is fucked no matter what. His kids will be paying that debt off.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 12, 2019)

ke4gde said:


> All great points and I agree with the majority of them. I was only trying to see both sides without emotion filtering in. Easier for me to do I know. However, I could see and argue both sides of this. Seeing that there isn't a specific criminal statute to cover what he did or didn't do, I am just saying that the state is going to have a very uphill battle trying to secure a conviction. Take the Casey Anthony case as an example. The state went for the sexy charge of murder instead of aggravated child neglect. They had enough evidence (based on what was presented) to get a solid conviction. Basically, it is going to take a lot of legal verbal judo on both sides.
> 
> The civil rights charges would be federal though would they not? Correct me if I am wrong please. Now civilly? He is fucked no matter what. His kids will be paying that debt off.



Oh, I don’t disagree.  The state has its work cut out for them.  The worst thing Peterson can do is choose a jury trial; he’d do much better with a bench trial.

The civil rights issues are federal.  I agree he’s fucked in civil court.  Even if he writes a book, his earnings will go out the door as soon as the checks come in.


----------



## 757 (Jun 13, 2019)

@policemedic thanks for your insight, I fully agree with your position. I still think the criminal case is gonna be a rough uphill battle for the prosecution; but who knows, maybe Peterson will get an attorney who is equally as inept at his own profession as Peterson was at his. #karma


----------



## AWP (Jun 27, 2019)

To piggyback on this, two more officers were fired as a result of their actions that day.

Two More Deputies Fired For Not Confronting Parkland, Fla., School Shooter



> When Broward County deputy Josh Stambaugh arrived at the school, he heard gunshots, put on a bulletproof vest and took cover behind his patrol car. After five minutes, he got in his vehicle and drove to a highway overlooking the school, taking him away from the police response.
> 
> Deputy Edward Eason also heard gunshots when he arrived. Instead of going toward them, he went in the other direction, to a nearby middle school where he remained.



Unreal...


----------



## Box (Jun 27, 2019)

AWP said:


> Two More Deputies Fired For Not Confronting Parkland, Fla., School Shooter



Sadly, I am completely underwhelmed at the realness of this story.
Maybe its some of the police in this country that should be disarmed - primarily the ones tha continue to demonstrate that they can't be trusted to use firearms responsibly...
...or at all when under duress.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 27, 2019)

Chickenshit bastards.


----------



## Gunpowder (Jun 27, 2019)

Grunt said:


> I've worn a badge for 30 years and I never needed a SCOTUS ruling to tell me how to do my job. When I was working, I always put others before myself -- it was just that simple. I figured that's what I was supposed to do and did it. I don't expect or want him to be treated any differently than anyone else. If he broke laws, he needs to be prosecuted for them. That's based on logic and not emotion. No one is above the law and yet we see way too much of that in action.



I too have worn the badge for 30 years...your words are dead nuts on...well spoken


----------



## MikeDelta (Jun 28, 2019)

Cleary acted as a coward, let those kids, his fellow officers and himself down. Moreover, he demonstrated that he is unfit for police duty and cracked at the crucial moment. If he broke the law he should be punished.


----------



## policemedic (Jul 4, 2019)

Another one gone, and I doubt he will be the last. 

I know I’m supposed to toe the blue line, as it were, but I agreed with Scot Petersen being fired  and I agree with this decision.

I get that he was scared.  That’s natural, but we are supposed to—no, we are required to—overcome that and act.  In this case, the necessary action was to aggressively end the threat to thousands of people.  And yes, that would have entailed some level of personal danger, but what do people think that shiny badge means when they pin it on their chest?  That’s what bravery is—taking action despite being scared.  That’s what society expects of us.  That’s what they deserve from us, and if you can’t deliver then you need to seek a productive and rewarding career elsewhere (and I mean that without malice).

It may be that this was the first time this officer came face-to-face with his inability to conquer his fear, summon the requisite intestinal fortitude, and do his job despite the obvious danger.  If that’s the case, I get it, but once he knew his performance deficit (and this is not one you can overcome), he should have done the honorable thing and resigned.

I wish him well in any career other than policing.

Las Vegas police fire officer who hesitated during mass shooting


----------



## Brill (Jul 23, 2019)

Not sure if this is the right place but I think these guys exercised too much restraint BUT recognize it’s NYC, where police are not liked there like in Baltimore.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 23, 2019)

Are there actions that cops are required or not required to take?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 23, 2019)

It's happened in Lubbock Texas.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 24, 2019)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> It's happened in Lubbock Texas.



And in NYC. Nothing like mob mentality along with crickets from De Blasio


----------



## Gunz (Jul 24, 2019)

Let them throw water and next time it'll be bullets.


----------



## Kaldak (Jul 24, 2019)

De Blasio is a turd.

Stand up for your people in blue, Mr. Mayor.


----------



## Marauder06 (May 19, 2020)

So the below excerpt is from a satire article, but it turns out that one of the cops involved (or, more accurately, "not-involved") in the Parkland shooting has been re-instated... with back pay... after getting fired for not intervening.

---


> The internal investigation found that Miller, who was the first supervising officer responding to the scene, tactically hid behind his car while shots were fired inside the high school. The union said an arbitration ruled the “BSO violated Sgt. Brian Miller’s Constitutional due process rights and improperly terminated him.”
> 
> When asked if he was looking forward to returning to his duties at the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, Miller said he planned on collecting his back pay then quitting his job. “I’m heading to San Fransisco, I’m a hero and this country doesn’t just owe me a job with back pay, it owes me a free hotel, alcohol and cannabis.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (May 19, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> So the below excerpt is from a satire article, but it turns out that one of the cops involved (or, more accurately, "not-involved") in the Parkland shooting has been re-instated... with back pay... after getting fired for not intervening.
> 
> ---


The backlash against stuff like this is gonna be epic, when it happens. Whoever/whatever bureaucrat signed off on that needs to be burned. The pencil pushers, politicians, and bureaucrats, in our policing apparatus are in serious need of good pruning. At this point they're doing more harm than good.

It's just a shitty situation all around. Things are getting to the point where the average person is starting to realize that the rule of law isn't there to protect them. When enough people start taking things into their own hands public police forces are gonna take a hit.


----------



## DA SWO (May 19, 2020)

Marauder06 said:


> So the below excerpt is from a satire article, but it turns out that one of the cops involved (or, more accurately, "not-involved") in the Parkland shooting has been re-instated... with back pay... after getting fired for not intervening.
> 
> ---


He was re-instated because the Sheriff violated the union contract.


----------

