Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

This forum is for discussion of politics, diplomacy, law, and justice
Post Reply
User avatar
scipioafricanus
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by scipioafricanus »

Not sure if it is going to stick, but take his pension and give him a white feather.
If there is a Stairway to Heaven, is there an Escalator to Hell?
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka
User avatar
Netpackrat
Posts: 13983
Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by Netpackrat »

D5CAV wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 8:59 pm The reason I'd like to see this go to the Supremes, is because the Supremes have ruled numerous times that the police have no legal responsibility to provide anyone with protection, including this egregious example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v. ... f_Columbia

Having a public set of trials will help shut-up the people who say "you don't need a gun, the police will protect you."
Maybe not the cut and dried outcome you are expecting. It could be seen as a different legal question; the precedent you linked concerns citizens seeking to recover damages from the state in civil court. This latest development involves the state bringing criminal charges against one of its own agents, so SCOTUS may not feel bound by current precedent. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
scipioafricanus wrote: Tue Jun 04, 2019 10:43 pm Not sure if it is going to stick, but take his pension and give him a white feather.
That may be the point. Even if they have found no other good legal avenue to go after his pension, they can still make him spend it defending himself from criminal charges.
Cognosce teipsum et disce pati

"People come and go in our lives, especially the online ones. Some leave a fond memory, and some a bad taste." -Aesop
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by Vonz90 »

I cannot say I like it. He is a worthless piece of sh*t, but that is not a crime.
User avatar
randy
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by randy »

I'd be interested to see what the perjury charges stem from. I don't recall seeing anything on that before.
He is a worthless piece of sh*t, but that is not a crime.
What he is isn't, but his actions could be.

I'm interpreting these charges as the civilian equivalents of the UCMJ's Dereliction of Duty and Conduct Unbecoming articles.

If he was .mil I'd add Cowardice in the Face of the Enemy (is that still a UCMJ charge?).
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
User avatar
randy
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
Location: EM79VQ

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by randy »

Found some more information on the specific charges
How Do the Authorities Say He Failed?
The charges against Peterson come after an 18-month investigation. Among the conclusions reached during the investigation are:

1. He failed to follow his training to “immediately go to confront the shooter” and “move directly and quickly toward known threat.” Instead, he failed to investigate the source of the shooting, staying outside the building instead.

2. He retreated to another building away from the gunfire and remained there until the shooting ended.

3. He advised other officers to stay away from the building in question and not to make entry.

4.The investigators also concluded he committed perjury when he said he didn’t hear any of the gunshots after the first few after he arrived at the building in question.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
User avatar
Vonz90
Posts: 4731
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 4:05 pm

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by Vonz90 »

randy wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:21 pm I'd be interested to see what the perjury charges stem from. I don't recall seeing anything on that before.
He is a worthless piece of sh*t, but that is not a crime.
What he is isn't, but his actions could be.

I'm interpreting these charges as the civilian equivalents of the UCMJ's Dereliction of Duty and Conduct Unbecoming articles.

If he was .mil I'd add Cowardice in the Face of the Enemy (is that still a UCMJ charge?).
Sure, if he was .mil I would want to see cowardice in the face of the enemy charges. But he is not.

Of course if he perjured himself he should be charged with that.
User avatar
g-man
Posts: 1430
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:40 pm

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by g-man »

Subsection 899, article 99: Misbehavior before the enemy.

Still carries punishment up to and including execution.

I’d guarantee he would’ve arrested someone for inadvertently carrying a properly licensed and concealed firearm (because CCW cardholders are typically compliant and wouldn’t likely resist). But when it came time to use his? Nope, can’t be bothered.
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
User avatar
Jered
Posts: 7859
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by Jered »

Vonz90 wrote: Wed Jun 05, 2019 12:50 am I cannot say I like it. He is a worthless piece of sh*t, but that is not a crime.
Pour encourager les autres.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
User avatar
scipioafricanus
Posts: 1298
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:08 pm

Re: Deputy On Duty Didn't Engage Shooter

Post by scipioafricanus »

But I thought CNN said it was the NRA's fault?
If there is a Stairway to Heaven, is there an Escalator to Hell?
If God wanted men to play soccer, he wouldn’t have given us arms. - Mike Ditka
Post Reply