Should being a coward be a crime

[*bfine32*]

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/04/marjory-stoneman-douglas-resource-officer-charged-staying-outside-school-shooting/1343721001/

Quote:Former school resource officer Scot Peterson was arrested Tuesday in connection with his inaction during a mass school shooting, 15 months after a shooter killed 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

According to Broward County Sheriff Gregory Tony, Peterson and Sgt. Brian Miller were found to have neglected their duties during the Feb. 14, 2018, shooting in Parkland.

“We cannot fulfill our commitment to always protect the security and safety of our Broward County community without doing a thorough assessment of what went wrong that day,” Tony said. “I am committed to addressing deficiencies and improving the Broward Sheriff’s Office.”

Personally I think so. If your job requires you to be armed; you better be willing to give and receive.

Just curious what my Liberal friends think about this.

[Vas Deferens]

absolutely, especially in school shooting cases. if you're going to sign up to protect kids, you better whip that ***** pistol out and engage when its called for.

but this will just make recruiting these super capable 56 year old dudes to collect a paycheck for these kinds of things. don't fret tho, there are enough good guys with guns out there, im sure this wont happen again.

[*michaelsean*]

No it should not be a crime. The one argument I can see is that if he didn’t take the job someone willing to perform the job might have taken it, but I don’t know what statute that would fall under.

[Benton]

It stinks (generally) but that's the job. Police, balifs, Marshals, firefighters, etc. It's part of the job. They get paid to deal with dangerous situations.

[Dill]

(06-06-2019, 06:59 PM)bfine32 Wrote: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/04/marjory-stoneman-douglas-resource-officer-charged-staying-outside-school-shooting/1343721001/


Personally I think so. If your job requires you to be armed; you better be willing to give and receive.

Just curious what my Liberal friends think about this.

Cowardice is not illegal in politics. Bravery is more likely to be penalized. (Go Amash!)

School cops are another matter.

You take checks for months/years on the promise you will protect children if a threat appears. 

With YOUR OWN BODY if need be.

Then you hear a few shots and hang back and warn other potential help away.

If it were practicable, you should be forced to pay back your entire salary--to the victim's families.

What is the penalty for a doctor who refuses to treat critically ill patients to protect his/her own health?

[BmorePat87]

As a teacher, I often think about what I would do in my classroom if this situation occurred. I have no doubt in my mind that I would place myself in between my students and harm, but I have never been placed in that position so when the fear hits, I can only hope I would stick to that.

I am legally responsible if I fail to report known child abuse or neglect. I feel like it is not a stretch for him to be charged with neglect in this scenario considering his job.

[NATI BENGALS]

Absolutely not. I have not followed this story very close. Once i saw he was arrested though.. I pretty much thought well this is what an actual witch hunt looks like. They just wanted a fall guy.

Sure would be super nice if all cops were brave as hell with balls of steel who ran towards gunfire. Just so happens this is reality. And sometimes natural survival instincts dont let you do dumb shit.

[GMDino]

I don't think it's a crime.

I think it's crappy and he should feel shame for the rest of his life...but I don't know how you prove he broke a law.

[Arturo Bandini]

How would I know ?

It's always easy when you're in front of your TV.

[BakertheBeast]

Everyone considered him the coward of the county.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-07-2019, 06:19 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Everyone considered him the coward of the county.

‘Til he whoops up them Gatlin boys.

[*Nately120*]

(06-06-2019, 07:04 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: absolutely, especially in school shooting cases.  if you're going to sign up to protect kids, you better whip that ***** pistol out and engage when its called for.  

but this will just make recruiting these super capable 56 year old dudes to collect a paycheck for these kinds of things.  don't fret tho, there are enough good guys with guns out there, im sure this wont happen again.

It's just our luck that the coward with the job of running into gunfire would be the one on the job when the comments sections of articles about the guy are just chock-full of heroic people who would gladly have run directly into the line of fire to either save the guy or die heroes.

I'm not saying heroic folks aren't out there, but the way people talk you'd think all school shooting footage would show hundreds of townspeople running full-speed into the situation.

[fredtoast]

"Criminal negligence" is a complicated legal issue. Clearly there would be a civil cause of action, but it has to be severe to rise to the level of a crime.

Last time I remember it being an issue was in a nightclub fire started by the pyrotechnics the band used. I believe the band was charged because of the negligent use of explosives and the club was charged for being a fire trap that was not up to code.

I think if you accept the duty to protect people and then don't even attempt to do yur job causing people to die it should be a crime.

[*Nately120*]

This guy blew it as far as his job goes, but he's also going to be judged by a populace that is insanely off-base when it comes to judging their own willingness to rush into gunfire.

[fredtoast]

(06-07-2019, 11:53 AM)Nately120 Wrote: This guy blew it as far as his job goes, but he's also going to be judged by a populace that is insanely off-base when it comes to judging their own willingness to rush into gunfire.

The standard is not what the average person would do.

The standard is what a person who was hired and assumed the duty to protect would do.

[*Nately120*]

(06-07-2019, 12:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The standard is not what the average person would do.

The standard is what a person who was hired and assumed the duty to protect would do.

I'm just saying people who aren't him are pretty sure they would have run in there, whether it is their job or not.  My point is that the average, untrained person in this country likely has a very unrealistic standard of bravery under fire due to our ego and culturally fed hero complexes.

[fredtoast]

(06-07-2019, 12:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm just saying people who aren't him are pretty sure they would have run in there, whether it is their job or not.  My point is that the average, untrained person in this country likely has a very unrealistic standard of bravery under fire due to our ego and culturally fed hero complexes.

I agree with that.

[Vas Deferens]

(06-07-2019, 11:36 AM)Nately120 Wrote: It's just our luck that the coward with the job of running into gunfire would be the one on the job when the comments sections of articles about the guy are just chock-full of heroic people who would gladly have run directly into the line of fire to either save the guy or die heroes.

I'm not saying heroic folks aren't out there, but the way people talk you'd think all school shooting footage would show hundreds of townspeople running full-speed into the situation.

I agree with a lot of what people have said here.  My stance needs some modification.

In the case of this individual, no, we cannot prosecute him because there is no case law or specific reference to engaging an active shooter in his contract (I assume).

But I believe that should be mandated going forward.  The job should pay more, should be highly trained and should needs to be filled by individuals more capable than some old low-T obese person.  There should be penalties if they fail to actively save as many children as possible.  While there is no test for bravery, consequences for failure exist in many high risk jobs and this shouldn't be much different.  Seems like the omission of training and lackadaisical hiring have produced a sub optimal product under the current system

Many of you are right.  We should not jail this specific degenerate because of a failed system he exploited for his own good.  

But who cares?  Fixing this would take money and we're just all out.  Sorry kids.  


  

[Benton]

(06-07-2019, 12:06 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm just saying people who aren't him are pretty sure they would have run in there, whether it is their job or not.  My point is that the average, untrained person in this country likely has a very unrealistic standard of bravery under fire due to our ego and culturally fed hero complexes.

(06-07-2019, 12:53 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: I agree with a lot of what people have said here.  My stance needs some modification.

In the case of this individual, no, we cannot prosecute him because there is no case law or specific reference to engaging an active shooter in his contract (I assume).

But I believe that should be mandated going forward.  The job should pay more, should be highly trained and should needs to be filled by individuals more capable than some old low-T obese person.  There should be penalties if they fail to actively save as many children as possible.  While there is no test for bravery, consequences for failure exist in many high risk jobs and this shouldn't be much different.  Seems like the omission of training and lackadaisical hiring have produced a sub optimal product under the current system

Many of you are right.  We should not jail this specific degenerate because of a failed system he exploited for his own good.  

But who cares?  Fixing this would take money and we're just all out.  Sorry kids.  


  

Criminal negligence could be deemed to apply here, as (and Fred can probably clarify if I'm off) it deals with an injury that occurs as the result of someone acting outside their scope. Like you can't find an average guy off the street crimibally negligent for just anything. Say a guy has a heart attack in a restaurant, the chef couldn't be held accountable for not knowing cpr, but a doctor dining there could be.