Former Parkland school officer acquitted of failing to protect students during shooting
In a highly anticipated trial, former sheriff’s deputy Scot Peterson has been found not guilty of failing to protect students during the deadly shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018. Peterson, who was the school’s resource officer at the time, faced 11 charges including felony child neglect, culpable negligence, and perjury. The attack, which claimed the lives of 17 students and injured 17 others, was one of the deadliest school shootings in US history.
As the verdicts were read out in court in Fort Lauderdale, Peterson, 60, broke down in tears, putting his head in his hands. After the trial, he expressed his willingness to speak with the parents of the victims, stating, “If they need to really know the truth of what occurred… I’ll be there for them.”
However, Tony Montalto, whose daughter Gina was among the students killed, continued to hold Peterson responsible for not taking action to stop the shooting. Montalto expressed his disbelief at the jury’s decision, stating, “His inaction contributed to the shock, the devastation of students and teachers at that school.”
During the trial, the jury heard testimony that Peterson, armed but not wearing body armor, remained outside the school building in an alcove for 30 to 40 minutes while the shooting took place. A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation concluded that Peterson “did absolutely nothing to mitigate” the attack. Critics, including then-President Donald Trump, labeled him a coward.
Peterson is believed to be the first US officer charged with failing to respond to a school shooting, according to the National Association of School Resource Officers. If convicted, he could have faced up to 97 years in prison. Prosecutors chose to charge him with felony child negligence since there is no law requiring a police officer to put themselves in harm’s way during a shooting.
The defense argued that Peterson’s long career and confusion about the source of the shots should be taken into account. They also contended that he could not be considered a “caregiver” under the law typically used to prosecute parents or day care providers when children are harmed under their care.
The Broward County State Attorney’s Office reiterated its belief that Peterson could have done more to save the victims. They stated, “As parents, we have an expectation that armed school resource officers… will do their jobs when we entrust our children to them and the schools they guard.”
Legal experts weighed in on the case, with some calling the attempt to designate Peterson as a caregiver for hundreds of students “ridiculous.” The trial’s outcome could have implications for future cases involving law enforcement or civilian school officials failing to confront a gunman.
The gunman responsible for the Parkland attack, Nikolas Cruz, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in November 2018.
The trial of Scot Peterson followed criticism faced by police officers in Uvalde, Texas, for their failure to confront a killer. A report by the Texas Department of Public Safety found that a Uvalde police officer could have stopped the attack on Robb Elementary School but hesitated while awaiting permission from a supervisor. By the time a team of US border patrol agents stormed the school over an hour later, the gunman had already claimed the lives of 19 children and two teachers and injured 17 others.
How does the acquittal of Peterson contribute to the ongoing debate surrounding the responsibilities and expectations of law enforcement in instances of school shootings
Failing to protect students during a school shooting. The trial garnered significant attention due to the tragic nature of the incident and the subsequent debate over the responsibility of law enforcement in such situations.
The jury’s decision to acquit Peterson came after careful consideration of the charges against him. Peterson, visibly emotional, expressed his willingness to communicate with the parents of the victims, understanding their desire for closure and the truth surrounding the events of that day.
Tony Montalto, a grieving parent, strongly disagreed with the verdict, holding Peterson accountable for not taking action to prevent the tragedy. Montalto highlighted the impact of Peterson’s inaction on the students and teachers who experienced immense shock and devastation during the shooting.
Throughout the trial, evidence revealed that Peterson, armed but without body armor, remained outside the school building for an extended period while the shooting unfolded. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation concluded that Peterson failed to take any action to mitigate the attack, leading critics to refer to him as a coward, including then-President Donald Trump.
It is worth noting that Peterson’s case marked a significant precedent, as he may be the first officer in the United States to face charges related to failing to protect students during a school shooting. The verdict has sparked further discussions about the responsibilities and expectations placed on law enforcement in similar situations.
This acquittal raises questions about who should be held accountable for tragedies like the Parkland shooting and underscores the need for comprehensive and proactive measures to ensure student safety.
While the acquittal may come as a shock, it raises questions about the responsibility of law enforcement officers in situations like the Parkland shooting. This case highlights the need for a comprehensive reevaluation of protocols to ensure the safety of students in the face of such tragedies.