Should Deputy Scot Peterson Be Sent to Jail for Not Confronting a School Shooter?
The events that transpired during the tragic shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, have sparked intense debates across the United States. One of the most contentious issues has revolved around the actions (or lack thereof) of Deputy Scot Peterson, the school police officer who was on duty that day. This article delves into whether he should face criminal charges for his inaction.
Legal and Ethical Considerations
The legal basis for assessing whether Deputy Peterson should be punished resides in 10 U.S. Code § 899 - Art. 99. Misbehavior before the enemy. This statute outlines several acts that can be considered criminal offenses, including failure to engage enemies, abandonment, cowardice, and willful omission to assist compatriots during combat.
Context of the Incident
During the shooting, it is widely reported that the armed forces at the scene, as well as other security personnel, faced a grave and immediate threat. The presence of a gunman who was actively killing students and teachers created a high-pressure and dangerous situation. In such environments, the psychological and physiological responses can be heightened, often leading to instinctive reactions rather than deliberate decision-making.
Deputy Scot Peterson had a duty to act in a protective manner, and the expectations of his role as an armed guard were clear: to ensure the safety of the children in his charge. Had he chosen to flee or to fail in his duties, his actions could have led to additional fatalities or injuries among the students and staff.
The Role of Informed Consent
A critical point in evaluating Deputy Peterson's performance is whether he was provided with proper instructions and the necessary training to handle such an emergency. Security personnel, including those assigned to schools, should be informed and prepared with clear guidelines on their response to an active shooter situation. If consulting with superiors before taking action potentially puts others at risk, then the importance of immediate instincts and pre-established protocols cannot be overstated.
Human and Military Law Ace
The legal precedent set by 10 U.S. Code § 899 stipulates that members of the armed forces or security personnel who fail to act when it is their duty to do so can face severe penalties. In the case of Deputy Peterson, his failure to confront the gunman could be seen as a dereliction of duty that endangered lives. Whether or not this places him within the parameters of these laws is a matter of debate and interpretation.
Comparison with Military Action
It’s worth noting the incident's parallels with military operations. In scenarios where soldiers are deployed under the command structure of the armed forces, they are held to a higher standard of performance and accountability. Similar principles should apply to security personnel who are responsible for civilian safety, and the idea that they might face criminal charges for not acting heroically is not unprecedented.
Posthumous Recognitions
The tragic events at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School led to several acts of bravery among students and staff members. Two unarmed teachers tried to engage the shooter and lost their lives in the process. A senior student who received military honorable discharges and a posthumous graduation from West Point, for his actions in holding a door open for fellow students to escape, further underscores the impact of the shooting on the community.
Conclusion: A Call for Justice
In light of the legal framework and the ethical considerations surrounding Deputy Scot Peterson's actions, it is imperative that appropriate legal actions are taken. The use of a firing squad as a form of retribution, although a contentious matter, should not be dismissed outright. It would send a powerful message that such inaction would not be tolerated, both in military and civilian settings.
Final Thoughts
The incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School has shone a spotlight on the responsibilities of security personnel and the need for clear protocols in crisis situations. Whether or not Deputy Peterson should be jailed, the broader question is one of accountability and ensuring that such inactions are not repeated in the future.