A sheriff's deputy accused of negligence in a shootout at a Florida school has a strong defense: legal experts

(Reuters) – A sheriff's official accused of failing to protect students during a massive shootout at a high school in Parkland, Florida, has a simple defense, say some legal experts: he does not have the duty to save the victims.

"There is no crime called refusal to die while a murderer is in your school," said Eugene O'Donnell, former police officer and attorney of New York City, who teaches at the Criminal Justice College John Jay.

Scot Peterson, 56, was arrested Tuesday on charges of child neglect, neglect and perjury, and is jailed on $ 102,000 bail. He has not yet pleaded, but his lawyer said he would fight "vigorously" against the charges.

Several law professors and defense lawyers said that they were not aware of any case in which a law enforcement officer was alleged to have failed to take steps. measures.

The negligence law that Peterson is accused of violating is typically used to prosecute caregivers, such as parents and child care providers. Peterson has a strong defense that the law does not apply to law enforcement officers, according to several legal experts.

Broward County attorney spokeswoman Paula McMahon declined to comment on Wednesday.

Peterson, a former county deputy, was serving as a school resource officer when an armed man entered Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on February 14, 2018 and opened fire. Seventeen people were killed and 17 wounded.

Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 years old at the time and who had been fired from school, was charged with the murder. He is waiting for his trial.

Peterson was the only armed guard on the campus of the school.

After a 14-month investigation, the Florida Law Enforcement Department found that Peterson, who was out of school during the attack, did not investigate the origin of the bullets and was removed to shelter instead of rushing to the fire.

Peterson, who faces eleven charges of negligence and negligence, said he had reacted correctly by informing the police and helping with the closure of the school. He told the Washington Post: "It just happened and I started to react."

Peterson 's lawyer, Joseph DiRuzzo, said in a statement after his client' s arrest that "more specifically, Mr. Peterson can not reasonably be sued because he does not want to sue. was not a "caregiver", defined as "a parent, an adult household member or any other person the well-being of a child". "

John Berry, a lawyer who defends the police, said the use of child neglect laws to prosecute Peterson was creative on the part of prosecutors, but was "overkill."

"The way they accused him is a little bit like blaming someone who oversees a daycare, specifically charged with watching over children."

James Jacobs, a professor of criminal law at the University of New York Law School, said the charges appeared to impose on Peterson obligations beyond what was normally expected of police officers. the public force.

"The police have a duty to solve a volatile incident, but not to sacrifice life," he said.

In addition to arguing that he was not a legal care provider, Peterson could argue that not engaging an armed person does not constitute negligence to a child, said Richard Hornsby, Florida's defense attorney for children.

Even if prosecutors establish that Peterson had a duty to the victims, under US law they will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the deaths of those students.

Darren Hutchinson, a professor at the University of Florida's Levin Law School, said that despite apparent state barriers, Peterson was still exposed to legal risks.

Although jurors are often reluctant to convict law enforcement officers, Peterson's case could be an exception, as the shooting was so emotionally charged.

"It's very difficult to guess what a jury will do here," Hutchinson said.

A successful pursuit of Peterson for negligence could create a problematic precedent, said NYU's Jacobs.

"Will the firefighters be accused of not rushing immediately into a vortex of fire?