|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 6, 2019 11:17:16 GMT -5
I was being snarky in the previous post. (Obviously.) But in all sincerity, I suggest taking a good solid think about what the likely outcomes would be if we decided to say "Fuck the law! Fuck whether what you actually did is illegal or punishable by a jail sentence! Let's punish on feels!" Not everything can or should be punishable by prison time. Even if we'd rather have given behavior be punishable by jail time, it's not a good thing to decide that randomly after the fact. ("Hey! Cowardice should be illegal! Lock him up!") It's really frustrating, emotionally, that this guy was crouching outside while kids were being mowed down. Sure, it's possible if he'd acted, he might, maybe, have gotten lucky, managed to get behind the maniac with the semi-automatic, killed him, and saved lives. (I think more likely he'd have failed, and quite likely he'd have been killed.) But if he had no legal duty to charge in and risk his life, bootstrapping such a duty to put him in jail and make everyone feel better is a piss-poor idea. Once you start boot-strapping and stretching the law to suit people's emotions, you've set precedents that will eventually be used in a way you DON'T like -- I guarantee it. The law isn't always applied equally, and that's wrong. But the way to fix that is to fight for it to be applied equally, not to say "let's flush law down the toilet." Sure, it might feel good in some cases. But when majority mob emotions decide how to punish rather than the penal code, who do you think is ultimately most likely to suffer? So my question, as a lawyer, when it comes to applying a criminal penalty, is not "did this guy behave heroically" but rather "did he actually violate a criminal code"? It's not "did he act", but "did he have a legal duty to act"? I'm not an expert on the relevant Florida laws. But it sounds to me like they're likely bootstrapping here. Maybe as the case develops, I'll see some facts or legal arguments that will convince me otherwise. But long rants on how cowardly he is sure as fuck won't do it.
When you go into your Professor Cassandra mode it almost negates all the drama and hell you raise as Diva Cassandra. The operative word being "almost."
, and in part because the man whose duty was to protect them and keep them safe refused to do so.
Actions have consequences. So does inaction.
That's a good look for The Coward of Broward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 11:27:56 GMT -5
Again, you are explicitly arguing for a legal system based on majority feels.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 6, 2019 13:54:28 GMT -5
Again, you are explicitly arguing for a legal system based on majority feels. Again, you are explicitly arguing for a cowardly cop based on minority feels.
And if you are trying to make a case why Peterson isn't a coward, make it. Otherwise, you're just repeating yourself and it's boring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2019 17:48:31 GMT -5
Your argument is entirely emotional and frankly nonsensical. It amounts to a solid wall of "HE'S A COWARDLY COP AND I HAVE FEELINGS." Having already explained the the legal system cannot and should not work on that basis, I have nothing to add.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 6, 2019 23:09:41 GMT -5
Your argument is entirely emotional and frankly nonsensical. What is nonsense to someone like you makes perfectly good sense to someone like me. There are many reasons for that, but here's your very own " entirely emotional and frankly nonsensical" posts that illustrate your complete hypocrisy far better than I could. Being accused of being emotional and nonsensical by you is like being accused of being dumb by that very stable genius who likes to grab women by the pussy cat. Nobody should be that ridiculously clueless, but here you are putting the lie to that.
Fixed that for ya. I'm pretty confident I've made a much more solid case for the prosecution that Scot Peterson is a gutless turd than you have as the defense that he isn't.
Even if the chickenshit son of a bitch does beats the rap, he will never get his reputation back. Peterson will always be known as that cowardly cop who hid while kids died and you can stack all the lawyers in the world on top of each other defending this pig and still never wash the blood off his hands. But you do you.
You never did. You didn't have anything to add yesterday at 1:14 pm and you haven't added anything except your feelings that Peterson is a security guard (wrong once) who could have done nothing to stop the shooting (wrong twice), and is being unfairly branded a coward because he behaved like a coward (wrong thrice).
Who asked you to explain the "legal" system? Wasn't me. All I asked from you is what is it about how Peterson performed his duties that day leads you to conclude he isn't a coward. You've contorted like a snake on a hot sidewalk to do anything but answer the question. That's the kind of duck-dodge-bob-weave fake-out shit you're good for when you can't or won't answer a simple question. I'm insulted you think you can still pull that sort of obvious Jedi mind trick on someone who knows your game.
Whatever it is you think you know, somebody else knows it too and knows it better, so don't break ya ankles jumping off your high horse. I'm sure there's a couple of prosecutors in Broward Country that could chew you up like bubblegum and spit you out. Despite being endlessly impressed by yourself, you are not the expert here. Park your delusions of grandeur for a minute and maybe you'll see you just aren't. The survivors of the Parkland shooting are the experts. The parents and friends and wives and husbands and families of the slain are the experts here. The cops who want nothing to do with a bad and cowardly cop like Peterson are the experts here.
Them. Not you. Why should I give any validity to what you say when you have no receipts to back up your claim that you are such a legal eagle that every knee should bow down and recognize your greatness? Fix your face and put a leash on that monster-sized ego of yours.
All you are is the expert of your own tiny little world and maybe in your office or your cubicle with your name plaque, you're Miss Big Shot. Goody for you. Outside of it, all you are is just another nameless nobody with an opinion on a discussion board full of the same. Don't kid yourself that it means anything more than that. Scot Peterson is a coward and he's going to have to dig into the pension he doesn't deserve to hire enough sharks and mouthpieces to keep his double-wide ass out of the joint where someone will be waiting to play hide the salami in the showers.
Cops don't do so well behind bars. It's not exactly a nurturing environment, which is why they are scared shitless to go there. Be afraid, Mr. Peterson. Be very afraid.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 9:09:18 GMT -5
You are not an expert at all on anything relevant here, nor are you making the barest sembla nce of a coherent argument. You're merely ranting.
Frankly, I don't feel any need to defend what I've said. You haven't made a single assertion worth discussing.
You just make an ass of yourself when you go into these insult-laden rants.
ETA:
As to what the prosecutors here are doing, I strongly suspect they're putting on a show for people like you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 7, 2019 13:35:02 GMT -5
You are not an expert at all on anything relevant here, nor are you making the barest sembla nce of a coherent argument. You're merely ranting.
The difference is I have never claimed to be an expert on anything relevant here. You have with your swaggering arrogance and appeals to authority arguments. It's not always about you, Cassandra.
To the first sentence, what you mean is you don't have any way to defend what you've said because it is indefensible.
To the second sentence, if I haven't made a single assertion worth discussing, why are you replying at all if this is so beneath your notice? Don't be coy. You don't do coy very well. Like at all.
Back on point: My assertion is Scot Peterson had a duty to act and his failure to makes him a coward. Your assertion is Peterson was outgunned, could have put his life at risk to no good effect and is being unfairly blamed for a systemic failure by law enforcement to react and stop Nickolas Cruz's rampage. Now if I got anything wrong there you be sure to let me know, okay?
All of us can speculate how we might react if we're sitting in our offices one day and suddenly there are pop-pop-pop sounds that aren't firecrackers and are punctuated by blood-curdling screams. None of us know if we would freeze in place, search for the nearest exit or go all Rambo up in this joint.
But if you're a cop you'd better know how you would react if shit goes crazy because while you're trying to figure it out people are going to be dying and you may be the first while you're mulling it over. It may not be a natural instinct in some cops to run toward the fire like a fearless lion instead of scurrying away like a frightened rabbit, but if you can't do that, you probably should have never been handed a badge and a gun in the first damn place. Ex: Scot Peterson.
For the Defense:
A critical difference between yours and my approach to debate, Cassandra, is that unlike you, I'm not afraid of presenting and considering the other side of the argument. I'm cool with taking the risk that I might be in the minority and I'll allow the possibility I might even wrong. But you have to prove I'm wrong. Just saying it don't make it so. All your haughty dismissive presentation and sophistic deflections reveal is how poorly you fare when you're dealing with someone who plays the game a bit better than you do.
Girl, PUH-LEEZE. I know you ain't talking about someone going all the way off on a rant and making an ass of themselves. Check yourself first and make sure your own shit-talking is screwed down tight because right now you sound real crazy. Come get your life cause you need to snatch it back from whomever led you astray. People like me? What kind of people is that? Black people? Don't half-step. Make yourself clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 15:19:26 GMT -5
You are not an expert at all on anything relevant here, nor are you making the barest sembla nce of a coherent argument. You're merely ranting.
The difference is I have never claimed to be an expert on anything relevant here. You have with your swaggering arrogance and appeals to authority arguments. It's not always about you, Cassandra.
To the first sentence, what you mean is you don't have any way to defend what you've said because it is indefensible.
To the second sentence, if I haven't made a single assertion worth discussing, why are you replying at all if this is so beneath your notice? Don't be coy. You don't do coy very well. Like at all.
Back on point: My assertion is Scot Peterson had a duty to act and his failure to makes him a coward. Your assertion is Peterson was outgunned, could have put his life at risk to no good effect and is being unfairly blamed for a systemic failure by law enforcement to react and stop Nickolas Cruz's rampage. Now if I got anything wrong there you be sure to let me know, okay?
All of us can speculate how we might react if we're sitting in our offices one day and suddenly there are pop-pop-pop sounds that aren't firecrackers and are punctuated by blood-curdling screams. None of us know if we would freeze in place, search for the nearest exit or go all Rambo up in this joint.
But if you're a cop you'd better know how you would react if shit goes crazy because while you're trying to figure it out people are going to be dying and you may be the first while you're mulling it over. It may not be a natural instinct in some cops to run toward the fire like a fearless lion instead of scurrying away like a frightened rabbit, but if you can't do that, you probably should have never been handed a badge and a gun in the first damn place. Ex: Scot Peterson.
For the Defense:
A critical difference between yours and my approach to debate, Cassandra, is that unlike you, I'm not afraid of presenting and considering the other side of the argument. I'm cool with taking the risk that I might be in the minority and I'll allow the possibility I might even wrong. But you have to prove I'm wrong. Just saying it don't make it so. All your haughty dismissive presentation and sophistic deflections reveal is how poorly you fare when you're dealing with someone who plays the game a bit better than you do.
Girl, PUH-LEEZE. I know you ain't talking about someone going all the way off on a rant and making an ass of themselves. Check yourself first and make sure your own shit-talking is screwed down tight because right now you sound real crazy. Come get your life cause you need to snatch it back from whomever led you astray. People like me? What kind of people is that? Black people? Don't half-step. Make yourself clear.
People like you = irrational people who think insult and ranting are argument. Your insults don't bother me a bit. They're at the level of the crazy guy screaming on the street corner. Being a New Yorker, I cross the street. And the legal world you think you want -- the one where people just decide "NOT GOOD PERSON! PUT THEM IN JAIL!" without an actual legal violation, is an ugly world indeed. You want an actual discussion? Explain to me the legal theory under which you think the Coward of Broward should be convicted and get jail time. Tie it to an actual statute or case and explain how it applies. I'll engage it. Until then, frankly, rant away. I'm done with you.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 7, 2019 19:51:32 GMT -5
People like you = irrational people who think insult and ranting are argument. Your insults don't bother me a bit. They're at the level of the crazy guy screaming on the street corner. Being a New Yorker, I cross the street. And the legal world you think you want -- the one where people just decide "NOT GOOD PERSON! PUT THEM IN JAIL!" without an actual legal violation, is an ugly world indeed. You want an actual discussion? Explain to me the legal theory under which you think the Coward of Broward should be convicted and get jail time. Tie it to an actual statute or case and explain how it applies. I'll engage it. Until then, frankly, rant away. I'm done with you. What? This Shit Again?
There is already an active question on the table about The Broward Coward which you have pointedly ignored. Probably because if you acknowledged it there would go your "insult and ranting" and irrationality garbage. Now I'll give you some credit for how skillful you are at ducking the question, but if you're any good at being an attorney, give me some props for being good at being a journalist. I know when someone is ducking a question, so sorry Miz Daisy, I'm not the hired help. You do not get the frame the parameters of a debate I started.
You want an honest exchange of conflicting views? Fine. I'm a gentleman. Ladies first.
Maybe then you'll be worth the time to engage in an actual discussion. But until then...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 20:50:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 7, 2019 21:36:53 GMT -5
BZZZT! Oh, I'm SO sorry, but you're about seven hours late with the Reason link. I do appreciate you proving how despite your sanctimonious protests you're only in search of meaningful debate, you undermine yourself by failing to pay any more than lip service to giving a fuck for anyone's viewpoint but your own.
Next time don't steal my links and pass them off as they're your own original idea. It's kinda tacky. Capiche?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2019 22:12:31 GMT -5
Another good article. I agree that the most likely charge to stick might be the misdemeanor perjury charge; the rest are a big stretch. www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-ne-peterson-charges-legality-20190605-v2rn5n4dzjbudjyrejucm4qviq-story.htmlIf I were a betting woman, I'd bet he gets the max for perjury (a year), and that's it. Probably most of you don't have NY Times subscriptions, but if you do: www.nytimes.com/2019/06/04/us/parkland-scot-peterson.htmlThere are lots and lots and lots of similar quotes in the articles I've cited, all from legal experts who don't have a dog in this fight or any reason to grandstand politically. The statutes the Florida prosecutors charging Peterson under simply were intended for very different situations. Stretching the definitions to cover this situation would create a precedent that would inevitably have nasty unintended consequences -- which is why I'm betting the court won't do it. (And if the lower court does, a higher court will overturn them).
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jun 8, 2019 0:36:47 GMT -5
Fun facts.
Peterson came up short in ALL of those objectives. So much for the bullshit that he is being made a "scapegoat." He didn't do his job and if you read the SOP's and deny the facts, then YOU have to make the case that he did.
Hmmmm....is there even the vaguest of possibilities the prosecutor might know a LITTLE more about their case against The Broward Coward than all the supposed "experts" do?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 6:26:42 GMT -5
Is there even a chance that prosecutors in Broward County have motivations in this highly emotional controversial case that have nothing to do with correctly enforcing Florida law?
I mean, it's not like they are under intense pressure from an hysterical angry public to Do Something and Bring Charges Against That Coward.
It's not like in such cases prosecutors have never brought charges that shouldn't be brought.
It isn't like the good folks in Broward County haven't always shown themselves to always be a highly competent, rigorously scrupulous bunch.
It's not like lots of politicians and voters in Florida aren't especially eager to keep their guns and protect the sacred "good guy with a gun solves the problem" maxim, and hence are extra eager to pretend that if Peterson had been a good guy with a gun he would have been able to save the kids, so hey, we don't need to do anything about guns-- in fact we need more of them.
Nah, it's the rest of us non-Florida legal folk, the ones who have no dog in the fight and face no pressure that might affect our analysis, who for some reason are mysteriously biased in favor of the Coward of Broward and determined to twist things any way we can to protect him.
But it's touching to know your faith in prosecutors is now such that you simply can't believe they could ever have a motivation to bring ill-conceived, thin charges that really don't fit when an angry public is demanding to see someone hung.
That seems a new development for you. I confess your new-found faith exceeds mine.
ETA:
Do I think prosecutors generally are a dishonest or incompetent bunch who are always drumming up charges any old how? No, I do not. A number of my good friends are prosecutors. Like any other profession, there are bad apples, sure, but mostly it's a good bunch conscientiously trying to do their job.
What I do think, though, is that in cases where there is a huge public outcry, there is a tremendous pressure to "Do Something!" to mollify that feeling. Lots of people are hysterically demanding this guy's head on a platter and Broward County is under serious pressure to deliver it.
Since there actually is not a statute requiring an officer with a handgun to commit suicide by confronting a maniac with a semi-automatic in order to protect people, and in fact there is Supreme Court precedent that pretty much says the contrary, the prosecutors have chosen to try an end run around it by stretching statutes intended to deal with child neglect and abuse by a caregiver.
For all the reasons I've already said and the articles have discussed, that's a really bad idea. It will likely be shot down by courts, and it should be.
(Query: do you think the prosecutors would be trying to bring charges under caregiver neglect statutes if the stuff nighttimer is waving around gave them grounds to go after Peterson? No, no they would not. If there were statutes and cases saying a police officer had a duty to rush in and confront the shooter, they'd use them. Instead what prosecutors are facing is some pretty hefty precedent expressly holding that a police officer does NOT have such a duty.
Hence, they are bootstrapping and trying to do an end run.)
ETA:
To be really cynical -- even if the prosecutors' end-run fails (as I predict it ultimately will), by bringing the charges, they direct public outrage away from themselves. "They're Doing Something!" the mob will scream, and then the mob will turn the hate and anger at the judge who points out that the statutes are not applicable to this situation and point to the precedent stating that police officers don't have a duty to charge into a situation like this. The prosecutors win even if they lose. Because hey, they tried to twist the law to hang the guy. Not their fault if some meanie mcmeanie judge is in love with the Coward of Broward.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2019 9:27:05 GMT -5
|
|