Should Scot Peterson lose his Pension?

I feel that long tormented Scot Peterson should not lose his retirement benefits and has been sufficiently punished.


What's your opinion & why?


"Bill seeks to strip Scot Peterson of retirement benefits"
https://www.local10.com/news/parkla...to-strip-scot-peterson-of-retirement-benefits

EXCERPT "A Florida lawmaker has filed a bill to try to strip former Broward Sheriff's Office Deputy Scot Peterson of his retirement benefits.
The bill seeks to forfeit all of Peterson's rights and benefits under Florida's retirement system "due to his wanton or willful neglect in the performance of his assigned duties."

Peterson was a school resource deputy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School inParkland on Valentine's Day 2018 when former student Nikolas Cruz killed 14 students and three faculty members. He resigned and began collecting pension payments after then-Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel announced Feb. 22, 2018, that Peterson never engaged the shooter."CONTINUED

 

All hose years he collected wages under the false pretense of being a cop. He's a coward.

 

Will be a tough sell legally since SCOTUS has already determined police do not have a duty to protect you.

 

No more so than the man in the White House and his pursuit of 4F draft status???

 

I'm an ex cop and have a little difficulty with this one. I think what would happen if he was in the military. Court martial, stripped of all rank and benefits and possibly some prison time. I would have no difficulty stripping him of any rank and benefits and that includes pension.

 

I agree that the bill will probably fail legislatively but I feel sorry for the guy to have to live in such an angry & hate filled community where so many people are taking out their anger this one guy.

 

Slick Willie?

 

He didn't do his job and people died.

Come home with your shield or on it.

He should have saved lives or been counted among the dead trying to save them.

Period.

 

OH! Scot Peterson, not Scott Peterson.

That's different.

 

Yes, I agree but to punish someone so severely for the rest of his life seems a little extreme especially when he has to live with his disgrace forever.

 

Demonstrating there are no consequences for poor performance will only lead to more such behavior.

 

Give him his pension because he earned it over the years. Yes he made a mistake and he's been disgraced for his cowardness. What next, take away social security from a taxi driver because he runs a stop sign and kills another motorist?

 

Again, I agree but how many more consequences should he suffer beyond the international humiliation of being regarded as a coward and being partly responsible for the school deaths.

The guilt & shame must be eating at him day and night and I doubt that he can go out in public without people either confronting him or quietly whispering & pointing at him.

 

Humiliation is not punishment. Maybe in millennial 'time out' world, but not the real world. He aided and abetted a mass murder just like an accomplice. Not only should he lose his pension, he should be charged with some type of criminal negligence.

 

Any law enforcement officer who is fired for corruption or criminal actions should lose their pensions...END OF STORY.

 

I don't agree that he "aided & abetted" the mass murder. He didn't deliberately leave doors unlocked or help the killer in any way.

In this article, he explains that he didn't know the location of the shooter and took measures he thought were appropriate.
It seems like he was just guilty of misjudging the situation rather than cowardice.

"‘It was my job, and I didn’t find him’: Stoneman Douglas resource officer remains haunted by massacre"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...4e693b38637_story.html?utm_term=.90fa1f8f3993

 

Living with that disgrace didn't seem to bother him that much as he was letting children die.

And at least he has a life, that is more than a lot of other people have who were there that day.

He should be lucky we don't take that from him also.

 

It’s a big assumption to say he is suffering. Someone who could do what he did likely doesn’t have much conscience and cares mostly about himself.

If that is the case, others with no conscience will see he suffers no consequences he cares about and behave accordingly.

You could be right, it’s just my opinion.

 

But I'm pretty sure he took an oath to serve and protect.

 

afaik, only secret service requires 'taking a bullet' ... 'weak' cops are usually removed from patrol to 'desk job' at the precinct not crucified & made insolvent... the only bad guy was the shooter... but peeps need others to blame to make themselves feel better, plus it's election time so they gotta 'make a name' for themselves...

 

Him and his lawyers said he had “no legal duty” to protect the students and faculty from harm.

**** him

 

Contracts must be constructed to anticipate all conditions. The fact his contract did not anticipate his acts the day of the mass killing should not allow the government to change the deal for him. If it wants to change the contract, only those after his hiring should be impacted.

Suppose you entered into a contract to buy a new Cadillac but rather than that car the Dealer shoved at you a Chevrolet. That is a material breach. The deputy won't have his contract changed and judges will enforce it.

 

According to Peterson's colleagues, friends & neighbors, he had a highly honorable record & was well liked and according to him, it was his uncertainty of the shooter's location that caused him to make the mistakes he made that day.
I don't know enough about the incident to know what to believe as far as Peterson's being a "coward" or not.

I think that one Poster equated stripping Peterson's pension to stripping a taxi driver of his Social Security for one fatal traffic accident which I thought was an excellent analogy .

Many people who have responded to this thread have strong feelings as to what Peterson's fate should be but you are the first to suggest something along the lines of execution:

Who is "we", by the way?

 

I doubt it says to protect. If they must protect, there are thousands of killings that the victims get no protection at all at any time. Duty to enforce laws is more likely.

 

How cynical........but accurate.