This doesn't make sense

[dolphins4life]

https://time.com/5620569/las-vegas-police-officer-fired-mass-shooting/

This officer basically did the same thing as Peterson did in Florida.  How come Peterson was charged, while this guy was not?

What's also odd is this officer received orders to take cover, which is what Peterson did.                   

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

As the law is currently written the only charge that will likely stick for Peterson is perjury. 

Personally I would like to see LEOs held to the same standard as the military and make cowardice a serious criminal offense.  But that is not the current state of the law.

Both should be fired and lose all benefit (pension)

[pondwater]

As the law is currently written the only charge that will likely stick for Peterson is perjury. 

Personally I would like to see LEOs held to the same standard as the military and make cowardice a serious criminal offense.  But that is not the current state of the law.

Both should be fired and lose all benefit (pension)

Not likely to happen with the SCOTUS rulings.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

Not likely to happen with the SCOTUS rulings.

Actually more of a legislative issue.  If a state passed a law making dereliction of duty a crime, there isn’t anything in the constitution to challenge that on.  The barrier is the power of police unions have in preventing any accountability of the police along with the political power they yield in the claim that holding police to any standards whatsoever is the equivalent of supporting a lawless society.

[pondwater]

Actually more of a legislative issue.  If a state passed a law making dereliction of duty a crime, there isn’t anything in the constitution to challenge that on.  The barrier is the power of police unions have in preventing any accountability of the police along with the political power they yield in the claim that holding police to any standards whatsoever is the equivalent of supporting a lawless society.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm misinterpreting. However, due to the Supremacy Clause, I wouldn't think that a state law could preempt a SCOTUS ruling. Since they have ruled that the police have no duty to protect the public, then there can be no dereliction of duty. That duty doesn't exist.

[Spider-Dan]

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm misinterpreting. However, due to the Supremacy Clause, I wouldn't think that a state law could preempt a SCOTUS ruling. Since they have ruled that the police have no duty to protect the public, then there can be no dereliction of duty. That duty doesn't exist.

I'm inclined to agree.  If SCOTUS has already weighed in and ruled that police cannot be held criminally accountable for failure to perform their duty, any law that make dereliction of duty a crime should be unconstitutional.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm misinterpreting. However, due to the Supremacy Clause, I wouldn't think that a state law could preempt a SCOTUS ruling. Since they have ruled that the police have no duty to protect the public, then there can be no dereliction of duty. That duty doesn't exist.

Supremacy clause basically says that when a law passed by feds contradicts a law passed by a state, feds win.  But being feds haven’t specifically passed a law granting immunity that would be irrelevant.

S. Ct. ruling basically said citizens couldn’t sue the police because the cops don’t have a prescribed legal duty.  Said proposed law would impose such a duty.  That wouldn’t contradict the the court.  The court didn’t say the states couldn’t impose such an obligation on the police just that no common law duty currently exists.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

I'm inclined to agree.  If SCOTUS has already weighed in and ruled that police cannot be held criminally accountable for failure to perform their duty, any law that make dereliction of duty a crime should be unconstitutional.

To the best of my knowledge the s. ct has never heard a case regarding the criminal liability of an officers failure to act.  They have ruled that they can’t be sued civilly unless under common law.  And no state has codified a law creating such a cause of action.

[pondwater]

I'm inclined to agree.  If SCOTUS has already weighed in and ruled that police cannot be held criminally accountable for failure to perform their duty, any law that make dereliction of duty a crime should be unconstitutional.

They actually ruled that police don't have a duty to protect a person from harm. Technically there can't be a failure to perform or dereliction of duty, since that duty doesn't actually exist according to SCOTUS.