Former Broward County Deputy Scot Petersen gave up his job and lost a career-long reputation after the Parkland school shooting. Now, he may also lose his pension.
New legislation filed by state Rep. Spencer Roach would strip the retired officer of his $105,000 annual pension. The North Fort Myers Republican said the school resource officer was so “derelict in his duties” he should not live off taxpayer dollars any more.
“He willingly chose not to respond, and hung outside a building for 48 minutes,” Roach said. “His failure not only cost lives, but prevented other law enforcement agencies from responding correctly.”
Roach this week filed a bill (HB 1091) with a simple directive. Force Petersen to forfeit all Florida Retirement System rights and benefits due to “wanton or willful neglect.”
Peterson infamously waited outside the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School building as shooter Nikolas Cruz continued to shoot individuals inside. Ultimately, 17 people died at Parkland and another 17 were injured.
The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission in January issued a report highly critical of Peterson.
Roach said he’d been frustrated by news of Peterson’s poor performance since the shooting, but he didn’t hold any office at the time. He was a representative by the time the commission report came out, and decided to take action.
State Sen. Joe Gruters, a Sarasota Republican, since filed companion legislation in the Senate. He said Roach approached him and made a compelling case the Legislature should act.
“It’s just about trying to do what’s right for communities and families that are hurting,” Gruters said. “I think about my own kids and how terrible the situation is.”
The fatalities at Parkland included 14 students.
School safety advocate Andrew Pollack, whose daughter Meadow died in the shooting, dubbed Petersen the “Coward of Broward.” He has sued Petersen and other government entities over negligence.
Peterson’s attorneys have pushed back on criticism, and say public criticism has oversimplified the officer’s actions.
“The allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet the standards of police officers are patently untrue,” attorney Joseph DiRuzzo told the Sun-Sentinel.
But Roach said the actions cost lives. He acknowledged Peterson likely could not have prevented every death at Parkland. But based on commission findings, Roach believes eight people on the third floor of the building would have been saved if Peterson neutralized the shooter.
Roach also feels frustrated Peterson has given media interviews but refused to show for scheduled testimony to the commission.
Gruters and Roach both note the legislation would not deny Peterson any money he put into his own pension. But Roach said that amount—about $21,300—is a fraction of what he collects.
So what precedence would the legislation set? Other police officers faced public scrutiny in the past. The commission report notes other deputies also waited outside the building at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Roach said Peterson’s terrible response rose above others.
“[Peterson’s] actions are beyond negligent,” he said. “They border on criminal.”
But most of all, Roach said, he feels Peterson’s failure to head into danger violated a trust between the state and first responders. Firefighters and law enforcement receive significant pensions upon retirement, Roach said, because of their willingness to risk their lives for public safety when occasion demands
Peterson, he said, didn’t meet the demand.
“Some days that you come to work—or most days—you may not have to answer that call,” Roach said. “But at some point, you number gets called and you have to run toward danger.
“[Peterson] defined his career in the 48 minutes he hid out in that stairwell. That’s enough to pull his 30-year pension.”
2 comments
Cogent Observer
March 1, 2019 at 9:58 am
Congratulations to these legislators for having the ba*** to take this eminently correct position.
Gary
March 1, 2019 at 12:50 pm
This is probably a waste of time even dedicating 3 minutes to this conversation because as surely as a politician appears to be holding a moral and ethical bar up to a fellow government dweller it will fail.
I applaud this action for if a public office requires a swearing of duty, then what penalty for failure of that duty should be applied? In the case of this officer, nobody would ever disagree that he chose to disregard his oath of office and proceded to protect his decision by advising others to stay away. I believe this man was riding out his career in a cozy position as a school resource officer.
Comments are closed.