Parkland Survivors Sue Broward Law Enforcement Officials; Allege Incompetence, Poor Training And Cowardice

A combination of incompetence, poor training and inaction led to the Valentine's Day massacre of 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida - claim 15 current or former students in a new federal lawsuit which points the finger directly at Broward County law enforcement.

"Law enforcement choked," said Detroit civil rights attorney Solomon Radner, who filed the lawsuit, adding "Cops are heroes, and they’re supposed to be heroes." 

“This lawsuit should not be misconstrued in any way as a shot at law enforcement,” he said. “This is a shot at specific law-enforcement officers that failed those students.”

Recent graduate Audrey Diaz, one of the plaintiffs, said that on the day of the shooting, she was thinking about prom and graduating, but “some of my friends who were killed that day weren’t able to go to these events.”

Her voice breaking, she said, “We thought we were safe at school and we would always be protected,” adding, “We deserved more from our law enforcement.”

Calling it “a parent’s worst nightmare,“ Audrey’s mother, Iris, said, choking with emotion, “I am outraged at how the defendants in this lawsuit responded to this shooting.” -Palm Beach Post

The lawsuit was filed in federal court because it alleges constitutional rights were violated, and because Florida courts cap lawsuit awards against local governments at $300,000, reports the Palm Beach Post

Defendants in the suit include Sheriff Scott Israel and disgraced former school resource officer Scot Peterson, who was seen on CCTV footage driving a golf cart up to the high school building during the shooting, only to hop off, unholster his gun, and run behind a concrete wall for cover.

Peterson, 54, dubbed the "Broward coward," was blasted by Sheriff Israel a week after the shooting - who said Peterson should have "went in, addressed the killer, killed the killer," adding that the deputy's failure to act left him "devastated" and sick to his stomach.  

The lawsuit claims that during “eight minutes of hell,” numerous “failures by numerous government actors, including law enforcement, strongly continued to Shooter’s ability to carry out this horrific attack without which this attack could not have happened.”

Peterson lied, told other officers not to do their jobs

Following the shooting, Petersen issued a statement through his attorney denying any wrongdoing - and said that he thought the shots were being fired from outside the school

Internal radio dispatches released by the Broward County Sheriff's Office in March , however, reveal Peterson immediately focused on Building 12 and radioed that gunfire was happening "inside." 

What's more - Peterson warned his fellow officer to stay away - despite wounded students and staff inside who required assistance. Broward Sheriff's Office (BSO) policy requires deputies to engage an active shooter and eliminate the threat. 

“Do not approach the 12 or 1300 building, stay at least 500 feet away,” shouted a panicked Peterson as people screamed in the background. 

The records appear to support Broward Sheriff Scott Israel’s contention that Peterson, a longtime school resource officer, should have entered Building 12 to engage Cruz and try to prevent deaths. They also appear to show that other deputies may have refrained from rushing into the school at the direction of Peterson and a Parkland captain. The response by the agency has been the subject of national scrutiny, and is currently under review by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. -Miami Herald

The lawsuit reads in part: 

"Defendant SCOT PETERSON was at all pertinent times a Broward County deputy and was specifically tasked with protecting the Plaintiffs, even [if] it meant risking his own life. It was and is a heroic job and one upon which people reply in the case of a life and death emergency. He was tasked with the job to protect the children at the school with the knowledge that he was possibly the only armed person in the immediate vicinity of the school. His job duties required him to run towards danger at risk of life and limb, and not to run away from danger for the sole purpose of sole-preservation."

The suit then goes on to claim "His arbitrary and conscience-shocking actions and inactions directly and predictably caused children to die, get injured, and get traumatized.

Also named in the suit is Broward County Captain Jan Jordan for allegedly refusing to allow emergency personnel to enter the school, as well as school guard Andrew Medina for failing to stop the shooter "even though he saw Shooter walk past him and he recognized Shooter to be a known danger to the school." 

Instead, the plaintiffs claim, Medina "radioed ahead to warn fellow monitor David Taylor that a suspicious kid was headed his way." 

The Broward Sheriff's office as well as Broward County Public Schools said on Tuesday morning that they don't comment on active suits, according to The Post

Read the suit below: 


I am Groot Wed, 07/11/2018 - 16:27 Permalink

I recognize "Bob" from Fight Club on the right in the pink tranny shirt by the size of his moobs. Captain Useless on the left there. I can't wait to read both of their obits.

ufos8mycow 1 Alabama Wed, 07/11/2018 - 17:53 Permalink

Warren v. District of Columbia -

Warren v. District of Columbia is an oft-quoted District of Columbia Court of Appeals case that held that the police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens based on the public duty doctrine.

The Supreme Court ruled that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm.


Case closed. No $ for you!

In reply to by 1 Alabama

el buitre ufos8mycow Wed, 07/11/2018 - 19:34 Permalink

I know for a fact that nobody died at Sandy Hook.  It was what they call a capstone drill.  The evidence for a hoax is everywhere and overwhelming if you bother even to look.  Just for one example, the school had been closed for 5 years prior to the "event" for asbestos contamination.  Investigate it for yourselves.  It is far more interesting than anything on Netflix.  It was designed as an ultimate gun grab, but didn't work, at least so far.  Eric PlaceHolder was in charge of the hoax between his duties running automatic weapons to Mexican drug lords with Fast and Furious.  As to Parkland, I don't know whether is was a hoax or a real massacre, but I suspect the later.  I just haven't dug into the evidence the way I did for Sandy Hoax.  But it was definitely a false flag.  I have my doubts about Q Anon, but he did drop a very powerful crumb.  He said investigate the shooters' psychotherapists.  They are not what they appear to be.  I bet that would be a goldmine if done thoroughly and professionally.  My speculation is that the police didn't fuck up due to incompetence or cowardice.  They were told to stand down.  One teacher reported (before she was warned to shut up) that she looked out her classroom window and saw a man dressed in full assault gear including body armor walking down the hallway and shooting kids.  Doesn't sound like that skinny, fucked up geek.

"It’s Easier to Fool People Than to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled"

Usually ascribed to Mark Twain

In reply to by ufos8mycow

El Vaquero The_Juggernaut Wed, 07/11/2018 - 16:40 Permalink

I just read most of the complaint.  The unlawful search and seizure should be in the bag if they can prove it.  IMO, it was put into the complaint to protect against outright dismissal, which will give time for interlocutory appeal if the rest of the complaint is dismissed.  The attorneys for the plaintiffs are going to have to argue that, by requiring students to go to school, the state placed them in a position that they couldn't defend themselves, and thus they were entitled to protection from non-state actors.  Otherwise, everything but the unlawful seizure claims are going to get tossed. 

In reply to by The_Juggernaut

847328_3527 TBT or not TBT Wed, 07/11/2018 - 17:10 Permalink

"Generally, citizens can (successfully) sue the police for infliction of emotional distress in one of two instances, when an officer:

  • intentionally or recklessly acts in a way that causes emotional injury or
  • causes emotional distress through a negligent act.

But if the court determines that the conduct was within the scope of the officer’s law-enforcement duties, that officer is generally immune (and can't be held liable)."

That's from NOLO but from what I have seen it's a very uphill battle. Best to hire a PR firm also and keep it in the headlines like blacks do so as to pressure the city into paying something to these poor kids' families.

This cowardice and failure to act sure does make me sick. And the comments by that chief afterward are so pathetic, I would not be surprised if one of those parents take him behind the wood shed someday. And rightly so.

In reply to by TBT or not TBT

GeezerGeek 847328_3527 Wed, 07/11/2018 - 22:57 Permalink

The remark that the filing "alleges constitutional rights were violated". For the life of me, I can't find anything in the Constitution that identifies any types of rights that might nave been violated, and it certainly doesn't apply to local police actions. But then, Parkland is filled with Deep Blue people, so it is easy to imagine that they are clueless about the actual contents of said document while assuming it means whatever they want it to mean.

In reply to by 847328_3527

TBT or not TBT El Vaquero Wed, 07/11/2018 - 16:51 Permalink

Broward and neighboring Miami Dads schools and resource officers found plenty of contraband stolen goods and weapons on students there, with probable cause in plenty of cases, but CHOSE to prevent any action to be taken, based on a very effective program to reduce crime stats and criminal records for minority delinquents .    Trayvon Martin and Cruz were beneficiaries, as were gangs, who could have underage school goers do crime for them with impunity   

In reply to by El Vaquero

Dilluminati johngaltfla Wed, 07/11/2018 - 17:23 Permalink

After the manner in which that piece of shit sheriff went on national TV with CNN and lied I think there is ample evidence that not only did they fail in their duties but they covered it up... a jury should award damages for that alone

they should be glad I can't sit on that jury, i'd give the fuckers the electric chair.. send em to sparky!!

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed—where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." Judge Alex Kozinsk


In reply to by johngaltfla

thatthingcanfly Dr. Acula Wed, 07/11/2018 - 16:56 Permalink

Dr. Acula.

No No No No NO!

This shooting was not a false flag; and neither was 911.

Here's some highlights of what I've posted to these idiotic "911 Truthers" on this site in the past.

911 was NOT a false flag OR a hoax. Rather, it was a retaliatory strike by Islam against the "Crusaders," ie. the US military headquarters and the New York financial interests that support US foreign interventionism in Muslim lands. Bin Laden had threatened something like this for years; and they pulled it off on 911.

I'm usually one of several commenters on the thread trying to talk sense into these idiot 9/11 "Truthers" and Apollo Moon Landing deniers, whose judgment has been completely compromised by Alex Jones nuttery.

Notice how they employ the "gallop" logical fallacy when defending their controlled demolition theory? It's never just one reason for why it's "clear" that the whole thing was an inside job, it's like 20 reasons. Apparently, their high school debate coach didn't do a good job of disabusing them of logical fallacies.

On molten steel:

The steel didn't melt. That's absurd. Nobody is claiming that it did. You don't have to heat steel past its eutectic to weaken it to stress failure point. If there WAS molten steel, it wouldn't still be molten days (or weeks) later.

On WTC7:

WTC7 was heavily damaged by the fall of the North Tower. This damage was mostly on the South side, the opposite of that from which most pictures were taken. A fire burned for hours inside the building, weakening its central columns. When those collapsed, it caused an inward tumbling effect, pulling down the outer extremities of the building. Look at the WTC7 video footage and you'll see the collapse began in the center of the building, quickly cascading to the outer edges. This is the opposite of what one would expect in a controlled demolition. Also, there was no evidence of rigging for controlled demo., eg. blasting cord debris in the rubble.

And the reason we typically don't see fires taking down skyscrapers is because of their construction. WTC 1& 2 were uniquely built, without central support columns. Once the cascade of falling floors began, the only place the buildings could collapse was into their own footprints. Airplanes flying into them absolutely could, and did, cause this to happen.

On the Pentagon hit:

When you work aviation mishaps, the first thing you learn is that at the moment of impact, an airliner (or any other large aircraft) stops flying as a single solid body, and becomes a disconnected jumble and mash of aluminum, steel, fiberglass, wood, wiring, seat cushions, blankets, carpeting, overhead bin plastic, luggage, jet fuel, and, yes, human flesh and bone; all of which behaves more like a fluid, flowing in the general direction the aircraft used to be flying. It is entirely consistent with every other aviation mishap to observe that the front of the aircraft poked a hole in the Pentagon, and all the other jumble and mash of "stuff" funneled into that hole. One should not expect to see a perfectly-shaped aircraft silhouette on the side of the Pentagon where the plane hit - like in a Loony Tunes cartoon, which is where these 9-11 Truthers belong.

No, the aircraft did not "vaporize." But it's close to the truth to say it "liquidized." And the engines were all accounted for - including the APU, which is the one “Truthers” mistake for an engine of a cruise missile.

On "evidence" of explosions from a controlled demolition:

I work at a sand mine, where we do controlled demolitions every day. Prepping a wall face for a demolition takes the better part of a day. And that's just a mostly-flat 50 foot by 40 foot wall face. Prepping a fucking skyscraper for a demo is exponentially more difficult/time consuming. The suggestion that WTC 1, 2, or 7, were prepped for demolition during the weeks/months leading up to 9/11, which would have involved hard-hat wearing industrial crews working around the clock, drilling holes in support columns, hauling/pumping in thousands of pounds of explosives, and wiring the miles of det cord required for such a job, and NOT BEING OBSERVED BY ANYONE WORKING IN THE BUILDING is absolutely preposterous. The absence of any blasting cord residue at Ground Zero after the collapses is another observation the "inside-jobbers" carelessly ignore. Blasting cord is bright orange or yellow, and pieces of it are very conspicuous in rubble after a blast.

Pull your heads out of your asses! There was no controlled demo. Not a false flag. Aircraft piloted by Muslim hijackers really did take the buildings down. It was a clever plot, which worked only due to the unique design of WTC1 & 2, ie. no central support columns. The event is just the latest example of Muslims doing what Muslims do to the ones they call, "infidels."

The more these 911 "Truthers" continue parroting the delusional nonsense about it being a false flag or an inside job, the more difficult it is for otherwise reasonable people to focus on the real enemy of Western Civilization: Islam.

In reply to by Dr. Acula