Given the inexplicable circumstances evolving from the mass killing at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida on February 14, 2018, we can’t really suggest we didn’t see a lawsuit coming down the pike. Today, Andrew Pollock, the dad of slain daughter Meadow Pollock—one among the 17 victims—filed a wrongful death lawsuit against school resource officer Scot Peterson.
The suit also names shooter Nikolas Cruz, naturally. In Parkland, one created the carnage and the other failed to abate it.
Filed on Monday, April 30th, the 26-page lawsuit affidavits seek to publicly scorn now-former BSO deputy Scot Peterson. Plaintiff’s attorney David W. Brill included the widely-held belief in common language, saying, “Instead of actually entering the building as he should have, Peterson positioned himself out of harm’s way, though within earshot of the Nikolas Cruz carnage” and “never once attempting to save a life, never once to fire a single bullet at Cruz.
“Rather, Peterson listened to the din of screams of teachers and students, many of whom were dead or dying, and the blasts of Nikolas Cruz’ repeated gunfire.”
Once audio/video evidence was available after the Valentine’s Day massacre, Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel admitted his deputy failed, exclaiming Peterson should have “…went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.”
Condemned for having failed dismally in his duties, Peterson resigned from the force eight days after the mass murder.
As with cases in which numerous citizens are victimized and systemic failures seem like glaring contributors to the cause-and-effect outcomes, a string of lawsuits follow. On the heels of this one—the second filing on behalf of a Parkland victim—we will likely see announcements such as this parent who seeks accountability stemming from the loss of his child. The first lawsuit filed was by student David Borges who survived five bullet wounds and subsequently sued Cruz in April.
Broward County Sheriff’s Office audio (radio) recordings and the school’s surveillance system footage depict SRO Peterson seemingly confused and delaying response to active shooter Cruz. Unimpeded, Cruz traversed through a particular building on campus and gunned down 17 people, mostly students, while Deputy Peterson hunkered outside. He never entered the fray until it was too late.
As for Mr. Pollock’s cause, he is blunt and terse in his purpose: “I’m not interested in any money. I just want to expose what a coward [Scot Peterson] was and that he could’ve saved everyone on the third floor. I don’t want him to go anywhere in the country and not have people recognize what a coward he is.”
But he is not stopping short of holding responsible who he feels shares in the culpability. In his lawsuit, Mr. Pollock also named “…the estate of Lynda Cruz, James Snead, Kimberly Snead, Henderson Behavioral Health, Jerome Golden Center for Behavioral Health, Inc., and South County Mental Health Center, Inc.” Presumably, since mental health woes played a role in Cruz’s murderous rampage, those who treated him prior to the Parkland debacle are targeted for not abating a powder-keg pedigree stewing within Cruz.
Pollock is going after the estate of Cruz’s mom Lynda since she is deceased. And the Sneads are sadly on the hook stemming from the fact that Cruz was in their custody and care as his legal (foster) guardians.
The legal terminology “knew or should have known…” surrounds the names of these folks/entities as it relates to wrongful death accusations and involvement along the spectrum of personal/professional responsibility.
Wrongful Death
Pollock and legal representatives will compel Cruz’s legal guardians et al. to assume some responsibility. Florida’s wrongful death statute spells out who can recover form losses, to what extent those losses can tally, and from whom recompense may be sought and awarded.
As a former law enforcement officer who currently practices civil tort law in Florida, Dan Newlin plainly describes wrongful death as follows: “Essentially, survivors may be entitled to damages for loss of companionship, instruction, guidance and potential earning of the decedent.” That sounds more advantageous for a child whose parent is the decedent victim, not necessarily the other way around. But, as Mr. Pollock said, it is not about money, only the principle of outing culpable individuals and entities who may have been positioned to preclude homicidal havoc.
Qualified Immunity Doctrine
As to Scot Peterson and his official role at the time of the mass murders, he may have ordinarily sought to rely on the legal tenet “qualified immunity” legislated for use by cops in legal crosshairs.
In cases where law enforcement officials find themselves against the ropes, the qualified immunity doctrine may be used for a police officer’s defense against allegation(s) of wrongdoing in the course of official duty. Generally, qualified immunity is defined as protection “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” pursuant to Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).
Here is where/why Mr. Pollock’s assertion may be a spear in the heart of any Scot Peterson defense: “The rule of qualified immunity ‘provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law,'” as referenced in Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) and quoting from Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986). I suspect the Pollock defense team is operatively honing in on Peterson’s competency level in this matter.
Whereas many may immediately guffaw at any attempt for Peterson to use qualified immunity as a defense, back in February his attorney came to his client’s defense, saying, “Let there be no mistake, Mr. Peterson wishes that he could have prevented the untimely passing of the 17 victims on that day, and his heart goes out to the families of the victims in their time of need. However, the allegations that Mr. Peterson was a coward and that his performance, under the circumstances, failed to meet standards of police officers are patently untrue.” Two sides with diametrically opposing stances.
Mr. Pollock’s litigation seeks “unspecified damages and a trial by jury” to mete the matter. The probability that the case ever goes before a jury is remote. Most likely, a settlement will prevail. Despite whatever disposition (settlement) is decided, it’s fair to say Mr. Pollock already has part of his victory by publicly decrying Scot Peterson via a lawsuit.
