This is my take. I haven't researched what laws he's charged under but first impression is he's being charged for being a coward.
Wow, this is a tough one. Biggest jerk/prick/coward ever, YES. Not sure that should be punishable. Slippery slope.
Was this guy a cop? Or was he just a school security guard who had a license to carry? If its the latter, I would see him not signing up for that kind of bullshit. Kind of a little bitch for doing so, but he was probably some old guy who needed a job, not thinking he would be die on the job with crazed school shooters.
If his job is to protect the students and he purposely did not (whether due to cowardice or other reasons), I can see how he could be guilty of criminal neglect. Just as a babysitter who doesn't pay attention to a small child while it does something dangerous and ends up killing itself could be liable criminally for neglect. When your job involves safeguarding others and you purposely neglect to do so, you may be legally responsible.
They would have to prove his actions would have definitely stopped the gunman. He was likely outgunned and didn't have the proper training to handle this situation. I'm guessing that will be his defense, he was not properly trained for a combat scenario. It would also set a precedent that the right thing to do in any scenario involving a deadly situation (even for example, someone with a knife) would be to shoot to kill, since not killing a threat would be tantamount to neglect.
No, they wouldn't. Neglect isn't a claim that everything would have changed if he had done something. Neglect means he disregarded his required duties to a criminal extent.
Neglect would assume he was properly trained and capable to handle this situation. He likely had some sort of hand pistol while the gunman had a semi-automatic rifle. Getting into a gun battle in a school with no backup may have actually escalated the situation. I don't know his thought process, but if I was defending him, these are the arguments I would use.
He didn't investigate and he told other law enforcement who arrived to remain 500 feet away. He's going to justifiably have a hard time in trial.
He is a police officer, of course he is trained to shoot bad guys with guns. As school officer I am sure he was trained for such instances...its the very purpose of his job. If there is a gunman and my students are in his path, you fucking bet I will put my life on the line to protect them and stop the fucker.
This. He never truly invesitagted. He never went inside. He didn't do his job. He is crimminaly liable. You better bet the parents of the killed/shot students will be at his trial.
We'll see what his training for this situation will reveal. "Shoot bad guys with guns" sounds nice, but it may not be what his training told him to do.
I thought about that guy when the tragedy went down. I guess the officer in question was close to retirement. Then I began to think about assigning a near retiree to such duty. Duty where he is out of the main stream for the most part everyday, but Holy hell! When and if trouble came, it is so damned important that the Cop on Duty be ready to lock and load, take down the son of bitch! Nope, the guy should have been behind a desk or what I don't know, But this was not the place, guarding the children. Man you want the most ferocious bastard you can find for that job. A dude where no gunner in his half assed right mind would dare to cross. Prosecute the Chief, not the officer.
He'll have an easy time with a good lawyer. First question to the jury in closing arguments....if there is a raging fire and people trapped in it, is a fireman required to go in and save them no matter what? Second is should a police officer be required to charge in to a shootout no matter what? I still think the guy was cowardly but I don't see how it is an easy conviction.
