It is impossible to ignore the degeneracy within American society that seems to hang like a toxic cloud over the country, strangling the worthy virtues.
Very thought provoking for a west coaster struggling with insomnia! Honestly, I think we can only hope that shame will cause individuals like these to think inward and perhaps the shame is enough. It may not feel like it, we may want more, but immorality, poor judgment, & fear are not reasons to be jailed. Lying and covering up about it, however, is another matter entirely.
As another West Coaster insomniac , I too had to read through this multiple times and I’ll probably continue to follow the feedback before sounding off. This is a subject I have been wrestling with for some time now. I’ll be honest, I feel that most people today are more like sheep following a goat to slaughter.
As is so often the case with your postings, Steve, you have found a way to pull out something that was tickling my judgment and articulate the hell out of it. When I heard about the jury being sat for this officer in Fla my emotions said: yeah - get him. But my brain said: how do you charge for weakness under duress? You point out so well that this is a slippery slope. This guy has to live with himself and perhaps that has to be enough.
I don't think a coward is a criminal. Like others believe, he will have to live with that lack of action the rest of his life and once he passes on his family will have to live with that memory of him for all their lives. The Robb school shooting was different in that there were school police, town police and Texas state police on the scene (19 of them in the hallways and the rest outside) and not one of them took the initiative to stop the killing. It took three late arriving Border Patrol officers to solve the problem.
Doesn't say much for Texas bravery. Seems to be lots of cowards down there.
Agree completely that this man will live with the shame of his inaction for the rest of his life, and so will his family, and his friends and coworkers to a lesser extent. Is he a criminal? Is cowardice worthy of a criminal conviction? I guess we will know as the trial progresses and comes to conclusion. Regardless what is decided at trial this man is doomed forever in his own mind.
I'm sorry - and I don't mean to over-simplify this issue - but in this case I think it is simple. All law enforcement officers (LEOs) sign up to protect and serve. This requires moral and - very often - physical courage. If and when LEOs prove they don't have the requisite courage - they should immediately be fired and/or resign. Plus, they may or may not be subject to criminal charges on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the severity of their criminal negligence. I think both examples Steve used in this essay of individual and group negligence/cowardice rise to the level of criminal and should be tried and judged by a group of peers. Prospective LEOs should consider this before applying for such jobs/careers and not just consider the obvious prestige and substantial benefits (including fantastic retirement programs in most cases). Most folks, deep down, know whether or not they have the physical courage to take a bullet for someone else. They know. And if there's any doubt, they should avoid LEO careers.
You definitely are not over-simplifying the issue. The problem with the Uvalde issue is that they are deprioritizing their values in order to protect their institution and the people in them. This makes them look like hypocrites because they obviously are only concerned with protecting and serving themselves. If they are not criminally liable (I’m not smart enough to know if they are), then they should face consequences through the civil courts or internally through the government agencies that oversee them. What we really need in this country is accountability. Somewhere, we lost the courage required to do this. What should be simple is that if you violate the stated values of your organization, then you forfeit the right to be a part of it going forward.
I think we’ll find this a more complicated endeavor to prove guilt. My first inclination is yours. But i foresee a trial that uncovers nuance that isnt as simple as your description. I could be wrong. Perhaps a quick decision of guilt could help us as a society-
I'm against quick decisions of guilt. I'm in favor of each case being heard individually and considering all the pertinent facts. This will take as long as it takes. Then a fully informed jury can and should determine guilt or innocence. This is one of the pillars of our "rule of law" that I support and other countries envy. ;-)
I dont know what I would do in such an horrific situation. I think I would act even if I were a bystander, but I pray to never be in that position.
The real cowardice lies in the hands of those who supplied guns to mass murderers who should have never owned, nor had access to such a thing.
How can we as a society allow, no encourage, inhumane scenarios that virtually no one can successfully recover from, and judge a person for not “acting“ the right way? This scenario, this massacre is a stain on the society that enabled it.
Im not saying the guy isn’t guilty- perhaps it will be proven that he is, in some way guilty of shirking his responsibility. But what should be faced most importantly is the impossibility of man or woman or child, against these weapons, and WTF they are anywhere, anyhow or anyway available to any person.
The inevibility of death. What would any of us do with the odds so stacked? This jury will certainly be pondering that question.
The bottom line: "The real cowardice lies in the hands of those who supplied guns to mass murderers..." How many more little children in schools will be slaughtered before we understand this and make it a top priority to do something about it?!
In these 2 cases cowardice overlaps with negligence. These defendants chose professions where courage is required. They had an inkling of what they were in for when they participated in training & education to protect the public & where the job likely requires engagement with dangerous criminals.
I may not always agree with Steve (though I respect his viewpoint and often do concur), but he is our lighthouse, a shining beacon warning us of danger and a guide to bring us safely back to shore as we try to navigate through “this moment of national idiocy.” His observations here are spot on. Again, we are not a serious people; we look for blame and punishment over everything yet never seem to learn from mistakes.
The cop in Florida lost his job and will forever have to live with the shame of his cowardice. I can’t see how putting him in jail will fix anything. But the argument that his lawyers are putting forward, that a law enforcement figure, someone whose sworn duty is “to serve and protect,” isn’t responsible for those very things is just despicable.
The Texas cops, they are a whole other matter. The cover up protecting them stinks to high heaven and that stonewalling must be held accountable. And their behavior gives lie to the “good guy with a gun BS” that is the mantra of the gun fanatics. These cops seem to have no shame; probably because they are a group and share in their denial that they behaved despicably.
YESSIR! That “good guy with a gun” nonsense talks about the regular guy who has a gun and is just as likely to get shot with it. But the supposed “good guy” who is hired and trained and put in charge to deal with the “bad guy” better bloody well do it. That is what he is for - a decision made by him and he is taking a spot away from someone who would or could do the job. That children were the victims in this almost unimaginable incompetence and cowardice is beyond sickening. Is it criminal? Yes, because the people involved took on the mantle of responsibility to react and save lives and cashed the paycheck. But prison seems kind of pointless. Some system of permanent ostrasization, a feather, a scarlet letter, a tattoo on their foreheads to remind them and everyone else of how they failed these children whose lives in their innocence were clearly worth so much more than their shameful own. Forget the lawyers. They are full of crap.
There used to be a TV western in the '60's about a soldier out west after the Civil War. He was judged to have acted cowardly and was booted out of the army. Each episode relitigated whether or not he was a coward. I think in Parkland and certainly in Uvalde, cowardice came into play, especially since those people SIGNED UP for a hazardous job.
As for the cowards who are serving as politicians, you forgot Lindsey Graham.
I think law enforcement refusing to do their jobs, cowardice or not (e.g. corruption), is indeed a crime since society places lives in their hands literally. This is different than run of the mill cowardice where someone, by choice and not by profession reveals themselves as cowards. There is no law that such persons need to be courageous. Let’s not confuse the two cases.
If one takes an oath to protect and serve (and I’m not sure if LEOs do), it should absolutely be criminal to be derelict in one’s duty. What is hard for me to comprehend is that in both instances mentioned, children were the victims. None of the LEOs could even muster the courage to protect *children*. In the Army I had a company commander that was fond of saying “sometimes you have to ride the black horse.” He never explained this statement but we knew well what it meant.
Is dereliction of duty a crime vis a vis law enforcement? While I agree we don't want to criminalize character defects ( we all have them); how can Peterson's attorneys claim he had no duty to protect the victims? Isn't that precisely the sort of event he was hired to prevent? Otherwise why do we need any kinds of police? Are sheriff's deputies not required to "Protect and Serve" the public?
Their defense is bogus. But the charges are nuts. Instead of criminalizing semi automatic weapons, we turn on the most convenient scapegoat. Not that he is innocent; he should have done something more than cower for sure. But one man is not an entire police force or law enforcement looking to sweep their cowardice under the rug. I’d rather see him have to do years of community service, including tending the graves of those innocent children who died. By blaming him alone we also give into the one good guy stops the bad guy shtick. Many times those good guys get shot and lose their lives too. We need to get these damn guns off the streets, but right now it is near impossible with the death cult GOP.
The real people that should be charged, are the ones that manufacture military grade weapons, and market them to the American public. Or the wealthy, social media company owners that intentionally use algorithms to stoke fear and division. And of course the politicians who refuse to pass laws to change our gun culture.
I don’t know, Steve. Did he fail to do his job?, Yes. Could he have prevented death? Maybe. I think it is easy to sit here, drinking coffee and say I would have done this or that. But I am not sure what any of us would do in a crisis situation.
Then he should not work in law enforcement. But since he chose that line of work he must be held accountable. Not for the shooting. But for his own inaction.
Yes, there should be accountability for dereliction of duty, but 'criminal' charges? I cannot say I see clearly on this issue, but there are a number of factors to weigh. Thanks.
Thank you Steve. Tough to read and hard to accept. Courage is with the loved ones left behind who must face each day with the knowledge of these facts. Not sure I could cope.
It is not easy to know what one will do in any given difficult situation until you are under fire. That fight or flight instinct kicks in one way or the other. Having someone besides you to bolsters your resolve is helpful. It take a true courageous person to rush forward alone into danger, especially when under fire. I believe Peterson should have advanced but confusion in battle stops even courageous men. It is what you do next after accessing the situation that separates the brave from others. If you pause too long doubt creeps in and destroys any chance at acting courageously. Judgement should be left for a jury of his peers and his maker. I know he signed up to protect and serve so his responsibility is greater than an average citizen. However, no one truly can judge him but himself. If he is an honorable man he has already judged his actions. He will have to live with his decision for the rest of his life. That is punishment enough for me living with his own thoughts.
Very thought provoking for a west coaster struggling with insomnia! Honestly, I think we can only hope that shame will cause individuals like these to think inward and perhaps the shame is enough. It may not feel like it, we may want more, but immorality, poor judgment, & fear are not reasons to be jailed. Lying and covering up about it, however, is another matter entirely.
As another West Coaster insomniac , I too had to read through this multiple times and I’ll probably continue to follow the feedback before sounding off. This is a subject I have been wrestling with for some time now. I’ll be honest, I feel that most people today are more like sheep following a goat to slaughter.
Lack of compasssion and twisted ideas about freedom, liberty and personal responsibility
As is so often the case with your postings, Steve, you have found a way to pull out something that was tickling my judgment and articulate the hell out of it. When I heard about the jury being sat for this officer in Fla my emotions said: yeah - get him. But my brain said: how do you charge for weakness under duress? You point out so well that this is a slippery slope. This guy has to live with himself and perhaps that has to be enough.
I don't think a coward is a criminal. Like others believe, he will have to live with that lack of action the rest of his life and once he passes on his family will have to live with that memory of him for all their lives. The Robb school shooting was different in that there were school police, town police and Texas state police on the scene (19 of them in the hallways and the rest outside) and not one of them took the initiative to stop the killing. It took three late arriving Border Patrol officers to solve the problem.
Doesn't say much for Texas bravery. Seems to be lots of cowards down there.
All hat and no cattle, as the saying goes
Loved this! And it seems to fit right?
Agree completely that this man will live with the shame of his inaction for the rest of his life, and so will his family, and his friends and coworkers to a lesser extent. Is he a criminal? Is cowardice worthy of a criminal conviction? I guess we will know as the trial progresses and comes to conclusion. Regardless what is decided at trial this man is doomed forever in his own mind.
I'm sorry - and I don't mean to over-simplify this issue - but in this case I think it is simple. All law enforcement officers (LEOs) sign up to protect and serve. This requires moral and - very often - physical courage. If and when LEOs prove they don't have the requisite courage - they should immediately be fired and/or resign. Plus, they may or may not be subject to criminal charges on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the severity of their criminal negligence. I think both examples Steve used in this essay of individual and group negligence/cowardice rise to the level of criminal and should be tried and judged by a group of peers. Prospective LEOs should consider this before applying for such jobs/careers and not just consider the obvious prestige and substantial benefits (including fantastic retirement programs in most cases). Most folks, deep down, know whether or not they have the physical courage to take a bullet for someone else. They know. And if there's any doubt, they should avoid LEO careers.
You definitely are not over-simplifying the issue. The problem with the Uvalde issue is that they are deprioritizing their values in order to protect their institution and the people in them. This makes them look like hypocrites because they obviously are only concerned with protecting and serving themselves. If they are not criminally liable (I’m not smart enough to know if they are), then they should face consequences through the civil courts or internally through the government agencies that oversee them. What we really need in this country is accountability. Somewhere, we lost the courage required to do this. What should be simple is that if you violate the stated values of your organization, then you forfeit the right to be a part of it going forward.
I think we’ll find this a more complicated endeavor to prove guilt. My first inclination is yours. But i foresee a trial that uncovers nuance that isnt as simple as your description. I could be wrong. Perhaps a quick decision of guilt could help us as a society-
I'm against quick decisions of guilt. I'm in favor of each case being heard individually and considering all the pertinent facts. This will take as long as it takes. Then a fully informed jury can and should determine guilt or innocence. This is one of the pillars of our "rule of law" that I support and other countries envy. ;-)
I dont know what I would do in such an horrific situation. I think I would act even if I were a bystander, but I pray to never be in that position.
The real cowardice lies in the hands of those who supplied guns to mass murderers who should have never owned, nor had access to such a thing.
How can we as a society allow, no encourage, inhumane scenarios that virtually no one can successfully recover from, and judge a person for not “acting“ the right way? This scenario, this massacre is a stain on the society that enabled it.
Im not saying the guy isn’t guilty- perhaps it will be proven that he is, in some way guilty of shirking his responsibility. But what should be faced most importantly is the impossibility of man or woman or child, against these weapons, and WTF they are anywhere, anyhow or anyway available to any person.
The inevibility of death. What would any of us do with the odds so stacked? This jury will certainly be pondering that question.
The bottom line: "The real cowardice lies in the hands of those who supplied guns to mass murderers..." How many more little children in schools will be slaughtered before we understand this and make it a top priority to do something about it?!
In these 2 cases cowardice overlaps with negligence. These defendants chose professions where courage is required. They had an inkling of what they were in for when they participated in training & education to protect the public & where the job likely requires engagement with dangerous criminals.
I may not always agree with Steve (though I respect his viewpoint and often do concur), but he is our lighthouse, a shining beacon warning us of danger and a guide to bring us safely back to shore as we try to navigate through “this moment of national idiocy.” His observations here are spot on. Again, we are not a serious people; we look for blame and punishment over everything yet never seem to learn from mistakes.
The cop in Florida lost his job and will forever have to live with the shame of his cowardice. I can’t see how putting him in jail will fix anything. But the argument that his lawyers are putting forward, that a law enforcement figure, someone whose sworn duty is “to serve and protect,” isn’t responsible for those very things is just despicable.
The Texas cops, they are a whole other matter. The cover up protecting them stinks to high heaven and that stonewalling must be held accountable. And their behavior gives lie to the “good guy with a gun BS” that is the mantra of the gun fanatics. These cops seem to have no shame; probably because they are a group and share in their denial that they behaved despicably.
YESSIR! That “good guy with a gun” nonsense talks about the regular guy who has a gun and is just as likely to get shot with it. But the supposed “good guy” who is hired and trained and put in charge to deal with the “bad guy” better bloody well do it. That is what he is for - a decision made by him and he is taking a spot away from someone who would or could do the job. That children were the victims in this almost unimaginable incompetence and cowardice is beyond sickening. Is it criminal? Yes, because the people involved took on the mantle of responsibility to react and save lives and cashed the paycheck. But prison seems kind of pointless. Some system of permanent ostrasization, a feather, a scarlet letter, a tattoo on their foreheads to remind them and everyone else of how they failed these children whose lives in their innocence were clearly worth so much more than their shameful own. Forget the lawyers. They are full of crap.
There used to be a TV western in the '60's about a soldier out west after the Civil War. He was judged to have acted cowardly and was booted out of the army. Each episode relitigated whether or not he was a coward. I think in Parkland and certainly in Uvalde, cowardice came into play, especially since those people SIGNED UP for a hazardous job.
As for the cowards who are serving as politicians, you forgot Lindsey Graham.
Branded. Chuck Connors.
Was that Johnny Yuma - The Rebel?
I think law enforcement refusing to do their jobs, cowardice or not (e.g. corruption), is indeed a crime since society places lives in their hands literally. This is different than run of the mill cowardice where someone, by choice and not by profession reveals themselves as cowards. There is no law that such persons need to be courageous. Let’s not confuse the two cases.
If one takes an oath to protect and serve (and I’m not sure if LEOs do), it should absolutely be criminal to be derelict in one’s duty. What is hard for me to comprehend is that in both instances mentioned, children were the victims. None of the LEOs could even muster the courage to protect *children*. In the Army I had a company commander that was fond of saying “sometimes you have to ride the black horse.” He never explained this statement but we knew well what it meant.
Is dereliction of duty a crime vis a vis law enforcement? While I agree we don't want to criminalize character defects ( we all have them); how can Peterson's attorneys claim he had no duty to protect the victims? Isn't that precisely the sort of event he was hired to prevent? Otherwise why do we need any kinds of police? Are sheriff's deputies not required to "Protect and Serve" the public?
Isn’t there a difference between dereliction of duty and criminal liability?
Their defense is bogus. But the charges are nuts. Instead of criminalizing semi automatic weapons, we turn on the most convenient scapegoat. Not that he is innocent; he should have done something more than cower for sure. But one man is not an entire police force or law enforcement looking to sweep their cowardice under the rug. I’d rather see him have to do years of community service, including tending the graves of those innocent children who died. By blaming him alone we also give into the one good guy stops the bad guy shtick. Many times those good guys get shot and lose their lives too. We need to get these damn guns off the streets, but right now it is near impossible with the death cult GOP.
The real people that should be charged, are the ones that manufacture military grade weapons, and market them to the American public. Or the wealthy, social media company owners that intentionally use algorithms to stoke fear and division. And of course the politicians who refuse to pass laws to change our gun culture.
I 100% Agree. As a priority, we need to keep the attention on this Truth. Thanks.
I don’t know, Steve. Did he fail to do his job?, Yes. Could he have prevented death? Maybe. I think it is easy to sit here, drinking coffee and say I would have done this or that. But I am not sure what any of us would do in a crisis situation.
Then he should not work in law enforcement. But since he chose that line of work he must be held accountable. Not for the shooting. But for his own inaction.
Yes, there should be accountability for dereliction of duty, but 'criminal' charges? I cannot say I see clearly on this issue, but there are a number of factors to weigh. Thanks.
Thank you Steve. Tough to read and hard to accept. Courage is with the loved ones left behind who must face each day with the knowledge of these facts. Not sure I could cope.
It is not easy to know what one will do in any given difficult situation until you are under fire. That fight or flight instinct kicks in one way or the other. Having someone besides you to bolsters your resolve is helpful. It take a true courageous person to rush forward alone into danger, especially when under fire. I believe Peterson should have advanced but confusion in battle stops even courageous men. It is what you do next after accessing the situation that separates the brave from others. If you pause too long doubt creeps in and destroys any chance at acting courageously. Judgement should be left for a jury of his peers and his maker. I know he signed up to protect and serve so his responsibility is greater than an average citizen. However, no one truly can judge him but himself. If he is an honorable man he has already judged his actions. He will have to live with his decision for the rest of his life. That is punishment enough for me living with his own thoughts.
Were is Lindsay Graham on you Mt. Rushmore of cowards?
Probably among.the crumbled riffraff at the base of Mount Rushmore.