we are following a seismic decision by the supreme court after the conservative majority rolled back decades of precedent in yet another landmark case. in a 6-3 decision, the justices ending affirmative action in college admissions, ushering a new era in which a prospective student's race cannot be a determining factor in the decision to admit them. now the white house is actively exploring executive actions to counteract that rowling. today president biden vowed his fight is not over. listen. >> i believe our colleges are stronger when they are racially diverse. our nation is stronger because we use -- because we are tapping into the full range of talent in this nation. i also believe that while talent, creativity, and hard work are everywhere across this

country, not equal opportunity. it is not everywhere across this country. we cannot let this decision be the last word. >> our supreme court reporter is back with us. the supreme court look at affirmative action in 2015, in 2003, all the way back to 1978. today's decision markedly different, and it comes with some very heated opinions. >> yeah, absolutely. court really effectively saying that colleges and universities can no longer take race into consideration, overturning decades' old precedent, precedent that helped blacks and hispanics in this area. this opinion, as you said, it was 6-3, divided along ideological lines. chief justice john roberts, who has long been a critics of race-conscious programs, he wrote the major opinion here. he said invalidating the plans, he said the harvard and unc admissions programs cannot be

reconciled with the guarantees of the equal protection clause. both programs lack sufficiently focused and measurable objectives, warranting the use of race unavoidably in a negative manner, involve racial stereotyping and lack meaningful end points. and what's key here is he tried to say near the end of the appointment, look, you no longer can check the box. but an applicant maybe in their essay can talk about their experience with race. and that really riled up the dissent here. justice sonia sotomayor joined by her two liberal colleagues, and she basically said that kind of solution really falls short of bringing diversity in schools. she said the supposed recognition that universities can in some situations consider race in application essays is nothing but an attempt to put lipstick on a pig. she said the devastating impact of this decision cannot be overstated. we did have the two african american justices on the bench,

justice clarence thomas the conservative, long wanting to overturn precedent. he said he understands the background here, but he thinks everybody should be treated equally. justice jackson on her first term on this court, she really pushed back on what he said. remember, the schools here said, look, we want diversity, we think that schools are a pipeline to society, that's why it's important. and on the other side you had this conservative group that had been fighting this for years, coming up with a victory. and they said this amounts to racial discrimination, and today they won. >> some very strong language on both the concurring opinions and the dissenting ones. thank you so much. let's bring in cnn legal analyst joey jackson now. joey, thank you so much for being with us. what is this going to mean for admission offices when they go to work tomorrow? >> yeah, i think it's a very

significant development obviously. i think that development means that admissions offices and colleges and campuses are going to look far different throughout the country. it's interesting how you have justices essentially sit for confirmation hearings, and they respect or at least they say they respect the rule of law. that rule of law is about stare decisis, precedent. it has been decided. they get on the bench and do what they want to do. to your question, there's a need, right, for diversity. there's a made it for these affirmative action programs. there's a need because you cannot pretend that race is not an issue. you can't say that we should have a colorblind society in a color-relevant society. so i think the answer to your question is to the extent that colleges cannot use race as a factor. i think certainly it could lead to a significant dip and drop in enrollment as it relates to african american and latino, people of color in general, and that's problematic. >> joey, i want to get your thoughts on this sort of gray

area in the ruling. as was noted, the justices pointed out that a university could consider the way that a student expresses their experience of race either as a challenge or as an inspiration, but yet the university can't ask them about it? the language to me, not being a legal expert, was somewhat unclear. >> well, boris, if you consider me a legal expert, the language is unclear to me, as well. and so what are they talking about? the fact is is that we have standards, and those standards are based on well-settled precedent about how diversity is a compelling interest and how based upon it being diversity a compelling interest narrowly tailored to the objective of providing opportunities to all could be considered. now you include language suggesting that if you write an essay talking about the effect of race on your life, what you could consider that, but you can't consider the race itself.

i think that's lawyers splitting hairs, very intelligent obviously and decorated lawyers, who speak to supreme court justices. at the end of the day you need a measure of protection. let's call it what it is. that measure of protection was rolled back today just as we saw the rolling back of rights as it relates to abortion rights in the case that they took up before. and so you know, ultimately i think this is a setback for all terms and purposes, and whatever language they put in it we know the language they said, and that is that affirmative action cannot be used. and that is a -- it's a problem, a significant one to say the least. >> joey jackson, as always, we appreciate your perspective and expertise. thanks, joey. >> thank you. brianna? >> we are joined by uc berkeley law professor john yu. he serves on the board of the pacific legal foundation which filed briefs in this case opposing harvard and unc's affirmative action programs. john, thank you for taking the time to speak with us today.

we heard calvin yang, an asian american student at cal, praising this decision, saying he believes diversity is very important for education. however, affirmative action is a well-intentioned idea that is poorly executed in reality, he said. how do you ensure diversity without affirmative action if that is agreed upon it seems by so many people that it's important? >> first off we should realize that this supreme court decision only says that the use of race by the government is unconstitutional. you can have all kinds of other diversity if you want, and we have it at the university of california. here racial preferences have been barred since prop 209 in the mid 1990s, yet today we admitted our most racially diverse class. what the court's opinion says is that you can't use race, that our constitution is colorblind. and i have to say i really disagree with the last guest when he was saying the court is

attacking precedent, it's undermining the rule of law. sometimes a court gets it wrong. dred scott was a precedent of the supreme court. plessy vs. ferguson which upheld segregation was a precedent of the court. those were both wrong because they deviated from the constitution's core principle that the government cannot take account of its citizens based on their skin color. that doesn't mean you can't take socio-economic class into account, geography into account, educational background into account when you make admissions decisions. but schools and universities are now going to have to be like the rest of the government and not look at your skin color. >> people can still talk in their personal statements, of course, about their experience when it comes to racism or it comes to heritage. but you mentioned right now how things stand. i mean, there's still you know comparatively speaking a lack of hispanic representation at cal. and as you're well aware after prop 209, there was a giant

tanking -- this isn't something that all of a sudden it was fine. it tanked when you were looking at the admittance rates for black and hispanic students. >> that's right. but one thing we should also remember is why is it the case that we don't think or some people think a college admissions process is somehow wrong if the student population doesn't exactly match the racial demographics of a population? why is it at all surprising that you might have different numbers of races in a college class just like you have different numbers of races in other forms of life like sports or business, religion. we see racial -- voting patterns between democrats and republicans are very different based on race. and this is one thing the court stressed -- educators, professors, administrators, they haven't explained to the court why you need to have that exact

racial balance, why that diversity is important. when the job of universities is to conduct research for the bet betterment of mankind and to educate the next leaders. >> what do you say to the military service academy carve-out? >> i don't think there's a military service carve-out to this decision. i think what's happened in the past is that the courts give a lot of deference to the military when they decide how to run things. but they would not allow, say, for example, racial quotas and promotions. they would not allow racial quotas at west point for admissions. >> but they're allowing in the service academies affirmative action, which they are not allowing in other colleges. these are colleges, to be clear. these are people who go on, yes, to be officers in the military, but also to serve in important roles in society. >> i don't think that's going to last for very much longer if

that's in fact what west point and annapolis and the air force academy are doing. what the court said here was the fundamental principle of the constitution is colorblind. we have over time the court says allowed exceptions like dred scott, like plessy, and they've said we have always been wrong, and we have done disastrous things for the country. so they are trying to create a harmony in the principle. so i think they're going to go through issue by issue, remove race wherever it's used by the government, including ultimately the service academies. i don't think the service academies are going to do it anymore. >> should legacy admissions be banned? >> again, court doesn't touch any other criteria for admissions other than race. personally i would not be in favor of legacy admissions, and they don't work -- we don't count them here at the university of california. schools can do that if they want. they can also allow more poor people than rich people to come in. the court just says racial

reasons are unconstitutional because that's true to the constitution's colorblind principle. all other forms of criteria for admissions are still allowed. >> john, really appreciate your time today. john yu joining us this afternoon. thank you so much. we'll be right back on a critical day when it comes to the supreme court decision gutting affirmative action in colleges and universities across the country. this is the all-new tempur-pedic breeze mattress, and it's designed toto help you feel cool. so, no more sweating all night... ...no kicking off the covers... ...or blasting the air conditioning. cause only the tempur-pedic breeze is made with ourne-of-a-kind cooling technology- that pulls heat away from your body. so, the mattress feels up to 10° cooler all night long. for a limited time, save $500 on all-new tempur-breeze mattresses...

...and get your coolest sleep this summer. learn more at tempurpedic.com. bath fitter is a better way to remodel your tub. a custom-made watertight fit and high-quality materials mean a beautiful tub, and a great value. bath fitter. it just fits. visit bathfitter.com to book your free consultation. your shipping manager left to “find themself.” leaving you lost. you need to hire. i need indeed. indeed you do. indeed instant match instantly delivers quality candidates matching your job description. visit indeed.com/hire

breaking news. we want to take you live to a florida courtroom where the jury has just reached a verdict in the trial of former parklands, florida, police officer scott peterson. he was on duty the day of the parkland mass shooting. >> the foreperson to take the verdict forms and fold them in half. i'm going to have the jury return to the courtroom. i'm going to ask them if they've reached verdicts. and if so if the foreperson can take the verdict forms, fold

them in half, give them to the court deputy who will give them to me. i will then review the verdict forms. if they are complete, i will publish the verdicts. after that, i will read 4.2 instructions upon discharge of jury. i'm then going to dismiss the jurors with thanks -- >> we're listening now to what sort of sounds like the instructions to folks in the courtroom about how this is going to go down once the jury comes into the courtroom and these charges are read. but again, we are following this verdict reached now in this trial of the former parkland school resource officer, scoot peterson, who -- scott peterson, who is accused basically of standing by for 45 minutes while hearing gunshots, also lying about gunshots is what he -- part of the charges that he's facing. i want to bring in joey jackson to talk a little bit about this. and to be clear, we are monitoring the courtroom. we're going to be bringing that to our viewers as soon as something substantial is happening in there. what are you looking for here

today? >> yeah, this is quite significant. the reason for that is that what they're seeking to do, that is the state, to hold accountable an officer who they felt had a duty and responsibility to act, who felt that it was imperative and part of their job to go in and to -- in doing that job preserve and protect lives. so what i'm looking for is as we continue to see prosecutors try to get accountability of whether or not you could extend to a police officer really criminal culpability for failing to act when so many lives are at issue. and so this is a prosecution that i think has certainly precedential value. i think we can see prosecutions like this moving forward in the event -- whether or not the jury -- there's a guilty finding here. but i think throughout this officer rightfully so was called to the carpet for not doing more. and i think the jury has to assess as they have been whether or not that constitutes a crime and whether he has a duty, a

responsibility, and an obligation to go in and do. so that's what i'm really looking to see, what the jury's determination is as to his failure to act which is really at issue in the case. >> i just want to explain to our viewers what we saw there a moment ago. the camera movement, that was the jury being brought into the courtroom. ostensibly we're going to hear a verdict soon. we have areva martin with us. obviously to joey's point, the jury here has to determine whether this officer was neglectful and whether he gave up his duties as the shooter was moving through the third floor of one of the buildings, and prosecutors here have brought a specific number, a specific amount of counts given the amount of people that were killed and injured as this officer was allegedly waiting 45 minutes while the shooter was moving through the building.

>> yeah, the charge here is not with respect to the individuals that were killed on the first floor of the school building, but as just said the charges relate to those individuals that were killed on the third floor, and the prosecution's case is basically that if this officer, former school officer, had gone into the school when he arrived, that he would have been able to save those children who were killed on the third floor of this building. we know the community has been very, very, very upset with the way that this case has been handled, as well as the shooter himself who was not given the death penalty but rather given life in prison without the possibility of parole. so many family members are looking at this case as a way to continue the healing process. as joey said, this is going to be a precedential case if there is a guilty verdict because we have not seen school officers, school agents like this former school officer charged because of a mass shooting in a school

building. >> i find it notable -- let's go back to the courtroom now. >> give them to the court deputy who will give the verdict forms to me, please.

>> the verdict forms are complete. i will now publish them. they read as follows, in the circuit court of the 17th judicial circuit in broward county, florida, case number 197166cf10 ia, verdict, count one, we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida.

verdict, count two -- we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count three. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count four. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count five. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count six. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case.

the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward copyright, florida. verdict, count seven. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count eight. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward copyright, florida. verdict, count nine. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count ten. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of

june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. verdict, count 11. we the jury find as follows as to the defendant in this case. the defendant is not guilty. so say we all this 29th day of june, 2023, at fort lauderdale, broward county, florida. ladies and gentlemen, i'm going to address you only by the numbers that are on the back of your badges. jury number one. are these your true vikotings? >> yes, they are. >> juror two? >> yes. >> juror number four, are these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number five, these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number six, are these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> juror number seven, these your true verdicts? >> yes. >> ladies and gentlemen, i wish to thank you for your time and

consideration of this case. i also wish to advise you of some special privileges enjoyed by jurors. no juror can ever be required to talk about the discussions that occurred in the jury room except by court order. for many centuries our society has relied upon jurors for consideration of difficult cases. we have recognized for hundreds of years that a jury's deliberations, discussions, and votes should remain their private affairs, as long as they wish it. therefore, the law gives you a unique privilege not to speak about the jury's work. although you are at liberty to speak with anyone about your deliberations, are you also at liberty to refuse to speak to anyone. a request to discuss either your verdict or your deliberations may come from those who are simply curious, from those who might seek to find fault with you, from the media, from the attorneys, or elsewhere. it will be up to each of you to decide whether to preserve your privacy as a juror. ladies and gentlemen, i want to again give you my sincere thanks for your time, effort, and

energy. 99% of the citizens that live in broward county, a county of two million, have no idea what happens when you're actually selected on a jury and you actually serve through the process. but now you all know. and i know most people don't say thank you, but i will say thank you because i know the time, effort, and energy that went into this. i have a thank you letter and certificate i'm going to give to the court deputy who's going to pass that out when they walk you out it has your names on them. the reason i normally do this in person in the courtroom, but i'm not going to do it today, is because i'm not and have not addressed you by your names. that's why we use the numbers in care of your privacy. day also want to let you know i will be entering an order today that instructs the clerk of court, the trial court administrator, as well as both parties not to disclose your names, okay. so the only way your names are going to be disclosed is if you choose and you certainly may choose, so if you want to go out and talk to whoever you want to talk to, you're perfectly entitled to do that. if you want to never talk to another human being about this

ever again, you're perfectly entitled to do that, too. i want to emphasize that it's each of your decisions to make. but momentarily i'm going to have you step in the back, and collect your belongings. the court deputies are going to walk you to your cars, and that's going to conclude your jury service. i do have two quick pieces of bad news for you. number one, i'm going to need those laniards back. so if you take them off and put them on the ledge if fronts of you, we'll collect them from you. number two, since you actually did serve on a jury, they will not summon you for jury duty for a year, for 12 months. so i'll see you next year. okay. unless you have questions for me, ladies and gentlemen, your jury service is concluded at this point. again, with my great thanks for your time, effort, and energy. there are certificates for etch. are you dismissed -- >> we've been watching some profoundly emotional moments in a fort lauderdale courtroom. scott peterson, the school resource officer who was there the day of the parkland shooting, acquitted of all 11

charges he was facing including felony child neglect, felony child neglect leading to bodily harm on seven counts, culpable negligence on three counts, and perjury in a single count. he broke down in tears, clasping his hands together, looking skyward, thanking and embracing his attorney who also is apparently emotional in the courtroom. we saw parents of parkland victims sitting inside the courtroom shaking their heads, visibly upset over this decision. he was facing 95 1/2 years in prison, but tonight he will go home a free man. >> the actions of this officer more than five years ago really stunned and perplexed the parents of the victims that day. one asking what was he doing? he spent this time outside of the building where the shooting was taking place, did not act, and today we learn he is found not guilty on all charges in the

deaths of carol lofren, joaquin oliver, jamie gutenberg, scott beagle, meadow pollock. and in the juries of anthony borgess, kyle layman, and marian kavachenko as well as stacy lipple. the names of some of the victims. and we are seeing them here today on our screens. i do want to go ahead and bring in josh campbell. he was there reporting that day. josh, was this what you were expecting as we had gone into this third day of deliberations? >> you know, some of these trials as they occur you tend to be able to predict what's going to happen. i can be honest, talking to law enforcement officials, those who have been watching this, no one knew because of how rare this prosecution was. you have to remember the officer here, the former officer, wasn't accused of doing something, of

committing some type of overt crime. he was accused of not doing, of failing to act. the prosecutors here had prosecuted him under a statute that referred to him as a caregiver under florida law, which means that he had a duty to protect those children, the staff that were there at the school that day in parkland. now his attorney actually issued a quote that was very direct but obviously raised a lot of eyebrows saying that his client had no duty to protect the victims. now for his part all along as this prosecution and the investigation was under way, what peterson said is that he didn't react because he couldn't tell where the gunshots were coming from. of course at the end of the day, no one knows what was happening inside his head. i mean, i've been in situations where, yeah, if you have gunfire particularly bouncing off buildings, you might not be able to direct yourself. but -- to that location. but what prosecutors said is he didn't even stop to ask the fleeing students what did you see, and again, as the person who was there on that day who could have responded, that's why

this prosecution was brought because he did not act, prosecutors said. but as we just learned for ourselves in this very dramatic reading there of the jury's verdict, not guilty on all counts. now of course, for the families of the survivors -- excuse me, for those who died that day at parkland, this is obviously going to be something that's very difficult for them to move forward with. the person who was there, who was trained, who had that background, who could have reacted, did not act. but of course, this jury deciding that peterson, of course, should not face any criminal liability for that. final point i will say is that although -- again, this is going to give no comfort to the surviving family members of the parkland victims -- this was a case that reverberated across law enforcement circles around the country, putting law enforcement essentially on notice to include school resource officers that if you fail to act, there are prosecutors out there who will attempt to bring charges. although peterson obviously was

found not guilty, you can imagine that there must have been some type of behavior change across the country putting these people on notice that if you're the person who gets paid to protect this building, to protect these people, and you fail to act, you may at the least face prosecution. >> yeah. clearly an emotional day for families that have long felt that there was negligence and there is the potential for a precedent being set by that decision. before we get to the legal ramifications of this, let's talk about what happened inside the courtroom. cnn's carlos suarez was there. a lot of emotion on both sides of this decision. >> reporter: yeah, that's exactly right. several of the parkland families have been in the courtroom on the 17th floor of the broward county judicial complex since the very beginning of this case. we're talking about 2.5, nearly

3 weeks of testimony inside the courtroom. we saw some of the parkland families shaking their heads in disbelief. they were here just several months ago when the sentencing trial for the marjorie stoneman douglas high school shooter took place and they were in the very same courtroom and found themselves again expressing displeasure with a verdict being issued, being handed down by this jury. i can tell you having been in this courtroom since the jury got this case earlier this week, peterson's defense attorney felt almost confident by the hour because he felt that the jury really had not taken too much time in probably deciding the child neglect charges. they felt going into the second and third day of deliberation that the jury really was spending a lot of time trying to figure out their verdict on the culpable negligence part of this trial. one of the last things that the jury did hear was asked to

review surveillance video from the day of that shooting. we're talking about six hours worth of surveillance video from all across the campus. and peterson's attorney told me that what that told him was that the jury was trying to figure out exactly where peterson was at the exact time that the shooter made his way inside of the 1200 building where the shooting took place. and after that, which was about a day and a half worth of deliberations, we never heard from the jury again. they did not have any additional questions. the last thing they did, boris, was ask to see that surveillance video. in fact, this afternoon we were told initially that we were being brought back into the courtroom because the jurors had another question. however, we're told that wasn't the case. instead they arrived at a verdict. >> all right. thank you so much for that, carlos, for giving us a sense of what happened inside of the courtroom. i want to bring in now manuel oliver, father of parkland shooting victim joaquin oliver, known and beloved as guac.

manuel, give us your reaction, to let viewers know as they follow this case, there officer found not guilty on 11 counts here but including count number three which was second-degree felony child neglect with bodily harm in respect to the death of your son. how are you reacting to what has happened today? >> it's another failure like the system did it again and again and again. i'm watching this in the video crying like a victim, he signed for a job that he did not deliver. shame on him for that, too. and i'm afraid that i'm not surprised, you know. we have a system that it's apparently -- it's planning to

hurt us, and it's a nonstop pain. today's a bad day. >> manuel, forgive me for interrupting, if you wanted to continue. >> no. go ahead. >> i'm wondering if you could speak to scott peterson, what you would tell him, what message you would convey to him? >> well, that's not going to happen. i don't see -- i don't have a reason to speak to this person. since day one i've been trying to make sure that everybody understands that there's 17 victims here, and only 17 victims. some people were injured, and a whole community affected. that's it. and behind those persons that are suffering, there are people that are guilty of this.

and scott peterson is part of that group. now that's why i said again the system failed joaquin, my son, on one of the victims. the real victim, that i still cry every single day because i'm not going back home like peterson will today to just celebrate he's free of any charge. by the way, this would have marked a precedent that many parents will celebrate if it was a verdict. i have met with the fathers and mothers from uvalde. fathers and mothers that were trying to see how the police will maybe save their kids and they failed. so law enforcement is receiving a green light here, like -- like a pass. this guy did not do what he was

supposed to do. now my son is dead because of him and other things. but i will never speak to him, to answer your initial question. i don't have anything to tell him. i have thousands of people that i speak to every single day. so i'm going to concentrate on that. >> as you said, he signed up for a job that he didn't do. and we have seen other shootings, so many other shootings, manny, since guac was killed and his classmates were killed, where we've seen different responses. in uvalde where police, so many did not respond. other shootings where they responded so quickly, and we saw how the casualties were minimized because of that. what does it come down to then -- does it just come down to, you know, whoever happens to be the person responding that day?

and actually, manny, if you could listen with us, as well, we're going to listen now to scott peterson as he's leaving the courthouse. >> got our life back after 4.5 years because of mark. and being able to put the truth out of what happened. it's been an emotional roller coaster for so long, endless nights, you know -- you know, talking to mark 1:00 in the morning, you know, trying to understand and learn this whole case. it was unbelievable. it was unbelievable. but don't anybody ever forget this was a massacre on february 14th. only person to blame was that monster. it wasn't any law enforcement, nobody on that scene from bso, coral springs, everybody did the best they could. we did the best we could with the information we had. and god knows we wish we had more. >> what do you say to the

families? it's emotional for them. obviously it's not the outcome they wanted. do you have a response -- >> you know what i tell the families, i would love to talk to them. i have no -- no problem calling mark saying, hey, we want to talk, we'd like to know everything, i'm there. i would have been there from day one. so my -- i'll always be there. if they need to really know the truth of what occurred and not only my actions but what occurred, i'm there for them. i -- me and lydia, we've mourned with them for 4.5 years. you know? i've seen some of these family members, and i'd love to have hugged them and said, god, i'm sorry. but you know, i know that's maybe not what they're feeling at this point. maybe now -- maybe they'll get a little understanding, but i'll be there for them. i'm be there for them. how could i think? >> what about the prosecution? what do you say to the prosecutors who brought this case? >> i'll let mark talk about

that. >> we are extremely -- we are extremely pleased with the outcome today. but understand something -- this is not just a victory for scott, it's a victory for every law enforcement officer in this country who does the best they can every single day. how dare prosecutors try to second guess the actions of honorable, decent police officers. >> lydia, do you have something to say? >> you know, through this journey, i mean, scott is my life, my heart, my soul. and people could never understand how we're doing it, and it's simple -- the lord is my rock and my strength. and faith -- you walk by faith, and you never, ever, ever give up. >> it's extremely important to understand how we got here. former sheriff scott israel held a press conference without ever speaking to my client about what

happened. from that, every one of us erroneously assumed that my client knew that kids were being killed in that building, and he just didn't go in. these jurors made it clear through their verdict that that couldn't be further from the truth. he did everything he could, and as a result of sheriff scott israel's reckless, selfish political actions, he had to endure four years -- four years of heartache and misery. no one should ever have to go through that. >> scott, what's next for you? are you going home to north carolina, i imagine? what's next? >> i'm first going to go -- everybody who's in broward county and south florida who supported me, i'm going to everyone's house that for the last four years has said "scott, hang in there," giving everybody the biggest hug i can give. and then i'm going back home. going back to the mountains.

>> and then we're going to the vatican. >> tonight -- tonight we're celebrating. >> yep. >> we're celebrating at my house not just a victory for scott but the victory for all law enforcement officers -- >> amen -- >> and that the system worked. it took a while. it was rough. it was not easy. but eventually these jurors got it right. and so the system works, and we should all feel good that if you're falsely accused eventually -- at least in this instance -- they will get it right, they will make it right. >> thank you, jurors. >> mr. peterson, you didn't take the stand, and i know from speaking to you and mark over the last five years that that had to absolutely burn you alive. how did you convince him to not put you up there? >> to be honest with you -- >> how did he convince you -- >> it was just a lot of back and forth. and at the end of the day, you

know, mark's my lawyer, you know, and he's -- he knew what was best. and i was going to follow what mark needed me to do. >> when this case started -- so that we're clear -- he 100% wanted to take that stand. during this case, 100%, he needed to take that stand. that's what he was telling me, and i had to tell him no. they did not meet their burden, and they should never, ever look to him to prove the case. and i think that his words got out through the testimony, they knew his position two days after this. he said "i didn't know where the shots were coming from," and they could never prove otherwise because he didn't. >> scott, there are school resource officers at a national convention convening, they're paying attention to your case. what would you say to those officers who may have been nervously waiting along with you on the outcome?

>> i think they probably had a very legitimate concern because of this case regarding the issue with the caregivers. but to all school resource officers out there, sros, we're police officers, and we're there at that school because we want to make a difference. we always have. that's why i had been a school resource officer for 28 years because you do -- not only you know that you're a law enforcement officer, but you're there to make a difference. for all these sros not only in the state of florida but nationally, maybe they can breathe easier knowing god forbid if they ever went through something like this, that hopefully the justice system will prevail for them, as well. i would hope -- i would never want any law enforcement officer in this country to go through the last 4 1/2 years of what i went through.

>> i also -- i think it's very important to focus on the prosecutor's office in this case. they had access to the same facts that these jurors did. every single deposition that i attended, they attended. they knew the facts in this case. yet they persisted with this meritless prosecution. and so you got to ask yourselves what's their motivation here. and if it's politics, which is clearly is, something needs to be done. >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> thank you all. you guys have been great. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> all right. i want to bring in manuel oliver, the father of joaquin "guac" oliver, who was killed that day in the parkland shooting. manny, you've been listening to that. he said that he would speak to any parents. you made it clear you have no interest in speaking to former officer peterson there. what did you think about what

you heard? >> these guys are celebrating today. he said he got his life back. they're going to the vatican. they found the lord. apparently their lord is a different lord than joaquin's lord. he decided to give this guy his life back which is not in any way, in any way comparable of losing your life. the attorney said it's been four years of pain. tell me about that pain. tell patricia about that pain. you're celebrating today for every member of law enforcement, for every police officer, including the uvalde ones i guess. so you know what, in addition to

that, the fact that the conclusion of the attorney is that this is a political intention? this is not political, my friend. this is ethical. we have the opportunity to mark a precedent, to make a difference. and you, mr. attorney, you're celebrating the fact that this person that obviously, obviously made a mistake and needs to be accountable is now happy with his life. in the meantime, 17 families in addition to any other officer from a school that had made mistakes since you said at the beginning parkland, a little more than five years ago, should be celebrating now. well, i don't buy that. i don't preach that. i don't follow this -- i think that the right thing to do, the

manly thing to do, the honest thing to do is to walk out of that room quiet, be quiet, mr. attorney and scott peterson. keep your mouth shut. get in your car, and go to your perfect life. but don't cry in front of national tv, asking for us to be ashamed and to be -- to be concerned about your beautiful, perfect life. that's what i feel. >> manuel, we heard from peterson directly saying, quote, we did the best we could. tragically too many school resource officers and law enforcement officers find themselves in a situation where they're responding to a shooting at a school, at a movie theater, too many places in american life. and often the weapons that are being used by these shooters are

military grade. and many of these officers find themselves under armed, you could say. in their statement they describe this as a victory for law enforcement officers who do the best they can. if what scott peterson is saying he did was the best that he can, what should change here for school resource officers and other law enforcement officers so that more parents are not put in . >> well, that's incredible, you know? you're right. this is the best they can? this is what we -- by the way, this is the only country that requires an officer or more in a school. let's start by saying that. so the problem goes beyond the officer inside the school. now probably where some people are preaching to bring more and

more officers to every single school. florida is a perfect example of how we're moving backwards in terms of getting done. i also understand, and i want anybody -- what anyone who has seen what we've gone through in the last five years knows, that i'm not relying on an officer inside a school to keep the kids safe. i think that's a solution from a system that's already broken and an industry that has so much power that they need to put their guns out there so someone like nikolas cruz could have legal access to an assault weapon, ammunition, not even a red flag came up there. yes, i understand that, too, but i did not sign for the job. i signed for this job.

i'm here as an activist raising my voice, and i paid the price. a real life is gone. joaquin cannot say today, oh, i'm going back to my life. he will never say that. you guys signed for that job, the one that you're doing, you're delivering. so anyone that decides to do something, it has to find ways to do it in a better way. don't come to me and say we did the best, we were there too late. i'm sick of listening to that. who is working on the moments before what happened? who allowed that killer to get into the school? was that not your responsibility, also? this is not about not knowing where the shootings were coming from, my friend. a lot happened before that that is also your responsibility. most important than anything,

don't let this individual become a victim, because he's not. >> manny, where do you go from here? >> that's a good question. i am going back to my daily activism. actually me and patricia are going to go on a national tour on monday, starting monday. we're going to visit 23 stops. we're going to uvalde, sante fe, san diego, new york, l.a., chicago. we'll be with people, supporting people and feeling that support. we're not doing this for any political campaign, by the way. we're doing this because we feel it. we need to stay together. if the system and the nation and our lawmakers fail and they don't listen to us, we need to stay together and, you know what? support each other. that's our plan. that's my next move. i'm closing this chapter.

this is it, the same way i closed the last trial. d done. i have a hero in my life that requires me to keep him active. my son is an activist before being a victim. so i honor that and i will continue honoring that. >> we're sharing an image of your son joaquin oliver, known affectionally as joaq. i want to follow up on you not pursuing this activism for a political campaign. we've talked about action on capitol hill, rather inaction. obviously there's a presidential campaign under way. someone who is running for president is the governor of florida who oversaw some of the changes you're describing to gun laws in the sunshine state. what is your message to lawmakers as we head into a presidential campaign season?

>> so there are two reasons for me to give interviews today. this is one. the other one is the permitless carry in florida that is right there. ron desantis made it possible. so that's a reality. we are not addressing the issue in any way at the same time that we're letting this guy run free, not being guilty for any of the charges, our state is allowing a permitless carry tomorrow. so it's only getting worse. what does that mean? should i feel frustrated or should i just get on my school bus on monday and start on tour around the nation with thousands of kids from different organizations, voters of

tomorrow, march for our lives teaming up, kids that are desperate for a better future? i stay with that. i have to do that. so, yes, the political campaign which i think has made a lot of mistakes from mr. desantis, it's very aggressive. there's a lot of hate in it. there's a lot of additional facilitating things to make sure that whoever hates anyone could also threat anyone. it's not a coincidence that someone that is rejecting immigration, rejecting gay rights, banning books, opening a permitless carry, all of these go together into fascism if you ask me. i don't think that's going to work to get anybody in the white

house. >> manny, i will say you always -- i know this is an incredible disappointment to you today as we see this verdict reached in the trial of the school resource officer not guilty on all 11 charges. you always channel the memory of your son joaq and we appreciate you speaking with us today as we share again another photo of him, one of the 17 victims that day, manny. thank you for being with us. >> thank you very much. it was a pleasure. again, the major breaking news this hour, scot peterson t former school resource officer on duty during the parkland shooting found not guilty of all charges. stay with cnn. we'll have the very latest on this and all of today's top stories.

your wyndham is waiting. whether it's for the bucket lists... the free breakfasts and wifi... or the... rontic getaways? with 24 trusted brands by wyndham to choose from... your wyndham is waiting. get the lowest price at wdhamhotels.com somedays, i cover up because of my moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. now i feel free to bare my skin, thanks to skyrizi. ♪(uplifting music)♪

♪nothing is everything♪ i'm celebrating my clearer skin... my way. with skyrizi, 3 out of 4 people achieved 90% clearer skin at 4 months. in another study, most people had 90% clearer skin, even at 5 years. and skyrizi is just 4 doses a year, after 2 starter doses. serious allergic reactions and an increased risk of infections or a lower ability to fight them may occur. tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms, had a vaccine, or plan to. thanks to clearer skin with skyrizi - this is my moment. there's nothing on my skin and that means everything! ♪nothing is everything♪ now's the time. ask your doctor about skyrizi, the #1 dermatologist-prescribed biologic in psoriasis. learn how abbvie could help you save.

beautiful. you see how the light catches the hubcap? stunning. you sure you don't want your family in the family photos? they helped us save money when we bundled, so... yeah. same difference. okay. this one's going on the mantle. the supreme court throws out