FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.  — The arrest of a Florida sheriff’s deputy for not confronting the gunman in the Parkland school massacre represents a highly unusual use of the law — and a legally dubious one, in the opinion of some experts.

Scot Peterson, 56, appeared in court Wednesday on 11 charges, including negligence and child neglect for not entering the building during the rampage last year at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that left 17 people dead.

In court papers, prosecutors said five people were killed and four others wounded after Peterson took up his position, gun drawn, but did not go inside. Nikolas Cruz, 20, faces the death penalty if convicted in the Valentine’s Day bloodshed.

President Donald Trump and others have branded Peterson a coward. But can Broward County prosecutors prove his hesitation to act amounts to a crime?

Legal experts are not so sure and suggested prosecutors may have overreached.

“This is a unique prosecution, pushing the bounds of criminal liability,” said David O. Markus, a prominent Miami defense attorney not involved in the case. “While elected prosecutors many times bow to the court of public opinion, our justice system demands that a case like this be tested in a court of law. Legally, this is a tough one for the prosecution.”

Michael Grieco, a defense attorney and state legislator from Miami Beach who is also not involved in the case, agreed that prosecutors face an uphill climb.

“Although as a father, legislator and human being, I believe that there is no societal defense to cowardice, the law has consistently and recently held that there is no constitutional duty for police to protect us from harm,” Grieco said. “The decision to criminally charge Mr. Peterson, although popular in the court of public opinion, will likely not hold water once formally challenged.”

Instances in which law enforcement officers are accused of mishandling a situation are often dealt with not with criminal charges but with lawsuits seeking damages. Several have already been filed against Peterson.

The negligence charge brought by prosecutors accuses Peterson of “reckless indifference” or “careless disregard” for others. Child neglect involves a failure to protect someone under 18 from “abuse, neglect or exploitation.”