Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteMoss
You'd agree their assessment was wrong (and also based on god knows what considering kids were calling 911 from the classroom during the time they were hanging out)?
|
Yes. I'd agree their* assessment was wrong using hindsight for two reasons:
1) There were living kids in the classroom.
2) It did not appear that the shooter had any intention of using those kids for hostages purposes and had full intention of killing them all.
The use of "their" is an issue. There's one commanding officer, one person in charge, you need that for these situations. Which is why I also disagree with the cops doing wrong for waiting, they were following commands.
As for that commander though, again based on exactly what he knew and when, but finding out there are living children in the classroom some 30 minutes after the shooter entered could easily re-affirm that this was NOT an active shooting situation. Especially as the number was 10.
Sure it's a catch 22; if there's no living children, then it's not an active shooting situation, no point in forcing the issue until the police decide, and if there are living children, then it's not an active shooting situation as he hasn't killed them. But assuming that the shooter just hasn't found the kids in a half hour of being in the room would probably be the most unreasonable (though apparently correct) assumption in my opinion.
I'm sure I could easily find some links about the difference in response to active shooters and barricaded gunmen and how they can transition from one to the other but you might be conceding that point? and we're now discussing whether treating it as a barricaded gunman was reasonable/proper/right (which I have less opinion on).
In any case, I do think it's sad we have to debate their effectiveness though knowing that the next one is just around the corner.