I think that this is silly, especially if you look at how sh$$ty the whole tactical situation is. I mean I know people wanted him to heroically dive in and save these people.
However
He was alone.
He was in a pistol versus basically a assault rifle situation, he was far out ranged and out accuracied (not a word, but I don't care). A pistols effective range is pretty short, unless your a movie character where you can hit a guy a football field away in a windy story while yelling a clever catchphrase.
He didn't have the location of the shooter down and didn't have any idea what the geographic situation down (Map, location, trouble spots)
Realistically the first guy on the spot needs to gather intelligence where he can, and contain the situation if possible and wait for help.
Now I don't know if he did any of that, but him loudly charging into the building while yelling a war cry, would have accomplished nothing, he had every single dis-advantage in that situation, and I doubt that his actions would have saved any lives.
If the Sheriff is saying different, or the NRA or Trump, they're lying or don't know what the hell they're talking about.
He wouldn't have saved any lives, gosh darn it, he would have died futilely dag nab it, but good god he would have been a hero, they could have drapped a flag over his casket and the NRA and Trump and others would have said. What an amazing hero he was and a testament to having guns.
It seems to me there is no room for nuance whenever the actions of the officer are brought up. Defenders of his action posit that the only other alternative to his actions was go in guns blazing and die. Is there not room for tactical advancement? I can't imagine there was much information gathering if he was stationary and outside. Additionally, even just drawing the attention of the shooter may be enough to rattle him and cause the shooting to end earlier?
I know we certainly don't have all the facts, but so far it seems having an armed officer on campus is totally useless. To me, that's a scary thing to learn.
The Following User Says Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
It seems to me there is no room for nuance whenever the actions of the officer are brought up. Defenders of his action posit that the only other alternative to his actions was go in guns blazing and die. Is there not room for tactical advancement? I can't imagine there was much information gathering if he was stationary and outside. Additionally, even just drawing the attention of the shooter may be enough to rattle him and cause the shooting to end earlier?
I know we certainly don't have all the facts, but so far it seems having an armed officer on campus is totally useless. To me, that's a scary thing to learn.
The only thing an armed cop or teacher can do in a school shooting is become a target themselves for a few seconds, that in itself might allow a kid to escape but in a school which is effectively a series of long hallways with no cover made of plasterboard walls that offer no protection at all around the few corners that could be used against a gunman with a semi auto rifle wearing a bullet proof vest we are talking about asking a cop or teacher to willingly commit suicide, there are no alternatives to that.
I know we certainly don't have all the facts, but so far it seems having an armed officer on campus is totally useless. To me, that's a scary thing to learn.
Ding, ding, ding! As explained earlier, SROs are not like a uniformed officer. In many parts of the country they don't even have the same training as an officer, which is why they may have a different uniform so as to not make that expectation that they can engage in full duties. The role of the SRO is act as a deterrent to petty crimes, drug use and trafficking, and bullying on campuses. They are not going to engage in many traditional patrol officer activities, because they are not equipped or prepared for those events. They are just above a paid security guard in many ways.
As to another question from earlier, Sheriffs are the ultimate law enforcement entity in a county. The Sheriff is more often than not an elected individual with no requirement for law enforcement experience. All agencies are technical subservient to the Sheriff. Having said that, in municipalities where a law enforcement agency is established, that agency holds the function of enforcing the law while the Sheriff holds responsibility over the traffic control of state roads, accident investigations on state roads, corrections and transportation of prisoners, county courthouse security, court document delivery/service, and animal control/enforcement. In larger municipalities where there are unincorporated county islands, the Sheriff assumes all law enforcement activities, sometimes making these pockets the wild west. It should be noted that in municipalities where there is a dedicated law enforcement component, there can exist a great deal of animosity toward the Sheriff's department and a lack of cooperation because of jurisdictional issues. The Sheriff's department is considered the ultimate law enforcement authority, but is seldom considered the ultimate authority on law enforcement or the associated activities. It is an interesting contradiction, but one that manages to exist in a system where brotherhood is the most important factor to those who serve.
Ding, ding, ding! As explained earlier, SROs are not like a uniformed officer. In many parts of the country they don't even have the same training as an officer, which is why they may have a different uniform so as to not make that expectation that they can engage in full duties. The role of the SRO is act as a deterrent to petty crimes, drug use and trafficking, and bullying on campuses. They are not going to engage in many traditional patrol officer activities, because they are not equipped or prepared for those events. They are just above a paid security guard in many ways.
But in many places like my high school they are regular officers assigned to the school. Officer Schwartz did several years as the school cop and then went on to being a detective. While he did indeed wear a different uniform so as to not look so out of place, he still had his badge, gun, and during holidays like independence day you would see him in uniform assisting the force when they needed bodies. You have more knowledge in this than I, I don't dispute that, but you seem to have this idea that these cops really are just mall rent a cops. And I find it hard to believe that I went to the one high school in America that had a real officer. Heck I graduated just weeks after columbine, so I was in school for a relatively calm era up until the very end.
I guess what I still don't grasp is this...
I'm at a business. Someone comes in and starts shooting. I call 911. Officers respond. And while they may have to take a defensive type position, they still respond. They don't say "sorry guys we are busy with this speeding ticket, so we can't respond." Yet if that same situation happens at a school that already has an officer on site, that's the response you are advocating.
My feeling is that by arming teachers you aren't simply trying to use them as a deterrent but you are asking them to participate in hunting down an active shooter.
And by doing that you are now doing a a complete disservice to the students. As posted above...RUN, HIDE, FIGHT.
Providing teachers with more in depth training in these scenarios I agree with. But they need to be present to help the students follow the RUN, HIDE, FIGHT protocol. They can't be taking the law into their own hands so to speak.
But in many places like my high school they are regular officers assigned to the school. Officer Schwartz did several years as the school cop and then went on to being a detective. While he did indeed wear a different uniform so as to not look so out of place, he still had his badge, gun, and during holidays like independence day you would see him in uniform assisting the force when they needed bodies. You have more knowledge in this than I, I don't dispute that, but you seem to have this idea that these cops really are just mall rent a cops. And I find it hard to believe that I went to the one high school in America that had a real officer. Heck I graduated just weeks after columbine, so I was in school for a relatively calm era up until the very end.
No, I don't hold that view. Did I say they didn't have a gun and a badge? Nope. What I did say is this assignment is very different, and that some states allow for very different hiring practices to fill this role. Not all of them are patrol cops. You'll usually find a cop who was forced off the street due to injury end up in a SRO role. They are still valuable to the force as a deterrent, but not someone you're going to expect to respond to a call out. Mostly because they are not prepped for such duties. What they are missing is all of the other equipment that a patrol officer wears and carries. Not having that body armor on is a big thing. Not having access to that shot gun or AR in the trunk is a big thing. Not having access to that ballistic helmet and other protective equipment is a big thing.
Quote:
I guess what I still don't grasp is this...
I'm at a business. Someone comes in and starts shooting. I call 911. Officers respond. And while they may have to take a defensive type position, they still respond. They don't say "sorry guys we are busy with this speeding ticket, so we can't respond." Yet if that same situation happens at a school that already has an officer on site, that's the response you are advocating.
You get officers assigned to a specific beat. You don't get detectives arriving for the call. You don't get SROs arriving at the call. You get beat patrol officers. They have very specific roles they are expected to follow. They assume those defensive positions to assess the situation and make a determination if a specialized assignment is required. Once that determination is made, and the specialization arrives, those officers are there in strictly a support role.
And no, I am not advocating anything. I am explaining to you the way most departments work. I'm also explaining why an officer may not go rushing into an engagement and may instead do the smart thing and wait for proper support, regardless of the situation. One thing that is for certain, a SRO is no match for a shooter with an assault rifle and high capacity magazines. Was he right, or was he wrong, I don't know. I don't know whether he would have made a lick of difference rushing in there, but past experience tells me it would have added to the mayhem and resulted in likely more death.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
I'm at a business. Someone comes in and starts shooting. I call 911. Officers respond. And while they may have to take a defensive type position, they still respond. They don't say "sorry guys we are busy with this speeding ticket, so we can't respond." Yet if that same situation happens at a school that already has an officer on site, that's the response you are advocating.
I think that this is where a lot of disconnect between the two sides is.
I don't think that anyone is saying he should not have gone in. But NE and myself are saying he should have waited for backup (which smart policy indicates should be 3 more officers) before all 4 go in together.
Other folks seem to be saying that should have gone straight in, by himself, the second he arrived on scene.
Do I fault him for arriving on scene, by himself, and waiting for backup? No. I do not. Would I fault him if, after backup arrives, he fails/refuses to go in? I most definitely would.
I would also expect that he would be able to form part of a square, so that arriving officers could go in faster, regardless of jurisdiction.
I've sent plenty of officers to plenty of situations where they've been told (by myself or their Sgt) to wait for backup before taking any further action after arriving. It happens. A lot. Sending help in prematurely is pretty much just a good way to make more people need more help.
Last edited by WhiteTiger; 02-26-2018 at 02:40 PM.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
armed personnel in schools will just make it more of a challenge for people that are going to do this, maybe bring hostage situations more into play.
But, what do I know. they just need to clone a balding obese orange draft dodging clown, with the courage to go in and Rambo that situation out.
Maybe this'll help get us all a little more on the same page. It's a video that CPS and the UofC made a couple years back about what to do (as a person at the university) in an Active Shooter situation. It doesn't capture a lot of the police tactics involved (you see them arriving as a 4 pack, and moving around as a 4 pack, but it doesn't mention that the 4 packs won't help you if you are injured, they are there to deal with the threat first, then provide aid) but it does show a lot of the confusion and chaos that goes on as people try to figure out what's going on.
Ding, ding, ding! As explained earlier, SROs are not like a uniformed officer. In many parts of the country they don't even have the same training as an officer, which is why they may have a different uniform so as to not make that expectation that they can engage in full duties. The role of the SRO is act as a deterrent to petty crimes, drug use and trafficking, and bullying on campuses. They are not going to engage in many traditional patrol officer activities, because they are not equipped or prepared for those events. They are just above a paid security guard in many ways.
As to another question from earlier, Sheriffs are the ultimate law enforcement entity in a county. The Sheriff is more often than not an elected individual with no requirement for law enforcement experience. All agencies are technical subservient to the Sheriff. Having said that, in municipalities where a law enforcement agency is established, that agency holds the function of enforcing the law while the Sheriff holds responsibility over the traffic control of state roads, accident investigations on state roads, corrections and transportation of prisoners, county courthouse security, court document delivery/service, and animal control/enforcement. In larger municipalities where there are unincorporated county islands, the Sheriff assumes all law enforcement activities, sometimes making these pockets the wild west. It should be noted that in municipalities where there is a dedicated law enforcement component, there can exist a great deal of animosity toward the Sheriff's department and a lack of cooperation because of jurisdictional issues. The Sheriff's department is considered the ultimate law enforcement authority, but is seldom considered the ultimate authority on law enforcement or the associated activities. It is an interesting contradiction, but one that manages to exist in a system where brotherhood is the most important factor to those who serve.
For the record, New Era is speaking about the US, not Canada.
He should clarify that Imo.
Edit - Maybe you have in pervious posts but it might be wise to put it as a preface to all your posts.
Last edited by Bent Wookie; 02-26-2018 at 03:07 PM.
Why aren't innovative American companies building some enforcement droids.
Here is what the resource officer of the future looks like
size
NSFW!
I'm surprised the U.S. hasn't built these things yet. Seriously, this is the kind of idea that very likely would have been green-lit by the GOP and the military years ago. Place them outside in front of schools all over the country, and bam. No more mass shootings.
If they arm teachers, I can't wait for the day that one of them takes that gun and does exactly what they are trying to prevent. Then we will need to arm the kids, against the teachers, against the kids.
If they arm teachers, I can't wait for the day that one of them takes that gun and does exactly what they are trying to prevent. Then we will need to arm the kids, against the teachers, against the kids.
Yes but the plan is to only arm like ex military combat vets that go into teaching as well all know how low the rate of suicide, PTSD, depression and domestic violense is amongst vets.
For the record, New Era is speaking about the US, not Canada.
He should clarify that Imo.
Edit - Maybe you have in pervious posts but it might be wise to put it as a preface to all your posts.
I didn't think I would have to clarify that, considering this is the Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread.
Okay then. All information or opinions provided or expressed are strictly related to institutions, organizations, agencies, or entities within the geopolitical boundaries of the United States of America, or its protectorates. Cynicism and sarcasm do meet the export requirements of the State Department, and are meant for international consumption.
Imagine if every school campus in the United States had its own volunteer security officer: a former police officer or military veteran equipped with an assault rifle.
That’s the dream of Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes.
In the wake of the February 14 massacre at a Parkland, Florida high school, Rhodes is calling on members of his far-right anti-government militia group to serve as unpaid and unaccountable armed school guards — whether teachers and students like the idea or not.
I didn't think I would have to clarify that, considering this is the Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread.
Okay then. All information or opinions provided or expressed are strictly related to institutions, organizations, agencies, or entities within the geopolitical boundaries of the United States of America, or its protectorates. Cynicism and sarcasm do meet the export requirements of the State Department, and are meant for international consumption.
Ya. Message boards are always on topic.
Being clear is never a bad thing.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
The Following User Says Thank You to For This Useful Post:
