In one case: Cop should sacrifice his life at a school. In another: Cop's life is paramount.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

They should shoot a pulled over driver or other suspect if the slightest possibility exists they could have a weapon and they feared for their life. If the suspect was innocent and had no weapon, the shooting was still justified because there was a billion to one chance there was a weapon and the poor sod was reaching for it. Better the citizen endure all the risk and the brunt of police firepower than the policeman endure a tiny unkown risk to their person, them making it home to their family is their number one job.

In the other instance they should go against this value that appears deeply instilled by so much training to go to a likely or almost certain death in a specialized scenario that occurs a lot less frequently.

And most of the same people (right winger and gun nuts that is) arguing both sides of this.

Don't get me wrong. I wish the first police on the scene in Parkland had taken more action and given the children a better chance. But I consider it a long chance the single cop would have saved the kids and focusing on his failure to act is a convenient distraction from anything to do with availability of high velocity semi auto weapons.

But I don't see how to reconcile these police scenarios, honestly.

[boston bean]

1. IMO cops shoukd not be expected to run into a situation where they will

likely be massacred.

Can we get rid if the implements of death??

[MichMary]

39. There are protocols

that law enforcement personnel are trained to follow. After Columbine, where cops were on the scene within about two minutes and didn't enter the building for nearly an hour, there was serious analysis that resulted in the change from containment to going toward the gunfire in an effort to save lives.

Yes, anyone's instinct is to preserve his/her own life, but the training should have prevailed. This officer was armed with a couple of handguns and a shotgun. Had he done his job, maybe some of the lives that were lost would have been saved.

As far as "implements of death," I'm not sure what you mean. At Virginia Tech the shooter killed 32 people with a couple of pistols, and if you think all firearms should be gotten rid of, that won't happen. AR15s--maybe that could happen. But, it won't stop all such massacres.

Regardless of the weaponry, we need better mental healthcare.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

2. My buddy is retired LAPD. He said the officer in question was close to retirement and didn't...

My buddy is retired LAPD. He said the officer in question was close to retirement and didn't want to get killed. We then had a long conversation about what law enforcement is obliged to do in such a situation. I took the position that there has to be a middle ground between getting massacred and running away.

BTW, google North Hollywood shootout, for what cops did in a dangerous situation.

[marylandblue]

3. I think the middle ground is that he should enter the building

And attempt to safely defuse the situation by talking the shooter down or trying to see if he can get a clear shot. Of course this is more dangerous than waiting outside, but I also don't expect him to rush headlong into the line of fire.

I also think at this point there should be protocols and training in place for cops in this situation. Schools and offices get active shooter training now, do cops get it? I'd support a cop who followed the protocol, whatever that may be.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. From my limited understanding a sidearm is no defense against an AR-15

This is what happens when the bad guys have more ammo and protective gear than the good guys:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

[MichMary]

44. He had a shotgun and two pistols

The people inside the school were unarmed. Sitting ducks. Even so, at least one unarmed person saved lives by throwing himself between the gunman and students. That probably wasn't in his job description.

[Lee-Lee]

50. Indoors its no real difference

If a person is outdoors and has distance between them then a rifle of any kind has an advantage over a pistol.

Indoors, any cop who passes qualification should be able to hit a man sized target out to 75 feet minimum with their issues service pistol.

All it will come down to indoors is who gets the first hit on the other party. And that comes down to training, skill and focus. A responding officer should have the advantage in training and skill, and their focus will be only on closing with and stopping the shooter while the shooters focus is on looking for and handing victims, not on looking for responding resistance.

In fact in some cases the handgun can have an advantage being smaller and eaiser/faster to manuaver than a longer barreled rifle when your indoors, depending on the situation.

The excuse that the officer was “outgunned” in this case is nonsense. He may not have had the perfect weapon for the circumstances but you never have perfect. What he had was more than adequate.

[EffieBlack]

60. You're making a lot of assumptions that didn't exist

For example, you're assuming the officer knew there was only one shooter, knew he was in one of the buildings, and knew exactly where in the buildings he was.

You also are leaving out a lot of key facts from your scenario. While a cop may be able to hit a man-sized target out to 75 feet minimum, that assumes that target is standing still, is not firing a rapid-fire automatic weapon in all directions, there are not hundreds of screaming, ducking, slipping, falling, panicked kids between him and the target. You're also assuming that the officer has time to identify the shooter and take his aim before firing, before the shooter mows him down with the others.

And while in some instances, a shooter's focus is on looking for victims, a shooter with an AR-15 doesn't have to focus very hard on looking - they're spraying bullets and hitting targets without having to aim. On the other hand, as I noted, the officer not only has to find the shooter, he has to stay out of his sight while getting close enough to shoot him.

Maybe the officer should have gone in the building, maybe he shouldn't have - we don't have enough information to judge at this point since we don't know what the department's procedures were, what his training was, what procedures applied to him as a school resource officer and the investigation has not been completed. But it's ludicrous to assume that, had the officer gone in, he would have stood even the remotest chance of taking down the killer, and that he himself would not have inadvertently caused more carnage, before he himself was shot and killed.

[Lee-Lee]

66. No, you are wrong

The officer should have gone in and made contact with the shooter as rapidly as he could.

Period.

End of story.

That’s the protocol of every competent law enforcement body in the nation. Based on the experiences learned at Columbine where waiting outside allowed the carnage to continue.

It is not “ludicrous” to assume had he gone in he stood a chance of taking the killer down. He in fact had far more chance than anyone else in the world at that moment and all things considered, given that he’s been a cop more than 20 years, he had the equipment and training to give him a very good chance of that.

Here is the deal- when there is a shooter or stabber or anyone else ACTIVELY killing people, what you have to do is move to them as rapidly as possible and make contact. When you make contact with armed resistance then one of 4 things happens. Either:

Shooter gives up and surrenders or flees.
Shooter commits suicide.
Shooter is dead or injured to the point they can’t keep harming people.
Shooter changes focus from killing innocent victims to fighting back against whoever is there to fight them.

And no matter what, any of those 4 means you stopped the killing.

So every second you waste getting to the killer is a second mor ehe has to kill. This guy gave him 4+ minutes.

You are right that he didn’t know how many there were. Doesn’t matter, it’s his job to move in. His story that he didn’t know if he was in anbuildinh or outside is bullshit, ongoing gunshots are easy to locate and the fact that he took his position up outside the door with a barrier between the door and him, his back to the outside, shows his story that he thought the guy was outside is bullshit. And yeah, he didn’t know where he was inside. When an officer responds to a call of any kind of violent person in a building he never knows exactly where the person is. That’s why you train how to move and search in a building.

The guy 100% failed to do his job. Why so many people want to sit here and defend his decision to sit and do nothing and allow killing to continue for 4+ minutes baffles me.

Other things you are wrong on- the idea you don’t have to aim an AR-15 and somehow bullies just spray and find targets. It doesn’t work that way. That he shouldn’t have tried because the guy may be moving- cops train for moving targets believe it or not we have heard of that concept before.

In short your entire post is bullshit and not grounded the least bit in reality or experience, just to try and defend this cowardly sack of garbage who is a disgrace to the badge. His one and only main job at that school was to protect the kids and be one one person who put himself between those kids and danger. He failed when the time came, and that isn’t defensible.

[Fred Sanders]

7. Is that would most would do? Sacrifice their lives for possibly no good, handgun versus the sounds

of a semi-automatic already having fired off dozens of rounds...and does the homicidal maniac have satchels of ammunition? Is there more than one Does he have body armour? And I do not!

No...that scenario is still a fantasy in the not world of Hollywood.

Remember, MANIAC with an AK-15! I would be the maniac to go in with a pistol and my cotton uniform.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. It is my understanding the cop knew what kind of weapon the shooter had by the sound of the shots

It is my understanding the cop knew what kind of weapon the shooter had by the sound of the shots, knew he was outgunned, and that's why he retreated.

[Fred Sanders]

10. Which only makes sense. Which is also why the cops took cover. Even they were outgunned.

The fucking media has got it all wrong again and got played by Foxxx again.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. He would have been a dead hero who unless he took out the shooter would have died in vain.

[marylandblue]

11. As opposed to what teachers do?

Throwing their own bodies in front of children? Or fight them with their own peashooters? Frankly, if cops are not even willing to LOOK like they are protecting kids, then we really don't need them in schools at all.

[Fred Sanders]

14. You want to arm teachers....got it. No comment.

[marylandblue]

16. That part was sarcastic

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. The teachers were heroes, no doubt.

That begs the question. Is it better to be a dead hero or a prudent living person ? The teachers didn't weigh the dangers, The cop did.

[marylandblue]

18. What exactly is the cop there for?

Arrest kids for smoking pot? Handcuff 5-year olds? Make it seem like they have a real job? None of that shit ever happens, right? If they aren't there to protect my kids then I'd rather they give out speeding tickets. I'd even speed on purpose in front of them if it will help. Anything to get them doing something useful.

We have a society that says it's alright for a cop to shoot a 12-year old but if your kid is getting shot at, he is on his own?

My kid has shelter in place protocols for things like this. The protocol is to wait for help to arrive. But what if the help never comes. My office has active shooter training. Run or hide and so on.


What was the cop's fucking protocol? Did he have one? Seems like he didn't.

[sheshe2]

30. The teachers were in the building.

The teachers and students were there and under fire. You say the teachers did not weigh the dangers? How could they? They were there in that building with their students, they had no choice and they saved as many as they could and some died trying and the cops were outside having the luxury of choice that the teachers and students never had.

[EffieBlack]

61. The teachers were in the middle of the chaos and reacted heroically

But I wonder how many of them would have run into the building if they were outside when the shooting started.

[marybourg]

26. A teacher hiding with, sheparding, protecting

children might not become a target, a cop running in with a handgun definitely will be as soon as the shooter see him or her.

[marylandblue]

28. See post #20 nt

[marybourg]

31. I already did. Doesn't address the comparison between

cop and teacher, which I was responding to.

[marylandblue]

34. Actually, it directly addresses it.

It says that an armed, trained cop is less likely to be a target than an unarmed teacher.

Of course, an armed, trained cop who isn't there at all is very unlikely to be a target, which I am sure was the furthest thing from that cop's mind.

[treestar]

42. the teachers know the kids though

there is a difference in protecting someone you know and love and strangers.

[MichMary]

45. From what I've read

that deputy had been the SRO for many years. Good chance he knew a lot of the students.

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

20. The protocol exists and has since Columbine

They are supposed to immediately enter and engage the shooter. The first priority is to stop them from killing. Facing down a rifle with a handgun is not ideal, but it's doable for 3 main reasons. These reasons are the premise for why the protocol is to rush in to kill the shooter immediately. One, the shooter will be preoccupied with shooting their chosen targets. They will likely not be waiting for or preparing for any resistance. This gives the cop the jump on them. Two, the shooter likely has little to no training. And simple target shooting isnt training. In a gunfight, a trained person with a handgun has the edge over the idiot with the rifle. Further, shooting a rifle indoors can be disorienting and deafening. Another advantage for trained personnel. Third, there is a high likelihood the shooter retreats and kills themselves or surrenders as soon as they face resistance. It's active shooter psychology. Most are cowards and are looking for the easy target. They aren't looking for a fight.

This is why the Sheriff was so harsh and why the local cops aren't happy. The SRO and other BC deputies ignored 2 decades of accepted active shooter training.

[marylandblue]

21. Well I am happy to hear that there is a protocol

and so if the cop did not follow the protocol then he is in the wrong.

[marybourg]

27. Even one underarmed cop by him/herself?

[DetroitLegalBeagle]

37. Yep.

Undergunned or not. Alone or not. Now, if backup is mere seconds away, ie they are literally pulling up as you are approaching the entry, then waiting those few seconds is encouraged. But if backup isnt going to be there for 5 or 10minutes, then in you are supposed to go.

[link:http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article201873534.html|]

Almost two decades ago, when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris went on a murderous rampage at a Colorado high school, the first officers on the scene did exactly as they were trained: They set up a perimeter to control the situation, while contacting SWAT officers.

Many of the more than three dozen killed and injured that day were struck by bullets and shrapnel long before SWAT arrived.

Columbine changed everything.

Since then, law enforcement officers in proximity of any active shooting scene have been trained to immediately confront and try to eliminate the threat — whether they’re heavily outgunned or not.


Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article201873534.html#storylink=cpy

[MichMary]

43. There are protocols.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-shooting-columbine-lessons/index.html

Before the Colorado shooting, responding officers would set up a secure perimeter around the crime scene before even thinking about moving on the suspect.
-snip-
"Nowadays, what we do is go to the sound of the guns," Gagliano said. "You get one, two, three, four people together. We're trained. We use particular formations."

Often, when confronted with an armed officer, the shooters kill themselves before they can inflict more damage.

[X_Digger]

5. Cops have no legal obligation to do shit. They can't be held legally liable..

.. for stepping over you and your murderer stabbing you in order to get to a donut on the other side of the street.

They might get fired, but that's an administrative issue between them and their department, not between you and them.

There is a looooong list of precedent going back 100+ years.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

8. I understand that. I was referring to norms.

Everybody likes to think they're a hero until the shots start flying.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

35. I understand not wanting to get killed.

But if that was his first thought, not protecting the students, then he should not have been on that job.

[Fred Sanders]

6. Guns are scary. Preferred weapon of ground force armies. Anyone not fearing a homicidal

maniac with an AK-15 and a satchel of 30 round magazines is either a fool or Superman.

The security guard and police being excoriated is playing into NRA propganda by making it seem as if it is all supposed to play out like in the movies! Do not fall for it.

[EffieBlack]

62. Exactly

They create an environment in which anybody with breath can legally obtain a weapon of mass destruction and then tell us that if someone does and then uses it to massacre school kids, it's all the fault of the school resource officer.

I call BS. But, unfortunately, even Democrats are falling into this trap and are now going around parrotting and disseminating the NRA talking point.

it's disgusting.

[exboyfil]

12. The President, other GOP politicians, and the NRA dumping

on the police might cause them to rethink many whose default position is in support of the GOP and NRA.

It really is a good point about the contrast.

[MichMary]

46. Cops who don't do their jobs

deserve to be dumped on. It was the SRO's job to attempt to protect kids. He didn't do it. Prior to 2/15 Cruz had been reported to Peterson (the SRO) and told that he wanted to buy a gun.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article201684874.html

▪ Sept. 23, 2016: A “peer counselor” reports to Peterson that Cruz had possibly ingested gasoline in a suicide attempt, was cutting himself and wanted to buy a gun. A mental health counselor advises against involuntary committing Cruz. The high school says it will conduct a threat assessment.

He collected his pay but didn't do his job.

[sfwriter]

17. Cops are consistently afraid and acting on fear...

...in both cases.

[Turbineguy]

19. In our Judeo-Western culture

we don't expect people to perform suicide missions.

[OhioBlue]

22. Your post really makes me think. You make some good points.

I agree that I wish the SRO officer had taken more action and given the children a better chance. However, I do realize he is human and in the fog of a crisis... none of us really know how we are going to react. I too think it is a distraction from the issue of semi auto weapons with high capacity clips. THAT is the biggest issue. The intellectual laziness and bad ass wanna be attitude from the POTUS and others that are just claiming more guns will solve the problem and name calling and publicly shaming this officer is not helpful. If a person sees someone drowning and they are a life guard, we expect them to jump in and save that person. However, if there are other circumstances such as rushing flood waters where the chances of their ability to save the person and of their own survival are unlikely, we understand when they don't jump in and look for other ways to help. I know it isn't a great analogy, but the guy was considering entering without backup and facing an AR15 spraying bullets and he had minutes to react. I'm sure he wishes he had that 4 minutes back and with hindsight might have made a different decision, but the public shaming is really over the top. We don't really know the whole story and in light of what we do know, I think the vast majority of Americans, probably himself included wishes he would have entered and could have made a difference. We will never know.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

32. Thinking about this post made me reflect on the nature of "heroism" too.

I think we have fetishized "heroes" since 9/11 and broadly defined any military or first responder types as "heroes" automatically by being in those jobs.

But we consider acts like falling on a grenade to save your platoon to be "heroic" and they are exceptional. We award rare medals and decorations for such acts BECAUSE they are rare. If we expected everyone to respond in such a manner then it wouldn't be exceptional, would it?

Having your strategy for dealing with school shooters depend upon every guard, policeman or teacher being willing to reliably go to a certain death even for a poor or very uncertain chance of saving anyone... is a poor strategy.

[OhioBlue]

59. Very true and definitely an issue worthy of discussion.

[EffieBlack]

63. Thank you nt

[mwooldri]

23. My personal preferred solution...

Mass disarming of America.

Why are there cops in schools? In the UK, police are not routinely armed. Armed squads exist, they have rifles.

However America is special, and guns are needed in some cases. "Right to bear arms" does not specify the type of arms. If we followed the NRA's argument, then it is my right to carry around a thermonuclear device. Of course, that would be absurd. There needs to be sensible controls, and "militia" (I read law enforcement, National Guard) has the weaponry they need.

Plus it would be nice if done while Trump is in office. Get rid of the "liberals are after your guns" nonsense.

[brush]

24. Easy peasy. In the auto scenario the driver is black or a POC...

so the officer immediately deploys the "shoot first, ask questions later" tactic.

No one but black people or POCs will even think twice about it.

[California_Republic]

25. Interesting! That is tough to reconcile!

[hueymahl]

29. He is a coward

Fuck him and his retirement.

[EffieBlack]

64. Wow.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

36. It really comes down to the ready availability of guns, including all sorts of

high powered rifles.

Whenever it's pointed out that such guns are not readily available in other countries, there is no sensible response from the gun apologists. If you tell them that in Australia in 1996 they had a gun massacre, after which they changed the laws, they try to pretend that mass shootings till occur in Australia. No. They don't. If you tell them that in that same year in the UK there was a mass shooting in a school, after which gun laws were changed, you get a blank stare or outright denial.

Given what's happened so far this year, there should be another mass shooting in a school within a week or two. Is that acceptable? Will the survivors of that shooting stand up as those incredible kids in Florida have done? I hope so.

[treestar]

40. Yes it is a distraction because blaming him

feeds the good guy with a gun argument. If he'd just done his job, be the good guy with the gun, go in blazing and kill the killer before he could kill anyone - obviously a good guy with a gun is the answer and of course all we need is more guns.

[EffieBlack]

65. Yup

If only the good guy with the gun had allowed himself to be mowed down by the guy with the AR-15, letting people have AR-15s wouldn't be a problem.

The problem is the good guy with the gun who didn't do enough, not the multi-million dollar gun manufacturer industry that floods our communities with guns.

[Vinca]

41. Legislators should listen to cops when it comes to the weapons currently available.

A cop on foot patrol on a security detail has no way to protect anyone from a weapon of war. Sure, he can race in and take some shots, but it's almost certain he or she will be added to the body count. The problem is the gun, no matter how much the NRA wants us to talk about the cops or mental illness or whatever the scapegoat-of-the-day is.

[Lee-Lee]

48. You know cops overwhelmingly dont support bans dont you?

Now if you get you chiefs and others that are as much politicians as cops they often do. But your ranks nd file officers overwhelmingly don’t support things like assault weapon bans.

They will favor laws that target the people who misuse guns and stronger rules and enforcement against criminals misusing guns, but not bans.

[Lee-Lee]

47. This is how you reconcile the conflict you see

There was a saying that was common when I was on the job- “Officer safety is your #1 concern. Right until it can’t be”.

And the line is where you know that your immediate action is needed to save lives. Then your safety is second.

On a traffic stop I did everything by the book based on what was shown to give me the greatest chance of not being injured. Be it from the person I stopped or oncoming traffic or anything else. From how I parked my car to how I approached the stopped car to how I handled the stop. Because at that time there was no innocent life being lost by my caution.

If I got a call of a domestic dispute but it sounded like a life wasn’t in immediate danger I waited for a second officer. Because statistics showed domestic disputes were the most dangerous types of calls to respond to and that a single officer was both much more likely to be injured but also have to use force, but when two officers responded both the chance of injury for officers and for suspects went down.

However if I got a call of domestic where there was actual physical assault that was resulting in injury or possible death happening, or a situation that was likely to result in death or great injury already happening, I went in and hoped my backup was hauling ass. Because at that point my intervention was needed as rapidly as possible to end the harm or threat of harm. At that point my safety became secondary to the safety of the victims. And if there were children present often changed that calculus too.

Here is another example. Operating a patrol care like any other driving you did so as safe as you can. But sometimes you have to be to disregard your own safety to protect the safety of others. In the below video a drunk driver was going the wrong way on a divided highway and was a severe danger to others because those almost always end in a head-on crash that is often fatal. The officer had two choices- put his safety first and just join in a chase behind, letting the driver eventually hit whoever or whatever, or risk his own life and safety and ran her car head on with his to make sure the danger to everyone else was ended at greater risk to himself.

https://m.

I hope I articulated the difference and where that line is often drawn well enough. It is sometimes hard to get across in black and white.

[Demsrule86]

49. They shoot Black people...there it is.

[beachbum bob]

51. the reports of cops and sheriff deputies standing around and not going in while kids are being

murdered are undeniable. They are more worried about their pensions than the "to serve and protect". The simple solution is forfeiture of their pensions. Any police union that protects these members should be dealt with harshly. You care about pensions, do your fucking JOB.

we need the public to demand these cops have their pensions removed.....

[Doodley]

52. Cops are human beings. We aren't talking about Robocop.

There are good cops and bad cops. There are cops who want to abuse their power and cops who genuinely want to help others. There are cops who are paralyzed by fear and cops who will die to save lives. We cannot expect every cop to be like Bruce Willis in Die Hard. You can train a cop how to act in certain situations, but this is real life. We cannot expect every cop to act in exactly the way we wish in every situation. We should also expect the president to deal with the gun culture and shootings like an adult.

[brooklynite]

53. How many firemen didn't go into the WTC?

If it's the job you've signed up for and trained for, and especially if it's a job tasked with public protection, you do it.

[Doodley]

55. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Nobody knew the towers would collapse.

If you could go back in time, would you demand that all 343 firefighters who died, go inside the towers?

[brooklynite]

56. They New they were entering a hazardous area; they disnt Stop to question their orders

[Doodley]

57. In retrospect, would you have demanded that all 343 firefighters who died go in?

[HopeAgain]

54. Interestingly, Coral Springs cops rushed in.

BSO officers stayed out. The latest complaint against the two Sheriffs who hid behind the car had the complaint lodged against them by a Coral Springs policeman.

There are good police agencies and bad police agencies.

Israel must go.

[TomSlick]

58. Don't get me wrong.

I know the importance of training. Without training, a police officer will not know how to respond.

The problem is that no matter how well trained a police officer is, there is no way for the officer or anyone else know how s/he will respond to an active shooter situation until it happens. The officer may have every intention of doing his/her duty. The officer may sincerely believe that s/he will do his/her duty. However, until the officer hears semiautomatic weapon fire and people screaming s/he will not really know s/he will respond.

A police officer who runs toward semiautomatic gun fire armed with a pistol is a hero. S/he would be a hero because it is so contrary to the automatic response of self-preservation. Running into danger for people you do not know is extraordinary. Failing to be extraordinary is pretty ordinary.