Charging in with a handgun would most likely be a deadly option. However, the shooter is engaging multiple targets. His eyes are all over the place. I would definitely make attempts to get close enough, to where my 15,17, or perhaps just eight rounds would certainly be as effective or more effective, than his first (or last) 15,17,or 8. Sitting it out, would be the last option on my mind.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Deputy assigned to Florida school 'never went in' during shooting, sheriff says
- Thread starter WVsig
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Charging in with a handgun would most likely be a deadly option. However, the shooter is engaging multiple targets. His eyes are all over the place. I would definitely make attempts to get close enough, to where my 15,17, or perhaps just eight rounds would certainly be as effective or more effective, than his first (or last) 15,17,or 8. Sitting it out, would be the last option on my mind.
I don’t blame the cop. He’s being held as a scapegoat.
***
I don’t fault the cop at all. It’s not his obligation to die.
I don't expect any legal action against this man. Yet, it is difficult to find the admirable part in taking a duty that involves the safety of children in a school, then remaining outside the school with his side arm listening to gunfire that was directed at children protected only with notebooks and t-shirts.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Also, from a legal perspective, the cop has no legal obligation to intervene, and this is case law that has been confirmed multiple times and confirmed again in 2005 in the SC case Castle Rock v Gonzales.
You are conflating two separate but similar concepts. The police, as a whole, do not have a duty to prevent any specific crime and cannot usually be held civilly liable for failing to do so. Individual police officers do have a sworn duty and usually a legal obligation to act when they are aware of crimes being committed.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Well, I do blame the cop. While they may not be legally obligated to stop any particular crime, apparently it was by training and policy that he was supposed actively pursue and engage the school shooter. That he opted to show up and seek shelter outside would appear to be a dereliction of duty. He was THE SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICER (yes, I am shouting). It was his duty and obligation to protect the kids. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...g/fl-florida-shooting-sro-20180222-story.html
Yeah, I got it. He has family too, but he should not have kept the job he wasn't willing to perform. SRO is a pretty cushy job 99.99% of the time. They don't write tickets. They don't go on domestic disturbance calls. They don't chase bank robbers. They don't raid crack houses. When they are the SRO, their primary job is the protection of students and employees at the educational facility(ies) they are paid to protect. It isn't sheltering outside of the facility and gabbing on the radio.
Somebody mentioned him being an old cop. He was only 54 years of age. He had been on the job for 32 years, the last 9 of which were as an SRO. He was experienced, but not particularly old.
Yeah, I got it. He has family too, but he should not have kept the job he wasn't willing to perform. SRO is a pretty cushy job 99.99% of the time. They don't write tickets. They don't go on domestic disturbance calls. They don't chase bank robbers. They don't raid crack houses. When they are the SRO, their primary job is the protection of students and employees at the educational facility(ies) they are paid to protect. It isn't sheltering outside of the facility and gabbing on the radio.
Somebody mentioned him being an old cop. He was only 54 years of age. He had been on the job for 32 years, the last 9 of which were as an SRO. He was experienced, but not particularly old.
Last edited:
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Sorry, but you are incorrect. The SRO was wrong, both legally and morally. Since Columbine, the protocol in active shooter situations is for the first responder(s) to make immediate entry and to engage the shooter. It doesn't matter if he has a family -- he had a job to do, a duty to perform, and he failed to perform. Even police officers on LEO forums are calling him a POS for not going in.MachinegunTony said:I don’t blame the cop. He’s being held as a scapegoat.
The cop wasn’t wrong morally to set up a defensive situation and wait. I’m sure this cop had a family, too
Cops aren’t paid to die, and a rifle verus handgun situation is a bad uneven situation, as evidenced by the cop that was killed on video by Micah Johnson. I don’t have to explain to this group why in a pistol versus magazined rifle fight, the rifle will have a huge advantage.
He is not being made a scapegoat. He didn't do his job. That's why he was suspended. As for the rifle vs. handgun -- he didn't know what the shooter was armed with -- and the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The shooter could have been armed with an M2 machine gun and a rocket launcher -- it was still the SRO's duty to enter and engage.
I don’t blame the cop. He’s being held as a scapegoat.
The cop wasn’t wrong morally to set up a defensive situation and wait. I’m sure this cop had a family, too
Cops aren’t paid to die, and a rifle verus handgun situation is a bad uneven situation, as evidenced by the cop that was killed on video by Micah Johnson. I don’t have to explain to this group why in a pistol versus magazined rifle fight, the rifle will have a huge advantage.
Anyone who thinks the cop should have charged in with his handgun only needs to watch this video. https://youtu.be/murLU0us4eY
Also, from a legal perspective, the cop has no legal obligation to intervene, and this is case law that has been confirmed multiple times and confirmed again in 2005 in the SC case Castle Rock v Gonzales.
It’s a highly publicized and widely held myth that cops have to pull you from a burning car or save you in a shootout. The inaction might result in heavy political pressure afterwards, but that’s a different perspective.
I don’t fault the cop at all. It’s not his obligation to die.
I totally disagree, here is a link to info about the Texas Tower shooter from back in 1966, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
Double Naught Spy
New member
He is not being made a scapegoat. He didn't do his job. That's why he was suspended. As for the rifle vs. handgun -- he didn't know what the shooter was armed with -- and the bottom line is that it doesn't matter. The shooter could have been armed with an M2 machine gun and a rocket launcher -- it was still the SRO's duty to enter and engage.
Right, and his SRO training takes into account that the active shooter may be more heavily armed, armored, etc. I don't know why people think that just because somebody has a bigger gun that they will necessarily win the fight. Ignorance?
TruthTellers
New member
I'm reading posts here that say the cop isn't obligated to die... true, he's not obligated to die, he's obligated "to protect and serve."
Standing outside and not engaging the shooter is failure to follow protocol (funny how so many law enforcement agencies failed protocol with Cruz) and it cost lives. Even if the officer doesn't kill the suspect, he can slow him down or draw his fire away from students/faculty.
That's the reason why those engagement protocols are in place, to minimize loss of life. Standing outside doesn't minimize anything other than the officer's masculinity.
Also, rifle vs pistol isn't an advantage for officers, but it's better than rifle vs pencils and textbooks. If anyone here remembers an off duty cop working security at an art show in Texas killed two guys with AK's, who were going to shoot up the art show because they had pictures depicting a certain religious figure, with his pistol and he was unscathed.
The biggest issue here, as we saw in Pulse in 2016, is when mass shooters are active, the police are standing down when the protocols are clear that you engage.
If police are going to stand down, then there's no excuse to say that concealed carriers would make mass shootings worse because, given the last few shootings, an armed non-LEO in the building would have stopped these shootings faster than police would have.
After the past few years, local and federal law enforcement has lost all credibility and I've lost all faith in them. I'm tired of their failures that lead to unnecessary loss of life, I'm tired of seeing police chiefs with 250k salaries testifying that permitless carry endangers law officers when it's obvious law officers endanger non-LEO's, I'm tired of their legal defense teams being paid by taxpayers... I want all pensions, salaries, and funding for LEO, local and federal, cut in half and have that money diverted to re-opening mental hospitals.
Standing outside and not engaging the shooter is failure to follow protocol (funny how so many law enforcement agencies failed protocol with Cruz) and it cost lives. Even if the officer doesn't kill the suspect, he can slow him down or draw his fire away from students/faculty.
That's the reason why those engagement protocols are in place, to minimize loss of life. Standing outside doesn't minimize anything other than the officer's masculinity.
Also, rifle vs pistol isn't an advantage for officers, but it's better than rifle vs pencils and textbooks. If anyone here remembers an off duty cop working security at an art show in Texas killed two guys with AK's, who were going to shoot up the art show because they had pictures depicting a certain religious figure, with his pistol and he was unscathed.
The biggest issue here, as we saw in Pulse in 2016, is when mass shooters are active, the police are standing down when the protocols are clear that you engage.
If police are going to stand down, then there's no excuse to say that concealed carriers would make mass shootings worse because, given the last few shootings, an armed non-LEO in the building would have stopped these shootings faster than police would have.
After the past few years, local and federal law enforcement has lost all credibility and I've lost all faith in them. I'm tired of their failures that lead to unnecessary loss of life, I'm tired of seeing police chiefs with 250k salaries testifying that permitless carry endangers law officers when it's obvious law officers endanger non-LEO's, I'm tired of their legal defense teams being paid by taxpayers... I want all pensions, salaries, and funding for LEO, local and federal, cut in half and have that money diverted to re-opening mental hospitals.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Is there more to this discussion that just complaining? The perceived personal failure of the SRO will be investigated.
Many departments train for active and quick entry. Why he didn't even if trained is something we can't parse now? People freeze - it's a built in response.
Let's wind this down with facts rather than just yelling. It's terrible, I grant you that.
Many departments train for active and quick entry. Why he didn't even if trained is something we can't parse now? People freeze - it's a built in response.
Let's wind this down with facts rather than just yelling. It's terrible, I grant you that.
Machineguntony
New member
There is a difference between standard operating procedure, which is an administrative concern, and the case law.
The jurisprudence is quite clear, both in common law and case law, and recently reaffirmed in 2005, that the police have no duty to rescue or intervene, so long as they did not create or contribute to the circumstance that required rescuing, even if there is a crime happening right in front of their eyes.
Administratively and politically though, I’m not saying that the cop won’t get fired or that he won’t be the scorn of society. Departments often create standard operating procedures that dictate action, but that’s an administrative penalty if theres a violation of the SOP.
As to whether it is morally right or wrong to intervene, I’ll leave that up to you guys to debate further.
The jurisprudence is quite clear, both in common law and case law, and recently reaffirmed in 2005, that the police have no duty to rescue or intervene, so long as they did not create or contribute to the circumstance that required rescuing, even if there is a crime happening right in front of their eyes.
Administratively and politically though, I’m not saying that the cop won’t get fired or that he won’t be the scorn of society. Departments often create standard operating procedures that dictate action, but that’s an administrative penalty if theres a violation of the SOP.
As to whether it is morally right or wrong to intervene, I’ll leave that up to you guys to debate further.
I should not get into this but cannot help self
too much we do NOT know
Twice (in a combat zone) I was lone when the bullets were flying.... I was not sure of the inside of the area, cover , how many shooters, how many non combatants, my training required I seek info, seek back up, asses the situation, then ACT...which at the time I did but the act of intel gather took me some time and a LOT of indecision cuz help (squad radio) was minuets out
Again... just cowering and not acting, if true, is shameful... BUT I can create a lot of scenarios in my mind where I fully understand the time lag to engage or enter
too much we do NOT know
Twice (in a combat zone) I was lone when the bullets were flying.... I was not sure of the inside of the area, cover , how many shooters, how many non combatants, my training required I seek info, seek back up, asses the situation, then ACT...which at the time I did but the act of intel gather took me some time and a LOT of indecision cuz help (squad radio) was minuets out
Again... just cowering and not acting, if true, is shameful... BUT I can create a lot of scenarios in my mind where I fully understand the time lag to engage or enter
Fredvon4 said:I should not get into this but cannot help self
too much we do NOT know
Twice (in a combat zone) I was lone when the bullets were flying.... I was not sure of the inside of the area, cover , how many shooters, how many non combatants, my training required I seek info, seek back up, asses the situation, then ACT...which at the time I did but the act of intel gather took me some time and a LOT of indecision cuz help (squad radio) was minuets out
Again... just cowering and not acting, if true, is shameful... BUT I can create a lot of scenarios in my mind where I fully understand the time lag to engage or enter
I agree with all of that.
When I first read about the SRO, my reflex was contempt. I don't know enough to condemn his behavior, but my contempt was deep and instant. Contemplating what he heard while he waited didn't help.
It is uncomfortable to ponder the short distance between depravity and excellence in any of us. A momentary failure to conquer a rational fear can produce tragic inaction in anyone, even in a good person.
This isn't a defense or a condemnation of the SRO.
Is everyone posting here about the cop being a coward able to step into his shoes and run into the building? Have all here who called the cop a coward been in the situation he was in?
I will not stand up for the cop, but I do not know the full circumstances as to why he did not react and at least get into the school and access the situation.
I'm assuming most here can tell the difference between the rapid fire sound from a AR vs, a handgun round. There is a distinct difference. At least to me there is.
When I was very young and very stupid and in the service, there were times I headed into a firefight cause I knew I could not be killed; that is how foolish we were when we were young. And that was in a war in the jungles of 'Nam (even if never a declared war) .
After college, I went to work for the US government, I ended up after 30 years serving in two different agencies and can say I never had to run into a building where there was active gunfire; I was lucky, but it was not unusual.
However, in that 30 years, there were many times I had to enter a location; with other agents, expecting to be shot at and sometimes we were, most times, we were not. (Surprising how people don't shoot at people who are already pointing guns at them and ready to use them if necessary.)
The few times we were in situations where people started to shoot at us we naturally fired back more out of self-preservation than because we were big, bad and brave.
I had a debate earlier with a friend in regard to arming teachers or others in the school and how worthless he said that would be considering a trained cop was afraid to enter the building. I explained there needs to be a complete different mind set to enter a building with an active shooter vs. being in a building when the active shooter starts shooting.
In the first scenario, to enter the building is a true act of heroism, in the second it is pure self-preservation and people will do more to save themselves than to save others. That is a fact of life. So,if this same cop, or another cop, or a teacher, janitor, principal, etc., were in a school and a nut comes in unloading a rifle, pistol, shotgun, whatever at them, they are more likely to shoot back then likely to run into the building; that is just life.
So before we all jump on board and call this cop a coward, make sure you know what you would do under the same circumstances. Before I would personally make a decision I would want more information in regard to the entire event.
I will not stand up for the cop, but I do not know the full circumstances as to why he did not react and at least get into the school and access the situation.
I'm assuming most here can tell the difference between the rapid fire sound from a AR vs, a handgun round. There is a distinct difference. At least to me there is.
When I was very young and very stupid and in the service, there were times I headed into a firefight cause I knew I could not be killed; that is how foolish we were when we were young. And that was in a war in the jungles of 'Nam (even if never a declared war) .
After college, I went to work for the US government, I ended up after 30 years serving in two different agencies and can say I never had to run into a building where there was active gunfire; I was lucky, but it was not unusual.
However, in that 30 years, there were many times I had to enter a location; with other agents, expecting to be shot at and sometimes we were, most times, we were not. (Surprising how people don't shoot at people who are already pointing guns at them and ready to use them if necessary.)
The few times we were in situations where people started to shoot at us we naturally fired back more out of self-preservation than because we were big, bad and brave.
I had a debate earlier with a friend in regard to arming teachers or others in the school and how worthless he said that would be considering a trained cop was afraid to enter the building. I explained there needs to be a complete different mind set to enter a building with an active shooter vs. being in a building when the active shooter starts shooting.
In the first scenario, to enter the building is a true act of heroism, in the second it is pure self-preservation and people will do more to save themselves than to save others. That is a fact of life. So,if this same cop, or another cop, or a teacher, janitor, principal, etc., were in a school and a nut comes in unloading a rifle, pistol, shotgun, whatever at them, they are more likely to shoot back then likely to run into the building; that is just life.
So before we all jump on board and call this cop a coward, make sure you know what you would do under the same circumstances. Before I would personally make a decision I would want more information in regard to the entire event.
Aguila Blanca
Staff
I have not been in that exact situation but I have been under fire -- in Vietnam. And I freely confess that I was scared spitless. However, I was in a sandbag bunker that was under attack, so I didn't have the option of waiting outside. Nonetheless, I understand that gunfire engenders fear.RETG said:Is everyone posting here about the cop being a coward able to step into his shoes and run into the building? Have all here who called the cop a coward been in the situation he was in?
That said -- he put on his uniform and went to work that morning. Responding, entering, and engaging the shooter was his job -- his duty. If it were a military situation, I have no doubt that he'd be facing a court martial for dereliction of duty. It's like deciding to get a carry permit. Newbies are advised to consider whether or not they could actually pull the trigger if the situation arose. If they can't answer "Yes," they shouldn't carry. In this case, if the guy wasn't prepared to do his duty, he should not have taken the SRO position.
Respectfully, I don't have to know what I would have done under the same circumstances to call the guy a coward. I don't want to be a police officer, I have never wanted to be a police officer, so there's no way I would ever be in his situation. That doesn't change the facts: He WAS the point man. It WAS his job to enter and to engage. He didn't do it. A Coral Springs officer who was in the first wave to enter said they (the Coral Springs officers) ran right past the guy in the parking lot, and he didn't even come in after them to provide backup.
I can understand the possibility of unexpectedly freezing under fire, but as I understand the reports, he was not under fire and made a choice while in a safe location not to put himself in harm's way. I'm not sure that is the same. As others have said more eloquently, he took the job and drew paychecks for, among other things, being the person on site if something like this happened. It was part of his duty, part of his job description, and he didn't do it. I can't respect that, personally.
It's up to 3 or 4 cowards now...all from the Sheriff's office.
apparently this deputy was not the only one sitting on his ass outside. the next 3 officers sat outside as well. responding officers from another city were the first ones to go in, while Israels 3-4 deputies all sat outside.
spacemanspiff
New member
Its difficult to really put into perspective. Did the SRO know the location of the shooter? How close in proximity was he to the shots being fired? Was there anyone relaying information to him on radio?
I think if we know what information the SRO had we would have a better idea of what he was faced with.
In the end though, the answer will be the same: Having an armed person on school premises is NOT a guarantee that an active shooter is going to be stopped.
That also brings up other questions. Did the shooter know that the school had an armed SRO? Was he expecting to have to fend off a defender?
I think if we know what information the SRO had we would have a better idea of what he was faced with.
In the end though, the answer will be the same: Having an armed person on school premises is NOT a guarantee that an active shooter is going to be stopped.
That also brings up other questions. Did the shooter know that the school had an armed SRO? Was he expecting to have to fend off a defender?
Psychedelic Bang
New member
It is very unlikely he was trained to wait outside.
It looks very much like you are right, and I was wrong. I didn't know - my background is not law enforcement by any stretch of the imagination.
I still believe that the Sherriff himself should resign.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.