First on Scene - Littleton

A

Ankeny

New member
Just saw a short interview on TV. The person being interviewed was Deputy Neil Gardner of the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office. As near as I could tell Deputy Gardner is regularly assigned to Columbine. He referred to it as, “…my high school”. That day, he was in a park next to the school when he received notification of the shooting via radio from the school janitor. He immediately responded in his patrol vehicle, a Chevy Blazer. As soon as he exited his Blazer, Eric Harris opened fire on him. According to Gardner, he was fired upon with 10-15 rounds from what appeared to him to be a very large assault weapon. Gardner took cover behind his vehicle then returned fire with “four or five shots” all of which missed.

Another Deputy, Paul Smoker, was doing traffic a short distance away and apparently arrived shortly after Gardner returned fire. Smoker also stated the suspect had a “large” firearm. Smoker’s actions were not mentioned and I don’t know if he fired or not.

During the course of the interview Deputy Gardner did mention that he has played the scenario over and over in his head wondering what he could have done differently. He also mentioned that he felt if he had taken the shooter out during the initial exchange of fire, lives might have been saved. I can’t imagine a more sickening feeling than having a clear shot and missing.

Anyway, thought you guys might like knowing that the rumors about armed security in the building, gun fire exchanged in the halls, etc. appear to be false.


Motorep:

I am in no way criticizing the deputies for missing. I support their efforts 110%. I couldn’t have done any better. I am just saying that to miss, then play the scenario over and over in your head must be very frustrating. I wish all of the folks who responded to the disaster at Columbine the very best.



[This message has been edited by Ankeny (edited April 26, 1999).]
 
As far as missing- I had an acquaintance in a large eastern city who got out of his patrol car at a 7-11, walked around the corner to be confronted by a large individual backing out with a hostage and a shotgun. Officer drew his issue revolver, ordered the bg to drop his weapon. bg pointed the shotgun at the officer, who had taken cover behind the brick corner of the 7-11, officer engaged the bg with all 6 rounds, first 5 hit the building 2" in front of his face, the steel post 3'in front of him,and a trash can.6th round was dead center, bg expired immediately. Officer was so traumatised he quit the force.
I've never been there one on one, I've only been shot at by much larger weapons by people that didn't like our airplanes in their AO, so I can only assume that the guys on scene did their best in a situation no one ever wants to encounter.
 
I too saw that interview, but I feel sickened in a different way. He seemed to play upon the already materialized fears surrounding the murders. He refered to "Assault rifles," "clips," "flak jackets," in a demeanor that relegated them to evil entities. The hype was present, and I believe it only helped to continue the anti-gun fear across the country. Big thumbs down from me to this officer of the law.
 
My first thought is: "OK, he missed, why didn't he reload and get back in the fight?"

Now, we DO NOT yet have a blow-by-blow and timeline that would say for sure what mistakes were made, what cowardice was exhibited. I personally have not been in a gunfight, but I did once face down four lunatics who'd been beating a guy to death who was now collapsed behind me, and two of the four had hammers. And I had no "professional stake" in the proceedings and was woefully under-armed. I managed to keep my cool, they didn't attack, therefore my mousegun remained unknown to the responding cops. Which in CA with no permit was all to the good.

If I was a CCW permitholder walking down the street and I heard large-scale gunfire going on in a school, I'd enter and try and deal with it unless cops were already on-scene. Even with nothing more than a snubbie, even solo. That's not bravado, it's fact. Might not be the safest thing in the world, but I prefer being able to face a mirror.

The early reports are that the cops on-scene did not exhibit that level of guts. I await further reports before casting judgement, but it don't look good. From what I hear, most of the murders happened in the library after which the killers self-destructed, so any engagement with cops outside of the building would have been prior to most of the murders.

Jim March
 
Jim:

While I have spending my time defending the LEO's involved, more and more information has become available. It is starting to look like I am going to be served up a plate full of crow. I sure hope the response wasn't as bad as it is starting to look.

This probably doesn't belong in this thread, but here's a quote from tonight's paper you might find interesting. (AP)"...a Marine Corps spokesman said today that 18 year old gunman Eric Harris had tried to enlist but was told by a recruiter visiting his home on April 15 that he had beed rejected for medical reasons. The Marines refused to discuss the medical reason, but Harris family friend, Victor Good, told The New Yourk Times that the teen had been taking psychiatric medicine - a potentially disqualifying factor - and seeing a psychiatrist.
 
I've been thinking about this more and more.

As I mentioned over in Legal, my father was a local environmental activist back in the '60s and early '70s. He was the key factor in shutting down several horrendous projects, such as building a dump right in the middle of one of the most scenic chunks of coast anywhere AND so close to the beach drainage into delicate kelp beds was guaranteed.

He shut this crap down by tracing the financial links between local politicians and the development company, and exposing them.

His main advice was "when public policy has a distinct odor of dead fish, FIND THE MONEY, it's there somewhere".

So what about this mess?

As I see it, the choice was:

1) "go in and risk screwing up the target ID and/or triggering further violence"

or

2) "do nothing, let the mess sorta settle itself".

Since cops cannot be sued for failure to protect from criminal deeds of a crook, choice #2 could NOT result in a lawsuit against the cops. Choice #1 COULD if they screwed up the target ID and shot the wrong kid...there's been numerous such cases, usually resulting in major bux laid out. Cops are responsible for the ammo they lay down, it's the ONLY way they can get sued for serious bux without them doing deliberate wrongdoing.

Does this make sense? I do NOT think this affected the individual cops on scene, but the desk jockeys and other types ol' Dick would call "no load pencil pushing geeks"...welll...hell YES it could be a factor.

Comments?

Jim March
 
Unfortunately, I think there are instances where tactical operations are screwed up by political concerns and the potential for litigation.

We had an incident here where a resident of the Wind River Reservation (Steve Swallow incident if you want to research it) went plumb goofey and commenced to gut shoot his entire family with a 25-06. He then left the scene.

Since this happened on “reservation” land, jurisdictional and command questions arose and while the LEOs were trying to cipher out what the hell to do and who was going to do it, one of the victims bled to death. The SO waiting on the BIA. BIA waiting on the FBI, etc. The bad part was that the dispatcher was aware that the shooter was gone and knew the area was secure. As near as I can recall, no one even attempted to verify what the dispatcher was passing along.

The whole incident went to court in the form of a civil suit. The court found the Sheriff’s Office guilty of gross neglect and pretty much chewed the SO out for letting a victim die in an area that posed no threat to personal safety. The judge also came right out and said the dispatcher was the only one who had her act together. BTW, that was our ex-sheriff, and ex-captains.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top