Let's compare

R

RickG30

New member
My guess is that the frontline SWAT guys were held back by the commanders. But lets compare the school to a building on fire that has several propane tanks and oxygen cylinders inside. People are known to be trapped and at least one explosion has been heard from somewhere in the building. Screams can be heard and people are hanging signs out the window saying the fire is getting closer. Will the firemen hang back?
I say no. I think they would enter quickly and not retreat until the building is colasping around them. I truly admire the police, firemen, and military but I know unrealistic policy from above can hamper frontline operations. I hope those that wanted to go in and confront the gunmen and weren't allowed to don't suffer emotional distress .

Rick
 
And yet with Waco or Ruby Ridge, some think that they were too gung-ho! Some people will never be satisfied.

The #1 priority of any SWAT team is never to lose any hostages, with not losing team mates being a close second. They've achieved that. A large school full of people, multiple hostiles reported, and explosions being heard? I'm GLAD they took it slow and easy.

Let's get off of the SWAT's back now. They didn't do anything wrong.
 
If the police had accurate information--that two heavily armed boys were killing fellow students at random--they probably should have moved in more quickly. They should have discounted negotiation as a way to resolve the situation if they knew that the gunmen were not "holding hostages" per se.

As for the SWAT team not losing any hostages, I am not so sure. Were the boys still shooting when they arrived? If so, quick action on their part may have been the appropriate response.

The thing that bothers me most about this whole situation is the possibility that some of the dead might be alive had they received medical attention in time. The police did not remove any bodies for a whole day--they stated that they were wary of booby traps (understandably) and were fearful of approaching the bodies. There may be a chilling possibility that some wounded people died while the entry team determined if it was safe to get to them.

I know that the SWAT guys acted honorably throughout the situation, but we don't yet know the whole story behind this tragedy and the police response. I am sure we get more information in the days ahead that will fuel our Monday-morning quarterbacking.
 
Even with dynamic entry, the size and scope is way off of most any small to middle sized town SWAT can handle quickly. The place is just too big, had too many innocent people, and too many booby traps.

Hindsight, being 20/20, they SHOULD have moved quicker. There were only two gunmen, and both killed themselves. But at the time, I highly doubt they knew that. Otherwise, I'm sure they would have. Besides, if they moved too quick, more lives might have been lost by accidentally setting off booby traps.

There's a saying about room-clearing, "Quick is slow, slow is quick. Speed through efficiency."

[This message has been edited by SB (edited April 25, 1999).]
 
Some think they were too gung-ho at Waco and Ruby Ridge? And here I thought we ALL thought they were too gung-ho. Further, there's a large difference between the feds provoking a stand-off, and a couple of murderers attacking a school.

Not a flame, but I had to say something here.

My take is, if you volunteer to be a cop, then further volunteer to be in swat, then you had better be ready to volunteer to go into dangerous situations. I have no doubt the swat commanders held them men back, but if swat isn't for this situation, what are they for? On other threads I have read the opinion of some that a swat entry could have caused more casualties, which is true. It is also true that a swat entry could have reduced casualties.

------------------
"The only good bureaucrat is one with pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it's goodbye to the Bill of Rights." H.L. Mencken


[This message has been edited by Ipecac (edited April 26, 1999).]
 
I agree that the risk is just part of the job in being a LEO.

But one has to also appreciate the terrible dilemma they were faced with. SWAT could have done one of two things: Charge right in, Rambo styled and try to get the kids out as quickly as possible, or follow procedures and proceed cautiously. The first choice is extremely risky. Given the size of the school itself, they probably didn't have eyes and ears beyond what they can gather from the outside. That means they don't know for sure how many more hostiles were still inside. Furthermore, the school was filled with literally hundreds of potential hostages. To appreciate what SWAT was up against, it's like entering a completely dark room with no windows, no lights, with twelve members of your family inside, and an unknown number of well-armed enemies who have already open fired and had nothing to lose if killed a few more. Oh, and don't forget the booby traps.

Truth is, this was a lose-lose situation for SWAT, as it often is. By approaching the school cautiously, no doubt they risked losing some wounded. And no doubt that this is going to cause some public uproar because some will perceive that they were not moving fast enough to save them. But one must also realize that it's either that, or face an extremely good chance of losing far more people by moving too quicky and hastily. In short, they didn't really have a choice.

Even if my own kids were in there, I would not have charged in. That's because I know doing so would actually decrease their chances of surviving. There are times when one should think with their emotions. This is not one of them.

[This message has been edited by SB (edited April 26, 1999).]
 
SB, I appreciate their dilemma, but, to be fair, I don't think anyone was desirous of "Rambo styled" tactics. Using what intel swat had it certainly would have been possible to use proper procedures for room clearing, and to have possibly stopped these killers in their tracks. Of course it would have been risky. It also might have succeeded.

Further, I do not believe that this was a hostage situation. To my knowledge, and I may be misinformed on this point, the shooting was still going on when the police arrived. This was a murder in progress, not a hostage negotiation. Was it a lose-lose situation? Of course, no matter what the police did someone would complain, even if they had neatly killed both perps with a single shot each.

All I know is, if I had been trapped inside, I would have wanted, and expected some form of help to arrive. I've often told non-shooters that they must defend themselves, as the police will only arrive too late to help. I take no joy in being right about that this time.

I don't know who's right, SB, I just hope the LE community studies this instance very carefully in order to learn from it.
 
Four hours waiting to go into a school? Come on people someone didn't have it "all in one sack!" Also waiting 32 hours to tell parents their children were dead? Next election in Littleton should be interesting.
 
Ipecac:

Sorry for what may seem like beating a dead horse, but even if it was a murder in progress, and the police intervened, you don't think they will take hostages to keep the police away?

You know what? I just realized that we're seeing this from different angles. According to your last post, you said, "All I know is that if I had been trapped inside." You placed yourself inside the building, while my perspective was from the outside, with my kids inside that school. Very different perspectives. But it certainly explains a few things. Anyway, I fully agree with your other points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top