+1 Breacher and saying that a worse outcome would have became a training scenario is not correct. ALL critical incidents should become training scenarios regardless of outcome. Nothing is done perfectly because everyone won't agree with particular tactics. That is why you review all of these incidents because something can always be done better or worse. Just my .02.
Survival. Lessons learned.
- Thread starter Capt. Charlie
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
Sir William said
Caught no dispatch? Where is the rule saying one officer cannot roll up and assist another officer even though the assisting officer was not callled to the scene?
No insubordination. There was no superior/higher ranking officer issuing commands.
The officer did not endanger the children. The children were endangered by the bad guys.
john in jax said,
I don't think she rushed in to a gun fight, but I also didn't get the impression she went into the garage for survallience. In fact , the officer stated that she was trying to get the kids.
The trainee partner should have moved to a point to be able to watch his partner and to could provide help if needed, but he was a trainee and his training officer apparently did not instruct him on how he was to proceed.
Capt Charlie said,
I don't see how or why she should have had backup while going into the garage. She apparently did not inform her fellow officers of her intent and what she was doing was contrary to what the others were doing, pulling back. Of the four officers, the two first responders were elsewhere on the property. So they were not in a position to provide back to their fellow officer who failed to inform them of her intentions, plans, etc. The training officer might have been available as backup, but we don't know if he was aware of her actions or not.
---
While it can be debated as to whether she was brave, stupid, or whatever, she did get the job done. However, under what premise should she have acted in the manner she did concerning trying to get to the kids? What she did sounds like what is now called an 'active shooter response.' Yes, there was no active shooting before she entered the garage. However in active shooter situations, people in and around the shooter are seen as being in extremely dangerous circumstances and current thinking is that officers should charge in and neutralize the threat before the threat has a chance to do more harm. This strategy came out of the Columbine situation. So while there were not shots before the officer entered, she may have entered because the kids were in a life threatening situation.
Active shooter response is undoubtedly one of the most dangerous things an officer may have t perform as because in their attempt to neutralize the shooter(s), they end up needing to close the distance to the shooter which puts the officers in more and more danger as they approach.
In our local public school system that comprises about a dozen schools, we have 2 officers trained in active shooter scenarios. They sometimes roam between schools individually or hole up in a given school individually for the day. What is interesting is that they receive more days of professional training each year than the SWAT officers receive. The active shooter training they receive is based on their situation being that of a sole responder with no immediate backup present. The only have themselves on which to rely, at least for the first few minutes. To perform their job properly, it appears to be quite stupid and tactically unsound, charging into a gun fight unassisted with the plan of closing the distance to the threat and neutralizing the threat before the threat and shoot more people or shoot the responding officer. In terms of officer safety, being an active shooter responder is a very bad idea. That is why they receive so much training so as to improve their effectiveness against the bad guy(s) and to improve the odds of their survival and a very dangerous job.
Caught no dispatch? Where is the rule saying one officer cannot roll up and assist another officer even though the assisting officer was not callled to the scene?
No insubordination. There was no superior/higher ranking officer issuing commands.
The officer did not endanger the children. The children were endangered by the bad guys.
john in jax said,
I don't think she rushed in to a gun fight, but I also didn't get the impression she went into the garage for survallience. In fact , the officer stated that she was trying to get the kids.
The trainee partner should have moved to a point to be able to watch his partner and to could provide help if needed, but he was a trainee and his training officer apparently did not instruct him on how he was to proceed.
Capt Charlie said,
I don't see how or why she should have had backup while going into the garage. She apparently did not inform her fellow officers of her intent and what she was doing was contrary to what the others were doing, pulling back. Of the four officers, the two first responders were elsewhere on the property. So they were not in a position to provide back to their fellow officer who failed to inform them of her intentions, plans, etc. The training officer might have been available as backup, but we don't know if he was aware of her actions or not.
---
While it can be debated as to whether she was brave, stupid, or whatever, she did get the job done. However, under what premise should she have acted in the manner she did concerning trying to get to the kids? What she did sounds like what is now called an 'active shooter response.' Yes, there was no active shooting before she entered the garage. However in active shooter situations, people in and around the shooter are seen as being in extremely dangerous circumstances and current thinking is that officers should charge in and neutralize the threat before the threat has a chance to do more harm. This strategy came out of the Columbine situation. So while there were not shots before the officer entered, she may have entered because the kids were in a life threatening situation.
Active shooter response is undoubtedly one of the most dangerous things an officer may have t perform as because in their attempt to neutralize the shooter(s), they end up needing to close the distance to the shooter which puts the officers in more and more danger as they approach.
In our local public school system that comprises about a dozen schools, we have 2 officers trained in active shooter scenarios. They sometimes roam between schools individually or hole up in a given school individually for the day. What is interesting is that they receive more days of professional training each year than the SWAT officers receive. The active shooter training they receive is based on their situation being that of a sole responder with no immediate backup present. The only have themselves on which to rely, at least for the first few minutes. To perform their job properly, it appears to be quite stupid and tactically unsound, charging into a gun fight unassisted with the plan of closing the distance to the threat and neutralizing the threat before the threat and shoot more people or shoot the responding officer. In terms of officer safety, being an active shooter responder is a very bad idea. That is why they receive so much training so as to improve their effectiveness against the bad guy(s) and to improve the odds of their survival and a very dangerous job.
thats the attitude to keep in any situation.......
I was watching a fight last night between the UFC Welterweight champion and the challenger....
The champion got kneed in the groin but the ref didnt see it, he looked to the ref and got caught with a fist.... It looked like it was pretty much over for the champion. Next thing you know the champion has escaped what looked like sure submission and loss. Within minutes he reversed the situation and made the challenger tap out and came back form what looked like a loss. Listening to him speak you could tell he had just such an attitude.
You have to have that attitude.....
thats why the champ still has his belt
and the officer still has her life and the bad guys dont have squat.......
I feel sorry for any bad guys this lady comes up against. with an attitude like that its probably over before the car doors open.
As far as her actions she was thinking about the kids and not herself. Thats the difference between a law enforcment officer and a law enforcment officer who is a bearuacrat....
sometimes its required to go outside the box.....an area the bureacrats and naysayers dont venture outside of.