Armed Cop was at School: didn't go in

[Guest]

I've seen a variety of comments all to the effect of, "He should've gone in and killed the guy." This strikes me as as ra-ra nonsense. It seem more accurate to say he should've gone in and tried to kill the guy. Even if he had the tactical advantage, this a significant chance the officer would've been shot and possibly killed. That's the job he signed up for and we count on him to have the courage to risk his life in these rare situations, but it's also understandable when people's courage fails them.

It's not quite the same thing, but I train people to respond to aggressive, dangerous situations, and the people who are able to jump in and those who waiver are rather diverse on both sides. It's hard to predict who will be who in advance. I've seen situations where the biggest, burliest men you ever saw freeze and situations where clearly physically overwhelmed, tiny women jump right in.

We all have different underlying brain architecture and life experiences that lead us up to these points.

Agreed, EA. To a point.

Ground forces of the US Military (US Army and Marines) are trained to move aggressively against a threat - not in "John Wayne shoot'em up style", but taking advantage of cover and concealment as one advances. Situational awareness is paramount. In the terms used in your description, the brain circuitry gets re-wired through repetition, and with the help of adrenaline, until such behavior becomes second nature. While police generally do not get the rigorous training one finds in the military, they are still trained, armed and have a code of conduct.

So let me guess that any former ground force military students in your classes tend to be among those who take the initiative.

The point is that the sworn officer in this case had a duty to do what he could. He was armed. The kids being slaughtered in the classrooms were not. He had the element of surprise should he have chosen to use it. The kids in the classrooms did not.

I will not sit here and claim that, in the same situation, I would have gone in and shot the guy. But I will tell you that if it was my sworn duty to protect the kids in the classroom, and especially if the kids had been the children of my friends and neighbors, as they were in his case, I sure as hell would have tried.

Any other ground force vets on the board, especially if they have children, will tell you the same - 100%.

One more advantage to society of a well regulated militia as set forth in the Constitution.

[_Kevin Graham]

I believe our cops have a pretty good track record on these types of shootings.

Really? How many school shootings were prevented by armed cops on duty? This year they're batting .000.

But for the record you don't believe we should have armed security for our schools?

I don't believe there is any evidence to support the argument they'd prevent a shooting from happening. This school has an armed guard and the shooter likely knew that. But he went in anyway. The element of surprise is a powerful thing.

Not to mention the brave teachers that confront these shooter without weapons...the guy froze, he obviously should not have been in that position, and his training needs to be evaluated in my opinion.

This is where you go off the rails, because there is no such a thing as training for this. No one really knows how they're going to respond to life threatening situations until they actually happen.

According to many on the board, they said or implied, I was wrong on the bump stock vs a semi auto weapon... including you I believe...so by default, doesn't that give you and the others more experience than me at shooting at other humans. Your logic amazes me Kevin.

What are you talking about? I only asked you why you kept asking questions about bump stock when it was information that was already well known and easily obtained by anyone who has paid any amount of attention. You were wrong about bump stock to the extent that you kept implying it wasn't a good choice for gun enthusiasts. Obviously, you were wrong because the sale of bump stocks skyrocketed after the Law Vegas shooting. The video I provided proved that the shooter, who complained about accuracy, was only speaking of accuracy relative to other weapons. He still unloaded an entire magazine into a human shaped target from 50 ft away. None of the bullet holes came even close to missing the target.

The cop swore an oath, and he will have to live with his decision, and he had a duty to protect these children and while I know I will be slammed for saying this, but he was a coward. He will have to live with that, and it is unfortunate for everyone he did not do his job.

Again, how many times in your life have you faced an armed assailant? You act like you have so much experience successfully killing armed humans. I've only been faced with a gun once, and that was in Brazil. I absolutely froze up. In fact, it was so surreal that I felt like something in my body chemistry just flipped a switch and I became perfectly numb. When he fired the shot I thought for sure I was hit because of the short range. I wasn't armed, I was sitting on a couch and just went limp. For months, I replayed the scenario in my head probably a million times, telling myself how I could have lunged at the shooter (who was standing just 3 feet away) and easily disarmed him. But that would require me knowing he was about to burst into the office as he did. The element of surprise is typically all one needs to win these situations, and the shooters are always going to have that advantage.

An armed guard at school is just one person walking around a huge facility. It will only mean he's likely the first one to die or the shooting plan will be designed to attack when he's on the other side of the building. Or if he is in view he can be taken out with a rifle from 100 ft away by a shooter sitting in his car. Or the shooter can just walk right up to the school firing away like an insane person and the guard is likely to freak out because of the element of surprise. Either way there is just no evidence armed guards or teachers prevent mass shootings. Because most of these people expect to die in the process anyway.

[_Fence Sitter]

In every high school there are boys who are bigger and stronger than the majority, if not all of the teachers at that HS, boys who will know which teachers are carrying guns.

So now we place more guns within reach of those who might use them.

What a stupid idea, giving teachers guns.

[_Jersey Girl]

what percentage of teachers and cops are prepared for an asymmetric fight where the shooter has body armor and unlimited rounds? Not to mention the element of surprise, a plan, and all-in on the bet.

I always thought that a lone cop is supposed to get backup before confronting a suspect. What are the rules?

Here's a piece (CNN) on police response to active shooter post-Columbine. What was learned from Columbine.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/flori ... index.html

[_Paracelsus]

No one really knows how they're going to respond to life threatening situations until they actually happen.

+3
--- Jean-Paul Sartre
--- Albert Camus
--- me, if I am going for...

[_Jersey Girl]

I've thought about this a good long while and no matter how I look at it, I am still of two minds and I have more questions than answers.

Random thoughts...

One officer assigned to a large campus of 3K students. That doesn't sound like enough coverage to begin with.

We know the officer moved from one building to the building where the event was taking place. How did he know what was taking place? Did he hear shots?

If he heard shots, did he call for back up on his way from building to building?

If he called for back up, what instructions were given to him? Was he told to position himself and wait for back up?

Adrenalin makes you do one of two things. Flight or fight. Is it reasonable or even advisable to expect one officer to take on an assailant equipped with an AR15 while students are rushing through hallways, into and out of classrooms? Would that have made the students any more safe?

Why did the Sherrif talk about how he watched the video of the officer positioned outside of the building for 4 minutes without telling us if the officer called for back up?

Why didn't he tell us what the officer did AFTER the 4 minutes?

Our hearts want the officer to rush in and DO SOMETHING. We want him to DO HIS JOB. We want him to SAVE THOSE KIDS!!

Do we know if he called for back up?
Do we know if he was instructed to wait for back up?
Do we know WHEN back up arrived?
Was it after the 4 minutes were up?
What action did the lone officer take after those 4 minutes?

And what happened with that fire alarm? Was there a response by the fire station?

There is too much that we don't know. I want the details before I judge this. I haven't got those details yet.

[_EAllusion]

Adrenalin makes you do one of two things. Flight or fight.

Or Freeze.

[_Jersey Girl]

Adrenalin makes you do one of two things. Flight or fight.

Or Freeze.

Truth. I do think that freezing is a form of flight.

[_Jersey Girl]

What's you guys take on the Sheriff's account? Did anyone here see that he or anyone else supplied the information that I called into question? I haven't see it myself.

[_Markk]

I've thought about this a good long while and no matter how I look at it, I am still of two minds and I have more questions than answers.

Random thoughts...

One officer assigned to a large campus of 3K students. That doesn't sound like enough coverage to begin with.

We know the officer moved from one building to the building where the event was taking place. How did he know what was taking place? Did he hear shots?

If he heard shots, did he call for back up on his way from building to building?

If he called for back up, what instructions were given to him? Was he told to position himself and wait for back up?

Adrenalin makes you do one of two things. Flight or fight. Is it reasonable or even advisable to expect one officer to take on an assailant equipped with an AR15 while students are rushing through hallways, into and out of classrooms? Would that have made the students any more safe?

Why did the Sherrif talk about how he watched the video of the officer positioned outside of the building for 4 minutes without telling us if the officer called for back up?

Why didn't he tell us what the officer did AFTER the 4 minutes?

Our hearts want the officer to rush in and DO SOMETHING. We want him to DO HIS JOB. We want him to SAVE THOSE KIDS!!

Do we know if he called for back up?
Do we know if he was instructed to wait for back up?
Do we know WHEN back up arrived?
Was it after the 4 minutes were up?
What action did the lone officer take after those 4 minutes?

And what happened with that fire alarm? Was there a response by the fire station?

There is too much that we don't know. I want the details before I judge this. I haven't got those details yet.

If he did not call for back up and report the situation, that just adds to his failure, if he did not have a radio on his person that is equally bad. The Sheriff made it clear he did not do his job, and that waiting for back up was not an option.

My guess is 911 was flooded in seconds after it started by most every teacher and student that had a chance and where with in to use their phones.