Four deputies refuse to make entry into school

[Lohman446]

Can we judge the actions of the other four the same as Peterson's? Look Peterson was the first on scene, had an active ongoing shooter, and basically fled the building. His actions are not defensible.

However they are not the same actions as the responding deputies. We cannot judge the two as inseparable.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

Can we judge the actions of the other four the same as Peterson's? Look Peterson was the first on scene, had an active ongoing shooter, and basically fled the building. His actions are not defensible.

However they are not the same actions as the responding deputies. We cannot judge the two as inseparable.

It was not known that the shooter had departed the area of operations until well after the purported stand-down order at time line +10:00. If the other deputies arrived prior to the order to stand down, the belief was that there was an active shooter, and they should have entered and attempted to engage.

[Double Naught Spy]

Cops waiting is why the École Polytechnique murders happened in Montreal. Reports at the time said the Montreal cops waited 30 minutes before going in. 28 people shot, 14 women killed.

That was 1989 and in Canada and prior to Columbine. At least in the US, everything changed regarding active shooters in 1999 with Columbine, particularly at schools. Odd, you call them murders and not a mass shooting. Prior to 1999, "containing" the situation and waiting for backup/SWAT was SOP.

-----------------

My local Sheriff made it known publicly what his office's policies are regarding mass shootings.

"All commissioned Deputies if you respond to an active shooter you are expected to take immediate action. We do not stage and wait for SWAT, we do not take cover in a parking lot, and we do not wait for any other agency," he wrote. "We go in and do our duty. We go in to engage and stop the shooter and save lives."

He went on to say any deputies who did not feel that they could fulfill the obligation should let it be known and that he would try to have them reassigned.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dent...uation-go-duty

Facebook copy of letter on DCSO FB page...
https://www.facebook.com/DentonCoShe...type=3&theater

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Honestly, I don't understand how someone who supposedly puts on a badge because he wants to maintain law and order could live with himself after doing nothing in a mass shooting situation. This Peterson fella is a coward. My Dad wore a badge when I was young and again after he retired from working in a steel mill. He always made it clear to me that he was more than willing to die while saving others, if that's what it took. I'm not, with the exception of my family, so that's why I didn't follow in his foot steps and become a LEO.

[Hitthespot]

I agree if your wear a badge do what you need to do, or find another line of work. I have a CC and would of personally had to enter the building if I was there, regardless of the legal ramifications or worrying about life or limb. l don't know how they can live with themselves. Maybe I would have felt different when I was young, before my children were raised, I don't know. All I know is I can't imagine the pain for so many families.

[manta49]

Talks cheap, few know what they would do in that type of situation.

[Hitthespot]

you could be right of course, so many variables and knowing the information about what's going on after the fact makes decisions a lot easier, but in my heart I like to think I would have went straight in
.

[SonOfScubaDiver]

Talks cheap, few know what they would do in that type of situation.

I don't buy that argument. People don't become law enforcement officers by accident. They know the risk and they know that doing their job could result in death before they agree to put on the uniform. They're trained to go in while everyone else is running out. There's no excuse for punking out when they're needed the most.

[manta49]

I don't buy that argument. People don't become law enforcement officers by accident. They know the risk and they know that doing their job could result in death before they agree to put on the uniform. They're trained to go in while everyone else is running out. There's no excuse for punking out when they're needed the most.

I have no doubt that most officers accept that when they join, but like anything they hope they will never be in that situation and most won't. That doesn't change the fact that when put in that situation few know how they would react, thinking what you would / should do is not the same as doing it. I take it with a pinch of salt when people post what they would do.

[K_Mac]

manta I will conceed your point that until we are tested it is just conversation. That doesn't mean that doing nothing in this situation or that failing to do one's duty is somehow an acceptable response. Hiding outside while shots are being fired inside the school is objectively failure to the job he/they are being paid to do. It was an act of cowardice, no other way of spinning it. Those who can't or won't do the job should find another line of work.

[manta49]

What are the chances of these 4 officers just happened to be cowards in the same place and time extremely low. That being the case it would suggest the majority of police officers would do similar in the same situation, unless in this case it was department policy to wait for backup.

[K_Mac]

What are the chances of these 4 officers just happened to be cowards in the same place and time extremely low. That being the case it would suggest the majority of police officers would do similar in the same situation, unless in this case it was department policy to wait for backup.

I would suggest that most police officers would have responded by confronting the shooter. I would also suggest that if 'hide behind your patrol car' was departmental policy, we would know it by now. All we know about the four is they didn't engage when engaging immediately is standard procedure in an active shooter situation. Draw whatever conclusion you wish.

[Mainah]

Looks like at the very least one good guy with a gun didn’t make a difference.

[Lohman446]

“Good” is a relative term and in this case we seem to be using it in place of “not evil”. A school resource officer who abandons the school when the shooting starts should not be classified as “good”. I think it’s kind of like using the words “guilty” and “not guilty” rather than the word innocent


I’m not convinced there is not more to the story that may serve to defend the other four responding officers. The SRO though... nope abandoned one the most central duties of the post

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Manta49

Talks cheap, few know what they would do in that type of situation.

You know this ... how, exactly?

You live in a country that doesn't routinely send large numbers of its soldiers to far-off lands to intervene in matters that some people don't think should be intervened in. The United States does, and many people posting on this site are combat veterans who probably do have a good idea how they might perform in such a situation.

All of which is irrelevant. Whether or not someone knows how he might perform, he can still look at cowardice and call it cowardice.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Mainah

Looks like at the very least one good guy with a gun didn’t make a difference.

I disagree. A good guy with a gun can make a difference only if he's present. Peterson wasn't present. He was on the campus, but he wasn't in the building where the shootings took place so he should not be counted as a "good guy with a gun" for purposes of saying that the concept didn't work.

I posted this before. The buildings on that school's campus were large. Suppose you had a McDonalds next door to an auto parts store. If there was a good guy with a gun in the auto parts store and someone started shooting up the McDonalds, if the guy in the auto parts store didn't rush over and save the day would anyone say that proves a good guy with a gun isn't an effective countermeasure to an active shooter?

The expression applies only if the good guy with the gun is where he can take action against the shooter. It doesn't apply when the good guy with a gun is in absentia, "staging" in the parking lot outside.

[Lohman446]

The fact that the responding Sheriff department did not seem to commit to using force quickly in an effort to stop a poosibly ongoing violent attack seems to me to be a strong argument to protect and expand the individual right of self defense. Those who did commit to attempting to get to the shooter and died heroically were, by law, disarmed. I wonder how many lives it may have cost. If the argument that you never know how you will react is true then it’s an argument for more individuals to be armed so that we have spread out the risk of one individual freezing up or retreating

[manta49]

Originally Posted by Manta49
Talks cheap, few know what they would do in that type of situation.
You know this ... how, exactly?

You live in a country that doesn't routinely send large numbers of its soldiers to far-off lands to intervene in matters that some people don't think should be intervened in. The United States does, and many people posting on this site are combat veterans who probably do have a good idea how they might perform in such a situation.

What recent conflicts are American soldiers in that UK forces were not involved in. ? We are talking about police officers not soldiers, i said few not all would know what they would do in that type of situation. Even veterans soldiers don't know what they would do, they might think what they would / should do, thinking and doing are two different things.

All of which is irrelevant. Whether or not someone knows how he might perform, he can still look at cowardice and call it cowardice.

I would need to know the exact circumstances of what happened, what orders the officers were under etc, before i would be calling anyone a coward on the internet. I am sure there will be a investigation and i will wait for the outcome of that before labelling anyone a coward.

[thallub]

According to the Fox News timeline the shooting ended at 2:28 pm. Deputies responded at 2:53 pm.

It was imperative that the SRO respond immediately to the shooting. He failed to respond; the rest is history.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/28...-timeline.html

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Manta49

Talks cheap, few know what they would do in that type of situation.

The thing about guns and lethal force is that you will always fall back to your level of training. That is the bare minimum of human response.

IF deputy Peterson had the ongoing and requisite training, training the sheriff says all his deputies have had, then that training is the fallback position on ANY active shooter situation.

Even if Peterson was inside another building, on the other side of the campus, his duty AND training dictated that he engage the shooter. Even should this deputy not be trained, it was still his duty to protect the children. One cannot protect anyone or anything by standing outside.

Having said this, should the sheriff be lieing to the entire nation and his deputies were not trained in active shooter scenarios at schools, then the onus is also on him.

However, deputy Peterson failed in his response as not only as a SRO, but as a human being. It was out and out cowardly behavior. I do not need to know more than he waited outside, refusing to engage.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

By they way, for those of you with children attending schools in the city of Dallas, the city recently revealed it has not adopted post-1999 changes in response to school shootings. Dallas PD policy is sadly to still not immediately engage but wait until a “team” has assembled and not to go in alone:
Source: http://www.fox7austin.com/news/texas...ctive-shooters

[manta49]

However, deputy Peterson failed in his response as not only as a SRO, but as a human being. It was out and out cowardly behavior. I do not need to know more than he waited outside, refusing to engage.

What he said bellow. Do we know what information they had when they arrived at the school, what equipment did they have, rifles etc.

Through his attorney, Peterson defended his actions saying he thought the shots were coming from outside the building. Consistent with his training, he took cover and took a tactical position outside.

[rickyrick]

I really don’t care what the orders, directions, procedures or whatever is/was in place. There was a person there that had the basic equipment and experience to stop the shooter; that did not happen.
I feel that it was an individual decision to make outside of employer policy.

I’m not going to call the man a coward, some response to dangerous situations are involuntary. I think the decision to face gunfire is a personal choice. This guy made a choice.
I wouldn’t feel good about myself if I had made the same choice... no matter what my employer’s policy was.
There’s a reason why we give Medals of Honor, it’s not for reacting like average people in tough situations.

[manta49]

There’s a reason why we give Medals of Honor, it’s not for reacting like average people in tough situations.

The reason the Medals of Honor are awarded to few people is because few people are that brave. Plenty can talk the talk, but i will take them seriously when they are in that situation, and i see how they reacted.

[K_Mac]

manta what you can tell by how a person reacts to a situation like this is whether they responded appropriately or not. How you or I would have reacted is not the issue here. Peterson failed to do the job he was trained and hired to do. You, or he can make excuses but it does not change the fact that had he engaged the shooter he could have saved lives.

Your continued defense of behavior that is not acceptable is hard for me to take seriously.