Deputy assigned to Florida school 'never went in' during shooting, sheriff says

[Evan Thomas]

Doc Holliday, I've merged your thread with the existing thread on the deputy's (in)actions. We don't need multiple threads on the same topic.

[Sharkbite]

I have heard from numerous people that the BC Deputies were ordered to hold back. Can anyone site a source for that info?

If true, that leads the discussion into other areas besides personal cowardice.

[In The Ten Ring]

Doc Holliday, I've merged your thread with the existing thread on the deputy's (in)actions. We don't need multiple threads on the same topic.

Thanks for the notification! I thought something was up.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Sharkbite

I have heard from numerous people that the BC Deputies were ordered to hold back. Can anyone site a source for that info?

If true, that leads the discussion into other areas besides personal cowardice.

I heard this for the first time this afternoon, from "a guy" at the range. So now we have at least three, maybe four different stories. I wonder if we'll ever get the truth.

First story was that Peterson didn't go in, that Coral Springs officers ran past him [Peterson] as they entered the building.

Then we heard that three other Broward Country deputies arrived before Coral Springs, and that all four deputies remained outside while Coral Springs officers entered. A variation on this one adds that two additional (that is, #5 and #6) Broward County deputies went in with/behind the Coral Springs officers, joined by a single officer from a third jurisdiction.

Then Peterson says he stayed outside to coordinate the effort and to provide [20-minute old] intel to the officers making entry. No mention in Peterson's story about the other three cohorts who stayed outside.

Then the sheriff said Peterson should have gone in, because "That's what we do." But then it came out that [maybe] Broward County hasn't provided their officers with the latest active shooter training [there's an acronym for it, which I can't find at the moment]. Although the sheriff says Peterson was supposed to "enter and engage," reportedly the county's protocol is actually that the first officer on the scene may enter and engage. The word "may" is not mandatory -- if the first officer "may" choose to enter, then he "may" also choose not to.

And now we're hearing that Peterson and his cohorts were told to stand down. But ... if Broward County were instructed not to enter, why did two other Broward County deputies enter with the Coral Springs officers? (If that actually happened.)

This is getting to be like the Abbott and Costello "Who's on first?" skit.

[Doc Holliday 1950]

It's the timing that boils my mind. The officers knew that they had another mass carnage on their hands. So, what do you do? Do you wait for backup and stratagise your responses or do you go in and take out the shooter? These Officers waited to formulate their responses. This is totally bogus. Somebody's watching too many TV programs. I'm so outraged that the people who were supposed to protect our children milled around and did zip until the killings where over.

The real outrage was time after time that his man was allowed to walk our streets with the "AUTHORITIES" knowing that he was a very dangerous person.
How many times does one have to behave in a dangerous way before we realize that a person is a menace & be removed from the streets.
The Police, in Florida, have the authority to 'Baker Act" any person that is deemed a danger to themselves or Society. This is a 72 hour of action.
The students knew he was a danger and threat. No one did squat.

Try to explain this away!!!

[rickyrick]

It is a failure at all levels of government almost, from the local school all the way to The FBI.

[johnwilliamson062]

reportedly the county's protocol is actually that the first officer on the scene may enter and engage.

As I posted earlier in post 77, every policy I have ever read that involves an officer putting themselves in danger or using force involves a conditional adverb clause. They never tell the officer they absolutely have to do it. Ask for your local department's policy concerning school shootings and it will almost certainly be stated in a similar manner.

I don't think anyone has much of any idea as to what actually happened. Just a lot of stone throwing going on.

[armoredman]

It is the excuse for our elected officials to renege on promises made and sponsor legislation to continue the unilateral disarmament ploy. The government fails at every single level to protect the vulnerable, and shifts blame seamlessly on the millions of people who had nothing to do with it.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

As I posted earlier in post 77, every policy I have ever read that involves an officer putting themselves in danger or using force involves a conditional adverb clause. They never tell the officer they absolutely have to do it. Ask for your local department's policy concerning school shootings and it will almost certainly be stated in a similar manner.

Actually, last night I called up a friend who is a retired police chief in mid-state Washington and I asked him what the protocol is for the departments he served in. Now that he's retired, he's a trainer for several departments in his area. He didn't beat around the bush at all -- he said the policy is that the first man on the scene enters and takes out the shooter.

It may be that the official, written, weasel word policy leaves it optional for liability reasons, but the training since shortly after Columbine has been almost universally "enter and engage."

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by armoredman

It is the excuse for our elected officials to renege on promises made and sponsor legislation to continue the unilateral disarmament ploy. The government fails at every single level to protect the vulnerable, and shifts blame seamlessly on the millions of people who had nothing to do with it.

That sums it up very concisely.

[NWPilgrim]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

As I posted earlier in post 77, every policy I have ever read that involves an officer putting themselves in danger or using force involves a conditional adverb clause. They never tell the officer they absolutely have to do it. Ask for your local department's policy concerning school shootings and it will almost certainly be stated in a similar manner.

I don't think anyone has much of any idea as to what actually happened. Just a lot of stone throwing going on.

Actually the other police officers that WERE on the scene (Coral Springs) are very critical of the school officer and other BCSO officers. So was the medical first responder critical of them not following their joint training for responding to such events.

And the officers in question are not forthcoming with clear explanation of why, they are using weasel words which causes further suspicion. If they had good cause and were following a specific training plan or policy they should be quoting that and I would expect other officers a such as those from Coral Springs would be saying Oh yeah, that;s right that is how we trained tog ether given that circumstance. But that is NOT what is happening.

[NWPilgrim]

Originally Posted by OzeanJaeger

Right. Because I have a pistol on me 24/7 I'm a cop, or a soldier?

I do my job, I'm a father and a husband, and carrying a pistol has nothing to do with anything except I have an option in a life or death situation that everyone who doesn't carry a pistol doesn't have. There is nothing more to it than that.

A teacher carrying doesn't become something else. They simply have an option to do something other than flee, hide and listen to their students die if goblins attack. This idea that you have to be a ninja to carry or use a firearm is BRAND NEW, and flies in the face of hundreds of years of our history.

I don't get it. Get rid of gun free zones, and you're half way there to mitigating the problem. That's certainly not a "solution" by itself, but only a child looks for cure all remedies in a complex world.

Excellent post! So many gun owners buy into the progressives' talking points in their rush to be "reasonable" and forget common sense and founding principles. Instead of "arming teachers" we should be saying what you are, Get rid of gun-free zones, let any adult on campus be armed if they choose to, following the same rules as any other person in the state that carries in other places. They should not be required to defend students, but even if several teachers, admins, janitors stood their ground armed to defend themselves it would be more deterrent than hiding under desks.

[thallub]

Here is a link to a Fox News article that states deputies were ordered not to enter the school:

Fox News has learned that in the critical moments as first responding deputies were searching for an active shooter on the property of Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school, a commanding officer on scene apparently ordered some of the initial responders to “stage” and set up a “perimeter” outside -- instead of immediately ordering or allowing officers to rush in to neutralize the suspect, Nikolas Cruz.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/com...id=HPCOMMDHP15

[Aguila Blanca]

If this is correct, although the "Stage" order was by most reckoning premature, it was still ten minutes after the shooting started, and after Cruz had left the building. It doesn't excuse Deputy Peterson or the first two or three Broward County deputies who arrived well before the "Stage" order was issued.

[johnwilliamson062]

If that transcript is complete, and I doubt it is b/c there isn't much chatter, then it would certainly seem no one knew where the shooter was located. There are reported to be multiple buildings on this campus.
That article and timeline further my reservations about passing judgement before more information is available.

[JoeSixpack]

I'd say the guy just got scared, He was put to the test and failed..
I'd like to think I'd do better.. But who knows..

1 thing I do know is he was the SRO, The one in the best position to help those kids, the one expected to try.. and he didn't

After Columbine it was pretty much agreed go in asap.. don't wait for backup.. their is at least a decent chance this guy would have killed him self if someone had showed up to challenge him... but we'll never know now.

As for the suicide mission "pistol vs rifle" argument.
Im just a avg guy, Im not police or military, im not a "operator"

But maybe someone can lay out exactly how big an advantage it is and why it's suicidal to challenge anyone with a handgun vs a rifle.

See the way I figure it 1 advantage the officer had was the shooter is looking for people to kill. he does not know cops are in the building, sure he might be keeping an eye out but his attention is split, and he's making a hell of a lot of noise.. I figure the officer has the element of surprise.

I don't think anyone would expect him to step out into a hall way and present a juicy target, challenging the shooter old west sho-down style.. That's stupid no matter what gun you have.

But im thinking to my self.. inside the building how big of an area was he in?
I prefer a handgun for home defense, so if we're in say 25feet range I don't really feel outgunned if the BG has a rifle.. it's not like im planning to trade shots with them in the open to see who can tear the biggest chunk out of each other.

Or maybe Im too stupid to know better.

[johnwilliamson062]

But maybe someone can lay out exactly how big an advantage it is and why it's suicidal to challenge anyone with a handgun vs a rifle.

Not a disadvantage, but at almost every range one might encounter n a high School the body armor used by police in the US is probably not going to have much effect at all on a rifle round without trauma plates.

150 feet down a hallway is a long shot with a pistol, but pretty short with a rifle.

[JohnKSa]

But maybe someone can lay out exactly how big an advantage it is and why it's suicidal to challenge anyone with a handgun vs a rifle.

I don't know exactly how to quantify the advantage.

Anyone who has shot both rifles and pistols from the standing position should have a pretty good idea of the skill level difference required to make good hits, especially when shooting rapidly. The performance difference becomes larger and larger as the distance stretches, but even at closer distances, it's still apparent.

Also, long guns tend to be significantly more lethal than pistols. I think the survival rate for pistol injuries is something like 80% while for long guns it's much lower--perhaps 20%.

I wouldn't say it's suicidal, but it certainly is a disadvantage.

[JoeSixpack]

150 feet down a hallway is a long shot with a pistol, but pretty short with a rifle.

Anyone who has shot both rifles and pistols from the standing position should have a pretty good idea of the skill level difference required to make good hits, especially when shooting rapidly. The performance difference becomes larger and larger as the distance stretches, but even at closer distances, it's still apparent.

Hmm I guess im odd ball then because at 25 feet I see no advantage to landing shots with a long gun and am faster with a handgun and at that range I see no particular accurate advantage.. but I guess that's just me.

Also, long guns tend to be significantly more lethal than pistols. I think the survival rate for pistol injuries is something like 80% while for long guns it's much lower--perhaps 20%.

I don't think anyone would expect him to step out into a hall way and present a juicy target, challenging the shooter old west sho-down style.. That's stupid no matter what gun you have.

But im thinking to my self.. inside the building how big of an area was he in?
I prefer a handgun for home defense, so if we're in say 25feet range I don't really feel outgunned if the BG has a rifle.. it's not like im planning to trade shots with them in the open to see who can tear the biggest chunk out of each other.

Question remains.

A long guns superiority at distance is obvious and uncontested, Neither is it's power advantage although would you rather be shot with a .223 or a .500S&W? Let's be real, Objective is not to get shot in the first place, yet it does raise the question does the SRO even wear a vest?

As pointed out no soft armor (that im aware of) like a patrol officer would wear would stop a 223 round (IIIA won't even stop all handgun calibers), so if both the SRO and the shooter had a AR15 it does nothing to help that point.

If we were to give the SRO a pass because he was "out gunned" then I suppose had the shooter a .50bmg not even swat could be expected to stop him.

[Lohman446]

I don't give the SRO a pass. You voluntarily take a job and continue to be paid to do a job you need to be aware of its expectations. Are officers drastically underpaid considering that we, as a society, expect them to step into harms way? Yep. But that is not the point. You have taken the job and you were not drafted. At some point, like it or not, one has to swallow hard and "do his or her duty". Is going up against a rifle with a handgun something I would envy doing? No but there is an important caveat: I am not an officer. It is much better than the hardware we gave the coaches and teachers who rushed into harms way.

That being said I expect this has to do with the "great leadership" from the Sheriff. My expectations are, for whatever reason, the SRO was reassigned because someone somewhere was no comfortable with him "on the streets" and the school job was viewed as a good fall back option. Go work with kids - like that is any easier. I will be curious to find out if we ever get any information on that front.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Lohman446

That being said I expect this has to do with the "great leadership" from the Sheriff. My expectations are, for whatever reason, the SRO was reassigned because someone somewhere was no comfortable with him "on the streets" and the school job was viewed as a good fall back option. Go work with kids - like that is any easier. I will be curious to find out if we ever get any information on that front.

I was discussing this shooting last night with a friend I haven't talked about it with yet. I don't know where he got it, because I haven't seen this mentioned in any articles I've read, but my friend heard or read somewhere that Peterson was "partially retired" and that the SRO gig was just a way for him to keep receiving a paycheck and adding to his pension calculation.

Dunno. As I said, I have not seen this anywhere.

[Lohman446]

I should note my comment does not have any inside information on it or backing it. I was simply trying to figure out what could have resulted in multiple failures of this particular department including the SRO failing in one of the most central tasks of the job. As I think about it, again without any inside information, I am becoming more and more convinced it was a leadership issue.

[johnwilliamson062]

SRO failing in one of the most central tasks of the job.

I think this may be a misconception. SROs do more social work than most other police. They have to use a ton of discretion and be very reserved in what they pursue. They have to deal with both the politics of their police department and the school district. The finance may be justified saying the SRO is there to stop a school shooter, but once they show up to work their job is an intricate weave of social work and politics.

[Lohman446]

I think this may be a misconception. SROs do more social work than most other police. They have to use a ton of discretion and be very reserved in what they pursue. They have to deal with both the politics of their police department and the school district. The finance may be justified saying the SRO is there to stop a school shooter, but once they show up to work their job is an intricate weave of social work and politics

I get what you are saying. However these are not counter points to my original statement as I was careful to not argue it was the primary or only job. Those officers are armed for a reason and that reason does not involved the unarmed children, teachers, or other adults in the building. I'm not going to argue that the job is simple or that there is not a lot of social work done by a SRO. However he or she is armed for a reason and that reason is not social work.

[Lohman446]

Though John Williamson brings up an interesting thought. IF we arm teachers what duty does doing so imply? Is an armed teacher supposed to "take up the hunt" and move towards the sound of gunfire? Is he or she supposed to barricade him or herself with the children in a defensive position and only use that firearm should the barricaded position be threatened? When we discuss arming teachers do we expect them to be on "active" defense where they make movement against the shooter or in a more passive stance where they guard those "behind" them?