An Upside Down World

[nicksaviking]

I feel terrible for the parents and also bad for the security guy.

 

Resource officers were originally hired to break up fights and bust kids smoking dope out in the parking lot. He should have volunteered the information that he would not be willing to engage an active shooter all by himself, but it's beyond crazy that we're expecting people to eagerly play Rambo in these situations.

 

Typically the guys who WANT to play Rambo are the exact people you don't want to do it.

[Squirrel]

A friend of mine’s ex used to teach in the Phoenix area; this is a number of years ago now. He said that if things weren’t nailed down or thoroughly locked up they would go missing. Can you imagine a gun, or several of them, going missing? I just don’t know how anyone thinks this is a good idea. Further, yes, let’s fence the perimeter of a school and the grounds, have gunned patrols manning those fences, and all the teachers armed ... do we really want our kids going to a literal prison to school? Again, seriously, I really don’t know how anyone can think this is a good idea.

[Mr. Brooks]

I feel terrible for the parents and also bad for the security guy.

 

Resource officers were originally hired to break up fights and bust kids smoking dope out in the parking lot. He should have volunteered the information that he would not be willing to engage an active shooter all by himself, but it's beyond crazy that we're expecting people to eagerly play Rambo in these situations.

 

Typically the guys who WANT to play Rambo are the exact people you don't want to do it.

It's beyond crazy to expect a sheriff's deputy to try to stop someone who is actively murdering children?

 

Police officers swear an oath to protect and serve.

Nobody is asking for Rambo, just for the police officer to do his job.

[Mr. Brooks]

He's apparently receiving disciplinary action, but this highlights the disconnect between theory and reality, when we talk about providing ever increasing levels of armed resistance to thwart atrocities. This guy took up a defensive position, but it's not clear to me that it's known for certain what better action he could have taken. The uncertainty inherent in such a situation kind of guarantees that. There's surely no value in his going in gung-ho and getting picked off in the first three seconds. It's immensely admirable to be the one who heads toward where the trouble is rather than away, but you do need to stay alive in order to accomplish anything.

 

We did what the gun lobby demanded. Hired an armed "school resource deputy". It accomplished bupkis.

 

So now, what next? Arm the teachers, and then hold them "partially liable" if they freeze up and fail to take decisive action?

 

There's this mistaken notion that if you arm enough people, some Hero will swoop in and make things right like in the movies. Instead, what will happen occasionally is one Hero will fire at another Hero, or some of the kids get caught in crossfire, thereby compounding the problem. This poor schlub at least didn't make things worse, but in any case his hiring did not achieve the intended purpose.

 

But there is no gun problem too big, apparently, that can't be solved by more guns. As Homer Simpson said, "TO ALCOHOL! The cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." Any time one is following Homer Simpson's train of thought, it should be disquieting.

 

The quicker you get off of the wrong path, the better.

1) A defensive position? What was he defending? Law enforcement learned after Columbine that treating an active school shooter like a hostage situation is the wrong strategy.

This guy knew what he was supposed to do, he just chose not to. That is why he resigned.

He wouldn't be resigning and/or facing disciplinary action if he did what he was supposed to do.

 

2) You don't think police officers are trained in ways other than "gung-ho" and getting picked off in the first 3 seconds?

 

3) What exactly was he able to do by staying alive? I'm not asking for someone to be a hero. This guy isn't a citizen or a teacher or a janitor. He's a police officer. Don't sign up for the job if you aren't willing to risk your life in a situation like this.

 

4) Where are you drawing a parallel between my comment and arming teachers? Arming teachers is a terrible idea. Perhaps the worst idea I've ever heard.

Why would a teacher be held liable? Again, why are you drawing that parallel? The officer swore a duty (and pulled a paycheck) to protect and serve the community. The teacher is there to teach.

 

5) Again, not looking for a hero. Do people not know that this is a sheriff's deputy that I'm referring to?

 

6) If you've read anything I've written in this thread, you'd know I'm a proponent of gun control, and I think more guns as a solution is a laughably awful idea. Again, not sure where you are drawing your assumption from that I want more guns, and that I'm on the wrong path.

 

This guy is a police officer. He is going to have a gun. Law enforcement is precisely precisely who should be armed and trained to respond to these shootings, not teachers.

Are you saying police officers shouldn't intervene in a school shooting? If not, I don't know what you are lambasting me for. They had a police officer on site when a school shooting broke out.

Unlike a hero with a gun, he's actually trained to use it. Instead he cowered in fear, despite the oath he took to protect and serve. While children were terrified and murdered in front of their friends and teachers.

I don't know how the guy can sleep at night. He was entrusted by the community to protect their children, and when the time came, he chose to protect his own safety instead.

[Mr. Brooks]

If they wanted to hold me "partially liable" they can take the meager paycheck they already give me and shove it. There is already a crisis in terms of the number of qualified teachers we have, if you make them carry weapons they will leave in droves. I'd quit on the spot and I love what I do despite all the negatives...but that would be a bridge way too far.

 

But then, I'm already the babysitter, parent, nurse, scientist, counselor, psychologist, behavior analyst, artist, tech support, maid, hygenist, diplomat, writer, life coach, actor, manager, legal counsel, spiritual advisor, moral compass, activity planner, ringmaster, and consultant for these kids.....

 

what the hell, why not add police officer too huh?

Where did I imply a teacher should be held liable?

This guy isn't a teacher. He's a police officer.

He should be the one to act, so the teachers don't have to.

Perhaps the football coach wouldn't have lost his life heroically protecting his students if this guy had done his job?

Maybe it wouldn't have helped, I dunno, but it might have.

 

And, I'm not calling for police officers in schools either. But, in this situation there was already a police officer there, and he did nothing.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Where did I imply a teacher should be held liable?
This guy isn't a teacher. He's a police officer.
He should be the one to act, so the teachers don't have to.
Perhaps the football coach wouldn't have lost his life heroically protecting his students if this guy had done his job?
Maybe it wouldn't have helped, I dunno, but it might have.

And, I'm not calling for police officers in schools either. But, in this situation there was already a police officer there, and he did nothing.

 

I was responding to ashbury's point and to the larger call for teachers to have guns.  It really had next to nothing to do with what you said.

 

We seem to have decided as a society that a teacher's salary and training is sufficient to do, well, everything.  "Let's arm teachers" doesn't shock me a bit, it's par for the course.  

[ashbury]

6) If you've read anything I've written in this thread

You took this awfully personally. Phrases like "the quicker you get off of the wrong path, the better" makes a commonly used general usage of the word "you" - and it was a conclusion to the "what next" rhetorical question. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[nicksaviking]

It's beyond crazy to expect a sheriff's deputy to try to stop someone who is actively murdering children?

Police officers swear an oath to protect and serve.

Nobody is asking for Rambo, just for the police officer to do his job.

Nowhere else are they expected to die to stop a bad guy with a gun. They are supposed to wait for backup in every other situation.

 

It's kids I get it, we're all upset. But if it was my son or daughter, or wife or father who was the resource officer, I would not want them going in.

[Mr. Brooks]

Nowhere else are they expected to die to stop a bad guy with a gun. They are supposed to wait for backup in every other situation.

 

It's kids I get it, we're all upset. But if it was my son or daughter, or wife or father who was the resource officer, I would not want them going in.

Well his superiors disagree.

 

Broward County Sheriff:

 

"What I saw was a deputy arrive ... take up a position and he never went in," Israel said at a news conference. Israel said Peterson should have "went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer." Peterson was suspended without pay, after which he resigned.

 

 

County Superintendent Robert Runcie said, "I'm in shock and I'm outraged to no end that he could have made a difference in all this. It's really disturbing that we had a law enforcement individual there specifically for this reason, and he did not engage. He did not do his job. It's one of the most unbelievable things I've ever heard."

 

 

 

I can't possibly disagree with you more Nick.

 

For one, it's not true that school shootings are the only situation in which an officer is expected to intervene, before waiting for backup.

An in progress domestic assault is another example. In fact, any situation in which human life is in clearly imminent danger, the officer should be expected to intervene.

 

Secondly, don't sign up for the job then. Police, military, fire fighting, those jobs aren't for everyone.

There are plenty of other occupations out there. There are also countless brave men and women who do feel compelled to take an oath to risk their lives protecting others. Anyone not 100% sure should step aside and let someone who is take their job.

 

It doesn't matter if they were kids, adults or senior citizens. If people are actively being murdered, a police officer has a duty to intervene. It's not a hostage situation or burglary where there is doubt about intent or imminent danger. There is nothing to assess here.

It's not much different than a crew that abandons ship without evacuating passengers, or a soldier that abandons his comrades in a fire fight. Those are criminal offenses, and this should be as well.

[TheLeviathan]

School resource officers are asked to do a lot and I don't believe riding in like a white knight to kill a school shooter should be on that list.

 

While I would've preferred he took different action, emphasizing his role is really missing the point.  Unless, of course, your point is that "a good guy with a gun" is not a solution to anything. 

[Mr. Brooks]

School resource officers are asked to do a lot and I don't believe riding in like a white knight to kill a school shooter should be on that list.

 

While I would've preferred he took different action, emphasizing his role is really missing the point. Unless, of course, your point is that "a good guy with a gun" is not a solution to anything.

He was a sheriff's deputy.

He took the same oath as every other sheriff deputy.

 

This has nothing to do with good guy with a gun opinions. We're not talking about civilians or teachers here, we're talking about a sworn law enforcement officer who chose to ignore his duty, and did nothing while 17 people were being slaughtered.

[TheLeviathan]

Do you know what resource officers are generally asked to do?

 

Every school I've been a part of uses these men and women more as counselors and educators.  They're picked for that role so they can help intervene with students in a less aggressive way and steer kids towards better choices.

 

I'm not sure what crucifying him accomplishes.

[Mr. Brooks]

Do you know what resource officers are generally asked to do?

 

Every school I've been a part of uses these men and women more as counselors and educators. They're picked for that role so they can help intervene with students in a less aggressive way and steer kids towards better choices.

 

I'm not sure what crucifying him accomplishes.

I don't want to live in a world where it's acceptable for a police officer to stand by and do nothing while people are being murdered.

 

As much as I agree that more guns is in no way the solution, law enforcement is armed and trained for a reason.

Standing outside and waiting for the shooter to run out of bullets isn't the answer either.

 

The people who know the situation the best (his superiors) are all saying he should have gone in.

 

You don't want teachers armed (neither do I), but you also don't want police to enter either? I'm not sure who you think should have the duty to attempt to stop a murder in progress then. The military?

 

I don't know you at all, so perhaps I'm completely wrong. But, I just can't imagine you'd feel this way if you had a loved one murdered, then found out that a police officer could have attempted to stop it (or give first aid), and chose to do nothing.

[Mr. Brooks]

Do you know what resource officers are generally asked to do?

 

Every school I've been a part of uses these men and women more as counselors and educators. They're picked for that role so they can help intervene with students in a less aggressive way and steer kids towards better choices.

 

I'm not sure what crucifying him accomplishes.

It almost seems like you are arguing that he's not really a real cop. If he's just there to counsel kids, and not intervene in a violent incident, then why is he armed?

If he's not expected to act as a police officer, then hire a counselor, not a cop.

You don't want teachers doing law enforcement's job, but it seems you are arguing that you want this police officer to be doing the guidance counselors job.

[TheLeviathan]

No, i want to concentrate on meaningful issues that could solve this. Law enforcement is an ally in attaining better gun control.

 

Making it about this cop's inaction plays into the NRA's hands.

[Badsmerf]

I might add, it was only 4 minutes. It isn't like he stood outside for a half hour. It was 4 minutes.

[Mr. Brooks]

I might add, it was only 4 minutes. It isn't like he stood outside for a half hour. It was 4 minutes.

How many people can an AR15 kill, in a packed school in 4 minutes?

That's a long time.

[Riverbrian]

Well his superiors disagree.

 

Broward County Sheriff:

 

"What I saw was a deputy arrive ... take up a position and he never went in," Israel said at a news conference. Israel said Peterson should have "went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer." Peterson was suspended without pay, after which he resigned.

 

 

County Superintendent Robert Runcie said, "I'm in shock and I'm outraged to no end that he could have made a difference in all this. It's really disturbing that we had a law enforcement individual there specifically for this reason, and he did not engage. He did not do his job. It's one of the most unbelievable things I've ever heard."

 

 

 

I can't possibly disagree with you more Nick.

 

For one, it's not true that school shootings are the only situation in which an officer is expected to intervene, before waiting for backup.

An in progress domestic assault is another example. In fact, any situation in which human life is in clearly imminent danger, the officer should be expected to intervene.

 

Secondly, don't sign up for the job then. Police, military, fire fighting, those jobs aren't for everyone.

There are plenty of other occupations out there. There are also countless brave men and women who do feel compelled to take an oath to risk their lives protecting others. Anyone not 100% sure should step aside and let someone who is take their job.

 

It doesn't matter if they were kids, adults or senior citizens. If people are actively being murdered, a police officer has a duty to intervene. It's not a hostage situation or burglary where there is doubt about intent or imminent danger. There is nothing to assess here.

It's not much different than a crew that abandons ship without evacuating passengers, or a soldier that abandons his comrades in a fire fight. Those are criminal offenses, and this should be as well.

Maybe he didn’t follow his training. Maybe... he was shaking like a quivering mass of disappointing goo and basically worthless.

 

However he didn’t kill anyone. Anger at him is a distraction. In my opinion.

[Mr. Brooks]

No, i want to concentrate on meaningful issues that could solve this. Law enforcement is an ally in attaining better gun control.

 

Making it about this cop's inaction plays into the NRA's hands.

Ok. But once the school shooting is in progress, who has a duty to stop it?

[Mr. Brooks]

Maybe he didn’t follow his training. Maybe... he was shaking like a quivering mass of disappointing goo and basically worthless.

 

However he didn’t kill anyone. Anger at him is a distraction. In my opinion.

Actions (or inaction) can cause people to die.

Do you believe some people have a duty to act?

Police, military, passenger ship crew?

 

I just can't agree that there is never a duty to act, sorry.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Ok. But once the school shooting is in progress, who has a duty to stop it?

 

Law enforcement.  But that doesn't change that you're lost in the weeds.

 

This is like walking into a conversation about why we're worried about Donald Trump and insisting we talk about how bad Big Macs are as a diet choice.

 

Yes, Big Macs are bad.  Not even close to the top of the list of things to worry about however.

[Riverbrian]

Actions (or inaction) can cause people to die.

Do you believe some people have a duty to act?

Police, military, passenger ship crew?

 

I just can't agree that there is never a duty to act, sorry.

I get your point. He may have saved a life or two. It is quite possible he wasn’t good at his job.

 

He is about to get raked over the coals as the masses look for someone to throw misguided angst at.

 

He is Bartman. He shouldn’t be in law enforcement but he didn’t wake up that morning intending to be evil.

[Mr. Brooks]

Law enforcement. But that doesn't change that you're lost in the weeds.

 

This is like walking into a conversation about why we're worried about Donald Trump and insisting we talk about how bad Big Macs are as a diet choice.

 

Yes, Big Macs are bad. Not even close to the top of the list of things to worry about however.

Well the opinion that we are only allowed to discuss one part of the list is the main reason for the disconnect on this issue, IMO.

 

We disagree on this specific part of the issue, big time.

This guy disgraced and let down his community, and every child and parent of the school.

I believe he deserves some liability, in the same way passenger ship crew are charged if they abandon ship before helping everyone evacuate. This isn't much different to me. They didn't sink the ship, but they obligated themselves to a duty when they signed up for the job.

[Mr. Brooks]

I get your point. He may have saved a life or two. It is quite possible he wasn’t good at his job.

 

He is about to get raked over the coals as the masses look for someone to throw misguided angst at.

 

He is Bartman. He shouldn’t be in law enforcement but he didn’t wake up that morning intending to be evil.

The vast majority of people who are charged with a crime didn't intend to be evil.

I never accused him of being evil. This is a complete straw man argument.

We hold people liable in every single segment of criminal and civil law for things other than direct malicious intent.

 

And this isn't a mob looking for a scapegoat. His superiors have stated that he didn't do what he was supposed to do. Not sure why people don't believe them, as they know far better than any of us what was expected of the officer.

[Badsmerf]

How many people can an AR15 kill, in a packed school in 4 minutes?

That's a long time.

A lot, probably including him if he engaged. A 9mm Beretta stands no chance against an ar 15 carried by someone with body armor. I have no doubt that man would be dead right now.... I haven't heard of the shooter used all his ammo, but a confrontation could have provoked him even more. Maybe he decides that day is his day to die instead of making a run for it. 17 people could have turned into 50+.

 

This shooting isn't that deputies fault. Maybe he could have saved some lives by engaging, but maybe he makes it worse. He resigned, which was the right thing to do.

[Mr. Brooks]

A lot, probably including him if he engaged. A 9mm Beretta stands no chance against an ar 15 carried by someone with body armor. I have no doubt that man would be dead right now.... I haven't heard of the shooter used all his ammo, but a confrontation could have provoked him even more. Maybe he decides that day is his day to die instead of making a run for it. 17 people could have turned into 50+.

 

This shooting isn't that deputies fault. Maybe he could have saved some lives by engaging, but maybe he makes it worse. He resigned, which was the right thing to do.

We'll never agree if your stance is that law enforcement should sit back and do nothing while children are massacred, because it might be dangerous. Never.

 

And again, if your assessment is correct, then why are his supervisors, who know what he was trained and/or expected to do, saying that he should have gone in? Do you think you are more qualified to assess that than they are? Or do you think they are lying?

[Mr. Brooks]

More from the sheriff, this deputy's boss:

 

 

When asked by reporters to describe how the video made him feel, Israel responded, "sick to my stomach" and "devastated."

 

"It doesn’t matter who went in first, it doesn’t matter in what order you went in," he said. "What matters is that when we in law enforcement arrive at an active shooter, we go in and address the target and that’s what should have been done."

 

 

This doesn't line up at all with what people are saying in here, specifically this part:

 

"What matters is that when we in law enforcement arrive at an active shooter, we go in and address the target and that’s what should have been done."

 

 

Why is the sheriff saying they are trained and/ or expected to go in and address the target in an active shooter scenario, if this isn't correct.

It's also well known that this has been the accepted tactic in active shooter situations since Columbine. So, there is little reason to doubt that this was their policy as well.

[Badsmerf]

My stance is that we don't know what would have happened, and that 4 minutes isn't that long to assess a situation and act. I don't believe charging in with guns blazing is a real strategy. I'd argue more people die that way.

 

Also, each person is different in this scenarios. This was the first time someone tried... and successfully... ran. I think treating every shooter like the Columbine situation is misguided. This one was different in every way except that kids died. We are lucky the Columbine kids didn't have assault rifles, or I'd bet there would have been 100 dead. They shot around 200 rounds total between shotguns and handguns. With an ar 15, that could have been over 1000.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

The "personal character of the armed officer who was patrolling the school that day" is a terrible place to dwell in the discussion on school shootings. Raise the issue, maybe, and then let it drop. If that's the main focus, the gun lobby has some campaign money they would like to shower you with.

 

Secondly, don't sign up for the job then. Police, military, fire fighting, those jobs aren't for everyone.

There are plenty of other occupations out there. There are also countless brave men and women who do feel compelled to take an oath to risk their lives protecting others. Anyone not 100% sure should step aside and let someone who is take their job.

Ha, of course he was 100% sure of himself. Think about it.

[Riverbrian]

The vast majority of people who are charged with a crime didn't intend to be evil.

I never accused him of being evil. This is a complete straw man argument.

We hold people liable in every single segment of criminal and civil law for things other than direct malicious intent.

 

And this isn't a mob looking for a scapegoat. His superiors have stated that he didn't do what he was supposed to do. Not sure why people don't believe them, as they know far better than any of us what was expected of the officer.

 

I never accused you of accusing him.

 

Ok... it seems that a few of us have placed a lesser importance on this guy and we end up talking past each other so let’s go where you want.

 

This guy was very disappointing. On this we agree. It can’t be argued. He was the wrong officer at the wrong time.

 

What should we do with him?