An Upside Down World

[Squirrel]

Let’s try to focus here.

 

This is about the wrong person being able to easily acquire a gun that no one should have access to ... at least that’s what I think. That’s is the primary focus here, yes? No?

 

One deputy arriving on scene and not engaging is not the issue. That is something we can’t know what, how, why. He may or may not have saved lives, he may or may not have made it worse. The bottom line for me is that his presence shouldn’t be needed at all! Can we focus on one thing at a time?

 

An AR15 in the hands of a lunatic or in anyone’s hands, that’s the crux here.

[TheLeviathan]

 

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.

 

To stick with my analogy, we are welcome to discuss many fronts on this.  We can talk about all sorts of issues about Trump, but spending time on Big Macs is irrelevant in comparison.

 

But let's just ask one thing about this hill you want to die on.  You're implying that we should pass a law that punishes officers who don't go rushing into schools guns blazing in a crisis.

 

And you can't see some problems with that?

 

He got reprimanded, retired in shame, and has to live with this the rest of his life.  I'd say this case is closed, time to move on to more comprehensive issues that can lead to better solutions.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

Time is relative. In an active shooter situation (or really any decision a police officer has to make) 4 minutes is a long time. The entire incident took 6 minutes.

 

I'm not trying to predict what would have happened if he'd entered. The bottom line is that his training told him he was suppose to enter and he didn't.

Law enforcement trains for a reason. It's so they know how to react to a given situation, without needing four minutes to assess it.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

 

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

The gun lobby has zero to do with this. Police officers are going to be armed, they don't need the gun lobby.

[Mr. Brooks]

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?

I've already said, he should face some liability.

I've never argued he should be burned at the stake.

We charge passenger ship crew members who abandon ship while people drown.

We charge military personnel who flee in a firefight.

Not much different, IMO.

[Craig Arko]

I wonder what will become of the other three deputies who arrived and promptly took up defensive positions behind their cars.

 

Perhaps training is not a substitute for having actually been in a firefight.

[Mr. Brooks]

To stick with my analogy, we are welcome to discuss many fronts on this. We can talk about all sorts of issues about Trump, but spending time on Big Macs is irrelevant in comparison.

 

But let's just ask one thing about this hill you want to die on. You're implying that we should pass a law that punishes officers who don't go rushing into schools guns blazing in a crisis.

 

And you can't see some problems with that?

 

He got reprimanded, retired in shame, and has to live with this the rest of his life. I'd say this case is closed, time to move on to more comprehensive issues that can lead to better solutions.

When you belittle people's arguments by comparing the possibility of saving an actual human being's life, someone's child, to a Big Mac, you are not welcoming people to discuss all fronts of the issue. You are just causing people to dig in deeper, and make it impossible for anyone to consider compromise.

 

Please stop using terms like "guns blazing". Entering is actually the acknowledged correct tactic in an active shooter situation. And is what his superiors have said he was supposed to do.

Not only them acknowledging that he was supposed to enter, but using terms like "disgusted" , and "heartbreaking" to describe his decision to not enter.

Shouldn't those choice of descriptors from his superiors give you some insight into just how obvious it was that he was supposed to enter?

You can make your argument without trying to make it sound like it would be some reckless "Rambo" style entrance.

These guys train for situations like this.

 

We already have laws that apply liability to passenger crews that abandon ship, and military personnel who desert.

So I don't find incredible to suggest that a police officer who chooses to ignore his duty could also be held liable.

[Mr. Brooks]

I wonder what will become of the other three deputies who arrived and promptly took up defensive positions behind their cars.

 

Perhaps training is not a substitute for having actually been in a firefight.

They are being investigated as well. The sheriff stated that if it's discovered they also failed to act that, "they will be dealt with as well."

 

I'd assume that to mean they'd face similar suspension/ firing as the original officer.

[Craig Arko]

They are being investigated as well. The sheriff stated that if it's discovered they also failed to act that, "they will be dealt with as well."

I'd assume that to mean they'd face similar suspension/ firing as the original officer.

And what should happen to those who were responsible for training these officers? Apparently they failed in their jobs as well.

 

For that matter, what of the FBI agents who had a file on the young man, and the social workers who visited his home after his self mutilation and pronounced him not a threat?

[Mr. Brooks]

And what should happen to those who were responsible for training these officers? Apparently they failed in their jobs as well.

Well at this time we don't know if their training was a failure, or if they just chose to ignore it.

[Riverbrian]

I've already said, he should face some liability.

I've never argued he should be burned at the stake.

We charge passenger ship crew members who abandon ship while people drown.

We charge military personnel who flee in a firefight.

Not much different, IMO.

Right now he has resigned and been suspended without pay. He had been publicly called out by his commander and called a coward by the President of the USA. He probably has a scarlet letter that he is wearing around town. He is also about to become the very center of a debate about arming teachers as the left and right wing throw him around like a rag doll.

 

Does he deserve more liability? Fines? Jail? Public Service?

[Mr. Brooks]

Right now he has resigned and been suspended without pay. He had been publicly called out by his commander and called a coward by the President of the USA. He probably has a scarlet letter that he is wearing around town. He is also about to become the very center of a debate about arming teachers as the left and right wing throw him around like a rag doll.

 

Does he deserve more liability? Fines? Jail? Public Service?

I gave examples of other similar scenarios in which people are charged. I have no idea what the punishment would be, I think it usually amounts to similar guidelines as manslaughter, in the case of ship captains.

 

I get he's not going to be charged, probably not even a statue at this time.

I gave my opinion, it's clear nobody agrees.

I just think we're making an already scary place that we're in right now even more scary by saying it's acceptable for sworn police officers to stand by and do nothing. That's not ok with me.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I gave examples of other similar scenarios in which people are charged. I have no idea what the punishment would be, I think it usually amounts to similar guidelines as manslaughter, in the case of ship captains.

I get he's not going to be charged, probably not even a statue at this time.
I gave my opinion, it's clear nobody agrees.
I just think we're making an already scary place that we're in right now even more scary by saying it's acceptable for sworn police officers to stand by and do nothing. That's not ok with me.

 

I'm also not ok with laws that embolden police officers to be more aggressive in situations where they perceive a threat.

 

Make no mistake, that will be a consequence of what you suggest.

 

In general, I think responding to situations like this and looking for people to scapegoat and put in jail is a wrong-headed response.   He has enough happen to him already that I find it sufficient.  I don't want some law we pass today to cause the next officer to do something reckless.  

 

You'll have a lot of this in your world.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I gave examples of other similar scenarios in which people are charged. I have no idea what the punishment would be, I think it usually amounts to similar guidelines as manslaughter, in the case of ship captains.

I get he's not going to be charged, probably not even a statue at this time.

I gave my opinion, it's clear nobody agrees.

I just think we're making an already scary place that we're in right now even more scary by saying it's acceptable for sworn police officers to stand by and do nothing. That's not ok with me.

Not acceptable, just predictable and maybe even understandable. He had never been tested this way before. Like the above poster said, seems like scapegoating the guy is a good way to divert from the issue.

 

Hey, maybe the video should be made public, so we can all get a really good look at what happened.

[Riverbrian]

I gave examples of other similar scenarios in which people are charged. I have no idea what the punishment would be, I think it usually amounts to similar guidelines as manslaughter, in the case of ship captains.

 

I get he's not going to be charged, probably not even a statue at this time.

I gave my opinion, it's clear nobody agrees.

I just think we're making an already scary place that we're in right now even more scary by saying it's acceptable for sworn police officers to stand by and do nothing. That's not ok with me.

It isn’t acceptable and whenever this type of thing happens. I imagine it is handled and he would be handled in the usual way. However... this one has the additional punishment of an audience size that will crush him.

 

If he froze... he probably wasn’t the first officer to freeze in the line of duty.

 

I leave it up to law enforcement to determine if they need a Leavenworth to house the terrible cops. If forced to offer an opinion... I’d say we have too many people in prison as it is but I’ve never had to discipline people with life or death responsibility.

 

I do believe this tho... If the debate shifts from the kids to the cop. The NRA will win.

[Mr. Brooks]

I'm also not ok with laws that embolden police officers to be more aggressive in situations where they perceive a threat.

 

Make no mistake, that will be a consequence of what you suggest.

 

In general, I think responding to situations like this and looking for people to scapegoat and put in jail is a wrong-headed response. He has enough happen to him already that I find it sufficient. I don't want some law we pass today to cause the next officer to do something reckless.

 

You'll have a lot of this in your world.

I'm not asking for them to be more aggressive.

Again, your implication that I want him to go in and shoot anything that moves is a straw man.

His superiors have said he was supposed to go in, I don't understand why some can't accept that they know more than us about what the expected response was.

[PseudoSABR]

If anything, this debate should dispell the notion that more armed guards (or teachers) is the answer.  

[Mr. Brooks]

It isn’t acceptable and whenever this type of thing happens. I imagine it is handled and he would be handled in the usual way. However... this one has the additional punishment of an audience size that will crush him.

 

If he froze... he probably wasn’t the first officer to freeze in the line of duty.

 

I leave it up to law enforcement to determine if they need a Leavenworth to house the terrible cops. If forced to offer an opinion... I’d say we have too many people in prison as it is but I’ve never had to discipline people with life or death responsibility.

 

I do believe this tho... If the debate shifts from the kids to the cop. The NRA will win.

But some are arguing that it was acceptable, some even that it was the best response.

We know that in an active shooter scenario, he's supposed to enter. Period. It's bizzare to me that some are implying they know better than his supervisors what he's supposed to do there.

 

I have no problem saying he was wrong, he didn't follow protocol, but he doesn't need to be punished. Perfectly fair take. And, despite my personal opinion, probably the correct one.

 

But some are insisting that he didn't even do anything wrong, despite incredibly obvious statements from his supervisors, and other law enforcement that he didn't do what he was supposed to do.

 

I'd think the best way to fight the NRA on "good guy with a gun" would be to insist that law enforcement handle it. By saying it's acceptable for law enforcement to stand by and do nothing, it just opens the door for the argument that, "if the cops won't do anything, we need to arm teachers and citizens who will."

 

The cop should have gone in. It's unacceptable and disgusting to me that he didn't, and his supervisors have used those same descriptors.

 

I'm moving on from my liability opinion. It's very unlikely, and probably not constructive.

[Mr. Brooks]

If anything, this debate should dispell the notion that more armed guards (or teachers) is the answer.

I'll start by being clear that I think arming teachers is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard in my life.

 

Outside of that though, I think it's going to take a little bit from every column.

No one thing is going to be the solution.

We need better gun control, but we're too far armed to think we can prevent everyone who might do this from getting their hands on a gun capable of doing it. So that's only part of the solution.

 

We need MUCH better mental health care and prevention. But, again, we'll never be able to treat everyone who needs it, especially if they aren't open to treatment. So, that's only part of the solution.

 

We need better protocol for limiting casualties once the shooting begins.

I don't want our kids going to school in a prison. But, I do think we are going to have to make some uncomfortable concessions on this. Perhaps secure entrances with airport type security. Classroom doors that can be made impenetrable in an active shooter situation.

Some of this will seem draconian, and it will be expensive. But, it's worth spending the money.

 

We need better monitoring of obvious signs.

Often times there aren't any. In this specific case, there were an almost a seemingly obscene amount of red flags. Law enforcement, students, parents, and school staff have to take threats and behavior more serious. Yes, it will lead to many times where it is much ado about nothing, they are kids after all, and kids say stupid things that they don't mean sometime. But when they say those things in combination with a horde of semi automatic weapons, something has to be done.

 

I'm sure there are countless other avenues as well, but mainly I think it will have to be a little bit from every column.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'm not asking for them to be more aggressive.
Again, your implication that I want him to go in and shoot anything that moves is a straw man.
His superiors have said he was supposed to go in, I don't understand why some can't accept that they know more than us about what the expected response was.

 

Yes.  He was expected to go in.  He should have gone in.  No one is disputing that.  What is in dispute is what you want to do because he didn't go in.

 

And what you suggest you want (personal liability for failure to "act") will almost certainly, in my opinion, lead to other kinds of tragedies.  And it will embolden or force police officers to be more aggressive rather than tactful in the face of dangerous situations.

 

I think what he's suffered for his inaction is enough for him and for the next officer.  What you suggest will only do more harm than good.

[Mr. Brooks]

Yes. He was expected to go in. He should have gone in. No one is disputing that. What is in dispute is what you want to do because he didn't go in.

 

And what you suggest you want (personal liability for failure to "act") will almost certainly, in my opinion, lead to other kinds of tragedies. And it will embolden or force police officers to be more aggressive rather than tactful in the face of dangerous situations.

 

I think what he's suffered for his inaction is enough for him and for the next officer. What you suggest will only do more harm than good.

Actually, at least one poster is disputing that he should have gone in.

 

And I already stated that I'm moving on from my opinion that he should be held liable. I admitted that it's probably not constructive. Although, I will point out that the military holds people criminally liable if they abandon their duty.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Actually, at least one poster is disputing that he should have gone in.

And I already stated that I'm moving on from my opinion that he should be held liable. I admitted that it's probably not constructive. Although, I will point out that the military holds people criminally liable if they abandon their duty.

 

I would simply suggest that a military firefight and a school shooting are not the same thing and that the comparisons you listed are all flawed in different ways.  

 

We can work on reforms with law enforcement and their response, but this isn't an area we should focus on.

 

I can tell you that schools and law enforcement have revised their approach to these shootings several times over the last 3-5 years.  What I'm asked to do and told the officers will do, is quite different than it was 2 years ago and WAY different than 5 years ago.  So changes like this are happening because both schools and police want these to be more effective responses.

 

I think the larger social issues are what are in dire need of change personally. 

[Mr. Brooks]

I would simply suggest that a military firefight and a school shooting are not the same thing and that the comparisons you listed are all flawed in different ways.

 

We can work on reforms with law enforcement and their response, but this isn't an area we should focus on.

 

I can tell you that schools and law enforcement have revised their approach to these shootings several times over the last 3-5 years. What I'm asked to do and told the officers will do, is quite different than it was 2 years ago and WAY different than 5 years ago. So changes like this are happening because both schools and police want these to be more effective responses.

 

I think the larger social issues are what are in dire need of change personally.

They aren't the same thing, but I'd suggest they are more similar than you're allowing.

Doesn't matter though, again I'm moving on, it's not constructive unless this becomes more than seemingly one isolated incident.

 

I made a comment on a specific officer. I never suggested it was near the top of any priority list.

I think my brain is capable of discussing multiple subjects, without lessening the importance of the higher priorities regarding these shootings.

I reject the idea that people can't focus on the larger issues if they also discuss this particular officer.

[Badsmerf]

I stand by my opinion that we don't know what the result would be had he acted differently, and that it could have been worse. I think it's a fair discussion. I don't think mr Brooks is suggesting more punishment for this guy, just that in other scenarios it has happened. I'm ready to move on as well.

[Mr. Brooks]

I stand by my opinion that we don't know what the result would be had he acted differently, and that it could have been worse. I think it's a fair discussion. I don't think mr Brooks is suggesting more punishment for this guy, just that in other scenarios it has happened. I'm ready to move on as well.

I don't dispute that we don't know what would have happened.

Not my point. He was supposed to go in. Given what his supervisors have said, I don't see how that's in doubt even a little bit.

[Squirrel]

I don't dispute that we don't know what would have happened.

Not my point. He was supposed to go in. Given what his supervisors have said, I don't see how that's in doubt even a little bit.

Or his supervisors are covering their own tails for some reason.

 

I have no doubts about this because for me, it’s beside the point. As Smurf said it’s a fair discussion, but for me straying a bit from what I feel to be the most important part of this situation. Yeah, we’ll never know for sure, and yes, I suppose some accountability will be investigated, but that is secondary to me, far secondary, that this troubled young man (the shooter) was able to easily and legally obtain the weapon he did with the intentions he had.

[Mr. Brooks]

Or his supervisors are covering their own tails for some reason.

 

I have no doubts about this because for me, it’s beside the point. As Smurf said it’s a fair discussion, but for me straying a bit from what I feel to be the most important part of this situation. Yeah, we’ll never know for sure, and yes, I suppose some accountability will be investigated, but that is secondary to me, far secondary, that this troubled young man (the shooter) was able to easily and legally obtain the weapon he did with the intentions he had.

Of course it's secondary.

I don't understand this premise that nothing but the very top of the current priority list can be discussed.

It's (this officer) a totally isolated abstract conversation.

I get that.

I'm also completely capable of discussing multiple things without losing focus on priorities. And I think most people are as well. And I also don't think it's healthy for each angle to insist that only certain parts are worthy of discussion.

It just makes people bitter and standoffish.

 

The way to get everyone to work together, IMO, is to say everyone's ideas are important and welcome. Let's talk about EVERYTHING, and see where we can all find common ground, then let's look for compromises on the rest.

[TheLeviathan]

Well, we can move on then.  There is no common ground on punishing this guy further.

 

One of the issues rising in conversation is how "easy" it is to just walk in off the street and wander through the school.  I think that's a mischaracterization, but I also think people are naive to think you can completely lock down a school's entry points.  

 

I've been in schools that had only one entrance point and it worked well, but not all schools can operate that way without major remodeling.

[Squirrel]

Of course it's secondary.

I don't understand this premise that nothing but the very top of the current priority list can be discussed.

It's (this officer) a totally isolated abstract conversation.

I get that.

I'm also completely capable of discussing multiple things without losing focus on priorities. And I think most people are as well. And I also don't think it's healthy for each angle to insist that only certain parts are worthy of discussion.

It just makes people bitter and standoffish.

The way to get everyone to work together, IMO, is to say everyone's ideas are important and welcome. Let's talk about EVERYTHING, and see where we can all find common ground, then let's look for compromises on the rest.

It’s not that we can’t discuss it, but it’s gone back and forth with no resolution on this issue, so I’m trying to move the focus back to something we can move forward on with better focus and clarity rather than something that divides us and is going nowhere.

[biggentleben]

So, forest for trees issue here. sheriff is an elected position in most places around the country. No chance that the sheriff has been persuaded by a donor for his next campaign, one with a particular three-letter acronym and having his comments influenced by that donor is there??