yet another twist to the story in FL

[Smokescreen]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Originally Posted By: HemiHawk

... On another note, I've heard quite a bit recently that officers do not need to engage or "protect" citizens. I can't remember the exact wording on why this is. Of course there are the heros that do.

This is actually easy to answer: Per SCOTUS, LE agencies have no "duty" to protect. Google this: "no duty to protect" or other similar phrases The SCOTUS decisions on this topic are essentially centered around Warren V DC and some others. The government has no duty to protect an individual at all. If that were to be held true, we'd all have armed escorts everywhere we go. Obviously this is both fiscally and physically impossible. So LEOs are not required to protect anyone. Ever. We can, if we are present, do what we can to stop a threat, but we're not required to do so under SC case law. http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-an...-duty-doctrine/ The only time an agency has a duty to protect and care for someone is once they are in custody; because the person no longer has control over their surroundings. I am accountable for protecting a criminal I arrest because I take away his freedom and ability to protect himself. I am not accountable for protecting the general public, because they have the ability to protect themselves. (Ironically, not in a "gun free zone" where only the victims are "gun free".) The more you read, the more you understand. This is why, in a nutshell, pro-gun people are adamantly against giving up their guns. Criminals will only be relieved of their guns if caught and arrested. So if the government has no duty to protect individuals, and we "legislate" guns away from potential victims, the obvious result is pretty darn self-evident. Take away the sheepdog from the sheep, and the wolves have free reign.

This post is very informative and appreciated...my eyes have been opened much wider than before.

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: maxdustington

The problem I have is that he was allowed to retire, instead of having to face the music. That sets a concerning precedent. If he engaged, he would probably have gotten killed or injured. Either way, he would have been known as a hero. He chose his pension over serving and protecting.

I think most people would choose pension (or their own safety, or life, whatever) over running into a potential firefight. Combat statistics prove that to be the case. Nearly 75% of US Army Soldiers in WWII did not fire their weapons* That propensity: to not engage effectively, was first noticed in the US civil war. Ordinary citizens, pressed onto the battlefield, responded as most people do: reticent to kill another. Lots of people believe they would run towards the sound of the guns, but most do not in actual circumstances. And while there is no shortage of “keyboard courage” when the analysis starts, you won’t know which you truly are until you find yourself in a similar situation. * ref: “On Killing” by COL. Dave Grossman.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

More patterns emerge... All these system failures look deliberate to me.

If you listen to Dana Loesch's most recent speech, they seem even more deliberate...

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Originally Posted By: maxdustington

The problem I have is that he was allowed to retire, instead of having to face the music. That sets a concerning precedent. If he engaged, he would probably have gotten killed or injured. Either way, he would have been known as a hero. He chose his pension over serving and protecting.

I think most people would choose pension (or their own safety, or life, whatever) over running into a potential firefight. Combat statistics prove that to be the case. Nearly 75% of US Army Soldiers in WWII did not fire their weapons* That propensity: to not engage effectively, was first noticed in the US civil war. Ordinary citizens, pressed onto the battlefield, responded as most people do: reticent to kill another. Lots of people believe they would run towards the sound of the guns, but most do not in actual circumstances. And while there is no shortage of “keyboard courage” when the analysis starts, you won’t know which you truly are until you find yourself in a similar situation. * ref: “On Killing” by COL. Dave Grossman.

Great response!

 

[Mr Nice]

That cop was a chicken [censored] for not wanting to enter the building after hearing all the shots fired.... No wonder he resigned ASAP after news broke he wanted to wait for the Calvary to arrive. What a piece of [censored].

 

[dernp]

I recently retired after spending 32 yrs as a police officer. After hearing this story on CNN this morning, I found it quite disturbing that the officer did not engage. It is standard practice for all agencies to be trained in active shooter situations. This became necessary after Colombine. I agree that an officer may not want to confront an active shooter however it is his/her job to protect life. This is an extremely unfortunate incident and I understand that the officer has resigned.

 

[SZR48207]

Those of you who live in South FL - What was your perception of the Broward County Sheriffs prior to this incident?

 

[dernp]

Originally Posted By: gathermewool

4 minutes goes by very, VERY quickly when you're under duress. I'd like to know exactly what his standing orders were, and what his training was like, before I judge. Regardless of what the news puts out, the chance of a school shooting at any particular school is very low, and if training/orders weren't robust/clear, then he was setup to fail. What would be worse is if some of the other innocent students had been killed by this deputy, either as collateral damage in a shoot-out or due to his nerves getting the best of him, say, when a student darts into view and appears to be a threat evaluated too late.

This couldn't be further from the truth. Unless you have frontline experience, it's impossible for civilians to interpret life threatening situations.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder

.... Or he chose to live instead of risking the high probability of dying. Looking at it that way, you can't really blame him, can you? .....

Of course he can be blamed, and he should be blamed and held in contempt. He wasn't conscripted. He took the job. He knew the job might be dangerous when he took it. He just never thought it would be him. Well, sometimes it is you. Fate is cruel like that. You do your job regardless. If his job wasn't to engage an active shooter if needed, why was he armed? That sure as heck is what the public thought his job was.

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: cpayne5

Originally Posted By: demarpaint

There were a lot of mistakes, first and foremost was the FBI really screwed up, big time! It just spirals downhill from there right to the armed coward that waited outside for 4 minutes and did nothing. Having said that all of this could have been avoided if the FBI did their job. It was another avoidable tragedy. Prayers sent to all those impacted by this nightmare.

It definitely sounds like this nutcase slipped through the cracks at the FBI, but I believe the local authorities truly dropped the ball in this case. I read that they received 23 calls about this weirdo over the years and yet he was able to march right into the school and do what he did. Local police (including the school resource officer, from reports) knew what he was, the school administration knew he was, and the kids in the school knew what he was. This SOB's name should have never hit the news. With everything known about him prior, he should have been living a life of anonymity in a straitjacket somewhere. In regards to the resource officer, I'll withhold judgment. We don't know the entire situation and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not looking good for him, though, and he'll have to live with his choices for the rest of his life. The internet is full of "if I were in that situation, I'd have..." type statements. That's all good and well, but until we *are in* that situation, we really don't know how we'd react. I'm sure even adrenaline and fear get the best of even the most well trained officers at times.

I agree, and if you read between the lines of what I said there were other agencies at fault as well. With regard to how we act in a situation you're right, but I look at it this way. If you're afraid of fire don't become a fireman, if you don't like heights don't climb mountains or jump out of a plane. If you're afraid of getting shot at or you have to shoot at someone to protect others don't become a police officer. The PO in question now has to live with himself, his own personal [censored] for being a coward and making a bad career choice.

 

[JMJNet]

Did somebody notice that the kid is suspended from school and he has not been at school for a year? I think, it is also the failure of the school system or the government run school system to be exact? What does a teenager who does not go to school for a year do? Yes, if he is a bad kid then the system ought to take care of him, right? Instead of just letting him go for a year. What I am saying is may be the school is too weak to keep the kids busy so they got bored and imagining things like this and become a reality. Don't blame the gun, blame ourselves to not care about this type of issue in this country. Not want to be political but we need to take care of the people here first before worrying about the illegal immigrant. Don't you think? But, getting vote is more important than taking care of people in general. After all, the people have to serve the politician????

 

[tomcat27]

I caught that too: he was supposedly suspended; yet the family he lived with thought he was going to school on a regular basis. he had simply taken Valentine's day off. the family also knew he was depressed and that he had multiple weapons.

 

[GravelRoad]

Ironically, the deputy that did not engage shooter, his home is being guarded by at least 6 deputies.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: dernp

I recently retired after spending 32 yrs as a police officer. After hearing this story on CNN this morning, I found it quite disturbing that the officer did not engage. It is standard practice for all agencies to be trained in active shooter situations. This became necessary after Colombine. I agree that an officer may not want to confront an active shooter however it is his/her job to protect life. This is an extremely unfortunate incident and I understand that the officer has resigned.

I cannot speak to military events; I was never in. I can speak to LEO; I'm current, as are a few other members here. As well as several retired officers. Some of us have even been in a "guns drawn" situation. (Not necessarily shots fired from our weapons, but weapons drawn and pointed at a suspect, ready to fire if warranted). I have been, on multiple occasions, ready to kill a subject physically and mentally. It's part of the job; no more and no less. After Columbine, as noted in the quote above, officers are now trained to run towards the threats and engage them. That will likely save lives. It may not save all lives. It may cost us our lives. But that's what officers generally are trained to do. Not unlike fireman who run into a burning building while others are running out. We are not trained to die; we are trained to engage the threat and stop it, while reducing our risks as much as practical. If we "engage" the threat, we take away his/her ability to concentrate on their killing spree; we now divide their attention between tasks. To engage may mean to trade shots, or call them out verbally, or throw stuff at them, or close a door on them and lock them in a room, etc. Engage means to ruin their day to a point where they become ineffectual at their initial task of murder. I personally would have no compunction killing a killer; not out of hatred but out of a sense of stopping a threat, whatever that took. But if I didn't have a clear shot, or had innocent victims in the background, rather than shoot directly at him, perhaps I could otherwise divide his attention, get him off balance, alter his course of action, etc. THAT is what officers are trained to do these days. Run to the sound of gunfire, engage the shooter, stop the threat or at least reduce it as much as possible. The cop that hunkered down outside for 4 minutes was likely not following protocol and SOPs. Likely quit before being fired. My point to this thread, and the others I've seen now, is that this is a perfect example of how systemic failures culminate into tragedy. If the FBI had ... If the SO had ... If the school officer had ... Interrupt this progression and the event would have either not taken place at all, or been much different. Take one of these steps more seriously, acting rather than not acting, and the situation would be much different. This is typical of all manner of tragedies: If uncle Billy had not been drunk, and driving, with a bald tire ... If Mr. Jones had not been using with the corded power drill, while standing in the puddle of water, during the electrical storm ... If the bus driver wasn't talking on the radio, and the road wasn't as icy, and the kid didn't run out in front of the bus ... If the milling-machine door sensor was not broken, and if the employee had locked the machine out, and not stuck his head in the machine ... Death rarely comes from a single point of failure, in terms of massacre or tragedy. It's a predicable escalation of events that were often ignored or otherwise not addressed. This was preventable at many levels; break the chain anywhere and the event isn't what history now records.

 

[Pablo]

Originally Posted By: GravelRoad

Ironically, the deputy that did not engage shooter, his home is being guarded by at least 6 deputies.

Came here to state this. More protection for this coward than the school! This whole thing is a failure of Government and people want MORE to protect us. And of course, the innocent will pay. Wrong turn, meet somewhere.

 

[dnewton3]

Originally Posted By: JMJNet

Did somebody notice that the kid is suspended from school and he has not been at school for a year? I think, it is also the failure of the school system or the government run school system to be exact? What does a teenager who does not go to school for a year do? Yes, if he is a bad kid then the system ought to take care of him, right? Instead of just letting him go for a year. What I am saying is may be the school is too weak to keep the kids busy so they got bored and imagining things like this and become a reality. Don't blame the gun, blame ourselves to not care about this type of issue in this country. Not want to be political but we need to take care of the people here first before worrying about the illegal immigrant. Don't you think? But, getting vote is more important than taking care of people in general. After all, the people have to serve the politician????

He was suspended more than once. He eventually was expelled. I would assume that FL is like IN. Once you turn 18, you are no longer legally compelled to attend school. Many kids turn 18 in their senior year. He was expelled, and turned 18, and his only remaining "family" adult died. No one can make him do anything, unless legally adjudicated in due process. You know, like having a LE agency remand him for mandatory evaluation and observation? Or filing for court-ordered removal of firearms (which probably would have only made him go steal one, because when you make up your mind to kill, what's a little theft on your record ????)

 

[ARCOgraphite]

Originally Posted By: Pablo

Came here to state this. More protection for this coward than the school! This whole thing is a failure of Government and people want MORE to protect us. And of course, the innocent will pay. Wrong turn, meet somewhere.

He isn't a coward, he is just not a Martyr. Take you pea shooter and run toward a AR15 to slaughter a month from retirement? I might do it, you might do it not everyone will run to engage a heavily armed shooter. Life is dicey in a combat situation, if you have no experience better you stay on the front lawn directing traffic. You want gun freedom? - sad to say you get the very ugly with it.

 

[PimTac]

We have to consider the huge internet presence of bots and paid forum spammers that are flooding social media and trying to influence the public. This incident is a good example. I for one am not going to judge that LEO. He has his own conscience which will bother him and that’s enough. I wonder how many here would truthfully had gone in if they were in the area and had a weapon? Lots of hindsight talk but would you go in if you were there?

 

[Bottom_Feeder]

Originally Posted By: grampi

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

More patterns emerge... All these system failures look deliberate to me.

If you listen to Dana Loesch's most recent speech, they seem even more deliberate...

Again, meaning what?

 

[stockrex]

Should have, could have - it is all after the fact, it is good to get it off your chest to vent and grieve but it is not going keep my children any safer in their schools.