You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

2
9

[–] HAESisalie 2 points 9 points (+11|-2) ago 

I was on a DOD ERT team when Columbine went down. We were outraged that SWAT didn't go right in, and swore that wouldn't happen on our watch. WE WOULD GO IN right away. Both our SGT and Capt. immediately told us we would do no such thing. That we would wait for intel and orders from them. When we left and got back in our Suburban to do patrols, we to a man said "Fuck that! We are going in!" They can fire us afterward, if they think they can take the publicity, but no way we were waiting...

2
6

[–] midnightblue1335 2 points 6 points (+8|-2) ago 

Columbine was supposed to be the "turning point" in how school shootings would be responded to. According to the police, their protocol at the time was one that emphasized "containment" rather than "early engagement'. The attack had been over for 3 hours before any officers stepped inside the building.

And I can understand the thinking behind this- the information the officers had was shoddy at best, didn't know who they were looking for, how many, what they were armed with, etc.. There were reports of snipers on the roof, grenades, automatic weapons, up to 4-5 shooters working together, and in the middle of all of this mess is a few hundred teenagers running for their lives.

You remember early in basic training when your Drill Instructor/Sgt. would make your training platoon run in and out of the head/latrine over and over, and time you? Maybe this was a Marine thing, but as I understood it they were trying to teach us how to move as a big group, quickly, without trampling each other. High schoolers being shot at will lack any such discipline- utter chaos.

Do you want to be the first officer in there to engage and accidentally shoot 3 kids in the "fog of war"? That's the dilemma here. We look at these events as if the bad guy has a big red arrow pointing at him like a damned video game, and all of the bystanders will cooperate fully with you in order to give you a clear shot at the fucker. And you're also being asked to do this with your service pistol or shotgun, maybe a rifle if you're lucky. And you're up against God-knows-what, a bigger rifle? An Uzi?

It's easy to Monday morning QB this shit, it really is. I simply don't think it's feasible to count on an outside force like the police to be able to neutralize a threat like this quickly enough that a dozen or more kids aren't already dead; the solution seems to be an internal one, like arming the teachers.

1
3

[–] Tovarich 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

I am not sure how the "fog of war" situation would be any different for a teacher or other school worker inside the building(s).

1
0

[–] Plavonica 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Here's the thing for me: we aren't just sending some random asshole off the street in there. I think there should be a small vanguard of highly trained elites who train daily in chaotic environments to correctly identify what is going on. Just generally being able to fight in a general war is completely different training requirements than someone who would be trained to take out a school shooter.

I think there should be at least 2-3 trained in such a way for each school district.

We look at these events as if the bad guy has a big red arrow pointing at him like a damned video game, and all of the bystanders will cooperate fully with you in order to give you a clear shot at the fucker.

Just a hint.

He is probably the one with a gun shooting at people in a no-gun zone. And most people are probably not running towards him. I would also seriously doubt many crowds would help hide him in any way shape or form. Even if they did, and somehow didn't fuck him up once he was surrounded, it would be blatantly obvious who it was. And either he is using a human shield, in which case you distract him to keep him from shooting at other people until the sniper can get him, or he is just shooting at the people around him, in which case you just shoot him because the longer you wait the more people die.

1
0

[–] HAESisalie 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Yes, we understood and considered all of that, and perfectly understood it was a TOTAL CYA move on the part of our Sgt. and Capt. So that if something went bad, and an innocent kid got shot by one of us, they would be covered because they had told us not to go in. Whereas if we went in and saved the day, there would be no problem from them. We still decided we would go in, despite the risks, and despite the fog of war and not really having all the intel of what we were facing. Waiting for that to become all clear would be waiting for the body count to rise to completely unacceptable levels. Bodies of people we were paid to protect.

I did not second guess, or Monday morning quarterback anyone here. I simple stated what my Team's perspective was. If somebody with a badge and a duty to protect feels comfortable hiding somewhere while kids are being killed, that is on them. They can be judged after an appropriate investigation is done, and not by me from the safety of my keyboard. I do appreciate your perspective, and do not disagree with any of it.