You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] 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.


[–] 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).


[–] midnightblue1335 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Because they were inside of the situation as it unfolded. They'd have heard where the first shots opened up, maybe be able to identify if there's more than one shooter, and the closer they are the better the information they'd have.

Like I said, it's a dilemma, people are going to die either way. Our external solutions NEVER work. I'm not sure why people are so rabidly going after the police for slow response to engage after this particular shooting, because ALL OF THEM ARE LIKE THIS.

The only way these rampages end is when the shooter pops himself, or a would-be victim nuts up and tackles the fucker/uses their own weapon. There might be a couple instances where a cop already on-scene engages early and PREVENTS the rampage, but typically when they get started the police form up, regroup, and strike when they feel like they have enough info to avoid too much collateral damage.

Police also never have the element of surprise in these situations. They're always clearly outfitted, and the attackers will know they're coming. They won't expect 80 year old Mrs. B who teaches English 2 to pull a .45 from her skirt and pop him in the belly a few times. Strengthening internal security uses the natural advantage of surprise to great effect.


[–] 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.


[–] midnightblue1335 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It can be hard to see a person with a rifle behind gunsmoke and dozens of students running in every direction. Even if you try to go by sound, you're practically deaf after hearing a few shots from a rifle indoors without hearing protection.

You're making the same mistake I keep seeing, you're ignoring the UTTER CHAOS of a scenario like this. You're ignoring the physiological responses the police have, you're ignoring the extremely high potential that an officer mistakenly shoots bystanders (especially if he's using a pistol). "Just shoot him" is NOT sound tactical advice for handling something like this, there are countless variables that need to be considered. I wish it was as simple as you and a lot of folks want to make it, but it isn't.

Let me be clear here and give my stance on the deputy or w/e that was stationed at the school- he absolutely should've been heading for the gunshots. That's his JOB. He is armed and presumably trained to handle this kind of scenario. But the police who arrive on the scene 5 minutes after it begins, being fed all kinds of conflicting information and trying to control the mobs of civilians scattering in every direction, while trying to also be prepared for the threat... it's a massive task and it's disrespectful and childlike to try to boil it down to "I would've ran in there and killed him myself by beating him with a chair!", or "That cop should've just Rambo'ed in there and blasted the fool!" because you don't take into account the infinite variables involved here.


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

until the sniper can get him

Nice imagination where first responders go in fast enough to make a difference, but after a dedicated marksman has arrived and sufficient information has been obtained such that an appropriate vantage point is selected.

Also 2-3 operators even at the county level equates to 10,000 people receiving special forces/ERT training daily.

tl;dr you've got to be shitting me


[–] 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.


[–] midnightblue1335 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Thanks for respectful reply. It may seem like I'm defending the cowardice of the officers who are stationed specifically at the school- that's not my stance at all. That's the guy whose job it is to rush in there and do something at the moment of contact. The police are a bit different, they need to approach these scenarios with as much organization and prep as possible. But if your job is to physically protect a certain group from harm, that's your ass, get in there.

I'm also in the camp of "early and decisive engagement". You don't need a SWAT team to take out a teenager with a rifle hopped up on SSRIs. 4 cops with rifles could do the job much quicker if they had contingencies in place. This would require new training methods... like I said, it's a fucking mess. The right thing to do is run in there and give your life for the children- I don't think anyone can argue against that. But the other variables such as accidentally shooting the wrong kids shouldn't be ignored.

Do you have any idea why people are so rabidly attacking the police for this particular case? Look at all of the other big school shooting events. Columbine is the prime example, but let's give them their excuse of "we weren't trained for that, but we've restructured our response so we'll be ready next time!" At every school shooting event, there is always an officer who arrives first or was already on scene and could make the decision to nut up and disobey orders and go in there. But they don't do it, EVER. This is seen by the public as incompetence, and for some reason this incident is REALLY bringing the heat.