Today's mass shooting in the US

[Caracus2k]

Isn’t that the first thing the police do in any / most situations. Identify who they are.

If you were entering an address in most situation yes... If only to try and reduce the likely hood that an occupants mistake you for someone else... When severely outgunned and solo in an active shooter scenario... Absolute suicidal madness

 

[dowie]

You can call it insulting you want ... I would suggest its a statement of practical fact that it would be highly foolish to announce, in advance, your presence to a rifle wielding opponent, especially if you were only armed with a typical US police issue 9mm pistol...

That you then went on to suggest the officer would apparently readily be able to find effective cover once inside the school (not likely many concrete walls or posts once inside) rather compounds this asseament

So I could say you're fool, he's an armed police officer it's literally his job to intervene, how dumb are you? But using your logic I'm not insulting you, I could suggest it is a statement of fact! That would make for some constructive conversations on here no doubt...

Just to restate it though - it literally is his job, he's there for security, he's armed for a reason! They are supposed to intervene, that is their policy! We're not talking about the janitor here hiding in a closet but a person employed to deal with criminals, issued with a firearm in order to potentially shoot criminals who pose a threat and indeed to take risks.. and then after accepting money for that position, when an event occurs that might involve him actually having to use that firearm and take a risk he does nothing.

 

[Mr Badger]

I see they are trying the old "Video Games Violence is to blame" tactic again, they used to say the same about movies... Morons!

Anyone remember a time before movies and video games, wow it must have been a peaceful utopia back then with no violence...

No, because back then there were still comics and rock n' roll music to blame. Or maybe jazz.

 

[Mr Badger]

If you were entering an address in most situation yes... If only to try and reduce the likely hood that an occupants mistake you for someone else... When severely outgunned and solo in an active shooter scenario... Absolute suicidal madness

What I don't understand is why wasn't the cop armed with a quarterstaff?

 

[Roar87]

Its a somewhat contentious definition but a semi automatic rifle like an ar15 would generally fit the description....

The big diferrences between a handgun and an 'assault weapon' are generally muzzle velocity, bullet sizes and magazine capacity which all make assault weapoms far more lethal

Its contentious because the media attached the word assault to make them sound worse to the lamen. All they are is semi automatic rifles. Personally I'd view an assault rifle as being fully automatic

 

[Craterloads]

If you were entering an address in most situation yes... If only to try and reduce the likely hood that an occupants mistake you for someone else... When severely outgunned and solo in an active shooter scenario... Absolute suicidal madness

Perhaps, can see it both ways. On one hand it would distract the shooter and probably save lives but on the other hand you would put yourself in greater danger.

I wouldn’t like to be in that situation that’s for sure.

 

[Caracus2k]

So I could say you're fool, he's an armed police officer it's literally his job to intervene, how dumb are you? But using your logic I'm not insulting you, I could suggest it is a statement of fact! That would make for some constructive conversations on here no doubt...

Just to restate it though - it literally is his job, he's there for security, he's armed for a reason! They are supposed to intervene, that is their policy! We're not talking about the janitor here hiding in a closet but a person employed to deal with criminals, issued with a firearm in order to potentially shoot criminals who pose a threat and indeed to take risks.. and then after accepting money for that position, when an event occurs that might involve him actually having to use that firearm and take a risk he does nothing.

We were not so much on about whether he should respond but how he could respond at the point in question....

If I was a cop in a scenario armed with a pistol and limited ammunition vs an unknown amount of rifle wielding suspects in a building and i decided to go in I would not be announcing my presence other then to use my radio prior to entry to let control know for the benefit of any subsequent colleagues to try and reduce the chance of a 'blue on blue'....

If I 'got the drop' on a still armed suspect seemingly unaware of my presence i would likely fire without warning and would only consider a verbal challenge if I was confident that I could neutralise the shooter before they could bring their weapon(s) to bare on me

 

[Orionaut]

Just to restate it though - it literally is his job, he's there for security, he's armed for a reason! They are supposed to intervene, that is their policy! We're not talking about the janitor here hiding in a closet but a person employed to deal with criminals, issued with a firearm in order to potentially shoot criminals who pose a threat and indeed to take risks.. and then after accepting money for that position, when an event occurs that might involve him actually having to use that firearm and take a risk he does nothing.

I wonder what his security background actually was?

Was he an ex-cop nearing retirement, some sort of auxiliary officer (Like our Specials/PCSO's) with limited training/experience. Or was he just a "Security Guy"

 

[dowie]

I wonder what his security background actually was?

Was he an ex-cop nearing retirement, some sort of auxiliary officer (Like our Specials/PCSO's) with limited training/experience. Or was he just a "Security Guy"

Nothing "ex" about it, he was a cop! He was an armed police officer assigned to the school, part of his role is/was security.

Ignoring the bluster from Carcus2k above, the guy's job here, as a police officer faced with an active shooter was to intervene.

 

[Caracus2k]

It seems there is still considerable academic debate in the US about solo reaponse to active shooters...

SOLO ENTRY IS QUITE DANGEROUS

Here is something important to consider. People talk about how the response to active shooters has changed since Columbine, and officers are encouraged to do a “solo entry” if they are the first on the scene. And in some of the discussions I’ve heard, the rationale behind it seems to be, “Well, it’s really not that dangerous, because the attacker usually kills himself.” So I wanted to take a look at it from our data and see if the situation really is clear when there’s one officer going in by himself or herself. And the first thing I found is that in 57 percent of the cases where there’s single-officer entry, the scene is still active. There is still gunfire ringing out. The attacker is still killing people. That’s a higher number than what you see in the overall data, but it makes sense
because the solo officer typically is getting to the scene faster than the cases where multiple officers arrive at once. Here’s what happens if the scene is still active and an officer goes in. Sixty-two percent of the time, the officer shoots the attacker. Another 13 percent, the officer otherwise subdues the attacker. The remaining 25 percent of the time, the suspect kills
himself. So 75 percent of the time when the solo officer goes in and the scene is still hot, the officer is takking direct action against the attacker.

And here’s an even more important statistic:
In all of the solo entries we identified where the
scene was still hot, one-third of the police officers who made that solo entry were shot

SOLO ENTRY AND “CONTACT TEAMS”

In active shooter situations where an officer arrives at the scene and can hear shooting, screams, or other officers to arrive. The shooter may be stopped by arrest, by containment, or by use of deadly force. And some policies note that when an active shooter incident occurs at a school, a School Resource Officer (SRO) may be the first officer at the scene who must make a decision about whether to respond alone.
Other departments requireindications that the perpetrator is actively shooting or threatening victims, some departments’ policies explicitly provide that the lone officer can move to stop the threat without waiting for any additional
officers to arrive. The shooter may be stopped by arrest, by containment, or by use of deadly force.And some policies note that when an active shooter incident occurs at a school, a School Resource Officer (SRO) may be the first officer at the scene who must make a decision about whether to respond alone.

4mb download

 

[Raymond Lin]

Surely if there is an armed police officer on duty there and didn't do a thing, the argument for arming teachers with guns holds no water whatsoever.

 

[dowie]

Surely if there is an armed police officer on duty there and didn't do a thing, the argument for arming teachers with guns holds no water whatsoever.

well the armed officer not doing a thing is a sample size of one, plenty of other police officers have responded to active shooter incidents

but regardless of that arming teachers indeed seems unnecessary and pointless (and perhaps slightly reckless to have a whole bunch of weapons around the school either carried by teachers or locked in their desks etc..) - better to perhaps better arm/train the actual police officers who are already armed and working in schools

 

[Roar87]

Surely if there is an armed police officer on duty there and didn't do a thing, the argument for arming teachers with guns holds no water whatsoever.

If you're cornered in a room with a shooter outside you're probably likely to point a gun at a door and pull the trigger if push came to shove, faced with being stood outside a building relatively safe with an active shooter with an AR-15 inside you might think twice about entering on your own. I don't think anyone's suggested teachers become SAS counter-terrorist assault teams.

 

[Angilion]

Its contentious because the media attached the word assault to make them sound worse to the lamen. All they are is semi automatic rifles. Personally I'd view an assault rifle as being fully automatic

I view it as a meaningless term because it's not defined by anything. It's a political phrase and has little or nothing to do with any functionality of the gun.

 

[Rroff]

If you're cornered in a room with a shooter outside you're probably likely to point a gun at a door and pull the trigger if push came to shove, faced with being stood outside a building relatively safe with an active shooter with an AR-15 inside you might think twice about entering on your own. I don't think anyone's suggested teachers become SAS counter-terrorist assault teams.

Also will be the consideration - will you do more good protecting those that have made it outside near you until backup arrives or by going after the shooter, etc.

 

[Roar87]

Also will be the consideration - will you do more good protecting those that have made it outside near you until backup arrives or by going after the shooter, etc.

I don't think you can realistically demand someone take on an active shooter on his own, though someone may do that off their own back, it's a big ask. He presumably had no bullet proof vest/helmet, was out gunned and alone. Someone else may have gone in and it'd likely be a coin flip as to whether you had 1 extra body or a few saved lives unless they are literally ex-special forces or something.

 

[Rroff]

I don't think you can realistically demand someone take on an active shooter on his own, though someone may do that off their own back, it's a big ask. He presumably had no bullet proof vest/helmet, was out gunned and alone. Someone else may have gone in and it'd likely be a coin flip as to whether you had 1 extra body or a few saved lives unless they are literally ex-special forces or something.

Some people run towards gunfire, others away when it comes to it regardless of training, etc.

Anyone know if he actually had no body armour? I'd have thought for a role like that he'd have at least had some level 3 plate available even if not wearing it all day long but then sometimes these roles seem to be prepared to fail from the start.

 

[Craterloads]

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp....puty-who-failed-to-act-during-school-shooting

Some more details here regarding the officer.

Middle aged over weight cop who appears to have had a cushy 100k a year job as a SRO for the last 30 years with duties including

“1) provide law enforcement and investigation, 2) develop crime prevention programs, 3) training and securing school personnel, 4) establish a working relationship with school and students, 5) develop classes related to position, 6) assist students in conflict resolution, 7) be a positive role model”

Seems the guy wasn’t equipped to be thrown into a battle zone after spending 30 years being a positive role model and breaking up school fights.

 

[adolf hamster]

The problem with any of the "good guys" be it armed teachers or police, is that they have the responsibility to check before they shoot, be that for fear of legal repurcussions or simply the moral desire not to shoot anyone thats innocent.

A crazed shooter killing innocent people has no such hangup and can freely blast at whoever they see because even if they're not a threat they're still a target.

The difference is maybe a few seconds tops, but that can be the difference between shooting or being shot.

 

[Rroff]

The problem with any of the "good guys" be it armed teachers or police, is that they have the responsibility to check before they shoot, be that for fear of legal repurcussions or simply the moral desire not to shoot anyone thats innocent.

A crazed shooter killing innocent people has no such hangup and can freely blast at whoever they see because even if they're not a threat they're still a target.

The difference is maybe a few seconds tops, but that can be the difference between shooting or being shot.

Related to that is why in studies only a select few (usually "cream of the crop" "special forces" types) armed "civilians" have successfully stopped a shooting because for instance they won't hesitate to use one person as a shield so as to save the greater number of lives in a scenario while most people won't do that and end up with everyone killed, etc. likewise a trained civilian/law enforcement person will be watching their background when shooting a crazed killer won't so automatically has the upper hand.