Today's mass shooting in the US

dowie said:
Yeah totally, I mean an armed police officer faced with an armed criminal and he didn't intervene when kids were being massacred... people should be totally cool with that. Who'd have thought that he might one day have a situation where his firearm needs to be used?

It's like a firefighter who only signed up to rescue cats from trees and put out bonfires... who can blame him when he says **** this when faced with an actual burning building/having to make use of the oxygen equipment... or perhaps a soldier who signed up thinking it would mostly be UN tours/Balkans type stuff... obvs he might get killed or seriously injured in Afghanistan/Iraq etc.. so it would be simply 'incredible' to judge him if he goes AWOL when faced with deployment.

Perhaps people with those sorts of ideas shouldn't wear the uniform/take the pay in the first place if they don't want to do the job when it really really counts - his job was protecting those kids.
Click to expand...
He could only have known an active shooter was on site after shots had been fired (i.e. people already killed).
He had no idea what the shooter looked like.
He had no idea how many shooters there were.
Obviously I'm not qualified in law enforcement/military training for such events, but I seriously doubt the first rule is "upon hearing shots, and without establishing the number of attackers or how well armed they are, run blindly into the situation".

The flip side to this is that maybe he could have tracked Cruz down and shot him before other people were killed, however....

....the other points to consider here are:
  1. The FBI received a tip in January from a person close to Cruz that the 19-year-old owned guns and could be a future school shooter. According to the FBI statement, the tipster described Cruz’s “desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.” But then, “Protocols were not followed.” The Miami field office never got the tip, and “no further investigation was conducted at this time.”
  2. Before the FBI, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office in Florida received a tip in November that, according to the Miami Herald, Cruz “could be a school shooter in the making,” but the warning was never written up.
  3. The Herald went on: The November tip “came just weeks after a relative called urging [the sheriff’s office] to seize his weapons. Two years ago, according to a newly released timeline of interactions with Cruz’s family, a deputy investigated a report that Cruz ‘planned to shoot up the school’ — intelligence that was forwarded to the school’s resource officer, with no apparent result.” In total, the sheriff’s office “fielded 23 calls in the past decade related to Cruz or his family.”
(source is here ---> https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/2/23/17044162/florida-shooting-sheriff-fbi-failures, and a more verbose version here ---> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...florida-shooters-path-records-show/349716002/)

Why should this police officer take the brunt of the blame when there are plenty of other people who are far more culpable?
 
enkoda said:
He could only have known an active shooter was on site after shots had been fired (i.e. people already killed).
Click to expand...

Yup

He had no idea what the shooter looked like.
Click to expand...

well he'd be the one with the long metal thing making the rather loud noises and not all the other people screaming/running/bleeding on the ground

He had no idea how many shooters there were.
Click to expand...

true

Obviously I'm not qualified in law enforcement/military training for such events, but I seriously doubt the first rule is "upon hearing shots, and without establishing the number of attackers or how well armed they are, run blindly into the situation".
Click to expand...

Actually for an active shooter situation, where kids are being massacred in a school, then time is rather critical and it appears it kind of is basically that for quite a few police departments, certainly the one that employed this particular officer seems to think he should have responded and they are professional law enforcement.

Back when the Columbine shooting happened officers cordoned off the area as per a hostage situation, but when people are being actively killed then the priorities are a bit different and apparently the policy now is often for police to intervene immediately.

Why should this police officer take the brunt of the blame when there are plenty of other people who are far more culpable?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure he is taking the brunt of the blame? I think most of the news has been about gun culture/the NRA, inaction by law makers etc...the facts about the police officer are a recent update thus the commentary/discussion about it.[/quote]
 
dowie said:
well he'd be the one with the long metal thing making the rather loud noises and not all the other people screaming/running/bleeding on the ground
Click to expand...
The officer had no idea what weapon was being used....

dowie said:
Actually for an active shooter situation, where kids are being massacred in a school, then time is rather critical and it appears it kind of is basically that for quite a few police departments, certainly the one that employed this particular officer seems to think he should have responded and they are professional law enforcement.

Back when the Columbine shooting happened officers cordoned off the area as per a hostage situation, but when people are being actively killed then the priorities are a bit different and apparently the policy now is often for police to intervene immediately.
Click to expand...
People had already been shot and killed, the location of the attacker would in all likelihood only be found by following the sound of gunfire, meaning more victims.
The school has over 3,000 students so imagine the size of the campus. What was it, 17 dead within 5 minutes? I sincerely doubt there was anything he could have done to prevent those deaths.


dowie said:
I'm not sure he is taking the brunt of the blame? I think most of the news has been about gun culture/the NRA, inaction by law makers etc...the facts about the police officer are a recent update thus the commentary/discussion about it.
Click to expand...
Sheriff Scott Israel said the officer should have gone in, Trump said “He turned out to be not good. He was not a credit to law enforcement that I can tell you. That I can tell you.”
And now it appears that three other police officers were 'hiding' behind their vehicles when others arrived on the scene.
 
enkoda said:
The officer had no idea what weapon was being used....
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

People had already been shot and killed, the location of the attacker would in all likelihood only be found by following the sound of gunfire, meaning more victims.
The school has over 3,000 students so imagine the size of the campus. What was it, 17 dead within 5 minutes? I sincerely doubt there was anything he could have done to prevent those deaths.
Click to expand...

That's debatable, he was on the scene within 60 second wasn't he? Shooting continued for 4 minutes...

That is the reason for immediate intervention. It's only a short and very crucial amount of time and lives perhaps could have been saved!

Sheriff Scott Israel said the officer should have gone in
Click to expand...

Indeed and for good reason!
 
Reading other threads elsewhere on this makes me worry for humanity - several people saying in all sincerity the US should make bullets cost 100s of $ because then the shooter would stop and think about the money they were wasting before killing anyone - how does that even remotely compute the financial cost is the least of their concerns when carrying out these acts.
 
Rroff said:
Reading other threads elsewhere on this makes me worry for humanity - several people saying in all sincerity the US should make bullets cost 100s of $ because then the shooter would stop and think about the money they were wasting before killing anyone - how does that even remotely compute the financial cost is the least of their concerns when carrying out these acts.
Click to expand...

Cash is the answer to all problems in America, like Trump suggesting teachers who carry guns will get a bonus for doing so.
 
Giving teachers guns has to be one of if not the dumbest policy to come out of the US government. How long will it be before a gun toting teacher has a nervous breakdown and opens fire on a classroom full of kids?

There's only one way to prevent mass shootings at the frequency we see them happening and that is to outlaw gun sales to the public. But that's not going to happen because as OneMoreSolo pointed out above, there's too much money to be made manufacturing and selling guns.
 
I'm less concerned about a teacher using the gun from flipping out than a pupil getting the drop on a teacher and using the gun.

As Jim Jeffries illustrated in a sketch, if a gun is going to be used for self defence it needs to be accessible quickly, if it's accessible it's not securely stored.

In that case you can have all the metal detectors and security in the world, it just takes an unhinged pupil to sucker punch a teacher with access to a gun and they don't even have to take their own weapon into school.
 
wesimmo said:
it just takes an unhinged pupil to sucker punch a teacher with access to a gun and they don't even have to take their own weapon into school.
Click to expand...

There are pistol holsters that the Law enforcement generally uses that make it impossible for anyone other then the holder to remove the pistol due to the smart design of it.

Think of medical bottles where you have to push and twist and so on, the same idea kinda works for the pistol but more complex.

It makes it almost impossible for anyone other then the person that the holster is strapped too to remove it, especially if you not trained to use it.
 
Feel a bit sorry for the sherif yes he should have gone in but none of us know if we would. It's really easy to say you would have been gun out running towards danger but until you are faced with that reality you'll never know.
 
IronWarrior said:
There are pistol holsters that the Law enforcement generally uses that make it impossible for anyone other then the holder to remove the pistol due to the smart design of it.

Think of medical bottles where you have to push and twist and so on, the same idea kinda works for the pistol but more complex.

It makes it almost impossible for anyone other then the person that the holster is strapped too to remove it, especially if you not trained to use it.
Click to expand...

Impossible? Or just more difficult?

As soon as you knock a carrier unconscious you have access to the weapon surely? It may delay it by a few seconds but that's all it could do?

I just don't understand how it makes sense, either the gun is easily accessible and is a deterrent to someone carrying their own weapon but easily taken by someone else or it's highly secure and anybody wanting to could shoot the carrier before they could access their weapon.
 
dowie said:
Actually for an active shooter situation, where kids are being massacred in a school, then time is rather critical and it appears it kind of is basically that for quite a few police departments, certainly the one that employed this particular officer seems to think he should have responded and they are professional law enforcement.

Back when the Columbine shooting happened officers cordoned off the area as per a hostage situation, but when people are being actively killed then the priorities are a bit different and apparently the policy now is often for police to intervene immediately.
Click to expand...

There is however a difference between a solo school resource officer with a sidearm to confronting a better-armed attacker vs police responding in vehicles who may at least be more suitably-equipped e.g long rifles, body armour etc.
 
wesimmo said:
Impossible? Or just more difficult?

As soon as you knock a carrier unconscious you have access to the weapon surely? It may delay it by a few seconds but that's all it could do?

I just don't understand how it makes sense, either the gun is easily accessible and is a deterrent to someone carrying their own weapon but easily taken by someone else or it's highly secure and anybody wanting to could shoot the carrier before they could access their weapon.
Click to expand...

Okay, I make this simple, if I had this pistol holster and you knocked me over, it would be impossible for you to remove the gun. You could try it for minute or two, you wouldn't be able to do it.

The pistol holsters have been designed in such a way, that only the correct amount of force, the position on how it's attached to you and the correct movement to remove the pistol out of the holster makes it almost impossible for anyone else other then the person who owns the gun to remove it.

Even if an other person who knows how to use it would find it really hard to remove it from that person due to their "outside" position.

They work like a locking system, once the pistol has be

That said, there are major drawbacks to them, the holsters are much bigger and it slows you down yourself to remove it.

/Note, I say impossible, but anything is possible, but for a normal person, it be impossible.
 
Last edited:
IronWarrior said:
Okay, I make this simple, if I had this pistol holster and you knocked me over, it would be impossible for you to remove the gun. You could try it for minute or two, you wouldn't be able to do it.

The pistol holsters have been designed in such a way, that only the correct amount of force, the position on how it's attached to you and the correct movement to remove the pistol out of the holster makes it almost impossible for anyone else other then the person who owns the gun to remove it.

Even if an other person who knows how to use it would find it really hard to remove it from that person due to their "outside" position.

That said, there are major drawbacks to them, the holsters are much bigger and it slows you down yourself to remove it.
Click to expand...

and we're assuming that a panicked hurried and possibly injured teacher would have no problem applying the exact right amount of pressure in the right way to pull the gun and use it?
 
Maybe they're tackling this backwards.

Ban kids from school.

It's not unconstitutional so the 'it's maaa riiiight' crew won't get upset and you can't shoot what isn't there.

Problem solved
 
TheVoice said:
There is however a difference between a solo school resource officer with a sidearm to confronting a better-armed attacker vs police responding in vehicles who may at least be more suitably-equipped e.g long rifles, body armour etc.
Click to expand...

yes there is and indeed there is a difference between them and a SWAT team who might arrive even later

however the most important difference in this scenario is that the school resource officer is on the scene before the shooting has ended and might be able to do something to save lives
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom