Trump is being silly by saying he'd go in but try to remember he's deflecting the blame from guns to a person to win favour with his party and perhaps make himself look good to his supporters, he's playing a game as all politicians do.
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
I mostly agree with you - it's easy to sit and proclaim how he should have gone in and stopped the shooter, anyone in an armchair can say this.
Whilst it's true that if he did go in, he could perhaps have engaged the shooter somehow - albeit as a distraction, at least that might have slowed him down, or put pressure on him to stop.
But I would question whether it's reasonable - to expect an individual who isn't a solider, to take on a shooter armed with a weapon of war by themselves, considering they'd be walking into an almost certain death, ill equipped, ill informed and untrained for that scenario. I'm not so sure it is reasonable, but I could be swayed either way in all honesty.
I can recall that shooting a couple of years ago (Dallas), where one guy armed with assault rifle shot at the police, there were numerous video clips of regular police taking on the shooter at close range with a pistol and getting wiped out by a guy with an assault rifle, a number of cops were killed, I appreciate it's not the same scenario - but it didn't go well for the police that day.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,209
He could have went in as a shield, bet he could take a few armor piercing 5.56s to give some kids time to run... a few as in maybe a whole mag or 10.
Well likewise plenty of people in their armchair can put forth the opposite argument too. The professionals over there though say he should have gone in (namely his department and the expert who runs a centre specifically to train US police officers in how to respond to active shooter situations.
It isn't certain death either, the most likely scenario is actually the police officer shooting the suspect. (though yes there is a not-insignificant chance of getting shot and wounded or even killed).
As for untrained - he's an armed police officer, he is issued with a pistol and an automatic rifle, he is trained to use both... for some reason he didn't have his issued rifle with him.
Of course they can, but unfortunately it doesn't really amount to anything, because unless such a person was there and experiencing what happened in that context, any external opinion pretty much counts for nothing.
You've also got the problem where three other deputies were also armed and on scene, (aside from the first guy who was singled out) - who also didn't go in, they stood behind their vehicles and didn't do anything, which is so far unexplainable as far as normal protocol goes, but that's what happened and they're investigating why - it might not be as clear cut as people are making it out to be, there might have been inconsistent information or orders being thrown around, or confusion - at this time nobody knows why nobody went in initially.
It's entirely possible they were ordered to wait until backup arrived, there were inconsistent reports of the shooter being seen leaving the school, already shot and killed, to wait for a superior office on the scene etc. Who knows. Training doesn't stop you fearing for your own life.
Indeed, thus I'd go along with the opinion of the actual experts who state that he should have gone in...
Sure, but it certainly doesn't look good for them and indeed the next lot of police officers who arrived on scene did go in (as did unarmed teachers and sports coaches)... and indeed reports seem to indicate that those police officers who arrived and idd go in were not very happy at all at the 4 who stayed outside while kids were bleeding to death inside and needed urgent first aid.
You said earlier that he was supposed to go in, track down the shooter and kill/apprehend/distract him, now you're saying he should've gone in to provide emergency first aid?
I'm not seeing the contradiction. I've said that the officer who arrived on the scene should have gone in (as per his police department's policy). I've said that the other three who arrived shortly after should have too.
I've also pointed out that unarmed teachers did go in as did the police officers who arrived afterwards. And I've pointed out that they (the four officers who waited outside) could have helped kids who needed first aid (it isn't clear whether then additional 3 arrived while the shooting was still taking place or not, we only know for sure that the first did - however all could have provided some assistance to the victims instead of waiting outside).
What exactly are you confused about?
I don't think you've got any concept of how big the campus is, the actual time taken to evaluate and administer first aid to numerous gunshot victims whilst simultaneously tracking down a shooter and taking precautionary measures to ensure he doesn't get shot himself. The whole thing was over in 5 minutes.
They were outside the building the shooting happened in! The size of the campus is irrelevant.
The shooting was over in 5 minute, kids still needed first aid after that time... When referring to the four cops outside I am talking about the aftermath of the shooting if it wasn't already rather obvious! Like I said before we don't know if the next three arrived while the shooting was taking place or not but they could have still assisted at least with first aid/evacuating kids etc...
Well, that's fine - but a lot of the initial assumptions are now looking shaky as more information comes in, for example - one of the reasons being cited that the police officers arriving on scene in the first minutes didn't go in, wasn't because they were cowards or afraid - but because it sounded as though the gunshots were actually outside and not inside the school itself, perhaps they thought he'd made it outside and was walking around the campus.
As more people arrived and more information starts flooding in, from people in classrooms that the guy is actually inside - it might seem like the original 4 guys were being lame, when in fact they might have just been confused as to exactly whether he was inside or out, based on the initial reports and sounds that they heard.
Do you have a link re: this? I thought it wasn't clear whether they'd arrived while the shooting was still occurring.
Though regardless of that they were still outside after the shooting when kids required first aid. But sure the first officer on the scene probably has the most questions surrounding his actions.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/26/us/p...esource-officer-attorney-statement/index.html
Apparently there were reports that a victim was outside on the field, at the time - which was one of the reasons he / they didn't go running straight in, but I assume more will come out as they go over all of the information, the actual police force is performing an investigation right now - and I think a bunch of other deputies have been suspended/investigated, so we'll find out more at some point.
Apparently there were reports that a victim was outside on the field, at the time - which was one of the reasons he / they didn't go running straight in, but I assume more will come out as they go over all of the information, the actual police force is performing an investigation right now - and I think a bunch of other deputies have been suspended/investigated, so we'll find out more at some point.
OK so you're not actually talking about the police officers arriving on at the school who waited outside but you're talking about the single school resource officer who was already at the school and was there during the shooting, and the new information is his statement made through an attorney after having faced a load of backlash.
According to Peterson he thought the gunshots were coming from outside - the training he'd received in the event of outdoor shooting is to seek cover, assess the situation and implement a 'Code Red' lockdown. Since the first three victims were shot outside the school building this is entirely credible.
On the face of it, Peterson did exactly what he was trained to do.
Edit: Forgot the link ---> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43202800
On the face of it, Peterson did exactly what he was trained to do.
Edit: Forgot the link ---> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43202800
Last edited:
Spot on. Everything he says has a political agenda. I feel so sorry for this poor man that I'm sure is going through the motions and wondering what he could do differently. He has to live with the guilt of kids dying on his watch already, without the president calling him a coward. There's a bigger issue here than one man refusing to play the hero in a Hollywood movie.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 29,618
Not that the NRA have politicians in their pockets or anything...
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...-delta-after-it-cuts-ties-with-nra/ar-BBJCOYt
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/othe...-delta-after-it-cuts-ties-with-nra/ar-BBJCOYt