Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Sep 2005
- Posts
- 4,354
Legal blackmail basically.
Today's mass shooting in the US
- Thread starter Rroff
- Start date
I would not expect a cop to go one on one against a gunman in a school even if firearms trained. That could just lead to a worse escalation. Only in the movies, Die Hard or Rambo would it be a forgone conclusion that he would get the bad guy. You still have a crap situation with dead kids and a possible dead cop too. Only in America.
So in typical media form he was hung out to dry and branded a coward before any of the facts came out. I hope he is exonerated of all suspicion and blame and returned to active duty.
Unlikely given he resigned as soon as he was suspended and placed under investigation.
Are the media not trustworthy?
Of course....... Not.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 8,340
where's asim when you need him?
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?
Next time this happens the first cop will feel compelled to charge in on full auto killing everything he sees. And when he is killed the next cop will have to do the same, just like in the movies where the bad guys come at the hero one at a time (only roles are reversed) hole department taken down on at a time.. 400 innocent kids killed by cops
Yeah they just make these policies up after watching movies...
Probably because he was suspended without pay. Man needs to work most likely so felt he had no other option. I hope he gets offered his own job back and gets an pology from his boss. And The President but I can't see that happening!
Well given that he's got some rather awkward questions to answer re: his conduct during the shooting and the fact it really doesn't look good for him given he just stayed outside when other police (and indeed unarmed teachers) arrived and went in then it seems unlikely.
In the case of the police who arrived and did go in, did help evacuate kids etc.. they were seemingly not impressed at all with the 4 deputies who stayed outside.
Didn't you read the article? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43202800 He did as he was trained to do if the shooter was believed to be outside the school, and they had reports over the radio that he was. He did nothing wrong but was hung out to dry on national TV and by the President, vilified across the world as a coward and suspended without pay by his commanding officer when the full facts weren't available, likely due to media pressure over his conduct. At the very least he should be offered a full apology and offered his job back.
Eh? So because his lawyer has released a statement saying, that his client was right etc.. (as you'd kind of expect him to do, being a lawyer paid to defend him) then it's all fine?
I think he's still going to have some questions to answer for the reasons already given in the previous post and regardless of the excuse given it doesn't look good... certainly the other police who arrived on the scene didn't have an issue with going in and were not pleased at all with this guy and his 3 buddies.
He followed his training. As he was supposed to do. What more should and could he do? He did as he was trained to, as did the other 3 officers that arrived. It was a tragedy for sure, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. They believed the shooter was outside the school so initiated the lockdown as was policy and took cover to assess the situation. They had radio reports the shooter was outside the school when standard practice is lock the school down, no one in or out when there's a suspected active shooter outside the school. What would have happened if he went in and left the door open and the shooter found the now open entrance and then proceeded to shoot the cops in the back, then kill 17 children? 'They shouldn't have gone in! They didn't follow their training and were foolish and it got them killed, it was their fault those kids died!' That's what.
Or... he didn't follow his training, he was supposed to go inside. Unarmed teachers went in and rescued kids whereas four armed police stayed behind their vehicles (that doesn't look good for a start)... and when other police arrived on the scene they had a very different idea of what their training/their policy was (that again undermines his excuse) they went inside and were not happy at all with the four who were on the scene first and didn't.(And presumably they'll be giving evidence too, justifying their choices etc...)
Obviously there needs to be an inquiry but I'll stick with my prior belief that it doesn't look good for him at all given the facts we know so far, you're welcome to your prior belief based on accepting his lawyer's defence. I guess we're probably not going to see eye to eye so perhaps might need to wait and see what the result is, or wait for further info.
Obviously there needs to be an inquiry but I'll stick with my prior belief that it doesn't look good for him at all given the facts we know so far, you're welcome to your prior belief based on accepting his lawyer's defence. I guess we're probably not going to see eye to eye so perhaps might need to wait and see what the result is, or wait for further info.
Dear GOD in Heaven. His training, according to the lawyer (who can't misrepresent this in court) was that if an active shooter is suspected to be on the school grounds but not inside the school building (which is important here) then he should call for a 'Code Red' lockdown, which he did, then seek cover and assess the situation. Which he also did. He did this because there were radio reports that there were gunshots in the area of the football field, OUTSIDE the school building. He did exactly as he was trained and supposed to do for an active shooter scenario outside the school building, based on all the facts presented to him at the time. Hindsight is wonderful, yes and I have no doubt he can't sleep at night thinking 'If only I'd gone inside, I could have stopped some of those kids from dying' but he didn't. Because he did EXACTLY as he was trained and supposed to do based on the information he had at the time. What the unarmed teachers did was likely NOT what they were told to do in an active shooter scenario. This was likely 'If you're inside the school, lock the door, hide, stay safe and quiet, call 911'. If you're outside the school building do not enter the building, seek safety away from the school, call 911. What if the Shooter was outside the school and the teachers just opened a door for him to get inside? Would the teachers have been suspended without pay? I doubt it.
Sure it doesn't look good for the guy. Being called a coward by a draft dodging celebrity President on Live TV who would have apparently run into the building without a gun he says (when we know he'd run away as fat as his fat little legs could carry him), being publically humiliated and as good as blamed for letting the kids die, conveniently forgetting the massive number of failings outwith this guys control and, frankly, way beyond his pay grade and then suspended without pay after a media witch hunt without, it seems a full and proper investigation (I believe it's more normal for this to be suspension on full pay until the investigation is completed, certainly in the UK) screams of trying to calm the situation for the media rather than any proper due process. I feel sorry for the guy for doing what he was supposed to and being crucified for it both nationally and internationally. He needed ARMED GUARDS at his house FFS!
Again according to his side of the story/his account... yet other police officers acted differently. Clearly his police department, his superiors, other police experts and indeed other police officers who arrived on the scene have a different take on the matter. I think this is going around in circles and that we can already see that you're going along with his lawyer's argument whereas I'm questioning his actions it based on the reasons already given previously.
It's worth taking into account that Sheriff Israel has refused to release a copy of his department's active shooter policy. I'm not saying that he has something to hide but his reluctance is certainly not doing him any favours.
He certainly seems quick to shift the blame onto anyone else :s ultimately it sounds like his department was lacking in effective organisation for this kind of scenario on top of any lack of willingness on the part of individual officers etc.
As more information comes out it sounds increasingly like officers tied to that department were standing around as much as anything due to not having a clear approach procedurally or communication wise.
It's quite possible that not going in saved lives.
As it turned out the shooter saw his chance, put down his gun and left.
If someone had gone in all guns blazing it's quite possible he would have thought he was going to die anyway and he may as well turn it into a full on fire fight, taking as many people as possible.
As it turned out the shooter saw his chance, put down his gun and left.
If someone had gone in all guns blazing it's quite possible he would have thought he was going to die anyway and he may as well turn it into a full on fire fight, taking as many people as possible.