My position on this has absolutely nothing to do with anything the sheriff said. I'm not even sure the sheriff had said anything before I spoke on this. Hmm, maybe it's the sheriff that agreed with me.
Printable View
Perhaps you missed a few articles on this. Hiding out while a mass shooter is murdering students in a school is not department policy, nor is setting up a perimeter. After Columbine, the procedure changed nationally. Peterson was outside the school hiding a full 9 minutes between the first shot and when the other officers were on site. It was at that time a captain gave the order to stage a perimeter. Peterson should have been inside confronting the shooter long before the other officers arrived. Yep, 9 minutes is a long time in a situation like this. A lot of children died in those 9 minutes.
You guys are really missing the point on this one. This was a mass shooter killing children in a bloody orgy. You guys are treating this as if it was a hostage situation. That was not the case.
I actually think we're just being rational whereas you're being very emotional.
According to who? The Chief can order his subordinates to follow his policy. His policy may not be in sync with national policy. The subordinate officers are caught in the middle. They can be heroes and disobey their commander, but who will take the brunt if things don't go the way they would like?
Maybe you are a he-man. Some of us have to think before we leap.Quote:
Peterson should have been inside confronting the shooter long before the other officers arrived.
As has been pointed out, if he rushed in, he might have several students coming at him with the shooter shielded behind them. If the shooter was shooting at the ceiling, the cop may be the one who killed one or more students.
It is easy for a bunch of politicians to dictate actions for a situation that neither they or the officers at the scene know anything about.
No, you are the one who treats this like an easy fix.Quote:
You guys are really missing the point on this one. This was a mass shooter killing children in a bloody orgy. You guys are treating this as if it was a hostage situation.
It is like Lifeguards and some of the rules they are instructed to follow. First, if they put themselves in danger they cannot help anybody.
In one episode of Baywatch, when rescuing a person under the pier, and they are swept against a pillar, they are instructed to put the victim between them and the pillar to cushion the blow. The reason is, if they are knocked unconscious, both will perish. Sometimes you have to do more than just act!
jtdc wrote:
The chief's policy is the same as the national mass shooter policy (refer to previous articles). There is no being caught in the middle with Peterson, he failed to act according to his department and national policy.Quote:
According to who? The Chief can order his subordinates to follow his policy. His policy may not be in sync with national policy. The subordinate officers are caught in the middle. They can be heroes and disobey their commander, but who will take the brunt if things don't go the way they would like?
This has nothing to do with being a "he-man", it's about following procedure and reacting as policy dictates. So, while 17 children are being murdered, you're just going to hide out and think what if, should've, maybe could've, etc. This was one of those occasions where quick action was necessary to save the lives of those children!Quote:
Maybe you are a he-man. Some of us have to think before we leap.
As has been pointed out, if he rushed in, he might have several students coming at him with the shooter shielded behind them. If the shooter was shooting at the ceiling, the cop may be the one who killed one or more students.
It is easy for a bunch of politicians to dictate actions for a situation that neither they or the officers at the scene know anything about.
No, I never said it was an easy fix. Nobody has said that and nobody believes it, especially me. Me insisting that Peterson should have reacted differently doesn't mean I think the necessary solution to the crisis was easy. A crisis situation frequently calls on one to make hard choices. There was no easy fix here. It was a tough situation, but it was a situation that demanded quick action and Peterson failed.Quote:
No, you are the one who treats this like an easy fix.
It is like Lifeguards and some of the rules they are instructed to follow. First, if they put themselves in danger they cannot help anybody.
In one episode of Baywatch, when rescuing a person under the pier, and they are swept against a pillar, they are instructed to put the victim between them and the pillar to cushion the blow. The reason is, if they are knocked unconscious, both will perish. Sometimes you have to do more than just act!
By your posting it seems to me you are fully underestimating the gravity of exactly what happen and how things should have been done differently by deputy Peterson. Yes, Peterson should have risk his life to save the lives of those children. This was a situation for action, not procrastination and hesitation.
Your Baywatch analogy is completely lost on me. Peterson didn't act at all. He failed in his duties, he failed his department, and most of all, he failed those 17 people who were murdered!
Deputy Peterson didn't fail anyone.
So is there a specific policy that described where the shooter would be so when he entered he would know just where to shoot? Was the shooter following that script so he would be where the cop would shoot?
"What if", yes! "Should've" and "maybe could've" would be reflection.Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
You can see that looking back, but he did not have the advantage of rearview vision.Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
You seem to see it as a easy choice to just barrel in.Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
I have been in two tight situations that I recall, one having a car fall on me, and another dealing with a fire. When the car fell I was trying to keep the weight off my chest. An employee with me was in full panic. But I instructed him to get a pipe near by and use it to pry the car up. On another occasion a grass fire started about 10 feet in diameter. I had only a 1 gallon milk bottle of water. With my finger over the opening I sprayed around the perimeter of the fire, ignoring the raging interior. With the fire out, I had only used 1/2 gallon.Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
I don't know what I would do if it was me where that cop was. I fear such situations, but have performed quite well when put to the test.
Wrong! I just have a different opinion from you!Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
Not surprising! If the lifeguard is incapacitated, they both die. If he protects himself, he can get the victim in and resuscitate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by MW
Let me try another one. A gunman has your daughter. You have a gun and he tells you to drop yours or he will shoot your daughter. If you do, now he will be able to shoot you and your daughter. As long as you have your gun, you have a chance of shooting him and saving your daughter. Do you drop your gun?
As a former Lifeguard and Swimming and Water Safety Instructor, there's actually even more to it. As a lifeguard and rescuer, you are not, absolutely NOT, to take risks that cost you your life. That is not the bargain, that is not the duty, that is not the job. Your job is to use your skills and training to save a life, without risking your own, so that 1 tragedy never becomes 2.Quote:
Not surprising! If the lifeguard is incapacitated, they both die. If he protects himself, he can get the victim in and resuscitate them.
Trump calls deputy Scot Peterson in Florida school shooting a 'coward'
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/.../trump.../366520002/
Feb 23, 2018 - President Donald Trump says the armed officer who didn't stop the gunman responsible for last week's Florida massacre was either a “coward” or “didn't react properly under pressure.” He made the comments as he departed for the CPAC conference. (Feb. 23) ...