Thread: Commanding officer initially ordered responding deputies to 'stage' not enter Stonema

Originally Posted by Judy

It's not an argument. It's an observation. I realize that DemoQuack Sheriff blamed Peterson and threw him under the bus, so I'm honestly not surprised at all that you and JD2 agree with him. But, I'm not going to throw that Deputy under the bus or call him a coward. I think all of our state and local law enforcement officers deserve better than that. I'm not saying he did everything right. I'm just not blaming any of the deaths on him, Cruz is 100% responsible for every one of them, or calling him a coward for not going in when he was there by himself without back-up or later when they were ordered to secure the perimeter. And while the President had caveats to his statement, I don't think he should have used the word "coward" either.

I don't think calling this Deputy or any police officer a coward is fair to them or their families. State and local law enforcement are civilian police officers, they are not military, and we don't want them to be.

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.

Originally Posted by jtdc

And it's wrong!

If he was following department policy, who then was at fault? Is he supposed to disobey the command structure? We don't know if he was following instructions not to enter without a body-cam. Of course many departments are terrified of lawsuits without that evidence. And since they likely instructed him, he may not have been aware of the instructions the upper authorities had given for such situations.

You seem quick to condemn. And I thought it was a close case at the outset that he was a coward. But as more evidence comes out as to why the other officers waited by their cars, I see a department that was apparently totally misguided by an egotistical chief. As that Mark Twain's saying goes, "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on." That seems to be the trend with sexual accusations these days as well.

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.

Originally Posted by MW

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.

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?

Peterson should have been inside confronting the shooter long before the other officers arrived.

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.

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.

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!

jtdc wrote:

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?

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.

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.

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!

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!

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MW

This has nothing to do with being a "he-man", it's about following procedure and reacting as policy dictates.

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?

Originally Posted by MW

So, while 17 children are being murdered, you're just going to hide out and think what if, should've, maybe could've, etc.

"What if", yes! "Should've" and "maybe could've" would be reflection.

Originally Posted by MW

This was one of those occasions where quick action was necessary to save the lives of those children!

You can see that looking back, but he did not have the advantage of rearview vision.

Originally Posted by MW

No, I never said it was an easy fix.

You seem to see it as a easy choice to just barrel in.

Originally Posted by MW

A crisis situation frequently calls on one to make hard choices.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by MW

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.

Wrong! I just have a different opinion from you!

Originally Posted by MW

Your Baywatch analogy is completely lost on me.

Not surprising! If the lifeguard is incapacitated, they both die. If he protects himself, he can get the victim in and resuscitate them.

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?

Not surprising! If the lifeguard is incapacitated, they both die. If he protects himself, he can get the victim in and resuscitate them.

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.

Originally Posted by Judy

Deputy Peterson didn't fail anyone.

Seventeen families would disagree with you.

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) ...