Deputy assigned to Florida school 'never went in' during shooting, sheriff says

[druryj]

i wonder if any part of the plan (or his mindset) had to do with being under-gunned compared to the shooter. He had to have been wondering if the shooter had a rifle and if he should wait for better-armed backup to arrive before engagement.

A properly prepared plan would have addressed the above situation in simple terms. "...if an active shooting is taking place inside the school or on it's grounds, the armed, on-duty LEO will immediately address the situation by doing the following: _______". If it gets too much deeper than that, then I know an old retired Marine who either can write a proper plan for them or tell them how to do it.


Unless you happen to see with your own eyes as the bad guy is going in, there is no way to foresee what weaponry and equipment the bad guy may have. You also don't know if he has back-up in place or not. You don't know much of anything in a situation like this except that there is gun fire where it isn't supposed to be. So Whattya ya gonna do? Holler at him and ask?

"Hey! Hey! Yeah you...bad guy...yeah, I'm talkin' to you! Hey, would you please tell me what kinda guns and stuff you have and if you have any other guys in there with you helping you kill kids and teachers before I decide if I'm gonna do my job or not?"

NO. Either you respond to the threat immediately, (as that is part of the job and you knew the risks when you took it) OR you wait for back-up/negotiators to arrive. Again, if they did not have a plan in place, with specific, simple instructions on how to react, then they have a serious leadership problem on top of what appears to be an issue with chickenshit-itus in the ranks.

As has already been said, many of us do not know what we would have done in this situation, but I damned sure do. The minute I clocked in, as it were, I would be in Condition Orange until I clocked out, at the least. Sure, the odds of something like this happening to you are very slim, but you don't get old in this type of profession or environment by being careless and not paying attention. And the damn minute I heard gunfire, if not before, I would have been all over that punk with every bit of firepower I had at my disposal and then some, despite any BS about back up. Waiting to engage the enemy in this situation is wrong, stupid and defeats the purpose. The armed guard becomes a talisman, a visual deterrent, if that, and nothing else. The only way to defeat and maybe survive an ambush like this is to charge into it with maximum violence NOW. An old saying in the Marine Corps is this:

"A decent plan, violently executed with maximum force RIGHT NOW beats the hell out of a perfect plan...executed later". If someone accepts a position like this, they better be prepared to run to the sound of gunfire RIGHT NOW or they are in the wrong job and I bet they already know it.

 

[NikatKimber]

His personal motto was apparently "Clock in and Collect" instead of "Serve and Protect"

 

[chuter]

I don't know how I would react. I've thought about it a lot.
I'm basically pretty passive and non-violent.
I go thru mental scenarios all the time to try and be prepared to act when the time comes.
As a civilian, I think my primary responsibility is to my family. I have a duty to protect them, and not get myself killed (defending someone else) so I can be there for them.
Now if I took a job and accepted the duty to protect others, I think I would have to adjust my priorities.

This whole thing is tragic on so many levels, from the loss of individual lives, the tortured soul who committed the murders, the officer who didn't act, to widening the divide in our country.

 

[Dave70968]

I want to join in in castigating this deputy who was so close to retirement already. I agree, I think he should have gone in to try to challenge the shooter. Of course, who knows how many there were? He could have been walking into a shooting gallery with 3 or 4 shooters, who knows? Does he have a duty to charge in without thinking, without information, to almost certain death? I mean, that's the worst case scenario, right, you have to assume there are several shooters, and you're signing your own death warrant.

I want to join in and call him a coward and a worthless waste of a badge, and I want to say he is responsible for the death count being higher than it could have been. I want to. I don't know... it's just an untenable situation. Military, police, other law enforcement like federal agents, etc., have a hard job. And lots of cops/LEOs would probably charge in during an active shooter event. But some would be more prudent, "wait for backup", etc. I don't know the answer. I feel sorry for him (the deputy) for having to make that choice, and at the same time I am angry that he chose not to intervene.

I agree that it's a hard job, but it's an all-volunteer force. If he doesn't want to face that possibility, he could have become a plumber. He sure was quick to defend the perks of the school assignment, though (like free rent and utilities).

How many of you would intervene? How many of us? I'm not asking, "If you were a law enforcement officer," I'm asking as a regular Joe. You're walking by the school, you see kids running out and you are carrying your concealed carry firearm, you hear kids screaming that someone is shooting people inside.

What would you do?

Good question, but it's the wrong standard of judgment. He wasn't a regular Joe; he was a sworn police officer. Even off-duty, he's held to higher standards. In this case, he wasn't even off-duty.

By way of example: if, Joe Citizen, come across someone having a heart attack and try to give CPR, as long as I do so to "regular Joe" standards, I'm protected. If you do, as a medical professional, you'll be held to the standards of your training and profession, even off-duty and outside your hospital.

Peterson, judged by the standards of his profession, just plain sucks.

I have been vilified on this very board for saying I would like to think I would step up and protect someone else with my personal weapon, as something a MAN should do - protect those who are in need. I've been told, "You're not a cop." "You're a vigilante." "It's not our place, let the police handle it, protect only you and your own." "They don't give you a permit to act like a cop." Similar stuff.

What should I do? What should you do? What should we all do? Are you willing to put your life on the line to stop someone else from being harmed? Family, friends? What about a total stranger? Someone you've never met?

There are other concerns here, too. You didn't see the situation unfold, so you're going in blind; that's different from being there and acting in defense of something you understand. The police go in blind, too, but at least they have some idea from the 911 calls, and have communication with each other. As mentioned below, there's a good chance of you making the situation worse by going in without coordinating with the people in charge, and a very good chance of you getting shot yourself. "First, do no harm" applies here as well as in medicine; I'd say the answer depends very much on the situation, and we don't have enough details to do more than spitball on that one.

The officer had a duty, though, and had the tools (not just his gun, but also his radio) and training to do it. Joe Citizen, not so much.

Seriously... I'm not defending this cop. We all know how we individually feel... I'm just asking what would YOU do? At your kids' school? At ANY school, if you don't have kids there? At any public place, WalMart, a restaurant, a gas station... what places do you have a duty to act (as a man, as a human, as an adult, a Christian, whatever), or a moral imperative in your own heart to step up and place your life on the line to defend not just pother people, but just what is freaking RIGHT?

Where's the damn manual for how to handle this stuff? Seriously, did it get lost with the manual on how to be a husband, and how to be a parent? Or is there one? Is there somewhere we can turn for the answers?

For Johnny Law, there is a manual, and it gets updated from time to time. This one was updated in 1999 after the Columbine shooting; it says, generally, "get in there, don't wait for SWAT." I don't know the specifics of Broward County Sheriff's manual, but his statements seem to support that Peterson wasn't following it.

Wouldn't he be liable for civil action though. It's hard to say a reasonable person with the same training and experience would act in the same manner.

Nope. Qualified immunity: government agents generally enjoy personal immunity for things done in the course of their employment. The department might be on the hook for damages, but probably not even that--several cases have shown that there's no duty of protection toward individual plaintiffs, just society as a whole. The only way I can see liability accruing is as mentioned above, through Peterson's failure to share information that could have prevented the threat from coming to fruition and perhaps other policy violations, and even that's a stretch, I think.

Real professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, plumbers, electricians...basically the rest of the world) are responsible for their foulups, either personally or through their employers (often both). Government agents are almost unique in enjoying personal immunity; the official reason for that, believe it or not, is to attract "the best and the brightest." No kidding.

I honestly do not know how’d I’d react, I do know that as a regular citizen with less immunity from my mistakes (criminal or civil), I’d have additional concerns that the resource officer wouldn’t.

I wouldn’t get paid leave, WOULD have to secure a competent lawyer (no union helping me), and then pray I get a pro2A judge and/or jury. And that’s all IF I’m not gunned down by the officially trained, certified, and contracted police officer as he’s standing outside, watching me run across a campus that has an unidentified shooter, while carrying a gun.

It’d definitely be a tough decision, one I wouldn’t want to ever have to make, and certainly would never intentionally sign up or receive a paycheck for.

Exactly. I'm not decrying the ones who actually did rush in, who did their duties. I'm decrying the one who did intentionally sign up, then took up a defensive position and waited for several minutes cowering in safety while the people (generally) he was sworn to protect died defenseless.

i wonder if any part of the plan (or his mindset) had to do with being under-gunned compared to the shooter. He had to have been wondering if the shooter had a rifle and if he should wait for better-armed backup to arrive before engagement.

See NikatKimber immediately below.

I'll add this: every officer/agency I've talked to since Virginia Tech has said that their policy now is to enter right away.

Some may wait for a second officer, but none of them wait for the "big guns" to arrive.

I've also heard (not confirmed for myself yet) that he had identified the shooter, and given a physical description. So he had a good idea who he was up against.

This. Even if he knew he was up against a rifle, he still had a duty to act. He also had initiative and (probably) the element of surprise. Even if the best he could do was get to a position where he could lay down suppressive fire until the "big guns" did show up, that would have been something. It might have reduced the body count, anyway.

Instead, he chose to listen to kids die so he could make it to retirement.

 

[yukonjack]

i wonder if any part of the plan (or his mindset) had to do with being under-gunned compared to the shooter. He had to have been wondering if the shooter had a rifle and if he should wait for better-armed backup to arrive before engagement.

If that's your mindset as a cop you'd be better off going to work at Dillard's selling shoes. When innocents are getting killed you don't huddle in your corner worrying that the bad guy has a bigger gun then you or more bullets.

You need to think your David going in to slay Goliath. You ready your slingshot and only take one rock because that's all you need.
If you're thinking anything else everyone could end up dead cause of your doubt.

That's why you train both physically and mentally. Cause however you've trained is what you're mind will revert too in a stressful situation.

I distinctly remember the words of our range instructor, Jack Bales from CLEET, running through my head. Jack said "From the 25 yard line you will draw your weapon and fire 1 round, single action, at the target. You will then reholster your weapon."

Fast forward 5 years later and there I was with a suspect that had a rifle pointed at my partner. As I screamed "Drop your gun! Drop your gun!" he swung it around at me. As I watched the rifle swing Jack Bales words run through my head. My revolver was already raised and aimed. Something in my head said "25 yards!" So I reached up with my thumb and cocked the hammer and fired one round just as the gunmans rifle swing stopped.

At that point everything was in slow motion. I remember seeing the muzzle and cylinder flash. However I did not hear the sound of the gunshot. After that, just like Jack said, I reholstered my weapon.

I remember hearing my partner yell "He's still coming! he's still coming!" At that moment though I couldn't see anything. Almost like being blind. I remember the sound of shuffling footsteps. When I was able to regain my focus the gunman was on the ground in front of us facedown and gasping for his last breaths.

I reacted just as we had been taught. Since then I've done a lot of training to break that old mindset. Believe you'll win and you will.

 

[Dave70968]

I don't know how I would react. I've thought about it a lot.
I'm basically pretty passive and non-violent.
I go thru mental scenarios all the time to try and be prepared to act when the time comes.
As a civilian, I think my primary responsibility is to my family. I have a duty to protect them, and not get myself killed (defending someone else) so I can be there for them.
Now if I took a job and accepted the duty to protect others, I think I would have to adjust my priorities.

This whole thing is tragic on so many levels, from the loss of individual lives, the tortured soul who committed the murders, the officer who didn't act, to widening the divide in our country.

Funny you mention it--I remember exactly where I was when I heard the news about Columbine, and who I was with. I was in high school, but a few of us (the Science Bowl team, getting ready to head to nationals) had taken a field trip with our coach and one of the physics teacher to the electron microscope lab at Wright-Patterson AFB. Our coach--with whom I still keep in touch from time to time--made the comment that "y'know, I'm pretty much of a pacifist, but if something like that happened at CHS, I think I could drop him." I particularly caught the words "drop him." Not "intervene," not "respond," but "drop him," as someone who'd already chosen to forfeit his status as a student and ordinary person and claimed the mantle of "active threat."

I found out a couple of months later that she'd competed in high-power rifle in her younger days. I knew there was a reason I liked her. :-)

 

[Glocktogo]

NSA, not CIA. https://theintercept.com/2018/01/24/nsa-core-values-honesty-deleted/

As the story notes, the old version can be seen in the internet archive, so I'm going to go ahead and treat this one as confirmed, not rumor.

TBH, it seems odd to me that an agency devoted to spying and intelligence tradecraft, would even have "honesty" in their core values in the first place. Spies are liars by trade and cannot ever be trusted fully. It's a distinct dichotomy.

After an evening of reading some chillingly illogical online discussions among educators that I collaborate with I just turned on CNN to hear Don Lemon explain how the deputies failure to act is evidence that more guns would do nothing to help this situation.
I'm lost for words.

Lemon is a magnificent idiot.

 

[D. Hargrove]

What do you think?

I don't know where those manuals are stored to teach us how to be men, parents, husbands, etc. But I believe that our conscience guides our actions in emergency situations. Your exposure to emergency medical situations far outweighs mine, you will dive in to perform procedures that even if trained in, I would hesitate simply due to experience. Much the same as my experience engaging the adversary kinetically is second nature to me and I would not hesitate to "perform" (neither would you I feel). The same folks that use the word vigilante to describe citizens that are proactive/reactive to a threat are the same ones that don't understand that society has turned a corner and bad guys are here to stay. They do not understand that bad things happen to good people or that we have a choice as to whether or not we are a victim in many situations. I would without a doubt engage the enemy, for that is what they are, the enemy.

 

[TerryMiller]

This may have been mentioned before, but I had another thought. This officer didn't go in for something like 4 minutes, and I would have thought that he might have wanted to be inside even if for no other reason than to try to determine where the shooter was and how he was armed. Even if he couldn't respond himself (after all, students were probably running everywhere in the hallways), he could have at least scoped out the situation so that he could inform other responding officers as to the shooter's location and "possible" armament.

I'm pretty sure that the responding officers would have like to have had that information.

 

[Dale00]

A concerned civilian in TX comes out with his AR and chases the church murderer but a paid LEO stood by and did nothing to stop the FL murderer. What a bass ackward country we have turned into.

a concerned citizen, NRA instructor, in TX....