dakota44

Horse crap. Anyone who signs up for the police force pretty much accepts that risk. Part of the job. Don't want it..don't sign up. Since the Parkland police were disgusted by that behavior I think it is safe to say they vehently disagree with you. Not to mention they immediately entered the building.

Former Lancastrian

Easy for them to say after the fact and not being on the scene and now it transpires that 4 armed officers were at the scene when the shots were still ongoing.
Im not defending them or being critical of them and Im not certainly going to say I would have done this or that. I can find you many police officers be it in the UK or places elsewhere who did not sign up to be killed on the job. Yes we accepted the risks but then started questioning the expectations.
So a gunman has hostages on site yet the Police are quite willing to stand off for days if necessary to reach a conclusion good or bad.
Sorry lots of cops now have no desire to become a dead hero and now just want to go home to their families. Until you are actually in such a position you have no idea if you would go in running, waiting for back up or freezing regardless of what you are expected to do.

dakota44

Fact is...it was not a hostage situation. It was an active ongoing shooting. The surely had to realize kids were dying and there was no negotiating to be had. A hostage situation in a small environment is a totally different situation.

Former Lancastrian

At the time of the shooting how were the Police to know it wasn't a hostage taking? Easy to say now after the incident.
Perhaps you ought to read this link regarding active shooter situations as given to an audience of Police Departments
http://www.policeforum.org/assets/do...nts%202014.pdf

So Im assuming you have never been a cop nor want to be one but are aware of what they should and shouldn't do due to your vast experience in dealing with situations like these.

dakota44

No point in arguing with you. The Parkland police have the same opinion I do so I am comfortable with it. Teachers in that school who get paid less and did not sign up for hazardous duty...gave their lives either shielding their students from gunfire or staying exposed to gunfire to direct kids to safety. Enough said.

anotherlimey

There was a 60 minutes episode on it. It's best to engage an active shooter, i.e. someone still shooting people, than wait outside. Otherwise you're just waiting until he runs out of bullets executing people.

I don't think those 4 cops or their boss will be employed much longer. There's a lot of anger down here over that.

kimilseung

One would expect that they accept the risk, but seeing so many incidents were police protect themselves first, I am not sure they all agree.

dakota44

Imagine a house was on fire with people trapped on the second floor and the fireman decided to wait until the fire was out before making any attempt to save them.

Former Lancastrian

Did you even read the link I provided? Yeah thought not just in case there might be some conflicting information between Police Forces in how to deal with active shooters. There is no perfect solution as indicated in the link if you chose to read it rather than arguing with me about it.
You have your opinion and I have mine but I do research and post links to show its not all black and white and that you also forget that those reacting are human beings and perhaps going home to their family is more important than the potential of becoming a dead hero.

dakota44

I am sure the teachers that died protecting their students would have preferred to go home to their families too. End of conversation. Or maybe you should read.

")The reality is solo-officer tactics have a proven track record. Getting officers to the scene quickly and responding with appropriate force is not a new active shooter tactic. It had been used in several incidents before the tragedy of Columbine:

On October 16, 1991, a Texas Department of Public Safety officer ran into a crowded restaurant in Killeen (Texas) during an active shooter incident. This officer chased the mass murderer into a bathroom where the murderer killed himself. Nearly 80 people were inside the restaurant when this occurred. 23 people were killed and 20 were injured. Is there any doubt more people would have been killed if the officer had waited for additional cover?
On June 20, 1994, a lone, 24-year-old Air Force Security Policeman Andy Brown stopped an active killer at Fairchild AFB. This murderer killed five people and wounded 22 others. If the killer had not been stopped by this courageous young man, there is little doubt more people would have been injured and killed. For more information on this incident, visit WARNINGS UNHEEDED: Twin Tragedies at Fairchild Air Force Base.
There were numerous other active shooter incidents where solo-officer response tactics were used, including:

El Cajon, California (March 2001)
Columbus, Ohio (December 2004)
Seattle, Washington (March 2006)
Salt Lake City, Utah (February 2007)
Columbus, Georgia (March 2008)
Carthage, North Carolina (March 2009)
Fort Hood, Texas (November 2009)
Aurora, Colorado (July 2012)
Birmingham, Alabama (December 2012)
All of these incidents were stopped by officers who quickly responded to the scene to confront the killers. None of these incidents were stopped by officers utilizing traditional formations or “hunting cells.”

zzrmark

See post# 406 on this thread.

Former Lancastrian

So now are we going to cherry pick things from links to suit our opinions?

And here’s an even more important statistic: In all of the solo entries we identiied where the scene was still hot, one-third of the police officers who made that solo entry were shot.

Officers have to be ready to fight. They can’t go in with the assumption that “most of the time, these guys kill themselves, so I’ll probably be OK.” In many of these events, the attackers are looking to fight, and so our officers need to be ready to fight.
We have seen attackers barricade themselves in, so we need police to have the skills and techniques and equipment to get in and stop the killing.

And so there is that balancing act. There isn’t going to be a perfect solution. There’s not going to be a single one-size- fits-all policy. It’s going to come down to the officer on the scene being properly trained and properly equipped, and taking a moment to make the decision and say, “ is is what I think is appropriate in this situation,” and then being prepared to act.

Of course I could carry on.

So please tell us your qualifications and experiences of dealing with these situations?
Me I have only had 41 years be it in the Army, Police Force or my current law enforcement agency who also carry guns albeit in more about protecting (I use that term loosely) the border.

Now there again if these people did not have access to these types of weapons then we might not be discussing this but this is America after all and god forbid that we try to place restrictions on the citizenry in their 227 year old right to bear arms and fear their own Government.

Giantaxe

Certainly true of the Mulford Act - supported by both Reagan and the NRA. But not relevant to any gun legislation in California passed in the last 40 years.

zzrmark

Poor comparison, how many firefighters attend a blaze as a solo entity or rush straight into a fire unprepared? Fires are pretty tricky beasties but they don't generally target fireman in quite the same way a gunman might.

london_calling

Er no. I’m pretty sure British expats worldwide are famed for precisely the opposite.