[RD] Florida School Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree, the criticism against the sole police office on scene seems very American. I can't imagine a discussion like this over here in Europe, going blindly into a dangerous situation just doesn't seem appropriate for a normal police officer. At least around here, armed situations are very unusual and "one man is no man". What I also can't understand is that the amount of time given where he waited outside: 4 minutes. It probably took me as long to read the discussion here and write this post. I just can't see publically shaming a person for that. But I guess it's an American thing...

It also reminds me btw. of all those guards you have to get by in sneak games like Assassin's Creed. The guards are just not the best guys, since it involves lots of standing around. It's a question of money after all. And guarding is hard. When I think back at my time in the military, having guarding shifts is really difficult if you want to do it seriously. So no, I neither understand the criticism of the guy nor the purpose of such school officers in general. (Or are they more supposed to tackle disputes between students and dispel drug commerce on the campus? But they don't need weapons for that, so...?)

Actually, after Columbine their job description became very specific. Columbine is also cited as the reason they exist. That purpose is to engage a shooter to allow time for students and teachers to get clear.

"Engage" doesn't have to mean "exchange fire with." Supposedly it means that potential shooters will know there is "a good guy with a gun" and won't go there at all, if you subscribe to the gun lobby fantasy. But even if you don't the theory is that the threat of being shot by the "good guy" will force the shooter to hold in place in cover instead of moving about freely shooting people.

In this guy's case the reason it seems fair to publicly shame him is because there is no way that he took that job without knowing that was the core element of the job description. It is a fair bet that from the day he took the job right up to the day of the shooting he would have been happy to tell you, me, or anyone else about the huge testicles that his job proved that he had.
 
It's actually SOP for active shooters at institutions like schools. Most PDs adopted the policy after the Columbine shootings. What purpose could a gun toting sheriff's deputy possibly serve at a school if we aren't expecting him to engage someone who is shooting the students?
This. The Parkland Sheriff reiterated that since Columbine, there is no "radio it in and wait for backup"... the rule for an officer on-scene is you go in immediately and make an attempt to neutralize the active shooter... no waiting, no excuses, just go. Forgot your invisible juice and invincibility cloak? Too bad, do the job you signed up for.
I agree, the criticism against the sole police office on scene seems very American. I can't imagine a discussion like this over here in Europe, going blindly into a dangerous situation just doesn't seem appropriate for a normal police officer. At least around here, armed situations are very unusual and "one man is no man". What I also can't understand is that the amount of time given where he waited outside: 4 minutes. It probably took me as long to read the discussion here and write this post. I just can't see publically shaming a person for that. But I guess it's an American thing...
It just illustrates how absurd the whole strategy is in the first place. Put a guy in the parking lot with a pistol and assume that when the active shooter arrives he will take out his HE-MAN sword, invoke his Captain America powers, turn into Deadpool and Jason Bourne the hell out of the situation. What?!? That foolproof plan didn't work??? Well then heap the shame and blame on the cowardly officer for not doing his job. Of course he's just a shameful cowardly anomaly... it will totally work next time... Or better yet... we give the same responsibility to Ms. Jones the music teacher... yep, she's got a She-Ra sword in her pocketbook right?

The phrase "Good Guy with a gun" just underscores the child-like fantasy thinking that underlies the "arm the teachers" and "put armed officers in the school" strategies. People subconsciously think that a gun gives you superpowers and superhero-like courage.
 
Last edited:
Shameful. This also highlights the fact that a lot of people who take positions that require them to defend their fellow citizens, even if it costs them their lives, simply don't have the right mentality to hold such a position..
Either he took the job thinking "Pfft that will never happen so I just get to sit in the parking lot and play games on my phone all day for a paycheck" or he actually thought he was up to the task, but then once the moment of truth came, he realized what a stupid, infantile strategy his supposed job was and thought "Pfft, this was a dumb idea, I'm not martyring myself for this BS"
 
The phrase "Good Guy with a gun" just underscores the child-like fantasy thinking that underlies the "arm the teachers" and "put armed officers in the school" strategies. People subconsciously think that a gun gives you superpowers and superhero-like courage.

It's pretty strange how guns became such effective terror weapons. Your chances of disarming a guy with a gun without getting hurt are way better than your chances against a guy with a knife. The first rule in confronting a guy with a knife is "you are going to get cut, so expect it and don't let it distract you." Guns have an extremely narrow field for doing any damage, and as long as you aren't in that line they can't hurt you.
 
That's how they've been marketed to people for years and years. This attitude didn't just come from nowhere.
Exhibit A:


It's pretty strange how guns became such effective terror weapons. Your chances of disarming a guy with a gun without getting hurt are way better than your chances against a guy with a knife. The first rule in confronting a guy with a knife is "you are going to get cut, so expect it and don't let it distract you." Guns have an extremely narrow field for doing any damage, and as long as you aren't in that line they can't hurt you.
Funny how the magical superhero thinking works both ways. Inasmuch as people think a gun turns them into Rambo... they also think that a gun turns their adversary into Commando.
 
Personally given the recent Nazi-ish statements of the NRA guy I would like some kind of Congressional investigation into the link between gun marketing, fantasies of using guns to "resist tyranny," and Turner Diaries headcanon. The aftermath of this shooting has convinced me that the right in this country is even more dangerous than I had previously believed.
 
Personally given the recent Nazi-ish statements of the NRA guy I would like some kind of Congressional investigation into the link between gun marketing, fantasies of using guns to "resist tyranny," and Turner Diaries headcanon. The aftermath of this shooting has convinced me that the right in this country is even more dangerous than I had previously believed.

While their "heroic powers come to me through my gun" fantasies do make them a problem, what makes the right really dangerous is their failure to understand this:
A "bunch of guys with AKs" can cause chaos, and that's about it. Some places are chaos tolerant. The US isn't one of them.

Down in Belize, if the government folds their tent, or does something egregious and someone folds it for them, everyone goes fishing. If that happens in the US, everyone starves. In the absence of government in Belize, when the lack of government shuts off the power, everyone cooks their fish on a stick over a fire. If that happens in the US a bunch of people don't have time to starve before they freeze to death. In the absence of power in Belize, when the water utility shuts off, everyone scoops some water from a creek on their way home with a fish and boils it over the same fire when they cook their fish. If that happens in the US a bunch more people don't last long enough to starve to death.

No, your little band of chaos causers is not going to have the support of the general population, because causing chaos is effectively mass suicide under the prevailing conditions in the US.

A lot of them seem to be convinced that "election of a democrat" would equate to "tyranny" and justify some sort of chaos creating "revolution." And they show no indication that they would wake up from their 'rugged survivalist' fantasies until their own life support systems failed, which while it wouldn't take long would be too late for about 90% of the population, including them.
 
The Broward County Sheriff’s Office received a call in November with an ominous warning: Nikolas Cruz, a troubled 19-year-old, was collecting guns and knives and “could be a school shooter in the making.”

It was one of at least four times local or federal authorities were contacted about such a threat linked to Cruz, including a tip the FBI received in January warning that he would “get into a school and just shoot the place up,” according to a transcript of the call obtained by The Washington Post on Friday. Another tip to the sheriff’s office the previous year warned that Cruz “planned to shoot up the school.”

In the era of “see something, say something,” members of the public did just that. But what happened after the November call fit a disturbing pattern in the lead-up to the Parkland, Fla., massacre: No report was filed, and there is no evidence the threat was ever investigated :sad:
 
Personally given the recent Nazi-ish statements of the NRA guy I would like some kind of Congressional investigation into the link between gun marketing, fantasies of using guns to "resist tyranny," and Turner Diaries headcanon. The aftermath of this shooting has convinced me that the right in this country is even more dangerous than I had previously believed.
I believe the NRA is currently under investigation for receiving Russian money. So there's that at least.
 
In this guy's case the reason it seems fair to publicly shame him is because there is no way that he took that job without knowing that was the core element of the job description.
Only if we take it for granted that this part of the job description was something that he or anybody else took seriously, and not just something they put in there to placate suburban mothers. I'm not sure that would have been clear to anyone a couple of weeks ago, and my suspicion is that it's been decided largely in retrospect, and this officer, whatever his failings, has become the scapegoat for the fact that this policy, considered with the least bit of sobriety, was never going to work in the first place.
 
This deputy who waited outside for 4 minutes according to the sheriff is proof armed security wont help?
But this guy should have helped, so armed security could help if it tried.
 
Only if we take it for granted that this part of the job description was something that he or anybody else took seriously, and not just something they put in there to placate suburban mothers. I'm not sure that would have been clear to anyone a couple of weeks ago, and my suspicion is that it's been decided largely in retrospect, and this officer, whatever his failings, has become the scapegoat for the fact that this policy, considered with the least bit of sobriety, was never going to work in the first place.

You'd be wrong because these policies were adopted after the Columbine shootings which took place in 1999. This is like someone enlisting in the military and then feigning surprise when they get sent into combat.
 
I would hope the man at least had some time on the gun range. His job required him to neutralize threats to the students.
 
I'm surprised he waited outside, I'd like to think I'd be headed for the sound of gunfire asap... But we're all heroes in our fantasy worlds ;)
 
If his only task really is to neutralize potential school shooters, then that is a truly mind bogging investment for an education system that always says it is lacking in funds. And it is big government. Or is that just job creation. Again, one man alone can't do very much. So, yeah, I get that it was supposed to work that way, I just don't understand how that was ever thought of as a sensible policy/idea/process.
 
You'd be wrong because these policies were adopted after the Columbine shootings which took place in 1999. This is like someone enlisting in the military and then feigning surprise when they get sent into combat.
I understand that they were adopted after the Columbine shootings, my point is that they are not a realistic or reasonable response to the Columbine shootings, and it's not obvious to me that a police officer should have treated them as if they were. It's the sort of futile feelgood measures that politicians introduce to placate panicky, short-sighted suburban voters, not because any sober person actually thinks it is a good idea.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom