Parkland deputy who did not respond to shooter arrested. - Page 16

Parkland deputy who did not respond to shooter arrested.

This is a discussion on Parkland deputy who did not respond to shooter arrested. within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by OldChap Brother if you really believe that, why on earth were you so relieved when it was made possible for you to ...

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LastLast
Results 226 to 240 of 266
Like Tree520Likes

Thread: Parkland deputy who did not respond to shooter arrested.

  1. #226
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,750
    Quote Originally Posted by OldChap View Post
    Brother if you really believe that, why on earth were you so relieved when it was made possible for you to be the only congregant to carry to worship? Surely you are not any more effective than an armed, trained SRO?

    By your logic here, no one should carry because it is expensive, ineffective fiction that a lone good guy with a gun could stop an active killer.
    You are arguing points I have never made. Yes, I do indeed believe that armed staff/congregants/citizens on the inside are much more effective at stopping the carnage than a single cop on the outside coming in. As far as defending against the active shooter from the inside, I'll put my training, tools and expertise up against anyone else's.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  2. #227
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion county, Ohio
    Posts
    32,750
    Quote Originally Posted by jmf552 View Post
    We both know the story of Charl Van Wyck and the St. James Massacre. He was not an SRO, but he was a good guy with a gun and he was effective. For those who don't know, you really should look it up. There is a video of Van Wyck retelling the incident on YouTube. Basically three terrorists with military rifles and grenades attacked a church service in S. Africa, intending to inflict 500 casualties. Van Wyck chased them off with a Rossi 5-shot snubby, saving hundreds of lives. A trained SRO with a hi-cap should be able to do even better.
    An armed congregant, inside the building who fired back. Yes, another excellent case in point.
    "Stop being dangerous, and you become edible." William Aprill

    "Slaves, enjoy your freedom." Chuck Klosterman

  3. #228
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    Parkland and Columbine immediately come to mind.
    Seriously?Columbine was used as the basis FOR moving toward single officer entry instead of waiting for backup. Parkland has many failures, one of which was that single officer entry did NOT occur.
    We get the government we deserve.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #229
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    What makes this country great is people stepping up to protect one another when the time arises -- whether it be in combat, on the streets, or in schools, etc. LEOs/SROs standing by while children are slaughtered, so they can wait for backup, is not something that will ever be great. Inaction is unacceptable and it will always be unacceptable.
    Interesting, coming from someone who has no problem throwing leo's under the bus. I've not suggested inaction, I've suggested increasing presence to reduce risks to leo's and the kids. Both win when society acts to protect both the kids and leo's adequately based on worst case scenarios. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

  6. #230
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    Seriously?Columbine was used as the basis FOR moving toward single officer entry instead of waiting for backup. Parkland has many failures, one of which was that single officer entry did NOT occur.
    Yet the single officer entry doesn't have to be the case, when society steps up and actually addressed both risks to the kids and leo's in active shooter scenarios.

    The solution is never going to be throw a lone uniform into the mix and hope for the best. Has that worked in the past? Sure, will it work every time? No it won't. Will two responders increase the odds of less injury or death to both kids and leo's? Why yes, it will. Society doesn't want to foot the bills to increase both entities safety.
    Mike1956 likes this.

  7. #231
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Interesting, coming from someone who has no problem throwing leo's under the bus. I've not suggested inaction, I've suggested increasing presence to reduce risks to leo's and the kids. Both win when society acts to protect both the kids and leo's adequately based on worst case scenarios. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
    You have suggested inaction...several times. Waiting...whether it be seconds or minutes has been expressed to have been of no consequence to you.

    Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, Coasties...are all expected to put others before themselves...LEOs are no different. You want them to be different but they're not. If they aren't willing to do the job...step aside.
    patkelly4370 and Psycho41 like this.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  8. #232
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Yet the single officer entry doesn't have to be the case, when society steps up and actually addressed both risks to the kids and leo's in active shooter scenarios.

    The solution is never going to be throw a lone uniform into the mix and hope for the best. Has that worked in the past? Sure, will it work every time? No it won't. Will two responders increase the odds of less injury or death to both kids and leo's? Why yes, it will. Society doesn't want to foot the bills to increase both entities safety.
    I donít disagree with that. But when there are not two officers, not taking action doesnít save lives.
    patkelly4370 likes this.
    We get the government we deserve.

  9. #233
    VIP Member Array ColoradoDiablo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    I donít disagree with that. But when there are not two officers, not taking action doesnít save lives.
    @AzQkr has made the point that inaction saves a life...the life of the lone LEO whose life is more important than the potential lives of children saved.
    Havok and patkelly4370 like this.
    U.S. Army, Retired (1986 to 2014)
    Life Member, Veterans of Foreign Wars

  10. #234
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    You have suggested inaction...several times. Waiting...whether it be seconds or minutes has been expressed to have been of no consequence to you.

    Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, Airmen, Coasties...are all expected to put others before themselves...LEOs are no different. You want them to be different but they're not. If they aren't willing to do the job...step aside.
    No, I've suggested safe action. If that means waiting at all, so be it. I've also recommended more than one lone sro be assigned to schools for increased officer and kids safety. What you suggest has not been elucidated by me here. Act, but act in a manner that reduces unnecessary risks. You're comfortable with throwing leo's under the bus and would have them take those unnecessary risks. I'm not comfortable with that. But we do see most are comfortable with that idea, hence the reason 40% percent of schools have no resource officer, and the remainder will only pay for one lone sro to be in attendance at any given time.

  11. #235
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by ColoradoDiablo View Post
    @AzQkr has made the point that inaction saves a life...the life of the lone LEO whose life is more important than the potential lives of children saved.
    You'll have to quote me on that, lest you be outed for making false statements of facts. I've NEVER stated inaction saves lives. Quote me as saying that or delete that BS post haste

  12. #236
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by Havok View Post
    I donít disagree with that. But when there are not two officers, not taking action doesnít save lives.
    Nor have I suggested such in any post Havok.

  13. #237
    VIP Member Array 10thmtn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    10,401
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    https://www.rand.org/pubs/issue_pape...19/index2.html

    School shootings such as the one at Columbine High School in 1999 have left deep scars in our nation. The apparently random nature of these highly publicized shootings has raised public fears to epidemic proportions. According to 2001 polls, more than 50 percent of parents with children in grades K-12[1] and 75 percent of secondary school students[2] now think that a school shooting could occur in their community.

    And they won't pay for a second officer per school to reduce the risks to their kids.

    although the presence of an officer may provide peace of mind for administrators and parents, we cannot presume that students view officers as their allies or defenders

    63 percent of high schools in California employ at least one part-time law enforcement officer.

    Leaving 37% of schools in Ca. with no resource officer/responder whatsoever. A classic example of school districts recognizing the risks and not funding at least one SRO. That's a societal issue, which I've been stating repeatedly here, at the expense of increased risks to a lone SRO when there is one assigned to a school.

    Only 57% of all schools in the US have an SRO on site presently. If it's really about the kids and not the money, 100% of schools would have at least one SRO on site at all times. See, it's not about saving the children, it goes a LOT deep than that. And leo's spread thin to one per school is just another indication society really doesn't want to reduce the risks all that much if it's going to cost them tax payer dollar increases.

    In the meantime, lone SRO's suffer greater UNNECESSARY risks. I don't agree with that nor every will. To hell with the kids when society itself hasn't stepped up to the plate and implemented real security measures for the little cherubs.
    You're really going to double down on this?

    Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

    A hasty plan, with limited resources, executed with boldness and honor, is often much better than a better plan, with more resources...executed later. Something every team leader in the military knows.

    One RSO is better than none. Two are better than one. Heck, maybe a well funded school system can put one in every darn classroom. Where do we draw the line? When do we have "enough?" And if we don't have "enough" for whatever reason, do we just sit around and wait, while children die, until we do?

    I'm grateful for some of the PMs I've received from some members here in the policing community. As for you, Brownie, I will pray for your soul. You are either a psychopath who should never have been in policing from the get-go, or a classic case of burnout...where you went from "to protect and serve" to "the hell with them all, I'm only looking out for my fellow brothers in blue." Given that officers see the worst of humanity on a daily basis, the latter is perhaps understandable. When you stare at the monster, the monster stares back.

    If the latter is the issue, I hope you seek professional help. Your abilities as a shooter or instructor mean little when you have no more honor or sense of service to those who are the most vulnerable. You need to stop being petulant, and look into the mirror. You may not like who you see.

    In the meantime, I am done reading about your monster. My biggest mistake was removing you recently from my "ignore" list. That won't happen again.

    I wish you the best. I really do.
    "You talk a lot, but you're not saying anything" - Psycho Killer, The Talking Heads

    "The winds are crying, 'Remember me;' Through the Holy silence of the desert and the sea; The next armada, waiting for the tide; Wind and rain are nothing to the storm inside" - Running on the Rocks, Shriekback

  14. #238
    VIP Member Array OldChap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,676
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    You are arguing points I have never made. Yes, I do indeed believe that armed staff/congregants/citizens on the inside are much more effective at stopping the carnage than a single cop on the outside coming in. As far as defending against the active shooter from the inside, I'll put my training, tools and expertise up against anyone else's.
    Sorry brother, Post 210

    Lone SROs are expensive, ineffective fiction when it comes to stopping active killers. Denying it does not change it.
    The question remains. Do you believe that a highly trained police officer stands no chance, and yet you are vastly superior to him and thus more likely to survive or make a difference? You really think two would guarantee a positive outcome?

    And why do you believe that? Because SROs are always on the outside coming in, while others are always on the inside behind cover? Can you somehow guarantee that will always be the case? What if you find yourself outside or in a disadvantageous position? If what you say is true, then the best thing is to just throw the gun away and slink off to hide while others die, because you've already told yourself that one man on the outside is ineffective.

    I can guarantee that those who do that will eventually pay a terrible price. I've worked with quite a few. If it hasn't happened to this deputy yet, trust me, it will. No amount of macho, boasting, or bravado will prevent it.

    And I disagree. Carrying a gun is not a contest to see who has the most and best training, tools, and expertise. Carrying a gun is about survival. Survival is often about who is willing to lay his life down for another. In my experience, survival is 90% attitude, and only 10% everything else. Highly trained is not some kind of "talisman" that will always save your life.
    10thmtn likes this.
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits."

    My avatar is of Princess. We lost her after many years. Her little sweater says, "Meet me under the Misltletoe."

  15. #239
    Ex Member Array AzQkr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    In the Superstitions
    Posts
    19,639
    Quote Originally Posted by 10thmtn View Post
    You're really going to double down on this?

    Perfection is the enemy of good enough.

    A hasty plan, with limited resources, executed with boldness and honor, is often much better than a better plan, with more resources...executed later. Something every team leader in the military knows.

    One RSO is better than none. Two are better than one. Heck, maybe a well funded school system can put one in every darn classroom. Where do we draw the line? When do we have "enough?" And if we don't have "enough" for whatever reason, do we just sit around and wait, while children die, until we do?

    I'm grateful for some of the PMs I've received from some members here in the policing community. As for you, Brownie, I will pray for your soul. You are either a psychopath who should never have been in policing from the get-go, or a classic case of burnout...where you went from "to protect and serve" to "the hell with them all, I'm only looking out for my fellow brothers in blue." Given that officers see the worst of humanity on a daily basis, the latter is perhaps understandable. When you stare at the monster, the monster stares back.

    If the latter is the issue, I hope you seek professional help. Your abilities as a shooter or instructor mean little when you have no more honor or sense of service to those who are the most vulnerable. You need to stop being petulant, and look into the mirror. You may not like who you see.

    In the meantime, I am done reading about your monster. My biggest mistake was removing you recently from my "ignore" list. That won't happen again.

    I wish you the best. I really do.
    Until society steps up to the plate to reduce the risks to both kids and lone leo responder [ which is inadequate presently ] in an other than feel good manner, and that's quite executable, then we are left with more risks to both. It's not my problem society hasn't stepped up and paid the money's that's required. Mitigating risk to everyone concerned is the camp I fall into. No more or less.

  16. #240
    VIP Member Array Havok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    US
    Posts
    6,750
    Quote Originally Posted by AzQkr View Post
    Nor have I suggested such in any post Havok.
    Thatís the issue though. I donít think anyone would criticize him for taking a less aggressive action than what would be expected of a team, but I think no action at all is unacceptable.
    AzQkr, OldChap and patkelly4370 like this.
    We get the government we deserve.

Page 16 of 18 FirstFirst ... 6 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •