Why didn't the officer rush into Florida's Parkland school mass shooting?

"The sheriff’s deputy was armed and in uniform, standing outside the Florida school where a gunman was methodically killing students, authorities said Thursday night. And yet he did nothing."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-school-mass-shooting/?utm_term=.5afca0fe239e

A law enforcement officer was unwilling to intervene despite his training. An armed but untrained citizen would be even less likely to intervene. Are more guns really the solution?

 

Guns in the right hands at the right time are surely a small part of the solution. The debate is who should they be, should school administrators and teachers be included, are armed guards affordable, what other methods like metal detectors and bag inspections could be implemented, how do we keep guns out of hands of those who shouldn't have them, etc. I don't see it as a single-point solution, but rather something we need to take a holistic approach to address.

There's a segment of people unable to pull a trigger against a human or to act in the face of danger. I recall reading about it during undergrad psychology but can't recall details. I just don't know if it was fear, if he was told to hold his position, if it was department policy, or if he was just a coward at that moment. He failed in his duty regardless. That does not in any way suggest the next person would do the same, civilian or law enforcement (although now I hear there were 4 deputies who did not enter).

 

He was afraid because of law suits later.

 

Only Your opinion.
We already have more guns.

Many so called "Untrained non Law Enforcement" ordinary citizens have often stepped up to the plate and defended others using firearms.

Also, you really don't know what problems that Deputy may have been experiencing at that moment that caused him to freeze, perhaps rendering him unable to act.

The Death of someone close might have been a catalyst.

 

What was his training, do you know? I doubt you know the answer to that question. When I became a LEO in the suburbs of Detroit back in 1957 my training was being handed a gun, badge and hand cuffs and told to report at 3:30PM. Even men who went thru 16 weeks of Army basic training froze when they found themselves in combat for the first time. No one knows how he will react to combat and will never know the answer until the bullets start flying. What happened is unfortunate and it appears it was handled appropriately.

 

This assumption is based on............?

 

This cop who didn't do anything was likely more worried about his pension. I read he had been a cop for over 30 years. Maybe he was just old and scared.

 

Why didn't the officer rush into Florida's Parkland school mass shooting?

Personally, without any proof whatsoever, I believe there were others coming and he was told to hold off until they got there. I think they were held up or slow to respond and it was over before they got there. I think they were ordered to do that, and I suspect they were torn between helping and being labeled cowards. I don't think the truth is out there, yet. It may never be.

 

He was on the outside looking in. He had the choice not to intervene. A teacher trapped in a classroom may be just as afraid but could be forced into engagement should the top shooter attempt or succeed in breaching the classroom.

 

They have less training. It takes training to overcome your natural instinct of self preservation. Read the article.

 

No, experience has shown me, that some people do NOT have the mental ability to cope with combat situations or in medical, the sight of blood and organs also makes them faint or freeze.

I already know this firsthand from observations.

 

A complete lack of knowledge and guesswork.

 

Does it ever happen?

 

Officers of the Coward county Sheriff's office refused to enter. Another officer borrowed armor and a pistol and charged into the building after helping a wounded student stop his bleeding. It's all about mindset, and dedication to duty. Be sure, those officers that did not go in are currently being pilloried for their cowardice on law-enforcement forums all over the internet.

The government failed at all levels. They didn't interdict the shooter when they had evidence he was violent, after many, many interactions with this young man and his family. His posts stating he wanted to shoot up his school were reported to the FBI, who did nothing. The local authorities stopped recording student crimes because they wanted to be able to show a reduction in crime for political reasons. The shooter had a history of mental illness which meant he shouldn't have been able to purchase a gun in the first place, and he was from a broken home so shouldn't have had the money to purchase such a weapon anyway... but somehow he did.

Then, after all those systemic failures, he went to a school that SHOULD have had proper security measures in place, and didn't. He began his rampage even though there were armed officers on scene, and those officers chose NOT to go in to stop his attack, causing many more deaths and injuries.

We get told, "you don't need a gun! The police will protect you!" Well, they had all kinds of opportunities to protect those kids, and failed abjectly... and now we're supposed to give up our own means of defense in favor of letting this parade of incompetents protect us? Not only no, but HELL no!

 

To be honest, everyone in the developed world outside of the USA laughs and belittles the US for their response to be to arm the teachers etc etc.

Obviously, they have too many guns and making guns more visible and more available and more deeply ingrained in their culture is not a long term solution at all.

That said, with their current record on enacting and enforcing gun control, if you actually want to stop school shooters in their tracks, maybe just maybe, it is the only way such a nation can stop these shootings or slow them down.

Again though, I would be embarrassed, if I was a patriotic person (I am not) and referenced my pride in my nation if my nations only way to stop violence against children was through shooting those children who commit that violence first. But I wish them the best of luck whichever way they go.

 

You cannot draw a blanket conclusion of what other people would do based on the actions of this one deputy. In the Umpqua Community College shooting, two officers rushed right straight to the shooter and wounded him in about 6 minutes from the time of the call. The shooter then committed suicide.

 

False statement. The Israelis armed their teachers long ago. And ended terrorist attacks on their children.

 

Because real life isn't a Dirty Harry movie .... and I know thats a tough sell stateside for most

 

The same would apply to armed teachers

 

Lets be honest most posters here would like to kill as the guy in the white hat irrespective of the impact that mindset has on your society. Killing is everything and if you can imagine yourself as a 'goodie' doing it , whats not to like ? I wonder how many mass shooters have thought just this way

 

You should do some research, look up
Joel Rifkin if you care, he was a Brooklyn Serial killer, killed prostitutes, burried them in his Mother's car garage, he did, no guns mind, just brute force.

But that is fine by your definitions, as long as no Guns are used..... lol

 

Arming pilots and air marshals has helped. Arming teachers would help.

Metal detectors won't help if a school shooter knows he is still the only one with a gun, he'll just pass right on through.

 

I will make assumptions based on what is most probable. We can't afford to wait to do or say something until we are 100% certain while the bodies continue to pile up. Action needs to be take now. Innocent lives are on the line. Sure there might be some exceptions, but arming untrained people in general does not appear to be a solution. We can do better.

LE needs to keep up to date on their training so that they can be part of the solution when the opportunity arises. They shouldn't let their skills atrophy.

 

Arming teachers could possibly be part of the solution provided they receive adequate training. However, receiving that kind of training is not typically a requirement to receive a concealed weapons permit. It's much easier to shoot a stationary target at the gun range than to shoot a moving target that can fire back at you.

 

I don't think we should arm untrained school staff members, but I am in favor of arming trained staff members who want to be armed.

I agree with that. I was talking about this with a retired university professor yesterday, and I told him that I thought the response by the Parkland deputy (or deputies) exposed a catastrophic failure in training. Compare their actions to the actions of the Roseburg Police Dept when the shooting started at UCC. This does not happen by accident. This difference happens because of training, and not all police agencies are equals in this regard.

Under stress, people generally do not "rise to the occasion." Instead, they respond to the level of their training and preparation.