A question for cops
The deputy in FL is being excoriated, including by his boss, for cowardice, unfairly imho.
What was he supposed to do?
Put aside the fact that he is in his late fifties, near retirement, and not a big fan of dying. All granted.
He has a hand gun. Presumably that's it. He believes/knows that the shooter is armed with something more powerful, even if he's not quite sure what. He doesn't know exactly where the shooter is or where he's headed, except from the noise of the shots.
Let's say he wasn't there and that cops responded to the scene. Would they all have entered with guns blazing? Would "ordinary" cops have done so, or would tactical response units have entered, with more weapons, more protection? Would they have entered singly, one here, one there, one somewhere else? All with the proverbial guns blazing? Or would someone in command make a plan to minimize deaths among the responders? Would they have "taken up positions" in key spots? How much time would this have taken?
Another poster noted that school resource officers are the local Mr. Friendly. I think we've all pretty much assumed that. Do school resource officers generally have a mandate to respond to active shooters? Or is the mandate to call for backup and, to the extent possible, secure the scene/render assistance, etc.
Sure, it would have been fantastic if he had done what everyone says he should have done. Maybe another individual in his position would have done just that. Maybe not. And that includes the sheriff, who called this guy a coward. But I think far more information is needed instead of this rush to judgment.
BTW, if a cop responded this way, how do you think Ms. Jones from AP English is going to respond when she's granted a concealed carry license for use in school?
= new reply since forum marked as read
