re: AP: Parents begged cops to enter school as shooting unfolded. Cops refused

quote:

---

Your bias is out of control

---

Word of the day is hypocrite folks.

quote:

---

claiming they should be held in equal regard.

---

THis guy..

quote:

---

Again we don't know.

---

Bingo. But the airy tales have already been written. You can't change a simpletons mind.

quote:

---

And you are just making up excuses to defend the officer without any facts to pull from....so?

---

How is blindly charging in a classroom going to change the outcome?

Pretty much every LEO in the US is supposed to know that the rule is "Push to Contact", which means you go towards the sound of gunfire until you locate the source and engage with him/her.

Even if you don't kill the shooter outright, by actively engaging with them you keep them occupied so that they can't find and kill innocents.

That's what is taught and disseminated. In reality, a vast majority >90% of LEO's never hear a shot fired in anger and don't mentally accept that this will ever happen. When it does, they freeze up. They are human and the old adage that you get what you pay for comes into play. I know Sheriff's Deputies here in LA that are making $13 an hour. Starbuck's is paying $15 to start. You just can't find and hire hard charger warriors at those rates.

The very sad fact is that these low paid, low trained, unmotivated LEO's are fine 99.999% of the time to take barking dog and car accident reports. We only find out they are sorely lacking when the really bad thing happens and their deficiencies are exposed.

I don't think they set out to be cowards, I just think they are overwhelmed, under trained and wholly unprepared to face the reality of a dude wanting to kill them and they shut down.

quote:

---

Smaller departments may not even have protocols for this. I imagine there are hundreds of different protocols across the land though, not all the same.

---

The force had a swat team, and while I'm sure specific protocols can differ, I'd imagine most abide by the general idea of storming the building. Once you arrive on the scene, you're supposed to engage.

From what I've read, it sounds like the first two responding officers who engaged the suspect were shot (non-life-threatening) and after that, the decision came from someone to contain the shooter in the one classroom until specialists arrived. Why did that take so long? Why is it being reported an off-duty BP agent killed him? Would it have even mattered at that point? They conceded that one class to save the rest of the students.

quote:

---

How is blindly charging in a classroom going to change the outcome?

---

I'll post it again since it seems forever relevant

quote:

---

I was trained that as soon as you had two officers on scene, those officers entered the active shooter building/situation immediately (two were required so that one officer kept his attention solely toward the sound of the gunshots, and the second officer watched the first officers rear, did the radio communications, and directed civilians towards the exit if they ran towards them). Other officers were to enter in groups of two (or more if they arrived at the same time) as they arrived on scene. If the officers actively heard shooting after entering the building, they were to head directly towards the sound of the shooting as quickly as possible, but at a speed where the second officer could still cover behind them (in case of multiple shooters). If the gunshots stopped fully or temporarily, during that time they were to head towards the sound of the last gunshots, but at a slightly slower pace, making sure to better cover doors and hallways as they passed because the location of the shooter was no longer definite.

In this case apparently the officers and the suspect exchanged fire before he entered in the school, and the officers suffered injuries of some kind. OK, the way I was trained, if they were truly injured (not hurt), no problem, but the next two officers on scene should have been going into that school.

Cops sitting on the outside while people are being killed should be criminal. How I was trained makes complete sense to me. I have no idea what the frick happened here, but this is a fricking policing disaster of epic proportions if this emerging timeline is accurate. I cannot think of a single justifiable reason to not enter or maintain a presence in that school, absolutely unconscionable.

---

But SOP, as everything I have heard, read, and seen has changed since Columbine. What you describe, holding containment and not rushing in to confront an active shooter, was the Pre-Columbine SOP, that is no longer the case.

Now, is it possible there is some underlying info yet to be revealed that may explain the 90 minute gap in a way that completely exonerates or adds new context to the situation? Sure, but I think it's completely justified to be skeptical at this point and demand answers, especially given recent history like Parkland.

And here is another new eyewitness account:

quote:

---

Javier Cazares, a father whose 9-year-old daughter was killed in the massacre, said that officials have been misrepresenting the response of law enforcement during the shooting at Robb Elementary.

“They said they rushed in and all that, we didn’t see that,” said Mr. Cazares, who was outside the school during the attack and heard gunshots.

He saw police officers evacuating children, but grew angry, he said, when he did not see officers enter the school immediately. Mr. Cazares wanted to rush in himself to help his daughter, Jacklyn, saying he would carry his little girl out himself, but they told him to let them do their work.

Mr. Cazares, 43, said he didn’t understand why the officers were “just standing out there” for so long.

“There were plenty of men out there armed to the teeth that could have gone in faster,” he said, adding, “This could have been over in a couple minutes.”

Mr. Cazares said that it took 15 or 20 minutes for law enforcement officers to bring protective shields to enter the school. “They were there without proper equipment.”

His daughter’s cousin also died in the shooting. Mr. Cazares said he believes that a faster police response would have made a difference. “More kids would have been saved, in my opinion.”

---

The bold is important, because one of the excuses many have attempted to make for the police not rushing is that the killer maybe had stopped firing and it was assumed to now be a hostage situation, necessitating a different SOP and protocol, but instead of rushing in it would appear officers continued waiting to get more and more gear, and apparently it was a rag tag group of outside agents and officers that ultimately entered, not the local LEO's that took up camp outside.

quote:

---

Why does some Cops keeping unarmed civilians from going out to get slaughtered and possibly making the situation worse seem like a bad thing?

---

Where does he say that? At all? Nowhere.

The issue at hand is the lack of following SOP on an active shooter and why they didnt for 90 minutes.

You seem to be trying, in the name of defending these specific officers, to cast sweeping aspersions on the entirety of post-columbine SOP to defend the possibility these officers did in fact just hold camp outside. Are you an actual officer? I'm just curious what expertise you have that makes you confident to make these claims that if they did ignore SOP, it was for the best, and how you square the allegation of the father of one of the victims stating the cops are telling the public one thing but did another?