EPTIt doesn't matter if they were scared of entering a room. Questioning whether or not the police made the right decision in this case is a valid line of questioning, and I really don't understand what motivates your strong opposition to it.
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2511 Posts
It doesn't matter if they were scared of entering a room. Questioning whether or not the police made the right decision in this case is a valid line of questioning, and I really don't understand what motivates your strong opposition to it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11975 Posts
On May 27 2022 16:05 Slydie wrote: After the 22th of July attacks, there were similar debates in Norway. There some very difficult dilemmas in these situations, first if the situation is clear, like if there are one or more shooters, where the suspect is etc. Then, the police officers who are most likely to arrive first are most likely equipped nor training for dealing with an ongoing mass shooting. Afaik, standard procedure is to wait for an especially trained unit before engaging in direct confrontation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this is black and white. I think you incorrectly believe that if they followed standard procedure then the situation is no longer black and white. It's probably worse if they did tbh. But that is unlikely. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21470 Posts
On May 27 2022 16:05 Slydie wrote: But the common police officer in Norway doesn't have to deal with mass shootings, so it makes sense to not 'waste' time training them for it.After the 22th of July attacks, there were similar debates in Norway. There some very difficult dilemmas in these situations, first if the situation is clear, like if there are one or more shooters, where the suspect is etc. Then, the police officers who are most likely to arrive first are most likely equipped nor training for dealing with an ongoing mass shooting. Afaik, standard procedure is to wait for an especially trained unit before engaging in direct confrontation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this is black and white. But surely if your going to have police stationed at a school in the US to prevent this sort of thing then having them be equipped and trained to deal with active shooters, including automatic weapons, should be standard? What's the point of having more 'good' people with guns at schools to shoot the 'bad' people with guns if the good people aren't capable of handling it? (that was sarcasm btw, the solution to school shootings isn't more guns at schools) People can discuss and talk here all they want, nothing is going to change because this was not a national tragedy, this was just another Tuesday in the US. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
r3nd3mn3m3
1 Post
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43988 Posts
On May 27 2022 23:14 r3nd3mn3m3 wrote: This is incorrect. The standard procedure is for law enforcement personnel to immediately engage a mass shooter without waiting for backup or specialized units. Source, please? Not saying you're wrong; just wondering if there's a link that I can click to read more about this. | ||
KwarK
United States42180 Posts
On May 27 2022 16:05 Slydie wrote: After the 22th of July attacks, there were similar debates in Norway. There some very difficult dilemmas in these situations, first if the situation is clear, like if there are one or more shooters, where the suspect is etc. Then, the police officers who are most likely to arrive first are most likely equipped nor training for dealing with an ongoing mass shooting. Afaik, standard procedure is to wait for an especially trained unit before engaging in direct confrontation. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think this is black and white. Norwegian police aren’t as trained for shootings because they’re not so common. The police here had trained for this exact scenario. | ||
|
Blitzkrieg0
United States13132 Posts
On May 27 2022 23:55 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Source, please? Not saying you're wrong; just wondering if there's a link that I can click to read more about this. https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/crime/article261827495.html | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On May 27 2022 13:44 Mohdoo wrote: "We shot at an unarmed suspect bc we were fearing for our lives" "We didn't enter the school bc we we fearing for our lives" | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7177 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11975 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7177 Posts
https://twitter.com/SawyerHackett/status/1529808809719480320?s=20&t=7bNl8TjXZg2c-iGanci8ZQ They went and got their own kids to safety, but blockaded other parents from getting their own children to safety. You can’t make this kind of awful up, I swear. Rules for thee but not for me! Except it’s Living children for me but not for thee! | ||
|
Vivax
21914 Posts
As usual these days, the media sells fake stuff and people believe it. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11975 Posts
On May 28 2022 04:05 Vivax wrote: Your own security is top priority for firefighters, cops and doctors. It’s what they get taught. You can be of no help to anyone if you’re the next in line needing it. As usual these days, the media sells fake stuff and people believe it. Have you met the american press? The people who usually write stuff like "A bullet was shot by the service gun of the police officer and entered his wife's body, causing her death" are bashing the police on this. I actually read a statement by a chief of police somewhere else in the nation condemning this which I believe is one of the four signs of the apocalypse. The version given by the cops changes everyday, and the version they gave today (in a readily accessible press conference) is completely incoherent, they're claiming they thought everyone was dead in the class, while they were receiving about a dozen 911 calls from inside the class telling them that they were alive with the shooter and help was needed, starting about an hour before they intervened. It is logically impossible that they are telling the truth, the media couldn't spin this if they wanted to (and they don't). | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2511 Posts
On May 27 2022 22:23 JimmiC wrote: Questioning is fine, I questioned his conclusion with, lets wait for all the info, because there was so much we did not know, he got upset and made strange claims about what I was saying. Out of curiosity did you read all the posts or just the last couple before commenting? I read 'all the posts'. Lemme run this back for you. Blitz said "Blue lives matter more than children apparently" You challenged, saying the police officer rushing in is a risk in itself, and possibly not the best call. Fair enough, nothing wrong here. Blitz replied, challenging the idea (again) that the police officer's life is regarded as more valuable than the children's, in this case. Again, everything is above board here. You reply stating you prefer to not assume the worst. Still fine. Blitz replies, clearly a bit frustrated, pointing out that he's not just blindly assuming the worst, but is basing his assumptions on the evidence as it is currently presented. This is fine. You reply challenging the idea that Blitz's speculation is speculation, and project emotions of anger on to Blitz. You also assert that Blitz is specifically 'angry' -because- you want to wait for complete information before making a conclusion. This is wrong on several counts. One, you project anger onto Blitz when there's only frustration. I understand the frustration. Two, this is where you pick this 'conclusion' hill to die on. You assert that Blitz has made a conclusion where I do not see one, and cannot see one. I see only speculation from Blitz, and if the crux of your argument is the pedantry of them not specifically saying "I feel like" or something beforehand, then I strongly encourage you to assess your own communication with the same level of scrutiny. You are no herald of clear diction, and very often have typos, if not entirely incorrect words in your posts. I don't think you have the ground to criticize someone for the omission of couched language, and should be expected to extend them the courtesy of generous understanding, as people also extend to you. Three, expecting any of us to have 'complete information' on this event is pretty optimistic, even a few months in the future. Holding all speculation until all investigations are completed means there's literally no point to this entire thread. Blitz made this point in an earlier post. Your next post in the thread reinforces your idea of "(a) race to come to a final answer". This is your strawman. Blitz's next response strongly reinforces my idea of Blitz's position. He illustrates the idea that he's dismayed you think they're just jumping to the worst 'conclusion' apropos to nothing, and restates that they're actively forming an opinion based on current information. Nebuchad's post immediately following echoes the same ideas, and also points to your "rush to judgement" (their words) as your strawman. I could go on, but I assume this is about the point where we're at "The last couple" of posts, where you assume I read and made some sort of emotions-based comment. I'm a third party in this. I'm a passive observer. Pretty much the only reason I read this, or USpol, or anything is because the discourse does me good and I appreciate people's perspective. I don't bother engaging in political discourse often, because I don't have much stake in it and don't typically have much to contribute. Where I will bother to comment is when people have gone off the rails, because it detracts from the point of the thread, as far as I understand it. You're just in the wrong, here. Learn from it, and move on. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Vivax
21914 Posts
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose. They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example. In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11975 Posts
On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote: In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done. The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose. They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example. In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. They just didn't enter the classroom. Their story now being that they thought everyone else was dead in there and they've contained him in, they're not worried about traps or other people. Their claim is now just that they "decided" against all reason to make an assumption that no one would make even though they had direct evidence that this assumption was false. I'm fairly sure that the opposite of what you said is true, in case of a hostage situation there are situations where they'll wait because nobody is being killed right now and they could be responsible for launching the killing spree. But in the case of an active shooter, every shot could be a new victim, there is obviously incentive to neutralize him as fast as possible. | ||
|
Vivax
21914 Posts
On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote: They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it. | ||
|
StasisField
United States1086 Posts
On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote: In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done. The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose. They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example. In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. It is literally police policy to immediately engage an active shooter and has been since the fallout of Columbine. "First responders to the active shooter scene will usually be required to place themselves in harm's way," according to a lengthy course description posted online by the Texas agency that developed the training. "Time is the number-one enemy during active shooter response. ... The best hope that innocent victims have is that officers immediately move into action to isolate, distract or neutralize the threat, even if that means one officer acting alone." At a press conference on Friday, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw acknowledged that officers on the scene miscalculated what was unfolding, failing to go after the gunman sooner. "From the benefit of hindsight where I'm sitting now, of course it wasn't the right decision. It was the wrong decision, period," he said. ABC News contributor John Cohen, formerly the top counterterrorism official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and himself a former police officer, said that response "would seem to be inconsistent with accepted practice." "What we are hearing from Texas law enforcement officials seems to be inconsistent with the operational philosophy that has guided the response to active shooter situations for well over a decade," Cohen said. "Having been a police officer, it's a scary job -- but what the public expects is that when confronted with those situations, the officer is going to do what they need to do in order to protect the public." In the wake of the 1999 high school shooting in Columbine, Colorado, where twelve students and one teacher were killed, federal and state law enforcement officials developed new practices for equipping and training first responders. As a result, Cohen said, it has become "generally accepted" that the first officers on-scene must find and "engage" the shooter as soon as possible, even if that means putting their own lives at risk. https://abcnews.go.com/US/time-number-enemy-police-uvalde-ignore-training/story?id=85020134 Please stop spewing bullshit. | ||
| ||
