Would you have gone in?

[Chris]

Just as some 'technical' input from someone who has shot many thousands of rounds through pistols; don't believe what you see in the movies. Couple of points.
Shooting a pistol with genuine accuracy over more than about 25 yards is beyond the skill level of most people. The Police used to train at 7 yards. Hmm and some still failed to hit the target. Rifles on the other hand are easier to shoot with a degree of accuracy over longer distances.

Pistols are incredibly LOUD. I mean like deafening. Shooting one in an enclosed environment would probably be limited to discharging about 1 round. I didn't have my muffs on when I let fly with my 9mm once. They found me in the corner of the range sobbing with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears.

Having an armed guard in almost any scenario (Jeez on a plane!!!!!) where they'd be expected to return fire is frankly fantasy. I read a stat somewhere where the average exchange of rounds in the US, in any fire fight such as this is 2.5 rounds. Silencers do work, but this phuut phuut sound that they make in the movies is just another film lie.

So we have to make judgements based on facts not not Trump's favorite movies. Look I spelled it wrong like the Americans do.

 

[Dave_S]

Hey Chris - not challenging any of the above - the question was, should he have gone in? Whether he had a hand gun, a sub, a taser or an extra hot pepperami is secondary, no?

 

[moggy1968]

Just as some 'technical' input from someone who has shot many thousands of rounds through pistols; don't believe what you see in the movies. Couple of points.
Shooting a pistol with genuine accuracy over more than about 25 yards is beyond the skill level of most people. The Police used to train at 7 yards. Hmm and some still failed to hit the target. Rifles on the other hand are easier to shoot with a degree of accuracy over longer distances.

Pistols are incredibly LOUD. I mean like deafening. Shooting one in an enclosed environment would probably be limited to discharging about 1 round. I didn't have my muffs on when I let fly with my 9mm once. They found me in the corner of the range sobbing with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears.

Having an armed guard in almost any scenario (Jeez on a plane!!!!!) where they'd be expected to return fire is frankly fantasy. I read a stat somewhere where the average exchange of rounds in the US, in any fire fight such as this is 2.5 rounds. Silencers do work, but this phuut phuut sound that they make in the movies is just another film lie.

So we have to make judgements based on facts not not Trump's favorite movies. Look I spelled it wrong like the Americans do.

Totally agree, We trained at 25yards against static targets and plenty of people still couldn't hit the damn thing!! Once had a girl on the range, wearing ear defenders, faint when she fired a browning 9mm!! Scared the shit out the rest of us, we thought she'd been shot!!

I got shot in the knee by a 5.56 with a blank once, in a concrete building, don't know which hurt more my knee or my ears!!

The potential for accidental death by arming people that don't know what they're doing (like teachers) is a recipe for disaster. Just look at how many people are killed by accidental shootings in the US every year!!

 

[moggy1968]

But the guy had been a sheriffs deputy for over 20 years so you would have expected him to have undertaken plenty of training....

Even some soldiers freeze up first time in combat, despite all the live firing training, CQB training etc. Like I said in response to someone on facebook, shooting static paper targets is not the same at all as being in a CQB facing a moving hostile target.
Yes, it was his job, yes he failed in his job, and now his position is untenable, but don't crucify him for it when most of us would have done exactly the same thing.

 

[Towpack]

Just as some 'technical' input from someone who has shot many thousands of rounds through pistols; don't believe what you see in the movies. Couple of points.
Shooting a pistol with genuine accuracy over more than about 25 yards is beyond the skill level of most people. The Police used to train at 7 yards. Hmm and some still failed to hit the target. Rifles on the other hand are easier to shoot with a degree of accuracy over longer distances.

Pistols are incredibly LOUD. I mean like deafening. Shooting one in an enclosed environment would probably be limited to discharging about 1 round. I didn't have my muffs on when I let fly with my 9mm once. They found me in the corner of the range sobbing with my eyes shut and my fingers in my ears.

Having an armed guard in almost any scenario (Jeez on a plane!!!!!) where they'd be expected to return fire is frankly fantasy. I read a stat somewhere where the average exchange of rounds in the US, in any fire fight such as this is 2.5 rounds. Silencers do work, but this phuut phuut sound that they make in the movies is just another film lie.

So we have to make judgements based on facts not not Trump's favorite movies. Look I spelled it wrong like the Americans do.

Having shot on both indoor and outdoor target ranges and the Police Pistol discipline with both a 9mm SA pistol and a revolver I agree 100% on the sound factor. I also tried it without muffs and wished I hadn’t. A 44 mag with full loads is loud even with muffs. I don’t believe this would even enter your head in a ‘kill or be killed’ situation though due to the adrenalin ‘pump’. This same Adrenalin rush would make most people blast away wasting ammo and time when drawing down and placing shots is what’s required and exactly what the training armed personal receive is supposed to teach. Composing each shot and shooting paper targets at 25m is nothing in comparison. Rifles may be easier to shoot and certainly more accurate over long distances but a side arm, with the correct training, can be deployed quicker. The arming of teachers, extreme as it may sound to us, may well act as a deterrent if it comes to be. I don’t believe there will be a shortage of volunteers either. JMO

 

[Beau]

I haven't read a lot of the comments so sorry if I repeat what someone else may have said. I don't think for these scenarios there's a right or wrong answer. We all don't know what this officer was thinking when this all went down no matter what may have been so called "required". It's all to easy for everyone else to say he should have as a aftermath given the outcome of this tragic situation.

But to answer the question, I think when you take on the roll as a officer or police, things like this come with the job, and if you are not willing to commit to potentially life risking threats like this, don't become one. Because someone else can take that position and in this case COULD have potentially saved lives.

On a side note, It's also being used to mask the main issue behind all this which is gun control. Now they're opening up investigations on complaints that were filled prior to the incident as though it will solve the problem. Utter rubbish if you ask me. Give it couple more weeks anyway, and everyone will forget about it all sadly until the next one occurs

 

[Philip A]

People are getting killed, the shooter is active, you are armed and on location.

Whether it is written in some book or not, wheter you are an officer on duty or a simple citizen, you have a duty to intervene. You took that responsibility the moment you strapped on a gun, because having a firearm IS a responsibility.

If you carry a firearm, you are responsible for acquiring the training needed to use it under adverse circumstances. You are responsible for rehearsing “what-if” scenarios, and make yourself acquainted with reality instead of movie-like wishful thinking.

That man (I’m using the word “man” liberally here) had a double duty to intervene: as a sworn officer, and as an armed man. Period.

Please read the article below, this will give you an insight of what it is like to “go in” when other people are getting killed.

Another question is, in such a situation, do you want your only recourse to be “lie down, close your eyes, and pretend you are dead”, or do you want to be in a position to fight back?

That’s a personal choice, but you have to make it in advance. When things turn ugly, it’s too late to consider the finer points of being alive in a place you did not choose to be - because you thought that it only happens to others.

Rabbit in a hole, or biting back? Personal choice, but that deputy reneged on his pledge.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/20/nairobi-kenya-westgate-mall-attack-al-shabab/

 

[moggy1968]

People are getting killed, the shooter is active, you are armed and on location.

Whether it is written in some book or not, wheter you are an officer on duty or a simple citizen, you have a duty to intervene. You took that responsibility the moment you strapped on a gun, because having a firearm IS a responsibility.

If you carry a firearm, you are responsible for acquiring the training needed to use it under adverse circumstances. You are responsible for rehearsing “what-if” scenarios, and make yourself acquainted with reality instead of movie-like wishful thinking.

That man (I’m using the word “man” liberally here) had a double duty to intervene: as a sworn officer, and as an armed man. Period.

Please read the article below, this will give you an insight of what it is like to “go in” when other people are getting killed.

Another question is, in such a situation, do you want your only recourse to be “lie down, close your eyes, and pretend you are dead”, or do you want to be in a position to fight back?

That’s a personal choice, but you have to make it in advance. When things turn ugly, it’s too late to consider the finer points of being alive in a place you did not choose to be - because you thought that it only happens to others.

Rabbit in a hole, or biting back? Personal choice, but that deputy reneged on his pledge.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/20/nairobi-kenya-westgate-mall-attack-al-shabab/

Your showing a lack of understanding about the psychological and physical effects that happen to a person during events like this. Most people don't make conscious choices in these scenarios, nature takes over.

 

[hopeless wanderer]

oh well here goes...
Its a stark contrast between the unarmed teacher who was killed protecting the kids in his class and the armed cop who stood outside. I wouldn't be so hard on him as many have said you don't really know what you'd do till it happens. This is only going to be spun one way and that is to blame it all on this guy, the elephant in the room is why there are quite so many guns in public ownership.
I read that 3% of Americans own 50% of the guns in the US and that 20% of the guns worldwide including those held by military and security forces are held by American civilians. Astounding numbers.
The problem is that Americans are manipulated into being fearful and guns counter that fear.
Every time these things happen the cops do basically what this guy did, they wait to amass sufficient numbers to assault the place and by that time tens of people are already dead. They know the loon in question could be heavily armed sometimes more heavily armed than the police. compare that to the London bridge attacks
8 Minutes to find and despatch the nutters, with roaming targets and a constant stream of information on their location is pretty amazing. One of the reasons is the met know more likely than not they are going to have greater firepower and a distinct advantage.
I love guns, i think they're fabulous examples of engineering and some are beautiful objects. i don't think every Tom Dick and Harry should have one that's all.
As for all the bollocks about tyrannical governments and regulated militia. Sure didn't help them in Waco and they were a small army, Didn't stop them at standing rock either. The government is Tyrannical and part of the tyranny is the gun toters themselves. If you get a chance watch this clip it's a bit of fun put he makes some great points.

 

[frank rabbets]

Well if part of his sworn duty was to protect kids against maniacs with assault rifles he could argue he did not have the right equipment i.e. a swat team. You DO need the right tools for the job.

 

[Philip A]

Your showing a lack of understanding about the psychological and physical effects that happen to a person during events like this. Most people don't make conscious choices in these scenarios, nature takes over.

I’m acquainted with the psychological and physical effects of life-or-death stress situations, both for myself and others.

“Nature takes over” inasmuch as you let it take over. In a situation where you have to stand your ground or lose your life - or someone else’s - you have to do just that, stand your ground. Face the danger, do what you’re supposed to do, despite your fears, and whatever your body or mind are telling you. Same applies to “going in”. Courage is not the absence of fear, it is the willful overcoming of one’s fear. Cowardice is... Well, standing idle while kids get killed.

As for the argument from other posts, “he only had a handgun”: search GIGN. This elite French Gendarmerie unit is armed with a .357 revolver, and with it they have taken on terrorists armed with AKs, and won the day. Training, and mindset.

The deputy did not have the training, but most crucially did not have the mindset.

The shooter was a nineteen years old kid. No tactical experience, out of his mind on adrenaline and uncontrolled feelings, probably deafened by his own shots unless he wore hearing protection. The guard had the advantage of knowing where his target was, and could have hunted and ambushed him, even with a revolver. Of course he could have wound up dead in the process, but that’s what you sign for when you take an oath and a gun...

 

[Julian T]

 

[frank rabbets]

I bet in their handbook they are told to wait for back up. The oath is short and only covers a basic philosophy.

 

[Shayne]

I instinctively put myself in harms way when others are in danger , i don't know why i just always have , but like Moggy (though guns have never featured much in my life) i have witnessed the illogical paralysis by fear and indecision in others .

Stuck on the side of a cliff he wanted to jump to certain death rather than turn around ? another guy , a pro boxer among other things was balanced on a plank 100ft above a mostly demolished building when he just froze . Both wanted to take me with them and both took almost an hour (though it may have just seemed that long) of calm reassurance to come back to sanity .

They are both still friends and that day has never been mentioned again . Would i trust them in a similar situation again ? - yes , because it wasn't them that froze it was a schizophrenic alternative personality that they had never met before who froze .

 

[moggy1968]

I’m acquainted with the psychological and physical effects of life-or-death stress situations, both for myself and others.

“Nature takes over” inasmuch as you let it take over. In a situation where you have to stand your ground or lose your life - or someone else’s - you have to do just that, stand your ground. Face the danger, do what you’re supposed to do, despite your fears, and whatever your body or mind are telling you. Same applies to “going in”. Courage is not the absence of fear, it is the willful overcoming of one’s fear. Cowardice is... Well, standing idle while kids get killed.

As for the argument from other posts, “he only had a handgun”: search GIGN. This elite French Gendarmerie unit is armed with a .357 revolver, and with it they have taken on terrorists armed with AKs, and won the day. Training, and mindset.

The deputy did not have the training, but most crucially did not have the mindset.

..

.
I agree with some of that, but absolutely not that’s its just down to whether you have the bollocks for it. The stress reaction is a physiological one, not a cognitive process. To say it’s just down to mindset is a massive oversimplification. There are thousands of examples not just when up against an assailant, but also in a disaster, when it’s your own or your loved ones lives that are in your hands, that those without training or experience manage the situation less well, frequently fail to react appropriately or even at all and are reduced to being a useless lump of lard.
Yes, proper training combined with big cahooneys will often win through against an enemy with superior weaponry, superior numbers, but an absence of training. History is littered with such examples, but the key element to that is training and experience, real live experience

 

[Philip A]

.
I agree with some of that, but absolutely not that’s its just down to whether you have the bollocks for it. The stress reaction is a physiological one, not a cognitive process. To say it’s just down to mindset is a massive oversimplification. There are thousands of examples not just when up against an assailant, but also in a disaster, when it’s your own or your loved ones lives that are in your hands, that those without training or experience manage the situation less well, frequently fail to react appropriately or even at all and are reduced to being a useless lump of lard.
Yes, proper training combined with big cahooneys will often win through against an enemy with superior weaponry, superior numbers, but an absence of training. History is littered with such examples, but the key element to that is training and experience, real live experience

Fully agree that there is a physiological reaction, and that many would either freeze, wander around aimlessly, or do exactly the opposite than what is needed.

Fully agree, as well, that nothing replaces live experience, and that the more stress situations you handle, the better you become at handling them.

But my point was directed to the deputy in this case. He was 54, and you don’t reach that age without having a pretty good idea of your own limitations. Even those acquainted with you, by this time, will have figured out if you are someone who can be relied upon, or a bag full of wind.

He had no business being in a situation where he was supposed to be stepping in to save other people’s lives, he most probably knew it deep inside, and his superiors should have known about it too.

What pisses me off to the highest is not that he did not save a single life, it’s that he did not even TRY.

 

[moggy1968]

I’m acquainted with the psychological and physical effects of life-or-death stress situations, both for myself and others.

“Nature takes over” inasmuch as you let it take over. In a situation where you have to stand your ground or lose your life - or someone else’s - you have to do just that, stand your ground. Face the danger, do what you’re supposed to do, despite your fears, and whatever your body or mind are telling you. Same applies to “going in”. Courage is not the absence of fear, it is the willful overcoming of one’s fear. Cowardice is... Well, standing idle while kids get killed.

As for the argument from other posts, “he only had a handgun”: search GIGN. This elite French Gendarmerie unit is armed with a .357 revolver, and with it they have taken on terrorists armed with AKs, and won the day. Training, and mindset.

The deputy did not have the training, but most crucially did not have the mindset.

I agree with some of that, but absolutely disagree that’s its just down to whether you have the bollocks for it. The stress reaction is a physiological one, not a cognitive process. To say it’s just down to mindset is a massive oversimplification.
Yes, proper training combined with big cahooneys will often win through against an enemy with superior weaponry, superior numbers, but an absence of training. History is littered with such examples, but the key element to that is training and experience, real live experience.....

Fully agree that there is a physiological reaction, and that many would either freeze, wander around aimlessly, or do exactly the opposite than what is needed.

Fully agree, as well, that nothing replaces live experience, and that the more stress situations you handle, the better you become at handling them.

But my point was directed to the deputy in this case. He was 54, and you don’t reach that age without having a pretty good idea of your own limitations. Even those acquainted with you, by this time, will have figured out if you are someone who can be relied upon, or a bag full of wind.

He had no business being in a situation where he was supposed to be stepping in to save other people’s lives, he most probably knew it deep inside, and his superiors should have known about it too.

What pisses me off to the highest is not that he did not save a single life, it’s that he did not even TRY.

i think it depends on the nature of his experience. Plenty of people reach that age without really being tested. Even as a deputy, if he was in a quiet little town someplace then maybe he has never been tested and thought he could do it, but when it came to the crunch he couldn’t. Maybe like a lot of people commentating on this he thought firing at paper targets and being able to handle a weapon was adequate preparation, then found out the hard way that it wasn’t. He failed, he shouldn’t be in the job, but people are too keen to criticise and fantasise about how much better they would have dealt with it when in reality, they haven’t got a clue. (That’s not aimed at you, I recognise your real world experience)

 

[Chris]

Hi Dave. I wasn't really attempting to answer the questions, merely giving some background for others to consider in their deliberations. Frankly I don't think that other than in a theatre of war where charging at the enemy is kinda in the job description, anyone should be expected to put their own life on the line. The graveyard is full of heroes. So I don't know. I haven't spoken personally to the chap and all I know is what the media have decided to report. Perhaps the best thing in a situation like this is to gather intelligence at the scene to pass to the first responders as they arrive so that they don't run into something blind. Or maybe someone there should rush in and add to the body count. I'm just saying that in answer to the question, I think there are very few out there really capable of answering by expressing an opinion based on experience and fact.

Whatever the views, I certainly would not condemn the bloke.

 

[flint]

Round here a few years ago, a local man was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife. He's known to have a quick temper and as soon as the police were made aware of the situation, they very quickly arrived, properly equipped, and took away his licensed guns, no arguments. The local police department in this school shooting had been warned about the perpetrator and his threats but apparently did little or nothing. Perhaps the lax gun laws limited what they could do, but they seem every bit as culpable as the poorly armed school liaison officer that they're now trying to shift the blame onto.

 

[moggy1968]

Round here a few years ago, a local man was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife. He's known to have a quick temper and as soon as the police were made aware of the situation, they very quickly arrived, properly equipped, and took away his licensed guns, no arguments. The local police department in this school shooting had been warned about the perpetrator and his threats but apparently did little or nothing. Perhaps the lax gun laws limited what they could do, but they seem every bit as culpable as the poorly armed school liaison officer that they're now trying to shift the blame onto.

I think that’s a key point. The security guy didn’t kill those children, the shooter did, and the security guy didn’t fuck up and let him keep his guns, the Feds did. The blame needs to be placed where the blame is.