Your moral bankruptcy is unfathomable. You should seriously consider self immolation. Compost the ashes. The only positive contribution you’ll make this universe
You missed the fact the police waited VERY long and even after they had overwhelming numbers, shields and long guns STILL did not go in. Plus that at least one cop that did want to go in, was actively disarmed and stopped by his peers. You can perhaps argue a lone cop with a handgun should not go in *immediately* and in some cases a small delay to group is better, but that is not what happened. They had overwhelming numbers and still did not go in for well over an hour. Some kids were shot AFTER they had superior numbers and weapon advantage on site.
When it is kids involved, it needs to be a simple policy exactly to not get into paralyzing confusion: As long as there are living kids, you go in, even if only with a handgun. In technical terms as long as it is an "active shooter". you go in. Don't want to do that, go flip burgers or so, but don't be a cop. After all, we as civilians/parents are also asked to disarm and not attempt to 'do things' ourselves but leave it all to cops. You cannot have it both ways. Such a simple policy will not be perfect, but the reverse has cost us a lot of kids lives, as it leads to situations like Uvalde.
'When it is kids involved, it needs to be a simple policy exactly to not get into paralyzing confusion: As long as there are living kids, you go in, even if only with a handgun.' Why? Granted that they are already in a tragic situation, how does having a heroic cop shot down in front of them make the situation any better for anybody? Also, I am curious about the moral calculus here. What age is this policy cut off at? I notice the exclusive use of the plural so does a single kid count? How about a woman of childbearing age with a uterus full of eggs? Why should people who approach a problem in a considered way leave law enforcement?
The age is not the issue, but the fact cops are paid to protect us. It is their job to try and save us.
But you ignored also the fact it they had overwhelming force. Of course nobody asks the first lone cop to go in while his two backups are still getting out of their cars. But experience showed that time is of essence, and hence official policy is NOT to wait 'too' long as that is the worse choice. Cop may die, cop may also save the day. Policy says, try and save the day as much as reasonable possible.
In this case they waited 77 minutes and after having assembled massive numbers and weapon advantage. You can argue how long and how many backup one must have, but this was WAY over the line for any serious discussion. Kids died after them assembling numbers and weapons advantage because of their cowardice.
"Their job to" etc. - This kind of moralistic judgement doesn't change what kinds of policy and training deliver better results. If training cops to rush in headlong results in worse policing, it is not desirable. You are a student at a school with an active shooter. Here comes a long cop running around looking for a teen to shoot dead, worried said teen will get the drop on him with a more powerful weapon. Oh, you are holding your violin case. This will go great.
"Experience shows time is of essence." But it doesn't. 1) In precisely which past active shooter situations, was time of essence? Parkland? If the lone officer present could have found Cruz and killed him on site it's not clear a single life would have been saved (i.e. that said killing could have occurred before Cruz finished shooting anyway). Maybe faster transition to victim care.
2) Why isn't time of essence in more traditional hostage situations?
3) And experience doesn't show the full range of possible future outcomes (so far the post-Columbine charging in thing hasn't produced a disaster, but with such limited benefit then it will only take one disaster to make a net negative).
HELLO??? It has been VERY long (seconds) since I asked you to give billions of dollars to train police to never make mistakes? Do you still have a roof? A car? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU KID MURDERER
Brian, you seemed to not have researched the exact timeline and as such made this horrible ivory tower article. It is perhaps OK to wait a bit for backup, and we can discuss how long is 'a bit'. But that is not what happened there. So this ivory tower article does not apply to Uvalde. That is all.
Police make mistakes all the time. But exactly because of that you have procedures and they were not followed here. You keep ignoring they waited even after having overwhelming force and numbers. More kids died as a result of them not following procedures.
It's not ivory tower. You cannot suddenly have multiple agencies converge with a working organizational structure without multiple agencies converging in training, over and over. This would be expensive. The money isn't there and shouldn't be spent that way. That is my argument. Blaming Uvalde for not pulling it off without training is ivory tower.
I should also note that the post is mostly focused on the DOJ's lone cop(s) charging in recommendation - I set aside the Uvalde delay question based on this argument about realistic possibilities for training. Or I could say "the delay was totally horrible!!!" but it still wouldn't really be relevant to the main point of the post.
Interesting article, your assessment makes a lot of sense and consistent with training I’ve received. I’ve attended many emergency management training sessions over the years when I used to be involved in managing “crowded places”. Active shooter being one of the scenarios we trained for. The guideline below is very similar to the training I received, probably due to the fact that it contained a lot of input from the same guys that conducted our training sessions. The training organizers we used were ex NYPD, Madison Square Gardens, Scotland Yard and NSW Police and NSW Fire & Rescue personnel. The final guideline was written after I left, but I had seen various drafts of the guideline as it was part of our scenario training.
Minimizing the offenders access to victims was the primary objective. Which sounds like what the officers did Uvalade.
It is difficult and it’s easy to criticize the actions of the police. If they don’t go in and people are killed they get criticized for not going in and if they go in and more people are killed they’ll get criticized for going in. If they’re lucky and only the shooter is killed they look like heros.
I’m not familiar with the details of this shooting. My superficial reading of the events suggests to me the police did the right thing but it was not in line with their policy which looks to me to be just kill/attack the shooter regardless of the officers personal safety and the safety of others within range of the shooter or crossfire. To me this sounds like a crazy policy and more likely to result in additional victims.
Different things. As far as developing an accurate understanding of what semiauto handguns can do and how this influences use of force, it was for a fiction project— this is a realm where you want to be accurate and realistic
Most of us have watched too much TV where the hero is very accurate and deadly with his handgun. He never gets killed, either.
When you have time and want to really study a cluster, have a look at the police response to the Nova Scotia shooter a few years back. Even the review was bungled!
Your moral bankruptcy is unfathomable. You should seriously consider self immolation. Compost the ashes. The only positive contribution you’ll make this universe
You missed the fact the police waited VERY long and even after they had overwhelming numbers, shields and long guns STILL did not go in. Plus that at least one cop that did want to go in, was actively disarmed and stopped by his peers. You can perhaps argue a lone cop with a handgun should not go in *immediately* and in some cases a small delay to group is better, but that is not what happened. They had overwhelming numbers and still did not go in for well over an hour. Some kids were shot AFTER they had superior numbers and weapon advantage on site.
When it is kids involved, it needs to be a simple policy exactly to not get into paralyzing confusion: As long as there are living kids, you go in, even if only with a handgun. In technical terms as long as it is an "active shooter". you go in. Don't want to do that, go flip burgers or so, but don't be a cop. After all, we as civilians/parents are also asked to disarm and not attempt to 'do things' ourselves but leave it all to cops. You cannot have it both ways. Such a simple policy will not be perfect, but the reverse has cost us a lot of kids lives, as it leads to situations like Uvalde.
'When it is kids involved, it needs to be a simple policy exactly to not get into paralyzing confusion: As long as there are living kids, you go in, even if only with a handgun.' Why? Granted that they are already in a tragic situation, how does having a heroic cop shot down in front of them make the situation any better for anybody? Also, I am curious about the moral calculus here. What age is this policy cut off at? I notice the exclusive use of the plural so does a single kid count? How about a woman of childbearing age with a uterus full of eggs? Why should people who approach a problem in a considered way leave law enforcement?
The age is not the issue, but the fact cops are paid to protect us. It is their job to try and save us.
But you ignored also the fact it they had overwhelming force. Of course nobody asks the first lone cop to go in while his two backups are still getting out of their cars. But experience showed that time is of essence, and hence official policy is NOT to wait 'too' long as that is the worse choice. Cop may die, cop may also save the day. Policy says, try and save the day as much as reasonable possible.
In this case they waited 77 minutes and after having assembled massive numbers and weapon advantage. You can argue how long and how many backup one must have, but this was WAY over the line for any serious discussion. Kids died after them assembling numbers and weapons advantage because of their cowardice.
"Their job to" etc. - This kind of moralistic judgement doesn't change what kinds of policy and training deliver better results. If training cops to rush in headlong results in worse policing, it is not desirable. You are a student at a school with an active shooter. Here comes a long cop running around looking for a teen to shoot dead, worried said teen will get the drop on him with a more powerful weapon. Oh, you are holding your violin case. This will go great.
"Experience shows time is of essence." But it doesn't. 1) In precisely which past active shooter situations, was time of essence? Parkland? If the lone officer present could have found Cruz and killed him on site it's not clear a single life would have been saved (i.e. that said killing could have occurred before Cruz finished shooting anyway). Maybe faster transition to victim care.
2) Why isn't time of essence in more traditional hostage situations?
3) And experience doesn't show the full range of possible future outcomes (so far the post-Columbine charging in thing hasn't produced a disaster, but with such limited benefit then it will only take one disaster to make a net negative).
Ok then. IMMEDIATELY give billions of dollars of your money to train every police department to not make those mistakes then. NOW. KID KILLER.
HELLO??? It has been VERY long (seconds) since I asked you to give billions of dollars to train police to never make mistakes? Do you still have a roof? A car? WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU KID MURDERER
Brian, you seemed to not have researched the exact timeline and as such made this horrible ivory tower article. It is perhaps OK to wait a bit for backup, and we can discuss how long is 'a bit'. But that is not what happened there. So this ivory tower article does not apply to Uvalde. That is all.
Police make mistakes all the time. But exactly because of that you have procedures and they were not followed here. You keep ignoring they waited even after having overwhelming force and numbers. More kids died as a result of them not following procedures.
It's not ivory tower. You cannot suddenly have multiple agencies converge with a working organizational structure without multiple agencies converging in training, over and over. This would be expensive. The money isn't there and shouldn't be spent that way. That is my argument. Blaming Uvalde for not pulling it off without training is ivory tower.
I should also note that the post is mostly focused on the DOJ's lone cop(s) charging in recommendation - I set aside the Uvalde delay question based on this argument about realistic possibilities for training. Or I could say "the delay was totally horrible!!!" but it still wouldn't really be relevant to the main point of the post.
Do you know how Alexander the great solved the Gordian Knot? He sliced it in half with his sword.
We don't need better trained officers, or better active shooter plans. We need armed guards at the schools.
Slicing knots with swords doesn’t even make sense.
Interesting article, your assessment makes a lot of sense and consistent with training I’ve received. I’ve attended many emergency management training sessions over the years when I used to be involved in managing “crowded places”. Active shooter being one of the scenarios we trained for. The guideline below is very similar to the training I received, probably due to the fact that it contained a lot of input from the same guys that conducted our training sessions. The training organizers we used were ex NYPD, Madison Square Gardens, Scotland Yard and NSW Police and NSW Fire & Rescue personnel. The final guideline was written after I left, but I had seen various drafts of the guideline as it was part of our scenario training.
Minimizing the offenders access to victims was the primary objective. Which sounds like what the officers did Uvalade.
https://www.nationalsecurity.gov.au/crowded-places-subsite/Files/active-armed-offender-guidelines-crowded-places.pdf
It’s a good approach — but does it needlessly make policing even more difficult? That’s why they pay Merrick the big bucks
It is difficult and it’s easy to criticize the actions of the police. If they don’t go in and people are killed they get criticized for not going in and if they go in and more people are killed they’ll get criticized for going in. If they’re lucky and only the shooter is killed they look like heros.
I’m not familiar with the details of this shooting. My superficial reading of the events suggests to me the police did the right thing but it was not in line with their policy which looks to me to be just kill/attack the shooter regardless of the officers personal safety and the safety of others within range of the shooter or crossfire. To me this sounds like a crazy policy and more likely to result in additional victims.
Interesting, you made some points that I didn't think about. An active shooter situation is a very complex situation isn't it?
What makes you interested in police work?
Different things. As far as developing an accurate understanding of what semiauto handguns can do and how this influences use of force, it was for a fiction project— this is a realm where you want to be accurate and realistic
Most of us have watched too much TV where the hero is very accurate and deadly with his handgun. He never gets killed, either.
When you have time and want to really study a cluster, have a look at the police response to the Nova Scotia shooter a few years back. Even the review was bungled!