Gun Control Debate #3

[bears10]

I’m baffled reading posts on the previous thread that the security guard shouldn’t have run into the building to save lives bc he’s a first responder and first responders need to save themselves first. Paraphrasing, but that’s the general sentiment. Well then what on earth was he being paid $72k a year for? Why have security guards at all? He had one job and it was to protect the school.

Ok now that that’s off my chest I’ll see you guys on other threads. Best to all.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

way to go dicks.

three cheers for dicks!

 

[bluesneakers]

I was just commenting on the absurdity that we as a society tolerate massacre of animals so that we can eat luxuriously yet we condemn any child and project them as a future serial killer if they hurt their pet.
Children who hurt animals are not doomed to be mass or serial killers. Not even close. In fact, many children learn compassion after hurting an animal. JMO

Thank you. In our society animal torture seems to be defined by intent (and species of victim), not action.

 

[EuTuCroquet?]

i was missin' you earlier.
You're back!
Cool..
The night shift.
(I am whacked tired now, big storm expected tomorrow and country is paralysed, will be back if the trees dont fall down,)

Take care, kitty. ❤️ Sending thoughts and prayers to keep those trees upright, too!

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I’m baffled reading posts on the previous thread that the security guard shouldn’t have run into the building to save lives bc he’s a first responder and first responders need to save themselves first. Paraphrasing, but that’s the general sentiment. Well then what on earth was he being paid $72k a year for? Why have security guards at all? He had one job and it was to protect the school.

Ok now that that’s off my chest I’ll see you guys on other threads. Best to all.

There were some speculation that he was being paid over $100,000/yr due to his tenure and I fully agree with your post, bear.

Police have protocols in place of what the expectations are to ensure the safety of the general public. They cannot act on however they feel at the moment. Can you imagine how our society would be if LE ad libbed their responses? Very scary situation, indeed.

 

[rosemadderlake]

I was just commenting on the absurdity that we as a society tolerate massacre of animals so that we can eat luxuriously yet we condemn any child and project them as a future serial killer if they hurt their pet.
Children who hurt animals are not doomed to be mass or serial killers. Not even close. In fact, many children learn compassion after hurting an animal. JMO

I'm lucky, I grew up before giant Agra. And, in the last few decades small organic farms have come into focus, big time.

To know an animal has had a decent, if not a fine life before that one bad day is the most important to me.

We are not talking about children who hurts their pets. Cruz was not that child IMO. Neither was the TX church terrorist.

Bbm: I agree with this too, CoolJ.

 

[flourish]

I’m baffled reading posts on the previous thread that the security guard shouldn’t have run into the building to save lives bc he’s a first responder and first responders need to save themselves first. Paraphrasing, but that’s the general sentiment. Well then what on earth was he being paid $72k a year for? Why have security guards at all? He had one job and it was to protect the school.

Ok now that that’s off my chest I’ll see you guys on other threads. Best to all.

I didn't see it said they should "save themselves first," just that they should literally assess the situation so they can then act with informed prudence.

I have read comments that they should just run towards the gunfire. Fine, but do they not just stop at some point to figure out exactly what is going on and where? Isn't it incredibly dangerous and not at all helpful to run into the possible line of fire because of lack of pause to figure out the direction and path of the bullets? Doesn't getting shot yourself take away your ability to assist?


Anyway, I'm not the biggest fan of the drive by berating, so okay [emoji111]

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I'm lucky, I grew up before giant Agra. And, in the last few decades small organic farms have come into focus, big time.

To know an animal has had a decent, if not a fine life before that one bad day is the most important to me.

We are not talking about children who hurts their pets. Cruz was not that child IMO. Neither was the TX church terrorist.

Bbm: I agree with this too, CoolJ.

“Before he confessed to killing 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High, Nikolas Cruz, too, allegedly abused animals. In elementary school, Cruz began shooting squirrels and chickens; as a teenager, he is said to have killed frogs, tried to maim a neighbor’s baby potbelly pigs and tried to crush animals trapped in rabbit holes. On Instagram, he boasted about killing animals and posted images of dead ones.”

Above snippet from the Washington Post, September 21, 2018

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I didn't see it said they should "save themselves first," just that they should literally assess the situation so they can then act with informed prudence.

I have read comments that they should just run towards the gunfire. Fine, but do they not just stop at some point to figure out exactly what is going on and where? Isn't it incredibly dangerous and not at all helpful to run into the possible line of fire because of lack of pause to figure out the direction and path of the bullets? Doesn't getting shot yourself take away your ability to assist?


Anyway, I'm not the biggest fan of the drive by berating, so okay [emoji111]

No, LE has a different set of protocols and expectations and must respond accordingly in situations. So must other first responders.

It is impossible to say with certainty one way or the other if he could have prevented numerous lives lost by entering the building & I think the FBI review of the surveillance tapes will be most telling.

He had a sworn duty to protect first and foremost.

 

[bears10]

I didn't see it said they should "save themselves first," just that they should literally assess the situation so they can then act with informed prudence.

I have read comments that they should just run towards the gunfire. Fine, but do they not just stop at some point to figure out exactly what is going on and where? Isn't it incredibly dangerous and not at all helpful to run into the possible line of fire because of lack of pause to figure out the direction and path of the bullets? Doesn't getting shot yourself take away your ability to assist?


Anyway, I'm not the biggest fan of the drive by berating, so okay [emoji111]

I would understand him not running into the line of fire in order to be able to assist... if it wasn’t his job to protect the school he worked at every day. It’s literally what he was paid to do.

I am not drive by berating. I just know that my opinions are not popular on this thread and I don’t want to argue with people such as yourself who I’ve had kind and personal conversations with outside of a gun debate. If you consider my posts drive by berating, I am sorry for that. [emoji1365]

Eta - a district right near me just hired 4 armed security guards. If our district does the same, those guards better be protecting my stepkids no matter what it takes. Otherwise, I am sure our tax dollars can be spent to protect the kids in a more efficient way.

 

[flourish]

No, LE has a different set of protocols and expectations and must respond accordingly in situations. So must other first responders.

It is impossible to say with certainty one way or the other if he could have prevented numerous lives lost by entering the building & I think the FBI review of the surveillance tapes will be most telling.

He had a sworn duty to protect first and foremost.

All the training materials I found earlier today indicate you have to make sure you aren't creating more injury by simply assessing what the heck is going on.

FIRST RESPONDER GENERAL ORDERS
I. Complete the First Responder Assessment
A. Scene size-up/assessment
1. Body substance isolation per agency exposure control program
2. Scene Safety

Washington State First Responder Field Protocols

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3u9jBxv-XmHSJfr6YDANtX

Before initiating patient care, the First Responder will "size-up" the scene to determine
that the scene is safe, to identify the mechanism of injury or nature of illness, and the
total number of patients, and to request additional help if necessary.

From "First Responder: National Standard Curriculum" at ems.gov

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjADegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw3mCPLnrQ52x3a--FYpgL6V

I'm not going to continue to argue this, as it's fact.

 

[flourish]

I would understand him not running into the line of fire in order to be able to assist... if it wasn’t his job to protect the school he worked at every day. It’s literally what he was paid to do.

I am not drive by berating. I just know that my opinions are not popular on this thread and I don’t want to argue with people such as yourself who I’ve had kind and personal conversations with outside of a gun debate. If you consider my posts drive by berating, I am sorry for that. [emoji1365]

I'm sorry for being snotty. I get sensitive when posters just drop in to tell everyone they're wrong. That wasn't what you were doing but I reacted like it was. Don't be a complete stranger ;☺[emoji111][emoji631]


Eta by "assist" I mean anything from helping the wounded to taking out the gunman

I just don't see how he could be expected to effectively neutralize the shooter or shooters without at least gathering some basic information about the scene and location of shooters. It just really seems reckless to just walk into a dangerous and very potentially deadly scene without ascertaining some basic information. It seems like that might be how fatal accidentals occur... Like when police shoot innocent people because of not enough information.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

I'm sorry for being snotty. I get sensitive when posters just drop in to tell everyone they're wrong. That wasn't what you were doing but I reacted like it was. Don't be a complete stranger ;☺[emoji111][emoji631]


Eta by "assist" I mean anything from helping the wounded to taking out the gunman

I just don't see how he could be expected to effectively neutralize the shooter or shooters without at least gathering some basic information about the scene and location of shooters. It just really seems reckless to just walk into a dangerous and very potentially deadly scene without ascertaining some basic information. It seems like that might be how fatal accidentals occur... Like when police shoot innocent people because of not enough information.

No worries.....everyone can have their own opinion, right?

 

[rosemadderlake]

I would understand him not running into the line of fire in order to be able to assist... if it wasn’t his job to protect the school he worked at every day. It’s literally what he was paid to do.

I am not drive by berating. I just know that my opinions are not popular on this thread and I don’t want to argue with people such as yourself who I’ve had kind and personal conversations with outside of a gun debate. If you consider my posts drive by berating, I am sorry for that. [emoji1365]

My father, a marine, said one man alone cannot not possibly be the scapegoat for this...

Of the lone soldier encountering the surprise enemy, you have no time to assess, maybe you have to foxhole, you have to center. Then proceed. And most likely if you jumped the gun you got yourself and maybe another hidden comrade killed...

I am kind of dismayed at the judgement before all the facts are in... if this guy froze because he reacted in the knowledge that one LE, one handgun, couldn't assess how many shooters?

Froze, because he knew he was dead meat, in an ambush? I can't fault the human response.

In a school of this size, 3,000 students? One guard is woefully inadequate.

Eta: somehow, and how is it that the worst possible scenario got into that school that day?

 

[kaen]

There were some speculation that he was being paid over $100,000/yr due to his tenure and I fully agree with your post, bear.

Police have protocols in place of what the expectations are to ensure the safety of the general public. They cannot act on however they feel at the moment. Can you imagine how our society would be if LE ad libbed their responses? Very scary situation, indeed.

There are different protocols that occur in responding to life-threatening situations for LEO. Police/LEO are often first on scene and do have to first assess the situation. If the situation is a downed power line and standing water and people in the water, the LEO is not supposed to wade into that hazard as he/she may be killed by electrocution. Same if a person is drowning in swift water, the officer is not supposed to go in-- it is against the protocol (even though some do it). In that sense, he/she can/should assess as to not create more victims. In the case of car chase, LEO are supposed to assess if civilians could be harmed and work with their superiors to determine a course of action. In this sense, he/she would not just be blowing out tires and ramming the car on the highway without guidance. In the case of a person with a gun who has held up someone and ran into a darkened stairwell, the officer is to proceed with caution and not just shoot in the dimmed stairwell (Peter Lang, NYPD, convicted). The officer has a duty to survey the scene-- to ensure safety of civilians and protection of the LEO.

All that said, in an active shooter scenario, the protocol is to move quickly to neutralize/distract the shooter in any way they can. There is no surveying the scene beyond going in. Everything is rapid movement. This protocol does mean that innocent people may be killed or hurt. This protocol does mean that there is a greater risk of injury or death for those who are moving in on the shooter. That is why LEO would want more than one officer going in but one going in is also supported. The system I have been trained on (A.L.I.C.E. with our PD being trained in RAIDER https://www.alicetraining.com/our-program/raider/ ) has specific training for LEO on solo as well as small group engagement with an active shooter.

EMS and other first responders, including fire, will always wait until the scene is safe to provide care. It is part of the protocol. He/she is not supposed to create more victims.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

“I’m just not feelin’ it tonight & this looks like a bad scene....maybe a bit scary so I’ll just let it play out on its own...”

You can see surly that not following protocol in the above hypothetical self-talk of a police officer in an emergency situation would cause the general population undue risk.

It’s really quite simple.

I do agree that not one alone police officer will be penalized/fired/suspended after this investigation of the school shooting is finished.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

There are different protocols that occur in responding to life-threatening situations for LEO. Police/LEO are often first on scene and do have to first assess the situation. If the situation is a downed power line and standing water and people in the water, the LEO is not supposed to wade into that hazard as he/she may be killed by electrocution. Same if a person is drowning in swift water, the officer is not supposed to go in-- it is against the protocol (even though some do it). In that sense, he/she can/should assess as to not create more victims. In the case of car chase, LEO are supposed to assess if civilians could be harmed and work with their superiors to determine a course of action. In this sense, he/she would not just be blowing out tires and ramming the car on the highway without guidance. In the case of a person with a gun who has held up someone and ran into a darkened stairwell, the officer is to proceed with caution and not just shoot in the dimmed stairwell (Peter Lang, NYPD, convicted). The officer has a duty to survey the scene-- to ensure safety of civilians and protection of the LEO.

All that said, in an active shooter scenario, the protocol is to move quickly to neutralize/distract the shooter in any way they can. There is no surveying the scene beyond going in. Everything is rapid movement. This protocol does mean that innocent people may be killed or hurt. This protocol does mean that there is a greater risk of injury or death for those who are moving in on the shooter. That is why LEO would want more than one officer going in but one going in is also supported.

EMS and other first responders, including fire, will always wait until the scene is safe to provide care. It is part of the protocol. He/she is not supposed to create more victims.

Your second paragraph is applicable to our thread and I agree with you 100%

 

[kaen]

Your second paragraph is applicable to our thread and I agree with you 100%

Thanks for noting that. I edited my original to add the training that I did and that our LEO uses with links.

 

[BayouBelle_LA]

I keep reading that protocol has changed since Columbine. Officers have been trained to go toward the threat and not wait it out or negotiate with the gunman.

Florida police chief: 'Quit' if you won't run toward gunfire

https://www.news4jax.com/news/florida-police-chief-quit-if-you-wont-run-toward-gunfire

“If you are a police officer and you think to yourself for even one second that you will not be able to run towards the gunfire…please quit now. We won’t be mad. Innocent lives depend on us to act," wrote Atlantic Beach Police Chief Michelle Cook, adding #dontletthemdown.

She went on the explain that much has changed since the Columbine High School massacre in 1999. At the time, she said, the practice was for police to arrive at a school, surrounding the building and wait for SWAT to respond. Cook said officers can't do that anymore.

"The most recent best practices that are coming out of alerts are that if you are the officer there and innocent people are dying and your backup is way off, you have an obligation to go in," she said. "And you have an obligation to use the best tactics and the best training that you've been keeping up with to make an effort to eliminate the threat."

 

[kaen]

“I’m just not feelin’ it tonight & this looks like a bad scene....maybe a bit scary so I’ll just let it play out on its own...”

You can see surly that not following protocol in the above hypothetical self-talk of a police officer in an emergency situation would cause the general population undue risk.

It’s really quite simple.

I do agree that not one alone police officer will be penalized/fired/suspended after this investigation of the school shooting is finished.

In NYC, Peter Liang was found guilty in his shooting situation. I am not sure that the officer in this case would have been spared charges/dismissal and we won't know because he resigned (I assume it means he keeps his pension.) to avoid any possibility.