TexasCHLforum.com

C-dub wrote:

srothstein wrote: A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in.

How does this statement (Or is it your opinion?) align with the SCOTUS decision in 2005 that says the police have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... otect.html

Is it a difference between constitutional duty versus the obligation or nature of the job? Especially since they were there at a school for a reason? Or would that SCOTUS decision not really pertain in this case since it was not really an individual per se, but rather the student body and staff as a whole?

My husband and I had this discussion a night or two ago. We finally reached the conclusion that while Peterson, according to SCOTUS did not have a obligation to "Protect", thus he did not have an obligation to "charge in". He, as the only person with a gun, and as a police officer, did have a moral obligation to go in.
Now, this will be interesting when the civil cases come around, as you know they will....

I don't think I've reached peak anger on this issue. The whole package, that is. I think peak anger is somewhere in the future for many others.

The smiling sheriff will not be a sheriff much longer.

bbhack wrote:I don't think I've reached peak anger on this issue. The whole package, that is. I think peak anger is somewhere in the future for many others.

The smiling sheriff will not be a sheriff much longer.

I noticed some 40 plus Law Makers have asked the Governor to suspend the Sheriff. That would be the right move in my opinion

You really do not need skills in that situation, and you, singular, do not need to win that fight. You need training like what society pays professionals for. In that position your job is to get in the fight, and pin your target down. That is, force him to stop shooting at children and take cover. Hopefully the rest of your team is maneuvering for the kill. Even if 'you' get pinned instead, that is still time that you have robbed from the shooter and delivered to your team --and others like children who need to run away.

Successfully confronting the shooter in this situation would not be all that difficult.

He's shooting and you're not. That means you can easily locate him, but he doesn't know you're coming. Tracking him down and cherry-picking your shot would not be that hard.

Yes, there's a possibility that he might pop out of a classroom while you're halfway down a hallway. If you're on your toes with the correct mindset, he's the one that gets surprised - not you. You still have a distinct and overwhelming advantage, if you don't lose your head. Remember, your adversary is a 17 year old kid, not a seasoned professional.

This is "Active Shooter 101" stuff. Anyone who's even read about the subject should know this. Any LEO certainly should. You don't rush in blindly, you quietly but quickly stalk your prey (the shooter).

Pawpaw and Textension are correct. This is not a pistol vs. rifle toe-to-toe fight. Nobody is expecting Peterson, or anyone else, to charge the Bolivia army with Butch and Sundance. I have never been remotely in this type of situation but I was a teacher for many years and thought of this situation many times. The officer only had to find the shooter, engage, upset his OODA, and neutralize the threat or at least buy time until the Calvary comes or the kids can get away. Move to the threat but do so in a way that you can be effective. Blinding rushing in may do nothing more than get yourself killed and now you have squandered away the opportunity to deter or neutralize the bad guy.

We are arguing the pistol vs. rifle yet we expect our teachers to turn away an attacker with books and staples, or a fire extinguisher if they are so lucky to have one in their room. No, not all teachers should be armed. Not all are cut out for it. Let the ones that are willing and able have the tools to protect their kids. The teacher's first responsibility is to take care of the students in their immediate care, not search and destroy. If the opportunity arises to engage outside the classroom or hold down the hallway then that is a bonus. Staff that is more mobile, principals, custodian's, office staff, may have more opportunity to S&D but even then it has to be carefully calculated.

The cowardice starts at the top. The sheriff is a disgusting prog who despises the citizens.

As for the sheriff, he is a pretty typical politician, hiring friends and political allies, treating his law-enforcement position as a nakedly political fief. His arrogance is astounding: When asked about his penchant for hiring his supporters and looking after his own interests first, the sheriff replied, “Lions don’t care about the opinions of sheep.” But the people of Broward County didn’t hire Scott Israel to be a lion; they hired him to be a sheepdog, a task at which he has failed so completely as to make regaining the public trust impossible. Indeed, it is not clear he ever deserved that trust to begin with. If he has any respect for his oath, his badge, or his community, he should step aside. If his sense of duty does not prevail, he should be forced out.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/ ... ld-resign/

I am seeing various duties discussed here in the forum. While Peterson may not have had a "Constitutional duty" to protect citizens he nonetheless had a duty to protect prescribed by his boss the sheriff--evidenced by the sheriff firing Peterson after reviewing his conduct.

An employer can implement all sorts of duties an employee must fulfill that are not "mandated" by the Constitution.

Commissioned peace officers take various oaths--if I I dug around enough I could find some of those duties set out by Florida statute. I am sure there are internal written guidelines within that sheriff's office too.

If Deputy Didn’t Have the Heart to Go In, That’s Not My Responsibility, Says Broward County Sheriff

“I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training,” Sheriff Israel told an NBC6 South Florida reporter in a video interview tweeted by Erika Glover. “If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.”

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2018/02/ ... y-sheriff/

Lawdog.

https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/201 ... kened.html

Txtension wrote:

Paladin wrote:

OlBill wrote:
His job is to "charge in" to a rifle while armed with a pistol?

You are completely correct to think that charging in alone with a pistol against a rifle is extraordinarily dangerous. Perhaps fatal. A person would need serious skills to win that fight.

You really do not need skills in that situation, and you, singular, do not need to win that fight. You need training like what society pays professionals for. In that position your job is to get in the fight, and pin your target down. That is, force him to stop shooting at children and take cover. Hopefully the rest of your team is maneuvering for the kill. Even if 'you' get pinned instead, that is still time that you have robbed from the shooter and delivered to your team --and others like children who need to run away.

Please forgive my use of the second person. Just used for emphasis!

Could you please share your training and background to give us a perspective on your statement?

Have you considered the fact that the school was full of children that Cruz was trying to kill and "pinning Cruz down" would involve not shooting all the kids in, around, and behind Cruz... while Cruz did not care about shooting the kids caught in the middle... all with the uncertainty of the possibility of multiple school shooters?

In one incident in New York City, 16 shots were fired by police, wounding the suspect 10 times with
9 shooting bystander victims hit by police gunfire. That's reality.

Personally I believe Cruz could have and should have been stopped before he even pulled his weapon out of the bag, but once Cruz pulled the fire-alarm and started shooting it became a very tough situation. A situation we should not make light of. A situation that takes serious skills.

I have skimmed through this post and agree on one thing I am sure of, I would have what it takes to go in to try to stop the threat. As a scared kid almost 40 years ago charging through rice patties in a far away place all while being shot at, I came to terms with it. There are thousands of those scared kids now doing the same thing. Now, I am a lot older and a lot more out of shape than I was back then, but I know in my heart that I would at least try. May not succeed but I would try, especially if one of my family is in there, but even if not, I would try.
In my opinion, Peterson and his buddies were and still are cowards. He shouldn't be allowed to retire, he and the other cowards should be fired.

Could you please share your training and background to give us a perspective on your statement?

I apologize if I have offended you.

I didn't want to draw a giant flow chart of when to charge, retreat, shoot, reload. You don't need an MG-42 or that volume of fire to force your target to take cover. Obviously tactics change based on the immediate circumstances, and as the 4 rules of gun safety dictate. Pinning and flanking are basic squad tactics, that really don't take much skill.

Otherwise, I fully agree with you.

Absent a Squad/Team, it would indeed take some serious skills to win the fight.

I believe Paul Howe wrote this article in 2006:

School Shootings “Wait and See” is Not An Option!

...I have witnessed leadership failures in military and law enforcement tactical scenarios for several reasons, the most common being the selection and training process. Legislative and mandated training in political correctness, cultural diversity, racial profiling and dealing with the emotionally disturbed has taken precedence over saving our children. We have failed to train patrol (our first responders) to a higher level. Higher level training for first responders will save civilian as well as law enforcement lives. Many times we focus on liability as an excuse not to train...

To Rpbrown..,,,yes sir exactly and well said and thank you for your service.

This is a perfect example of why we need more than just one or a handful of armed officers in a school. There is no reason why LTC holders (or the equivalent in other states) should be forced to disarm when entering a school. We have allowed legally armed citizens around children for many years now without major incident. There is simply no negative to this, and when there is no negative and only positive to a choice, that choice becomes obvious.

Teachers who are uncomfortable carrying a gun should not be forced to carry a gun. That addresses the complaint of the teachers union and the "resist everything" lawmakers in congress.

Everyone else who is licensed to carry a gun should be able to do so. Just repeal the GFSZA and any state prohibitions on carry in schools. As government owned / operated buildings, they would actually be prohibited from posting 30.06 in Texas.

Supplement the willingly armed teachers and parents who happen to be present naturally with a dedicated security force comprised of some LEO's along with a trained volunteer force made up of parents and other concerned citizens. I would be willing to work a few shifts a month at each of the two schools that my kids currently attend. And I know I am not alone. This security force would have a coordinated response plan for a potential school shooting and possibly also for other potential incidents.

Anyone who argues that the result of the above would not be a net reduction in loss of life for our children is either an indoctrinated idiot, or someone who is willing to sacrifice the lives of our kids to advance their political agenda.