Behavorial Analysis of the FL School Board Shooting

[Davidk]

This video is a point-by-point analysis of the behavior of the victims of the recent shooting at a FL School Board meeting—what did they did wrong, and what they should have done. The responding safety officer, a retired cop, hailed by the media as a hero, proved to be anything but. His actions are analyzed here as well.

 

[FreeWillie]

Interesting analysis, Thanks for your insight.

 

[JackDaniels]

At 15:30 you're suggesting to shoot him? With all of the school board directly behind him? Just asking, because I haven't had that kind of training.

 

[Davidk]

Yes, just have to find a safe angle which would not have been difficult given the wide spacing of the chairs. The officer had plenty of time and space to do what he needed to do. It would have been even better if the security officer shot his as soon as he made contact and confirmed the attacker had a gun.

 

[cekim]

At 15:30 you're suggesting to shoot him? With all of the school board directly behind him? Just asking, because I haven't had that kind of training.

With the gun you are not permitted to carry in a school...

 

[JackDaniels]

Yes, just have to find a safe angle which would not have been difficult given the wide spacing of the chairs. The officer had plenty of time and space to do what he needed to do. It would have been even better if the security officer shot his as soon as he made contact and confirmed the attacker had a gun.

He certainly should have had a proper weapon for this scenario, been trained on the law, and how to act in this scenario.

 

[wolf223]

*sheeple*

 

[terraformer]

Excellent technical analysis David. But one thing, calling everyone cowards weakens all of the technical analysis. Some of them may very well have been such, but as you aptly point out, they may have been frozen by fear out of a complete lack of mental preparation and idea as to what to do.

It's one thing to call a soldier/cop/etc who has gone through significant mental and physical training who fails to act appropriate to their training as incompetent and possibly even a coward depending on the extent of the inaction. It's another to call out citizens who have ostensibly had none of that training and preparation a coward. Calling them out for failing to be mentally prepared and to conceive of this type of event is a fair statement. Calling them cowards, especially when they didn't actually run away when they could have, is probably not accurate. In fact, if you had the audio up on that video at times, your listeners would have heard the school board president pleading to let everyone go except himself amidst his deft negotiating tactics to buy time for a police response. I would not call that man a coward and in fact would call him the exact opposite.

 

[Davidk]

I understand what you are saying Terraformer, but respectfully disagree. You don't need to be trained in order to not be a coward. What would be a better description of the board just sitting there watching a woman who was trying to save them struggle with the gunman? You don't need to be trained to pick up a chair or a book and hit the gunman with it or just use empty hands. The woman with the handbag obviously had no training and she was not a coward--not that I would call her actions smart.

 

[terraformer]

Dereliction of duty:

A person who is derelict has willfully refused to perform his duties (or follow a given order) or has incapacitated himself in such a way that he cannot perform his duties

Cowardice:

4. By the act for establishing rules and articles for the government of the armies of the United States, passed April 10, 1806, it is enacted, art. 52, "any officer or soldier, who shall misbehave himself before the enemy, run away, or shamefully abandon any fort, post, or guard, which he or they may be commanded to defend, or speak, words inducing others to do the like, or shall cast away his arms and ammunition, or who shall quit his post or colors to plunder and pillage, every such offender, being duly convicted thereof, shall suffer death, or such other punishment as shall be ordered by the sentence of a general court martial."

It's closer to dereliction than it is to cowardice. Maybe I am being too easy on them, but when I was a lifeguard I had to dress down a bunch of people who failed to act when a child started to drown. I don't think it was fear that caused them not to act, but incompetence. Cowardice to me is a step above incompetence. Reasonable people can disagree on this point I suppose.

 

[FrugalFannie]

thank you for sharing this.

 

[JackDaniels]

Excellent technical analysis David. But one thing, calling everyone cowards weakens all of the technical analysis. Some of them may very well have been such, but as you aptly point out, they may have been frozen by fear out of a complete lack of mental preparation and idea as to what to do.

It's one thing to call a soldier/cop/etc who has gone through significant mental and physical training who fails to act appropriate to their training as incompetent and possibly even a coward depending on the extent of the inaction. It's another to call out citizens who have ostensibly had none of that training and preparation a coward. Calling them out for failing to be mentally prepared and to conceive of this type of event is a fair statement. Calling them cowards, especially when they didn't actually run away when they could have, is probably not accurate. In fact, if you had the audio up on that video at times, your listeners would have heard the school board president pleading to let everyone go except himself amidst his deft negotiating tactics to buy time for a police response. I would not call that man a coward and in fact would call him the exact opposite.

I think you are 100% correct.

They were trained to handle the situation in the manner they did. And they stuck to it, and they tried to do what they could to save eachothers lives. That is to be commended.

Now, was the way that they handled the situation the best way to handle that situation? Or was there a lack of preparedness on their part? Should everyone be prepared with sidearms? I can't tell from first hand experience, and I'm not an expert on combat, but it would seem that the OP does make some good points on what might have worked better. And, I would suggest that everyone should be armed and trained. I'm not trying to debate their tactical skills.

But, not having been attacked by a shooter, I don't think I'm at liberty to say one way or another just what is going through your head at those moments, either. All, I know is that they did indeed try to save eachothers lives, and that sure as hell rules out the word "coward" every day of the week, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

I understand what you are saying Terraformer, but respectfully disagree. You don't need to be trained in order to not be a coward. What would be a better description of the board just sitting there watching a woman who was trying to save them struggle with the gunman? You don't need to be trained to pick up a chair or a book and hit the gunman with it or just use empty hands. The woman with the handbag obviously had no training and she was not a coward--not that I would call her actions smart.

I dont think "coward" is the right word. More like "scared shitless with fright" would be appropriate. The human condition is a screwed up thing, but it is hard to change the fight or flight instinct without training. Guess those people chose a version of "flight" over "fight".....

 

[Lamina]

I do think he needed to be "shooted" some more.

 

[Kicker96FS]

You know what they say about hindsight, it's 20/20.

Armchair quarterbacks come to mind as well.

Blah.

 

[wolf223]

You know what they say about hindsight, it's 20/20.

Armchair quarterbacks come to mind as well.

Blah.

+1

three things that are screaming at me from this video / commentary

1. *sheeple* - i agree somewhat because there ARE people that walk through life with rose color'ed glasses and think "IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN TO THEM" i think those are the fainting goats of society. they will sit ilde and / or faint like good little sheep. (think Denzel on Training Day)

2. as far as calling them cowards (by the OP), i'm curious as to if you'd ever had a gun pointed at your back, been jumped or shot at... everyone reacts different ways to stress and trauma. in my experience, those that do mostly talking are the first one to turn around and run or hide when the bullets start coming up range... to call those people "cowards" is borderline IMO....

3. as for questioning the security guard / special LEO's actions... i have three words: Fog of War. his actions did NOT result in colateral damage so it should be left alone...

conclusion: hopefully there are a few more lawful gun owners as a result of this tragic event.

 

[Davidk]

Wolf223,

You have missed the entire point of the analysis.

1. Of course they are sheep: that's what was pointed out as well as how the sheep mentality failed them.

2. Interesting that you say that people react different and running or hiding when bullets start flying. The problem is that most of those people did nothing, running or hiding would have been much preferred over what they did and it was stated several times.

3. The security officer/retired cop was incompetent, negligent and dangerous. Just because he did not kill anyone due to his negligence does not mean he should be left alone--he put the lives of the hostages in danger by not doing his job and then again randomly and blindly firing in their direction. The only reason the Board was not killed was because the shooter had no intention of killing them: his only interest was suicide by cop.

 

[wolf223]

3. The security officer/retired cop was incompetent, negligent and dangerous. Just because he did not kill anyone due to his negligence does not mean he should be left alone--he put the lives of the hostages in danger by not doing his job and then again randomly and blindly firing in their direction. The only reason the Board was not killed was because the shooter had no intention of killing them: his only interest was suicide by cop.

they were already in danger in a gun free zone with a crazy dude holding them at gun point. he did what he had to do... guy was popping off rounds. if the guy just had them at gun point, he probably could waited for better trained back up (SRT, SWAT ect).

i think the video would have been better served as a Q&A / group discussion w/o comments or opinion from the narrator... i guess that's my point. will this be shown to your students?

 

[JackDaniels]

2. Interesting that you say that people react different and running or hiding when bullets start flying. The problem is that most of those people did nothing, running or hiding would have been much preferred over what they did and it was stated several times.

I'm not saying you are right or wrong, because this is not my area of expertise. But, its pretty damn hard for you to try to make that point, which you are continually trying to make, when not one innocent person was even wounded, and the perp ended up dead. I can't help thinking about those facts when listening to your commentary or reading your posts. How do you answer to that?

 

[Davidk]

As I stated previously, the only reason the Board was not killed was that the gunman had no intention of killing anyone. The fact that he did not injure the woman who attacked him with the handbag and that he took slow, careful aim at the first board member, yet missed, shows his only interest was suicide by cop (which there was no way of knowing until after the event.) The perp ended up dead only because he killed himself.

The Board did not survive because of what they did or didn't do, they only lived because the gunman didn't want to kill them. Had the shooter wanted to kill them, they would have all been dead, as they did nothing to save themselves and nor did the cop.

 

[JackDaniels]

The Board did not survive because of what they did or didn't do, they only lived because the gunman didn't want to kill them. Had the shooter wanted to kill them, they would have all been dead, as they did nothing to save themselves and nor did the cop.

That is a good point. I think this is the best point you've made. And it is the best way to argue anyone who tries to say that not fighting is safer based on this situation.

It doesn't come across as well, in my opinion, when they're being called cowards. They're not cowards at all, by any stretch of the imagination. They're misinformed, they're sheep, they're not well-trained, they're under the wrong impression. All of those things sound about right. But, they're not cowards. They did display multiple attempts to save eachothers lives. They weren't the best way to go about it, according to you. I'll give you that. But, they sure didn't seem cowardly to me.

 

[wolf223]

As I stated previously, the only reason the Board was not killed was that the gunman had no intention of killing anyone. The fact that he did not injure the woman who attacked him with the handbag and that he took slow, careful aim at the first board member, yet missed, shows his only interest was suicide by cop (which there was no way of knowing until after the event.) The perp ended up dead only because he killed himself.

The Board did not survive because of what they did or didn't do, they only lived because the gunman didn't want to kill them. Had the shooter wanted to kill them, they would have all been dead, as they did nothing to save themselves and nor did the cop.

i'll bite (again).

so what is the point of this informational presentation?

i think it has value, just the presentation is off. a Q&A or group excercise would save face IMO. not that it matters because it was gun free zone.

 

[Davidk]

The point of the analysis is to show what was done wrong and what could have been done. The school being a gun free zone is irrelevant. Shooting him would have been best, but when facing thread of death unarmed, you must do anything you can to survive. They could have run, thrown books, chairs, used empty hands, ganged up on him, or at a very, very, minimum ducked when the bullets started flying. Several of them just sat there until the 3rd shot. They are alive despite what they did, not because of it.

 

[Davidk]

They did display multiple attempts to save eachothers lives. They weren't the best way to go about it, according to you. I'll give you that. But, they sure didn't seem cowardly to me.

They were brave to sit in their chairs without moving while watching a woman, who gave up her own personal safety, come back into the room to save their lives by attacking the gunman with a purse? It was a perfect chance to save that lady and themselves and they bravely just sat there and let her be killed (which would have happened if the gunman actually wanted to kill them) I guess we have a different definition of bravery and cowardliness.

 

[JackDaniels]

They were brave to sit in their chairs without moving while watching a woman, who gave up her own personal safety, come back into the room to save their lives by attacking the gunman with a purse. It was a perfect chance to save that lady and themselves and they bravely just sat there and let her be killed (which would have happened if the gunman actually wanted to kill them) I guess we have a different definition of bravery and cowardliness.

You also suggested that they run out of the room, which would also be leaving whoever is the unfortunate one to get shot, to die. Which is it? Should they have run, or should they have fought?

 

[Davidk]

Either. Anything to save their own lives. Instead, they just sat there waiting to be shot. Watch as the gunman raises the gun getting ready to shoot. None of them move. Watch as the gunman points the gun at one man, the victim pushes his chair back, but doesn't even move even as he is about to get shot. Don't you think ducking for concealment or running would be appropriate? Watch the other members when the first is about to get shot: they just sit there also. If you are about to die, do anything you can to save your life.

 

[FPrice]

The point of the analysis is to show what was done wrong and what could have been done. The school being a gun free zone is irrelevant. Shooting him would have been best, but when facing thread of death unarmed, you must do anything you can to survive. They could have run, thrown books, chairs, used empty hands, ganged up on him, or at a very, very, minimum ducked when the bullets started flying. Several of them just sat there until the 3rd shot. They are alive despite what they did, not because of it.

I think that this is the value of this exercise, an after-the-fact walk-through and a discussion/analysis of what happened and what could/should have been done. The issue of whether people are cowards or sheeple is better left to other discussions since it detracts from the analysis and the potential learning.

Thanks David.

 

[Mass-diver]

Interesting. Although I do think it's hard to underestimate the effect of that initial adrenaline dump in these types of situations.

I've seen highly skilled, experienced, TRAINED doctors freeze up in the OR when someone life is literally one the line. My best friend has told me of seeing highly, trained, combat ready, TRAINED marines freeze up over in Iraq. If it can happen to these people, it's hard to judge how regular, everyday people with no training are going to react in a extreme situation like this....

 

[Davidk]

Well put, thanks Frosty.

 

[JackDaniels]

Either. Anything to save their own lives. Instead, they just sat there waiting to be shot. Watch as the gunman raises the gun getting ready to shoot. None of them move. Watch as the gunman points the gun at one man, the victim pushes his chair back, but doesn't even move even as he is about to get shot. Don't you think ducking for concealment or running would be appropriate? Watch the other members when the first is about to get shot: they just sit there also. If you are about to die, do anything you can to save your life.

I agree with all of this. I'm just saying that I don't think it was cowardice. I think you hit the nail on the head shortly after 13 minutes into the video when you said they've been trained to talk, not to fight or run or anything like that. You said it, yourself. And, the fact that they've been trained, and likely trained others their entire career in the public school system, to talk and that talking will resolve conflicts, is why they did what they did. That, along with shell shock and fog of war like others have pointed out. Not cowardice.

I also think they believed so firmly in their training, that they would have followed it to their grave. As, indicated by what you pointed out. Speciffically, their lack of even ducking for cover after the shots had been fired. Its almost as if they were so confused and suprised by the fact that their pacifist talk didn't work, that they were just at a loss as for what to do next. That said, it seems likely to me that they didn't expect the guy to hurt the woman with the pocketbook.

And, with that said, it seems to explain their actions from there on out. After they saw that he left her alone, even when she fought back, It makes complete and total sense that they were completely satisfied at that point, that they were not in harms way ,and that he was going to leave them alone too.