If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS February Giveaway ***Canik TP9SF Elite***
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.
I think it is useful regardless of your opinion on it. It forces you to make your own analysis of the situation.i'll bite (again).
so what is the point of this informational presentation?
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 agree.You may be right, but we will never know. The point of the analysis is to do something, anything to save your life.
Jack, is that the most compassionate thing you've posted here?
Good on you!
To the OP:
Your “analysis of the behavior of the people at that event” does not analyze anything nor does it give any meaningful commentary to their behavior. You point out the differences between the actions of all involved and what you believe is the ideal response, but fail to take into account anything outside of your seemingly very narrow minded view of what to do in a self defense situation.
As far as behavioral study goes; the people did not run because no one person ran, it's very common and human nature. Its generally referred to as mob mentality or herd behavior. An individual who is a part of the group will generally defer judgment to the rest of the group under the idea that if they do not know what to do someone else in the group will.
You call these people who are not trained to respond to an armed assailant cowards for not inciting the gunman, what would you call them if they tried and failed and people got hurt? They were completely unaware of this mans training or abilities, but they were most likely aware of the fact that this man was more than double some of their sizes, making him a very difficult target for this particular group. Something to always consider when evaluating a threat is the possibility that the threat is under the influence of any type of drug that could impair his ability to feel any injuries sustained, so other than a CNS shot or something of that nature, he may have been very able to shoot everyone in the room even after being attacked. Essentially, these untrained people were faced with a very large man with a gun who could have been trained in hand to hand combat and under the influence of a drug which would enable him to continue the threat after taking enough damage to disable him or anyone else under normal circumstances.
You state that the gunman met the preconditions for use of lethal force, but that's probably not common knowledge to the general public, so I doubt that they recognized that he fit into that particular category of the use of force model. This statement also implies that one or more of them had a way to utilize this fact, but it is not apparent how they would have been able to do this, nor do you give any useful examples of how this group of people could have acted. Running out, scooting out, and shooting him don't count as the first two could have exacerbated the situation, and it doesn't appear that any member of the school board chose to have a firearm on them. However irresponsible it may be not to know how to defend yourself, it is everyones right to be ignorant.
You say that the people should have run away, but you fail to take into account that the gunman seemed rather calm and hadn't shot at anyone yet. By running and causing panic, they may alarm gunman which could cause him to act more irrationally and begin firing upon themselves or others. Additionally, if they knew that there was an armed school resource officer with a prior career in law enforcement (which they probably did) they may have simply been trying to remain calm and wait for the trained individual to enter the scene.
It doesn't seem to rational to assume that he needed the .40 to “shoot more accurately,” it is a more logical conclusion to draw that he wanted the .40 for the added ballistic performance and additional magazine capacity. He may only have been carrying the revolver because he was required to as a condition of the job. You say that he could not “judge the veracity of the gunman” but you seem to have a great understanding of the situation. Where did you gain your insight? How long did you have to think about it? The officer only had his perception of the incident walking into it, and only a few minutes to make a decision. The officer acted in a timely manner, and no innocent lives were lost. I would say that he may not have acted optimally, but his actions were in no way a dereliction of duty. He left, but he came back. He didn't run away or retreat, he ran to get a better tool for the job.
I agree that the covering fire was not a very good idea. Although I agree, I am confused as to why you would advocate the officer shooting the assailant before any shots had been fired and while the board members had significantly larger profiles due to the fact that they were all in upright sitting positions behind (from the perspective of the officer) the gunman, in the direct line of fire, which would have greatly increased the risk of collateral damage, but you chide the officer for endangering them with “covering fire” while they were behind concealment and possibly cover instead of simply commenting on its superfluousness.
In response to the fact that the officer was afraid that he may go to jail for shooting this man in the back, you say “this is a real clear indication that he didn't understand the nature of the most serious tool or the most serious responsibility that he was entrusted with,” but that is completely irrelevant. He may have misunderstood the preconditions for using lethal force, but even in thinking that he would go to jail, he shot the man to protect the others in the room. I would say that there is no question to if understood the nature or the most serious responsibility that he was entrusted with. He did, and he proved it. In his mind, he was willing to go to jail to save the people he was charged to protect. The rational question to pose would be how does a retired police officer have such a poor understanding of the law.
I would, however, question your understanding of defensive situations. No one is “far past the point where they should have been shot” until someone has a gun and all other possibilities have been exhausted. And no one “needs to be shot right now” unless they are actively harming others, until that point there are always options. You also said that lethal force was “morally required” before he ever shot anyone. Lethal force is never “morally required” if there are other options, and this is probably one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard. All of these things seem much more like what a bloodthirsty maniac would say as opposed to someone calmly and/or objectively evaluating an active shooter situation.
At any point in time, any of the people involved would have been legally justified in using lethal force, however most people have an innate “moral requirement” not to kill someone unless they have to.
Oh, and the the movie is titled “V for Vendetta” not just “Vendetta”
That's really all that needs to be said on the matter...These people were unprepared to handle the situation because they likely have never considered it.
Oh man, don't just sit there, move, move, move!What's next ?
Watching Blackhawk Down 10 times then giving the surviving Army Rangers a Powerpoint presentation on what they could have done differently,maybe calling a few of them cowards for added emphasis ?
What's next ?
Watching Blackhawk Down 10 times then giving the surviving Army Rangers a Powerpoint presentation on what they could have done differently,maybe calling a few of them cowards for added emphasis ?
Madball13 said:Who G.A.F who did what when, how and how many cheeseburgers the guys GI tract was impacted with. .