Behavorial Analysis of the FL School Board Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
You may be right, but we will never know. The point of the analysis is to do something, anything to save your life.
 
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.

Calling people cowards,nice.

Would you please tell us what experience you have in life and death situations and how you reacted so maybe I can take you seriously ?

Or is all your real world experience from reading books and armchair quarterbacking things to death ?
 
Last edited:
i'll bite (again).

so what is the point of this informational presentation?
[thinking]
I think it is useful regardless of your opinion on it. It forces you to make your own analysis of the situation.
These people were unprepared to handle the situation because they likely have never considered it.
We've all seen it now and think about "what we would do" if given a similar situation. Having a plan of action is essential.

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 most of your comments were correct. I wouldn't personally say the cop was a coward but I agree with you that he was NOT prepared and did not have a plan in place. That is a huge mistake and I think it is worth mentioning.

The same goes for the school board members. I definitely think they should have helped the woman and her coach bag...but then again she never shared her plan with them, and expecting them to take forceful action in a moment's notice may be unreasonable.

You may be right, but we will never know. The point of the analysis is to do something, anything to save your life.
I agree.
Lessons learned from that video:
Never give up. Go out fighting.
 
Last edited:
In all fairness to David, I think that it is good to study these situations if one is trying to be prepared for them. And, I think we should all be prepared.

I don't necessarily agree with all of the comments or tactics, but there are a lot of good points that I think he makes.

I think that where David deservedly runs into armchair quarterback criticism is where he calls certain actions cowardly, etc. Because, that is truly the kind of thing where if you weren't there, you don't know what its like. And, in my opinion I think their actions are evident of the wrong type of training rather than those of cowardice.

However, the concept alone of studying these situations is a good thing, and is used in training such as that of the police, in order to prepare for the potential of being in that position. That is my take.
 
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”
 
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”

Interesting
I would say that you may be the type of person to let an attacker get the first shot off.

If that was your family up there would you wait for the lunatic to start shooting?
 
These people were unprepared to handle the situation because they likely have never considered it.
That's really all that needs to be said on the matter...

Most people are stunned to the point of inaction these days because they have grown up in a bubble without fear of predators and truly anti-social behavior.

On the one hand, I applaud David's effort to convey this. On the other, there's a lot to criticize as well...

If it makes you think and realize you've been living in a fantasy world where bad things happen to other people, then its done a good thing whatever else I might disagree with...
 
Seriously Montag? [thinking]

Cowards for not manning up when a lady attacks a gunman with a purse. While foolish I would say she's the only person in that situation that has any real character. Who stands by while a woman fights for your lives with a purse?

Sheeple for not being smart enough to at least run for your own life.

The security guard leaving the scene takes the cake. Carries a gun he never intended to use and left defenseless people with a gunman. At a minimum he should have lost his job and been publicly humiliated, but alas our society is too far gone to even realize he's a moron who never provided anything remotely resembling "security". If that part doesn't make you want to carry a gun for self defense nothing will.

I also agree with the OP's call on shooting him right away. Why on earth would you wait for him to fire the first shot? The whole event is bizarre to me.

We see many stories with people getting shot "by accident", "in the heat of the moment" and pets being executed by cops week after week, but the times you actually want the guy with the badge to get punchy with the trigger HE LEAVES THE ROOM.
 
MY COMMENTS IN CAPS

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.
--AGREED, HENCE THE FAILURE OF THE SHEEP MENTALITY

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.
-- THEY FACED A VERY RARE ADVERSARY, ONE WHO TOOK HOSTAGES WITH A GUN, THREATEN THEM, YET HAD NO INTENTIONS TO HURT THEM IN ANY WAY (WHICH WAS UNKNOWN AT THE TIME.) THIS WAS NOT A TWO-BIT ROBBERY. WHEN FACED WITH A LETHAL THREAT OF THIS MANNER, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DIE UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING. THE GUNMAN STATED THAT HE HAD “BEEN IN JAIL” AND THAT HE WAS “GOING TO DIE TODAY” THESE ARE “CLUES” THAT THE DAY WILL NOT END WELL.
THEY CHOSE TO SIT THERE AND ALLOW THESELVES TO BE KILLED RATHER THAN TRY TO SAVE THEMSELVES. YOUR ENTIRE THEORY GOES OUT THE WINDOW IF, LIKE IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GUNMAN HAD INTENDED HARM.

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.
--BASED ON ANY ONE INSTANT, THAT THEORY COULD HAVE BEEN TRUE, BUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ENTIRE SET OF THEIR ACTIONS (SUCH AS NOT EVEN MOVING WHEN BEING SHOT AT), IT IS DOUBTFUL.

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.
--IN LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS, AN OFFICER, OR CITIZEN, DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE MINUTES TO MAKE A DECISION, IT COULD BE FRACTIONS OF A SECOND. I KNEW INSTANTLY AS SOON AS THE OFFICER SAW THE GUN, THAT HE SHOULD HAVE ACTED. KNOWING THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND THE LEGAL USE OF LETHAL FORCE IS A MUST FOR ANYONE CARRYING A GUN, ESPECIALLY SO FOR A LE OFFICER. THE OFFICER WAITED 4 MINUTES BEFORE ACTING, THAT IS NOT A TIMELY MANNER. THE OFFICER WATCHED AS THE GUNMAN LEVELED THE GUN AND TOOK AIM AND STILL DID NOTHING. THE OFFICER DID NOT FIRE UNTIL THE SECOND SHOT WAS FIRED (APPROX 4 SECONDS AFTER HE STARTED SHOOTING IIRC) –THIS IS NOT IN A TIMELY MANNER.

SINCE THE “SECURITY OFFICER” WAS ARMED, LEAVING THE VICTIMS FOR 4 MINUTES WAS NEGLIGENT AND A DERELICTION OF DUTY. NO ONE DIED ONLY BECAUSE THE GUNMAN DIDN’T WANT TO KILL ANYONE. YOUR WHOLE THEORY GOES OUT THE WINDOW IF THE GUNMAN KILLED EVEN A SINGLE PERSON, NEVER MIND THE ENTIRE BOARD WHICH HE HAD PLENTY OF TIME AND OPPORTUNITY TO DO DUE TO THE SECURITY OFFICER’S LACK OF ACTION.


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.

--COVERING FIRE NOT A VERY GOOD IDEA??? IT WAS INCOMPETENT, DANGEROUS AND NEGLIGENT!

YOU DON’T NEED TO WAIT FOR THE GUN TO BE FIRED TO BE JUSTIFIED IN USING LETHAL FORCE. FROM ROBERT BRANCA’S “THE LAW OF SELF-DEFENSE”: Citizens may use deadly force in self-defense only when they actually and reasonably believe that doing so is necessary to prevent an imminent, unlawful, and otherwise unavoidable threat of death or grave bodily harm to an innocent person.
--THE CIRCUMSTANCES CERTAINLY MET THE CRITERIA OF A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT DOING SO IS NECESSARY TO PREVENT THE ATTACK. I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU TAKE A CLASS IN THE LEGAL USE OF LETHAL FORCE IF THIS IS NOT CLEAR.

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.
--HIS FEAR OF SHOOTING THE GUNMAN IN THE BACK PROVED HIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL USE OF FORCE AND THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT. HE DELAYED DOING HIS DUTY OUT OF FEAR CAUSED BY HIS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS INEXCUSABLE FOR AN LE OFFICER. THIS IS WHY HE DIDN’T SHOOT UNTIL THE GUNMAN SHOT TWICE. WOULD YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY IF THE GUNMAN KILLED TWO BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE THE OFFICER SHOT? WOULD IT HAVE BEEN ACTION IN A TIMELY MANNER IF ONLY 3 SURVIVED?

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.
PROFESSIONALS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ACT THAT CITIZENS DO NOT. THIS PRESENTATION WAS NARRATED AND WRITTEN BY MY PARTNER, RALPH MROZ, WHO IS AN NATIONAL KNOWN EXPERT ON THE USE OF FORCE AND POLICE PROCEDURE. MY TRAINING AS A POLICE OFFICER AND POLICE FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR CONCURS WITH HIS.
 
David,

Many decades ago I was a victim of armed robbery and kidnapping. I've had a gun held to my head. I've had a man say "Look at me again and I'm going to blow you away".

I managed to get through this experienced physically unharmed... luckily. I think it could have gone either way, actually.

Thing is... I was there. I experienced the fear. I was attuned to this criminals subtleties in behavior that a video would never accurately demonstrate. I heard subtleties in voice, tone and language. I smelled the alcohol on his breath. I watched his eyes... twitchy and jumpy. There's so much that a video does not show.

So if you want to armchair quarterback this whole mess it is your right and privilege. Mine too.

In this case the bad guy was shot dead and everyone else was physically fine. Whatever they as a group chose to do it ended well for the victims.

I'm curious... how do you know your suggestions would have had a better outcome? Or would you agree that any change in behavior you've suggested could have caused a more tragic outcome? How can you second guess what these victims did?

According to your definition I guess I'm a coward too. I did what made sense at the time, and I'm alive today to talk about it.

But anyone who calls a victim a coward, in my book, is an insensitive jerk. You were not there, you did not have the same experiences or point of view, and cannot be sure that any of your suggestions would have a better outcome. Yet you have the unmitigated gall to call these folks cowards.

Dude... you should probably rethink your marketing and advertising approach... this one is just offensive.

Best,

Rich
 
Did anyone get killed? No?

Mission accomplished.

Who G.A.F who did what when, how and how many cheeseburgers the guys GI tract was impacted with. The human condition was perfectly documented representing the society we live in, 1 in 20 will take action and put their life on the line. Only when a human being is put in a situation to TRULY fight or flight will they know how they react to stressful and dangerous situations.
 
I have immense respect for the woman who attacked him with her purse. We can argue until the cows come home about whether or not it was the best or smartest thing to do, but the fact remains that she did the best she could with the tools she had, at great personal risk to herself. She had gotten away to safety and chose to go back into a deadly situation to try to help others. If we're looking for a "hero" in this, she has my vote. She has [STRIKE]balls[/STRIKE] great testicular fortitude and I would consider it an honor to meet her.

It is regrettable that our society has laws that prevented her from having a gun in that purse. Clearly, those laws didn't deter the shooter. Perhaps we need to put up more "gun free zone" signs. /sarcasm
 
Ginger is my favorite. I remember watching it for the first time wondering what she was thinking when she attacked with her purse.
Then I remember thinking...damn all those guys just sat there. That woman is has a level of courage well beyond her means of defense.
 
underwhere

“Interesting
I would say that you may be the type of person to let an attacker get the first shot off.

If that was your family up there would you wait for the lunatic to start shooting?”

I don't know what I would do in that situation, but you may be correct.

My family wasn't there and neither was I. If I were, things would have probably played out differently. But that's not the point. This was a response to a 20 minute video where the commentary failed to address anything constructively and seemed to focus on how badly these people responded to the situation, which I found distasteful.

Xtry 51

I agree with almost everything you said. But I think, if put in the situation, many people wouldn't want to take a shot from the range he was at with their adrenalin pumping and risk hitting one of the bystanders instead of the intended target, especially when the gunman had displayed a will (however strange it may seem) not to shoot anyone. He had not shot the woman who hit him with the purse, or anyone else at the time the officer arrived.

DavidK

--AGREED, HENCE THE FAILURE OF THE SHEEP MENTALITY
A “failure” is usually a choice gone bad, but this is human nature. By your logic, we have all failed by only having two hands because three would be much more useful.

-- THEY FACED A VERY RARE ADVERSARY, ONE WHO TOOK HOSTAGES WITH A GUN, THREATEN THEM, YET HAD NO INTENTIONS TO HURT THEM IN ANY WAY (WHICH WAS UNKNOWN AT THE TIME.) THIS WAS NOT A TWO-BIT ROBBERY. WHEN FACED WITH A LETHAL THREAT OF THIS MANNER, YOU HAVE TO ASSUME THAT YOU ARE GOING TO DIE UNLESS YOU DO SOMETHING. THE GUNMAN STATED THAT HE HAD “BEEN IN JAIL” AND THAT HE WAS “GOING TO DIE TODAY” THESE ARE “CLUES” THAT THE DAY WILL NOT END WELL.
THEY CHOSE TO SIT THERE AND ALLOW THESELVES TO BE KILLED RATHER THAN TRY TO SAVE THEMSELVES. YOUR ENTIRE THEORY GOES OUT THE WINDOW IF, LIKE IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GUNMAN HAD INTENDED HARM.

I have no information on hostage mortality rates, but isn't the point of taking hostages to keep them alive and use them as bargaining chips? I agree that you have to act when faced with a life and death situation. However, forcing the situation to become dire by acting against a more formidable force is not necessarily the best option.

Not helping the woman may have been cowardly, but it is generally accepted that most people value self preservation over helping others. That being said, there is no reason to point out the “cowardice”: of these people without examining the underlying reasons for it. As far as the legal use of force, I stated that the gunman did in fact meet the preconditions for using it, but that the people probably didn't know that because they're not in a career field that would teach them that. Very similarly, I don't need to point out that you probably don't know the differences between the theories of general relativity and quantum physics, or the atomic weight of bismuth. I don't need to point these things out because they are irrelevant, you are most likely not a physicist and have no need for this information, just as the members of a school board may never have had a need to understand or think about a being in a self defense situation. Now they probably do, and if you were told that you would get a thousand dollars if you can come up with the atomic weight of bismuth on the spot, and you don't know it, you will most certainly remember it for the rest of your life.

--BASED ON ANY ONE INSTANT, THAT THEORY COULD HAVE BEEN TRUE, BUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ENTIRE SET OF THEIR ACTIONS (SUCH AS NOT EVEN MOVING WHEN BEING SHOT AT), IT IS DOUBTFUL.

My theory is sound throughout the entire ordeal. When the three didn't react to being shot at they may have been in shock, they may have been reeling to comprehend what was going on, or they may have just been dumb. The only point that they were in dire straits where running, taking cover, or fighting back were the only options left was when the gunman began firing. Half of them took cover and the other half acted irrationally. Again, this is human nature. Not everyone is a warrior.

--IN LIFE OR DEATH SITUATIONS, AN OFFICER, OR CITIZEN, DOES NOT NECESSARILY HAVE MINUTES TO MAKE A DECISION, IT COULD BE FRACTIONS OF A SECOND. I KNEW INSTANTLY AS SOON AS THE OFFICER SAW THE GUN, THAT HE SHOULD HAVE ACTED. KNOWING THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT AND THE LEGAL USE OF LETHAL FORCE IS A MUST FOR ANYONE CARRYING A GUN, ESPECIALLY SO FOR A LE OFFICER. THE OFFICER WAITED 4 MINUTES BEFORE ACTING, THAT IS NOT A TIMELY MANNER. THE OFFICER WATCHED AS THE GUNMAN LEVELED THE GUN AND TOOK AIM AND STILL DID NOTHING. THE OFFICER DID NOT FIRE UNTIL THE SECOND SHOT WAS FIRED (APPROX 4 SECONDS AFTER HE STARTED SHOOTING IIRC) –THIS IS NOT IN A TIMELY MANNER.

The officer was to the back of the gunman and rather far away, he may not have seen the gunman level the gun. You don't know what the officer was doing or seeing because he was off camera. You seem to assume the worst.

--HIS FEAR OF SHOOTING THE GUNMAN IN THE BACK PROVED HIS LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE LEGAL USE OF FORCE AND THE RULES OF ENGAGEMENT.

I already said this. “The rational question to pose would be how does a retired police officer have such a poor understanding of the law.”

HE DELAYED DOING HIS DUTY OUT OF FEAR CAUSED BY HIS LACK OF KNOWLEDGE. THIS IS INEXCUSABLE FOR AN LE OFFICER.

This is going out on a limb unless you're a psychic. He could have not shot for many reasons, but you assume that it is this specific one due to the fact that it was what he said while he was on camera. I agree that he should have known, but speculating on why he didn't know is pointless.

THIS IS WHY HE DIDN’T SHOOT UNTIL THE GUNMAN SHOT TWICE. WOULD YOU FEEL THE SAME WAY IF THE GUNMAN KILLED TWO BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE THE OFFICER SHOT? WOULD IT HAVE BEEN ACTION IN A TIMELY MANNER IF ONLY 3 SURVIVED?

I never said the situation was ideal, and I never said that the officer did the right thing, I merely stated that he may have had, what seemed to him, a valid reason for doing what he did. However wrong it seems in the aftermath, if he had fired his 6 shots from his revolver without disabling the gunman, you would have been criticizing him for not getting the better gun from his vehicle.

PROFESSIONALS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ACT THAT CITIZENS DO NOT. THIS PRESENTATION WAS NARRATED AND WRITTEN BY MY PARTNER, RALPH MROZ, WHO IS AN NATIONAL KNOWN EXPERT ON THE USE OF FORCE AND POLICE PROCEDURE. MY TRAINING AS A POLICE OFFICER AND POLICE FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR CONCURS WITH HIS.

I think the court of appeals in the District of Columbia would tend to disagree with you:

“Accordingly, courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.” Warren v. DC.

I am sure that you or Ralph would have done a better job there, but the fact remains that you weren't there, the officer that was there made his decisions, and however bad they may appear, he didn't violate his duty, he simply chose a different strategy than you would.

The difference between a rational reaction after the fact and a reaction in the moment to an irrational situation (like a crazy gunman) is always going to be huge. You seem to want all of the people to be heroes, but the truth is that most people aren't. You assume too much and did nothing but point to the deficiencies of being a “sheep.” Everything has two sides and you refuse to see any but your own. These people should have been trained, these people should have been armed, the officer should have made a perfect disabling shot from 25 yards with the hostages in the direct line of fire. In an ideal world this would have happened.

The world is not ideal and being hyper critical of people who are thrust into a violent world that they were not trained or ready to deal with will accomplish nothing. There were many things that could have and should have gone better in that situation. I don't disagree with anyone on that fact, but I disagree with making judgments about the people involved in the situation without regard or reason. Nothing is accomplished by calling people cowards, too heavy to run, or derelicts. Have your opinions about tactics, evaluate them, learn and teach from them; but personal and subjective opinions of people who you have a very limited knowledge of are just distasteful and have no place in an instructional video.
 
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 ?
Oh man, don't just sit there, move, move, move! [laugh]
 
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 ?

This.

Madball13 said:
Who G.A.F who did what when, how and how many cheeseburgers the guys GI tract was impacted with. .

And this for making me laugh out loud. [rofl]

I think this thread has gone full retard. Not to mention, the OPs video link is dead... which kind of eliminates the point here. I'll reopen it if he decides to fix the link. (PM me David....) If I was going to make a wag, though, I would guess that there was too much heat in the kitchen.

-Mike
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom