Armed deputy at Florida high school resigns after failing to engage shooter

[BobBKK]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

You don't know if he followed SOP or not, the only source for that is the sheriff, who has made some hindsight comments.

Was he informed of the 'SOP'?

 

That's not true not just the Sheriff please do your research. He was suspended WITHOUT PAY and if he followed SOP's that would not have happened. WITH pay maybe while they investigated but it's SOP to suspend WITHOUT PAY when it's obvious wrong doing has occurred and he RESIGNED rather than face that investigation. If he was right then stay and fight the suspension and save reputation. 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

 

That's not true not just the Sheriff please do your research. He was suspended WITHOUT PAY and if he followed SOP's that would not have happened. WITH pay maybe while they investigated but it's SOP to suspend WITHOUT PAY when it's obvious wrong doing has occurred and he RESIGNED rather than face that investigation. If he was right then stay and fight the suspension and save reputation. 

Please don't tell lies or speculate. You're presenting your opinion as facts, which they are not.

Edited February 25, 2018 by stevenl

[Srikcir]

11 hours ago, stevenl said:

You don't know if he followed SOP or not, the only source for that is the sheriff, who has made some hindsight comments.

Was he informed of the 'SOP'?

My post #41:

"Active shooter policies recommend that officers rush to the sound of gunfire, even though statistics show that doing so is dangerous." March 2014

http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the police response to active shooter incidents 2014.pdf

It would be the Sheriff's responsibility to assure police officers implement this SOP.

 

If the Deputy believes he didn't get this training, training was inadequate or there were extenuating circumstances (excepting cowardice or AWOL) why it wasn't followed, he would have the right to appeal any consequential personnel action. The fact that he quickly resigned and did not defend his inaction by for example alleging lack of training on school shooter situations, nor in fact given any rationale for his inaction must be interpreted as acting contrary to SOP for school shooter situations.

Regardless of the deputy's resignation, the three other BSO deputies did not resign and will be investigated for similar inaction. In 2016 Israel required all BSO's to wear body cams while on duty. It will be interesting if any were functional for the four BSO's during the school shooting.

[stevenl]

11 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

My post #41:

"Active shooter policies recommend that officers rush to the sound of gunfire, even though statistics show that doing so is dangerous." March 2014

http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/the police response to active shooter incidents 2014.pdf

It would be the Sheriff's responsibility to assure police officers implement this SOP.

 

If the Deputy believes he didn't get this training, training was inadequate or there were extenuating circumstances (excepting cowardice or AWOL) why it wasn't followed, he would have the right to appeal any consequential personnel action. The fact that he quickly resigned and did not defend his inaction by for example alleging lack of training on school shooter situations, nor in fact given any rationale for his inaction must be interpreted as acting contrary to SOP for school shooter situations.

Regardless of the deputy's resignation, the three other BSO deputies did not resign and will be investigated for similar inaction. In 2016 Israel required all BSO's to wear body cams while on duty. It will be interesting if any were functional for the four BSO's during the school shooting.

His resignation can be interpreted in many ways.

You're speculating.

[Oziex1]

Maybe he had enough of the front line out on the streets and choose or was assigned to the school as a soft option to see him through to retirement.

 

He never expected this and was no longer equipped to deal with this situation.

 

Will we ever know.

 

Another victim of a society obsessed with being armed.

 

 

[buick]

i think the sad truth here is that security guards at schools (and other places where they are there to protect human lives, not just property, etc...) need to carry automatic weapons.  they need access to better firepower than those they might come up against.  and they should probably be required to fire the weapon regularly at a firing range to keep maintain their skill with the weapon.

 

back in the 90's, the los angeles police department figured this out after a bank robbery in north hollywood.  the two robbers had automatic, high power rifles plus body armor.  the police on the scene had pistols and shotguns.  the police finally got the better of the two robbers but it took quite a bit of time (i think the SWAT team came onto the scene with similar firepower and that took care of the problem).  as a result, i believe the police there now carry AR-15's in all their vehicles.

 

 

[Andaman Al]

5 hours ago, BobBKK said:

He was suspended without pay. After a long career in senior roles I can assure you the 'without pay' bit is CRUCIAL. They will try and protect him (and the dept.) a bit, as he fell on his sword, by not releasing the video of him cowering with his gun behind a car as kids died.

Could you post the video please. You have obviously seen it judging by your comments.

[thaibeachlovers]

8 hours ago, BobBKK said:

He was suspended without pay. After a long career in senior roles I can assure you the 'without pay' bit is CRUCIAL. They will try and protect him (and the dept.) a bit, as he fell on his sword, by not releasing the video of him cowering with his gun behind a car as kids died.

and you know that he was "cowering" because?

If the training was to wait outside and call backup, then sheltering behind a vehicle would be standard practice, as we've probably all seen in a thousand American cop shows on tv. Till it comes out exactly what his training mandated, none of us on here can pass judgement.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 hours ago, stevenl said:

You're omitting the other police officers who arrived on the scene and did nothing.

 

To me an indication SOP could be to wait for backup.

 

 

So that's why his boss, the sheriff, publicly announced that he  was going to suspend the deputy after watching the video of what he did (and didn't do) that day? -- only to have the deputy resign first.  Because the deputy followed SOP?   I don't think so.

 

[stevenl]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

So that's why his boss, the sheriff, publicly announced that he  was going to suspend the deputy after watching the video of what he did (and didn't do) that day? -- only to have the deputy resign first.  Because the deputy followed SOP?   I don't think so.

 

The sheriff had to do something, his office failed. So he threw his deputy under the bus. Maybe the sheriff is right, maybe he isn't, I'm just not jumping to conclusions without having complete information.

[Srikcir]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

The sheriff had to do something, his office failed. So he threw his deputy under the bus. Maybe the sheriff is right, maybe he isn't, I'm just not jumping to conclusions without having complete information.

It's hard to keep up with you.

You say you're not jumping to conclusions without having complete information.

Yet, you conclude "without having complete information" that the Sheriff's office failed as opposed to the deputy failing, that the Sheriff's suspension is throwing the deputy "under the bus" - depriving him of the right to defend himself through an investigative process?

• Do you admit that SOP for school shootings in Broward County is for the officer to immediately rush in to confront the shooter, regardless whether such policy was delivered to and/or understood by the deputy?
• Do you admit that the deputy did not follow that SOP, for whatever reason, whether justified by whomever or not?

If you are truly not jumping to any conclusions, I'd think your position would be noncommittal.

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, Srikcir said:

It's hard to keep up with you.

You say you're not jumping to conclusions without having complete information.

Yet, you conclude "without having complete information" that the Sheriff's office failed as opposed to the deputy failing, that the Sheriff's suspension is throwing the deputy "under the bus" - depriving him of the right to defend himself through an investigative process?

• Do you admit that SOP for school shootings in Broward County is for the officer to immediately rush in to confront the shooter, regardless whether such policy was delivered to and/or understood by the deputy?
• Do you admit that the deputy did not follow that SOP, for whatever reason, whether justified by whomever or not?

If you are truly not jumping to any conclusions, I'd think your position would be noncommittal.

I think it is a fair conclusion that the sheriff's office (of which the deputy was part) failed in protecting the kids, don't you? You're omitting my next sentence just to make your point: " Maybe the sheriff is right, maybe he isn't, ".

 

Who is to blame I don't know, too much information missing,

[pedro01]

The police do NOT have a duty to protect people. 

 

This, is according to the 2005 ruling by the US Supreme court that judged

 

"WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

 

The police are NOT their to protect you. As the guy employed to protect the school was a cop by trade, then it's no shock he didn't try and protect these kids. 

[halloween]

21 hours ago, buick said:

i think the sad truth here is that security guards at schools (and other places where they are there to protect human lives, not just property, etc...) need to carry automatic weapons.  they need access to better firepower than those they might come up against.  and they should probably be required to fire the weapon regularly at a firing range to keep maintain their skill with the weapon.

 

back in the 90's, the los angeles police department figured this out after a bank robbery in north hollywood.  the two robbers had automatic, high power rifles plus body armor.  the police on the scene had pistols and shotguns.  the police finally got the better of the two robbers but it took quite a bit of time (i think the SWAT team came onto the scene with similar firepower and that took care of the problem).  as a result, i believe the police there now carry AR-15's in all their vehicles.

 

 

A truly american solution to the problem - more and better weapons in SCHOOLS.

[buick]

2 hours ago, halloween said:

A truly american solution to the problem - more and better weapons in SCHOOLS.

believe me, i'd prefer a different solution (like very strict gun control).  but i doubt that is going to happen.  and there are so many guns out there already that a ban of some type for sales starting today isn't going to make much of a difference.  how do you get people to turn in their AR-15's ?  making possesion illegal won't lead to everyone turning theirs in.

 

maybe it is better to just make it clear that deputies placed on duty at schools aren't really there to save lives.  they are really there to help detain students who have committed a petty crime in or around the school. 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, buick said:

believe me, i'd prefer a different solution (like very strict gun control).  but i doubt that is going to happen.  and there are so many guns out there already that a ban of some type for sales starting today isn't going to make much of a difference.  how do you get people to turn in their AR-15's ?  making possesion illegal won't lead to everyone turning theirs in.

 

maybe it is better to just make it clear that deputies placed on duty at schools aren't really there to save lives.  they are really there to help detain students who have committed a petty crime in or around the school. 

 

It's just not going to happen, and anyway, while everyone is fixated on the lastest talking point of removing "assault weapons" even if they ain't military, the slaughter goes on in places like Chicago with illegally owned HANDGUNS.

Edited February 26, 2018 by thaibeachlovers

[Mansell]

On February 23, 2018 at 5:14 PM, impulse said:

 

Outside of the military, there is no training that overcomes the absolute horror and fear of proceeding alone toward a guy shooting at you.

 

Total nonsense. The majority of police officers, especially big city officers are trained to overpower any assailant with maximum force in the shortest amount of time so that they can control the situation. Also their training sets them up for reactions and not move into the fear of a situation. Of course not all police officers are created equal. As for the military.....unless you are Special Forces the average soldier is not trained to kill up close, most of the killing is done from a distance with a rifle.  So they are nothing special in that regard. If you have spent time in the military you will have experience that is reality based, and not movie based. 

[lannarebirth]

On 2/25/2018 at 4:31 AM, stevenl said:

The sheriff had to do something, his office failed. So he threw his deputy under the bus. Maybe the sheriff is right, maybe he isn't, I'm just not jumping to conclusions without having complete information.

More complete information is now available:

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/florida-shooting-timeline-deputy-scot-peterson-never-entered-building-2018-3

[MaxYakov]

I think I saw him at the U-Haul truck rental yard the other day.

[metisdead]

Off topic trolling posts with the intent of trolling have been removed.