If you were a school police officer, would you confront an active shooter with a AR-15?

[ImpulsE69]

The cry out against guns is no different than ancestors creating gods to pray to and blame for drought etc. People are scared and frustrated and want answers while not understanding the true issue. I wish someone knew what the solution was, but the issue isn't black and white nor easy to fix with a sweeping law. The issue is and has always been humans, not the weapons they wield. Humans have always killed humans for a multitude of reasons and I don't see that ever stopping. It's a pipe dream to think we're suddenly going to change. Guns are just this years weapon of the week. Eventually it'll move on to something else.

As for comparing guns to other items, the comparison is sound if not 100% lined up. Unless a lawn dart got up and threw itself, it is always a human behind the throwing, just like a gun being shot. What that human decides to point at is the issue. How that human decides to use the item is the issue. As has been mentioned countless times at this point, you aren't going to get rid of guns in any fashion that is going to solve the problem you are trying to solve, so the solution must lie elsewhere. That solution is fixing the humans to not be so self centered and emotional. Most likely..that won't happen either.

Now, let that sink in. Feel that sinking feeling of despair? That is reality. This is where your 'just do something' people come from. They cannot accept that something bad can happen with no easy button solution. Sometimes you can't fix everything. Sometimes you just have to let things play out and hope for the best. Only thing you can control is you.

Or...maybe thought police.

 

[Sonikku]

Go read todays news. It wasn’t just 1 officer that hid and waited, it is now 4 officers that waited and didn’t enter the school.

I'm sure if the Police can't confront gunmen because it's too scary that teachers could!

 

[FIVR]

I would probably try and do something if only so I wouldn't feel like a coward and regret not acting later.

 

[Paladin3]

Appreciate the response but before we get into the constitution and personal responsibility arguments which are lengthy themselves, what is a gun? It's a device that fires a projectile from a tube that can be relatively compact. It was designed to do so in order to cause death or severe harm to basically living creatures, whether human or four-legged. Would you agree to that?

As far as your primary uses of it -

It works well as a self-defense item but ONLY because it has those intrinsic characteristics which everyone is aware of, that it will cause said death or severe harm to a living being.

It's used for hunting because, yes, like I said, it's intrinsic value is in that it kills living things.

On the recreation note, I mean it's great that you can use it for recreation and shooting sports, to have fun shooting tin cans or paper targets at a range, but I could also have a shit ton of fun firing off rocket launchers and artillery too, do you think those should be legal and easy to acquire too?

You are no longer worth replying to with your ridiculous arguments. Go ahead and take that as a win if you are delusional enough to do so.

 

[Paladin3]

The question in the OP is what would I do and what I stated is likely what most people here would do (which is why I stated it should be obvious) if they had to go in, right or wrong. OBVIOUSLY I'm not a professional so I am only going by personal instinct. What is this, a LE forum???

It's still ironic that the biggest hinge, and the reason for the thread, are the 4 professionals and you used that line of trusting their kind to put me down. Yeah, smooth. Give me a break. Need I remind you that you're only on Anandtech Off-topic?

Again, nothing you said validates the stupidity you posted and tried to pass off as "obvious" common sense in that first post of yours that I replied to. I don't expect you to be a trained LEO or experienced in tactics, but I would appreciate if you think before you type. Not all opinions are equally valid, but should each be judged based on their own individual merit. Just like people.

Folks who hate on cops (and I'm starting to believe you are a member of that group) have a bad habit of judging the entire law enforcement community on the actions of a few bad apples, or in this case four apparent cowards. Racists and sexists do the same to minorities and women, and it's wrong no mater which group you are demonizing over the actions of the few.

I called you out on your comments because it appeared you were tarnishing all LEOs as idiots/cowards, while stating what they should have done was obvious. If not then I apologize, but at this point, I just don't care if what I said offended you.

 

[MrSquished]

You are no longer worth replying to with your ridiculous arguments. Go ahead and take that as a win if you are delusional enough to do so.

lol that's rich. I stated a very simple, non-aggressive and logical easy to understand and obvious point about what guns intrinsic values are as an object and you think that is ridiculous. good day sir

 

[rh71]

Again, nothing you said validates the stupidity you posted and tried to pass off as "obvious" common sense in that first post of yours that I replied to. I don't expect you to be a trained LEO or experienced in tactics, but I would appreciate if you think before you type. Not all opinions are equally valid, but should each be judged based on their own individual merit. Just like people.

Folks who hate on cops (and I'm starting to believe you are a member of that group) have a bad habit of judging the entire law enforcement community on the actions of a few bad apples, or in this case four apparent cowards. Racists and sexists do the same to minorities and women, and it's wrong no mater which group you are demonizing over the actions of the few.

I called you out on your comments because it appeared you were tarnishing all LEOs as idiots/cowards, while stating what they should have done was obvious. If not then I apologize, but at this point, I just don't care if what I said offended you.

Again, it's what _I_ would have done because that was the g'damn question of the thread. Not once did I judge LEOs in my response. I have zero against them. Christ, you are in such defensive mode for them, being charged up in an ATOT thread.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Unless the police officer was an experienced veteran of war I would not expect them to rush into a dangerous war zone to rescue the hostages. Real life doesn't work that way.

 

[judasmachine]

How many kids die before you make said decision?

 

[ImpulsE69]

Unless the police officer was an experienced veteran of war I would not expect them to rush into a dangerous war zone to rescue the hostages. Real life doesn't work that way.

You'll never make the armchair warriors understand that. I don't usually consider standard police to be that highly trained, or if they were, it had been years since they had and most have pretty lax day to day work. I think we are used to seeing TV and movies where cops are constantly in gun battles and high speed chases daily when reality in most cities/towns is much different. Many if not most do not see any form of combat or danger. These are normal people with families doing a job. I guarantee that was running through their minds at the time.

 

[Denly]

I will 100% not try to take down the shooter(s) and here is why.
-I don't know the school, I am very likely lost my way.
-I don't know where the shooter is
-I don't know how many shooters are there
-There are hundreds(thousand?) of students in the school, I am the easy target(uniform) and I won't bet on myself to spot the shooter(s)
- Gun fight in school is a very bad idea, I am more likely to hit others than the shooters.

What I will do is cover - run up to them and protect - anyone that escape from the school to make sure they're safe.

69% of voters go for the first option, seriously?

 

[Paladin3]

Unless the police officer was an experienced veteran of war I would not expect them to rush into a dangerous war zone to rescue the hostages. Real life doesn't work that way.

It wasn't a hostage situation, nor was is a war zone. It was one guy with a gun walking around shooting unarmed victims. You are advocating that the best course of action for trained LEOs was to not go in and try to stop him as soon as possible? Not even when there were four of them ready to act?

I wonder how you would have felt had you or a loved one been inside that school waiting for help? Content to take your chances against the gunman so those officers didn't have to risk their safety?

 

[Paladin3]

Unless the police officer was an experienced veteran of war I would not expect them to rush into a dangerous war zone to rescue the hostages. Real life doesn't work that way.

How does "real life" work? How long should we allow an active shooter to kill before we attempt to stop him? A one-on-one fight isn't fair enough for you when hundreds of innocent students are in deadly peril? How about when four officers were there waiting outside? Still not enough to at least try?

What would you tell the dead? Sorry, we had guns, vests, radios, training and all, but you weren't worth us risking ourselves to try and protect?

 

[Paladin3]

I will 100% not try to take down the shooter(s) and here is why.
-I don't know the school, I am very likely lost my way.
-I don't know where the shooter is
-I don't know how many shooters are there
-There are hundreds(thousand?) of students in the school, I am the easy target(uniform) and I won't bet on myself to spot the shooter(s)
- Gun fight in school is a very bad idea, I am more likely to hit others than the shooters.

What I will do is cover - run up to them and protect - anyone that escape from the school to make sure they're safe.

69% of voters go for the first option, seriously?

• The first officer to allegedly hide was the school resource officer who most likely knew the school very well.
• The shooter is usually the source of the gunfire you are hearing. It's otherwise a gun free zone, after all. Go towards that sound and you will likely find the shooter.
• Nobody knew how many shooters there actually were until the shooting was over and all buildings cleared. Would you have been willing to go in then or was that still too soon?
• Yes, there were lots of defenseless students in that school and all of them were counting on you to protect them. You've got a badge, training, gun, vest and radio and were there to help, not hide from danger.
• Unless your idea of engaging the shooter is to fire indiscriminately into a crowd of students, no, you were not more likely to kill students than the shooter. The obvious way to tell them apart is that the shooter is the one with a gun killing the others. Engaging them doesn't mean do something stupid, but to follow your considerable training and do what you were hired to do.

69% of voters chose the first option because they wouldn't want to see innocent children killed if they could possibly help it. You seem perfectly comfortable coming up with silly reasons why you wouldn't have even tried.

 

[Paladin3]

You'll never make the armchair warriors understand that. I don't usually consider standard police to be that highly trained, or if they were, it had been years since they had and most have pretty lax day to day work. I think we are used to seeing TV and movies where cops are constantly in gun battles and high speed chases daily when reality in most cities/towns is much different. Many if not most do not see any form of combat or danger. These are normal people with families doing a job. I guarantee that was running through their minds at the time.

You have a very low opinion of LEOs and your fellow man in general. I wonder if you have any practical experience to back that up? Never mind, you don't have to answer that. It's always safer to have low expectations of the bravery of others so you never have to be brave yourself.

At least some of us would like to think we would try to help. I'd rather live in a world of armchair warriors who'd try than among those who've embraced and argue for helplessness.

 

[IEC]

I sure would.

I have weapons training and medical training beyond most police officers. If there were someone like that at a school when the shooting starts, I sure hope they would do the same. I'd rather risk death than live with the guilt of knowing that I was in a position to do something to save lives.

As far as what the "standard" is for training, here are some resources:

ALERRT:
https://alerrt.org/page/facts

Video for the untrained/unprepared:
http://www.avoiddenydefend.org/add.html

And lastly, the part that our news media fails miserably at:
http://www.dontnamethem.org/

 

[Paladin3]

"Confront" or "shoot at him until I'm out of bullets?"

Because I'd probably do the second thing. "Confront" makes it sounds like I'd be "Oh, hey, umm, could you maybe not kill people here please? This is a loading zone."

I believe the proper term is "engage" which could mean almost anything. From shooting to maybe something as simple as an LEO ordering the shooter to drop his weapon. If all that did was make the shooter stop and take cover, it would have potentially given them more time to evacuate students and stopped the killing at least temporarily.

But, without a doubt, the last thing LE is trained to do is allow the killing to continue while they hide outside. Four officers is absolutely enough to enter a school and engage/confront a shooter actively killing students. Even one is enough, IMHO.

 

[FeuerFrei]

They need to hire female security officers. Their maternal instincts will cause them to take all manner of foolish, ill advised risks. Active shooter? Who cares, gotta go grab that scared kid.
Granted it would be someone else's kids in harm's way, not the officers' ....

 

[FeuerFrei]

Is it just me or do Florida officials not seem too competent, categorically speaking?

 

[ImpulsE69]

You have a very low opinion of LEOs and your fellow man in general. I wonder if you have any practical experience to back that up? Never mind, you don't have to answer that. It's always safer to have low expectations of the bravery of others so you never have to be brave yourself.

At least some of us would like to think we would try to help. I'd rather live in a world of armchair warriors who'd try than among those who've embraced and argue for helplessness.

Woah, sorry if I hit a nerve. Obviously I'm not talking about all LEO's, and yes I know a great deal of them and have been in combat with them. Not all are created equal. I've seen tough guys turn into, not cowards necessarily, but you can tell they are more concerned with what they might lose. I'm not saying they wouldn't do what is expected/needed of them if it came to it. I'm just pointing out that it's easy for people to judge them from the comfort of their own chairs. Actions speak louder than words, and in this age, everyone likes to boast anonymously how bad ass they think they are when in reality most are scared little puppies concerned about their own survival (population in general, not police). I'm also trying to point out that just because you are 'trained' doesn't mean your survival instincts won't kick in. So don't take what I said as a knock against law enforcement, because it wasn't.

 

[Paladin3]

Woah, sorry if I hit a nerve. Obviously I'm not talking about all LEO's, and yes I know a great deal of them and have been in combat with them. Not all are created equal. I've seen tough guys turn into, not cowards necessarily, but you can tell they are more concerned with what they might lose. I'm not saying they wouldn't do what is expected/needed of them if it came to it. I'm just pointing out that it's easy for people to judge them from the comfort of their own chairs. Actions speak louder than words, and in this age, everyone likes to boast anonymously how bad ass they think they are when in reality most are scared little puppies concerned about their own survival (population in general, not police). I'm also trying to point out that just because you are 'trained' doesn't mean your survival instincts won't kick in. So don't take what I said as a knock against law enforcement, because it wasn't.

You didn't think it would hit a nerve when you agreed with the following?

Unless the police officer was an experienced veteran of war I would not expect them to rush into a dangerous war zone to rescue the hostages. Real life doesn't work that way.

You can't pile on the bandwagon of insulting those who believe they would at least try to do something and not expect someone to call you out on it. Nobody can guarantee how they would react until faced with such a situation, but it's so fucking fashionable today to mock those who say they would at least try to do something. Here's what you said:

You'll never make the armchair warriors understand that. I don't usually consider standard police to be that highly trained, or if they were, it had been years since they had and most have pretty lax day to day work. I think we are used to seeing TV and movies where cops are constantly in gun battles and high speed chases daily when reality in most cities/towns is much different. Many if not most do not see any form of combat or danger. These are normal people with families doing a job. I guarantee that was running through their minds at the time.

Nope, no knock against law enforcement officers there. Print that out and show it to the LEOs you know, tell them it was in reference to the cops who waited to go in, and see if they agree with you.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Whatever dude. You're obviously a cop or related to one and you're personalizing it. Try to be non biased and defensive or just leave the thread. Not everyone (even cops) are created equal and it is fair to think they are not all some magical heroes that are going to just run into danger. They are also underpaid in my opinion which has some impact on the quality of people at times. It's not realistic to think they are all the best of the best under every situation. Are you going to deny my original statement which was about not all police are involved in day to day shootouts and typically don't see any real dangerous situations in their careers? Because you are picking and choosing what you read if you are ignoring that. I'm not saying they aren't risking their lives daily - but being on the job and being in a situation such as this thread are completely different events. This isn't the movies, if LEO's had to deal with something like this everyday, I'm pretty sure most would find a new line of work eventually. Even from my first post I said I didn't blame the officers involved, but they shouldn't be on the force. It happens. And yea, I do have a pretty low opinion of humanity in general. Keeps my expectations in check so I don't get all offended in a thread about hypotheticals.

The point I was trying to make is simple: It's easy to judge peoples actions and claim you would do differently from safety of your house and in hindsight. It's a whole other thing when you are actually there in the moment.

 

[Denly]

• The first officer to allegedly hide was the school resource officer who most likely knew the school very well.
• The shooter is usually the source of the gunfire you are hearing. It's otherwise a gun free zone, after all. Go towards that sound and you will likely find the shooter.
• Nobody knew how many shooters there actually were until the shooting was over and all buildings cleared. Would you have been willing to go in then or was that still too soon?
• Yes, there were lots of defenseless students in that school and all of them were counting on you to protect them. You've got a badge, training, gun, vest and radio and were there to help, not hide from danger.
• Unless your idea of engaging the shooter is to fire indiscriminately into a crowd of students, no, you were not more likely to kill students than the shooter. The obvious way to tell them apart is that the shooter is the one with a gun killing the others. Engaging them doesn't mean do something stupid, but to follow your considerable training and do what you were hired to do.

69% of voters chose the first option because they wouldn't want to see innocent children killed if they could possibly help it. You seem perfectly comfortable coming up with silly reasons why you wouldn't have even tried.

And your logical reasons are to be hero and go gun down the shooter(s)? like you said no body know how many shooter(s) were there, it could be 1 or 5 or more. Are there trained mercenaries or just random somebody crazy? Yes he got a badge, he need to help but there are more than one way. He can round up anyone in the open and cover them? No body want to see innocent get hurt but you can't play hero in that situation, if it is that easy all the student can just throw their smartphone to the shooter that should be enough to take him down. Have you seen those real life hwy pursuit? There is a reason you don't try to be hero and call for backup.

If the shooter is within sight yes engage but not when you don't have other information.

 

[HotJob]

Unless the police officer was an experienced veteran of war I would not expect them to rush into a dangerous war zone to rescue the hostages. Real life doesn't work that way.

I would. That is his ONLY REASON to be there. The only reason Americans wanted police in schools was as a response to an attack at the school. If police cannot engage the shooter(s) because they value their safety over the safety of the children, pull them out. Otherwise the police are just there to arrest disobedient students, and American society has not agreed to that.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I'd rush in with my 70 year old baby hands and take him down.