I can speak with some experience to some of these questions.
First - LEOs are no different, nor are their agencies, from the overall general public; we are all a bit different from each other. Different jurisdictions are reflections of their different locales, in nearly every aspect. Therefore, my answers are not 100% attributable to all agencies; my comments are generalizations and there will always be some example that does not fit my answers. That said, I'll continue:
- Training and responses: most all agencies have active shooter training now days. Typically combined with other agencies in the general area. Training is practice, and "practice makes perfect". Obviously, no one person and no one agency is perfect! There are examples of failures (such as the recent one in TX), and there are also examples of success. Each agency will have their own protocols and SOPs; most will be similar across the spectrum, but probably never identical.
- Dispatching: the job these folks have is very different, but can be just as stressful, as LEOs in the field. They, too, get training nowdays for all manner of calls; domestic violence, missing persons, active shooter, natural disaster, etc. The "investigation" they do is based on getting particulars about the call, but they do not discern the nature of the call (real or fake). Dispatchers collect and disseminate info; they do not investigate the nature of sincerity or credibility; that's not their job. Typically, calls of this nature (active shooter) are going to involve not just the LEOs, but also fire and medical responses, initiating lockdown protocols, informing high-level agency management, etc. They don't have time to discern the truthfulness of call; they are the first aspect of the overall response - it's their job to kick all the legs of response into action, not just the cops.
- Location personnel: They also may get training, depending upon local policy. The quality of event response vary widely not only because of policy, but also personnel. Think about any typical school ... there's always "new" personel somewhere; a teacher or two, an office person, a janitor, even substitute teachers and temp hires for kitchen staff, etc. Just because the school has a written policy, it is HIGHLY likely that some of these "new" folks don't know the protocol because they never participated in the training. Typically, even if the school district does have active shooter training, it only happens once a year. If you were hired after that, or were sick that day, or are a substitute teacher, you probably didn't get that training.
I recall, early in my career, we had an active bank alarm call. (NOTE - it was an accidental alarm; no actual robbery). I was the first to respond; I was very close when the call came out. Our department had training in how all the local banks were to respond; there were code phrases and words to be used, protocol to be followed on scene, etc. When I arrived, I asked dispatch to call the bank back, give the pass code phrase, and get the word response; they called and the bank answered with the wrong response. Because it was a false alarm, they were supposed to give a particular phone code, and then walk outside with a colored 12" x 12" card in hand held above the head. None of that happened, so when the bank person walked outside the door, I had to cuff that person and gave the on-scene call that things were not OK. (despite the fact that everything was truly OK, they weren't OK in terms of protocol). So my fellow officers came screaming up in their cars, rifles were out everywhere, customers were panicing, and it was a mess. In debriefing, it was agreed that it was the bank's fault and not mine; new bank employees didn't know the process, and being a Saturday, it was a skeleton crew in the bank. It could have ended much worse than us pushing people down on the ground and cuffing them all.
All it takes is a single failure in the response system and the whole thing begins to break down. Be it the responders or the victims, they are affected by these general failures:
- lack of policy
- poor policy
- lack of training
- poor training
- lack of response
- poor response
These all even have many aspects within each element.
My point? There is only 1 way any emergency response goes right, and about 100 ways it can go wrong. It's super easy to play Monday-morning quarterback. Some response failures are easy to identify, some are not. Some failures will never be completely purged, because human beings are not always predictable or accountable. We can always TRY to be perfect, but it's not reasonable to think we will be.
**************
As to the responsibility of LEOs (or really, the "system" as a whole) ...
SCOTUS has not once, but twice clearly determined that agencies have no particular duty to protect any one individual.
See the following:
- Warren vs District of Columbia
- Gonzales vs Castle Rock, CO
It comes down to this concept ... There is nothing in the Constitution that ascribes any manner of "safety" being assured to a person. There are concepts of Life, Libery and Pursuit of Happiness, but not one mention that your "safety" is going to be a gauranteed condition in the US. Despite common belief to the contrary, it's not the goverment's role to protect an individual. Regardless of what many people think, cops do not have a duty to protect you from life's events. They can attempt to do so, but they are not obligated to do so, so any perceived or real failure to protect is a matter of bad luck and not reasonable expectation. Communities who want their safety "assured" are going to be disappointed. Communities can certainly do things to provide for "better" levels of protection; stacking the odds in their favor by having more emergency services, better funding, better training, etc. But that in no way obligates goverment at any level to gaurantee your safety. The only time a goverment entity has a duty to your safety is when you are in custody; because once in custody, you cannot reasonably protect yourself as you are limited/restricted in your ability to care for yourself or make decisions. Once in custody, the goverment does have some obligations. But not for the general public; there is no duty to protect. So says SCOTUS.