yet another twist to the story in FL

Status
Not open for further replies.

dnewton3

Staff member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
11,366
Location
Indianapolis, IN
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html
http://fox59.com/2018/02/22/resource-off...d-sheriff-says/

Before we arm-chair this guy into a cell, we should wait for more info to come out. But at face value, I'd say he's not what he should have been.

Most any LEO agencies train that active shooter situations call for IMMEDIATE involvement. No agency can demand that their officers die in the line of duty. But we are, as a generalization, officers that would rather act than not act, to preserve life. Our training would be to "engage" the shooter. That could mean anything from killing him, to distracting him, to challenging him, to trading shots with him, to boxing him into a room, etc. Anything that takes the shooter's attention away from unarmed civilians is a good thing. As an officer with a vest and a gun, I have a better chance of survival than do the unarmed, unsecured masses. So while the death toll may not have been zero, it may also not have been 17 either had the officer engaged Cruz. If he had engaged, perhaps the shooter would have stopped and given up? Shot himself? Ran away? We cannot say how it would have happened for sure, but it is VERY LIKELY that a different outcome would have been presented had the deputy intervened, and likely far less lives would have been lost. The shooting lasting 6 minutes; the deputy did nothing for 4 minutes while on scene. I am willing to offer conjecture that fewer than 17 people would be dead; perhaps far fewer.

Loss of life is tragic. I've seen it countless ways over my 23 years of LEO. But, let's tally the failures of the "system" here ...
- FBI does not properly investigate the potential of threats, not communicate those to local agencies that might have taken it more seriously.
- Local agency has multiple contacts with the subject for a few year prior; many domestic issues, reports of life threats, etc. He's never brought up on charges that we're aware of at this point.
- Local school resource officer (fully sworn, armed deputy in uniform) present at the shooting does zilch for 4 minutes while the carnage takes place.


If we're going to talk reform, let's take a BIG PICTURE view of this.

The whole topic of "See something; Say something" really only works if law enforcement takes it seriously.
 
I'm sure he would have immediately "feared for his life" and killed him if it was an unarmed citizen.
 
These mass shootings at the schools seem scripted. The problem is known, yet nothing is done The shooter is doped up on prescribed SSRI inhibitors and they are gun free zones. Schools seem to be set uo to be shooting galleries these days. Although I haven't seen Gabby Gifford or her hubby yetwhich is good.
 
There were a lot of mistakes, first and foremost was the FBI really screwed up, big time! It just spirals downhill from there right to the armed LE coward that waited outside for 4 minutes and did nothing. Having said that all of this could have been avoided if the FBI did their job.

It was another avoidable tragedy. Prayers sent to all those impacted by this nightmare.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I'm sure he would have immediately "feared for his life" and killed him if it was an unarmed citizen.


Whew, thats cold. but theres been more than a few occasions of this...

On another note, I've heard quite a bit recently that officers do not need to engage or "protect" citizens. I can't remember the exact wording on why this is. Of course there are the heros that do. It probably comes down to the fact that many sign up for handing out citations and making sure kids don't skateboard on sidewalks.
Also reminds me of this little video
 
The problem I have is that he was allowed to retire, instead of having to face the music. That sets a concerning precedent.

If he engaged, he would probably have gotten killed or injured. Either way, he would have been known as a hero. He chose his pension over serving and protecting.
 
At every level the system didn't work. From the shooter's friends, peers and classmates, parents, step-parents, school admin, DSS, local police, FBI, and govt bureaucracy. At any level more forceful action could have been taken to get the killer off the streets.
 
Makes you wonder what happened to " To Serve and Protect " ?

The thin blue line appears to have been broken .

And the FBI appears to have been too busy spying on American citizens via dubious FISA warrants .
 
Originally Posted By: demarpaint
There were a lot of mistakes, first and foremost was the FBI really screwed up, big time! It just spirals downhill from there right to the armed coward that waited outside for 4 minutes and did nothing. Having said that all of this could have been avoided if the FBI did their job.

It was another avoidable tragedy. Prayers sent to all those impacted by this nightmare.


It definitely sounds like this nutcase slipped through the cracks at the FBI, but I believe the local authorities truly dropped the ball in this case. I read that they received 23 calls about this weirdo over the years and yet he was able to march right into the school and do what he did. Local police (including the school resource officer, from reports) knew what he was, the school administration knew he was, and the kids in the school knew what he was. This SOB's name should have never hit the news. With everything known about him prior, he should have been living a life of anonymity in a straitjacket somewhere.

In regards to the resource officer, I'll withhold judgment. We don't know the entire situation and I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Not looking good for him, though, and he'll have to live with his choices for the rest of his life.

The internet is full of "if I were in that situation, I'd have..." type statements. That's all good and well, but until we *are in* that situation, we really don't know how we'd react. I'm sure even adrenaline and fear get the best of even the most well trained officers at times.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't just the FBI. It was the Broward County Sheriff's and other agencies. Two deputies are now being investigated for not following up on the perp, and the the very deputy who stood outside and did nothing, had been given info on the perp that he did not follow up on.
In the media, they keep emphasizing "See something, Say something." Numerous people DID say something, and not one agency did anything about it, in the end. I'd say Sheriff Scott Israel needs to resign. It looks like "doing nothing" is systemic in his department.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
... On another note, I've heard quite a bit recently that officers do not need to engage or "protect" citizens. I can't remember the exact wording on why this is. Of course there are the heros that do.



This is actually easy to answer:
Per SCOTUS, LE agencies have no "duty" to protect.
Google this: "no duty to protect" or other similar phrases
The SCOTUS decisions on this topic are essentially centered around Warren V DC and some others.

The government has no duty to protect an individual at all. If that were to be held true, we'd all have armed escorts everywhere we go. Obviously this is both fiscally and physically impossible. So LEOs are not required to protect anyone. Ever. We can, if we are present, do what we can to stop a threat, but we're not required to do so under SC case law.

http://tribunist.com/news/supreme-court-ruling-police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-general-public/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
https://www.policeone.com/police-jobs-an...-duty-doctrine/

The only time an agency has a duty to protect and care for someone is once they are in custody; because the person no longer has control over their surroundings.
I am accountable for protecting a criminal I arrest because I take away his freedom and ability to protect himself.
I am not accountable for protecting the general public, because they have the ability to protect themselves. (Ironically, not in a "gun free zone" where only the victims are "gun free".)


The more you read, the more you understand.


This is why, in a nutshell, pro-gun people are adamantly against giving up their guns. Criminals will only be relieved of their guns if caught and arrested. So if the government has no duty to protect individuals, and we "legislate" guns away from potential victims, the obvious result is pretty darn self-evident.

Take away the sheepdog from the sheep, and the wolves have free reign.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: maxdustington
The problem I have is that he was allowed to retire, instead of having to face the music. That sets a concerning precedent.

If he engaged, he would probably have gotten killed or injured. Either way, he would have been known as a hero. He chose his pension over serving and protecting.

Or he chose to live instead of risking the high probability of dying. Looking at it that way, you can't really blame him, can you? I'm not saying I agree with his actions (or inaction in this case) because I don't, but it's understandable on a human level if that was the case.

Many people are not cut out to be law enforcement, and some of those people are already LEOs who haven't been put in a life or death situation yet and made wrong decisions that got themselves or others killed. Maybe he froze. Maybe he had a panic attack. Maybe he was close to retirement and decided against putting his life in danger. Or maybe he did not have all the facts that we do now and didn't want to go against one (two? five?) kid (escaped convicts? suicidal ISIS combatants?) with an AR (pipe bombs and grenades? miniguns and bazookas?) using just his sidearm. Or maybe he thought going in by himself was a tactically stupid idea and was waiting for some help and realized that it wasn't going to get there soon enough.

Who knows what went on inside his head at the time but it's real easy to criticize all the things he didn't do right afterwards.
 
This is not the FBIs jurisdiction. With perfect hindsight they should have forwarded this info to local police but what could they do with that knowledge?

There are probably at least a thousand people who post things that could be interpreted as mass killer potential to every one that actually does. I know in my high school in 1983 a student threatened to blow up prom and was just laughed at.

In reality, with the way things are now, any kid can pull this off with little chance of being stopped.
 
Originally Posted By: 69GTX
At every level the system didn't work. From the shooter's friends, peers and classmates, parents, step-parents, school admin, DSS, local police, FBI, and govt bureaucracy. At any level more forceful action could have been taken to get the killer off the streets.

He wasn't a killer until this incident. He was just a kid with issues. There are lots of them out there.
 
4 minutes goes by very, VERY quickly when you're under duress.

I'd like to know exactly what his standing orders were, and what his training was like, before I judge. Regardless of what the news puts out, the chance of a school shooting at any particular school is very low, and if training/orders weren't robust/clear, then he was setup to fail.

What would be worse is if some of the other innocent students had been killed by this deputy, either as collateral damage in a shoot-out or due to his nerves getting the best of him, say, when a student darts into view and appears to be a threat evaluated too late.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
More patterns emerge...

All these system failures look deliberate to me.

Meaning what exactly?
 
Originally Posted By: Bottom_Feeder
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
More patterns emerge...

All these system failures look deliberate to me.

Meaning what exactly?


+1 I don't understand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top