It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A cop's take on the Stoneman Douglas Resource Officer

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:25 PM
link   
all to often the problem is that people like this guy have their jobs because of personal connections not because they are qualified




posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: UnBreakable

I reckon we all wait until we see the footage that hasn't been released and hear what the man himself has to say about what was going through his head before we all arm ourselves with keyboards and condemn his "cowardice".

What do people say about that? Sounds pretty reasonable to me hey?


No, it sounds overly politically correct in this instance, as we're not saying that he's guilty of a crime, we're saying that he acted like a little b*tch.

He was on site. He didn't engage the assailant. In not doing so, we have as many dead as you already know and he did not do his job, as has already been confirmed by the sheriff.

Guy is a coward and I'd say it to his face. Or am I just another keyboard warrior that knows nothing? I'm sure that you know everything about me to make such a claim like you did in your previous post...

Unless, of course, he was having a heart attack or other physical problem, but being threatened with dismissal indicates that's not the case. He was 32-year veteran of the department and was apparently past his prime and was put out to pasture because he was useless at his job.

If the video proves otherwise, I'll personally send you a bouquet of flowers, an "I'm Sorry" balloon, and my keyboard.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:33 PM
link   


Utter coward.


It's not exactly an easy thing for a sane person to do.

Shoot at a kid, and that is who they are shooting at if the reason calls for it.

Even with school cops or those that are called to respond.

If they are not prepared to do that?

Quit or retire.

Another thing that's been bugging me that no one seems to be talking about is trying to apply rational thought to irrational actions.

After all they nuts right?

That is as irrational as it gets.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

If the video proves otherwise, I'll personally send you a bouquet of flowers, an "I'm Sorry" balloon, and my keyboard.


My wife will appreciate the flowers, and I do love a good balloon. Don't need the keyboard though, got me a $250 Logitech Orion Spectrum mechanical keyboard. Thanks for the offer however!




posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


But 32 years man....32 years of service. He failed once in his twilight years. Maybe its that he was set up for failure (as was mentioned in your OP...its a twilight gig for most). But if he served the public for 32 years without any other black marks on his record, it is unconscionable to steal his retirement from him.


The bigger problem for me with retirement is now he can, as pointed out in the video, get hired somewhere else. Beyond that, if we're going to get pissed off when cops don't follow policy then this instance shouldn't be any different. His actions, or rather the lack of, were serious enough that he was going to be suspended without pay and subject to further investigation.

Should he have his retirement taken away? Absent criminal charges, no. For better or worse, he's entitled to it. But that doesn't make it any less gross.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: MisterMcKill


well, perhaps it is time to make "serving and protecting" a legal obligation for police officers.


This sort of thought is based off an erroneous interpretation of case law.



I am not interpreting case law. I am suggesting that the law be changed to make it a crime for police officers to do what this guy is alleged to have done: nothing. He was on the clock. Taxpayer dollars. He resigned in disgrace. He knows he did not do the right thing. Yet he was getting paid while those children were being killed. Sounds like that ought to be illegal to me.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Not being familiar with the inner workings of law enforcement...could they not strip him of his commission to keep him from being employed elsewhere?



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: howtonhawky
Was the action he displayed at one time standard procedure?

I seem to remember that training at one point was to wait for backup?


The Sheriff specifically said that this pathetic man absolutely should have entered the school and neutralized (i.e.: Shot the asshole dead) the shooter.

Outdated training has nothing to do with this, but as Shamrock6 notes, it was the SOP in many, if not all, places at one time, and you can see it in action in some of those 70s cop shows.

yep
i believe this leo always had it in his mind that in that situation he would wait even though he was hired at this specific job to go in asap.

i wonder how many others out there that are "old school" in that regard are just waiting for the pension knowing they would wait for backup in a situation like this.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

My initial response to this deputy's actions is a quick condemnation of the man as a coward.

However, after considering some mitigating factors I am not in a rush to judge his actions. I know what I would have done...and it would have been to rush in there and do what I could to minimize injuries to innocents and try to neutralize the threat, regardless of the consequences to my person. At some point militar training kicks in and I don't think, I only do thanks to the USMC.

But I don't know this LEO's past, nor do I know his mindset at the time. I don't know his location with regards to where the shooting was occuring: was it happening close to the entrance close to him? Did he know how many shooters there were? Did he have any information with regards to the suspect? Was he constantly on his radio giving instructions to arriving officers? Was he at least talking to his superiors via radio?

There's tons of questions and not enough answers IMO.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 01:58 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

In Florida, the state can decertify a cop for both criminal and non-criminal reasons. Other states require a criminal conviction before yanking a certification.

Neither of which prevents a decertified LEO from simply moving to another state and trying again.
edit on 23-2-2018 by Shamrock6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: MisterMcKill

But the case law is relevant because of liability issues.

Liability on the part of the officer to the public, the agency to the public, and the agency to the officer. When is an officer going to be legally required to act? If I drive up on an electrical worker being electrocuted, am I obligated to try and pull him off the lines thanks to this new law? If I pull up on a vehicle disabled on railroad tracks with a train quickly approaching and in my estimation there's no way I can get to the car, get it open, get the people out, and clear the crossing before the train strikes the vehicle, am I still required to act?

That's why a law like that is problematic. This is a moral obligation rather than a legal one. It appears that Peterson didn't feel that he had that moral obligation.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 02:23 PM
link   
There is a lot of brave people behind keyboards today.
Was this cop wearing any body armor?
Did he have more than two mags for his 9mm?
How much did he actually know about the situation?
A 9mm against an AR at 100 feet down the hall is a fatal mistake.

You walk up to the building entrance.
You hear rapid AR gunfire.
How many people are shooting inside?
If it's an ISIS attack you could be looking at many shooters inside.
As far as I know you are not required to sacrifice your life as a cop.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6


Couldn't agree more Shamrock
It is unacceptable any way you read it. He was under no orders to not at least make an effort to engage the shooter, and it appears to be a result of his cowardice. The worst part is, I'd pit a trained officer against a psychotic 17 year old any day - even if that 17 year old does have a rifle. In my estimate, there is a very good chance he could've either stopped the threat or at a minimum provided a distraction

No one wants to see loss of life, and having a duty to interject yourself into a deadly confrontation really drives home the dangers of the job and the reason LE deserves the respect they do. But when the rubber meets the road and you are facing down a deranged killer, the only real option is to carry out the choice you should've already made long before and do what needs to be done.

Like you said, if you can't do the job then he shouldn't be there in the first place. And the retirement home attitude you are spot on once again. All I know is that these kids likely looked up to "officer friendly" and trusted him with their lives. When he decided to cower instead of confronting the killer, he let each and every one of them down and it is a damn shame



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:14 PM
link   

This is a moral obligation rather than a legal one.


This, 110%



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: samkent
There is a lot of brave people behind keyboards today.
Was this cop wearing any body armor?
Did he have more than two mags for his 9mm?
How much did he actually know about the situation?
A 9mm against an AR at 100 feet down the hall is a fatal mistake.

You walk up to the building entrance.
You hear rapid AR gunfire.
How many people are shooting inside?
If it's an ISIS attack you could be looking at many shooters inside.
As far as I know you are not required to sacrifice your life as a cop.


This. We need to see the footage and hear from the man himself before we go crucifying him.


edit on 23/2/2018 by Kryties because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

Agreed, it is a moral obligation. And that is almost impossible to try to legislate, if one were wrong headed enough to try.

Im not sure he chose to shirk moral obligation. Im sure he didn't respond. Why...i don't know. I find it difficult to believe that someone would choose to do nothing out of indifference (although it could be possible with a psychopath). I find it most reasonable to believe he either froze, or he chose his safety over theirs. In the former, i can't blame him. In the latter...i can blame him, but have to also understand that charging into death isn't something most people believe to be prudent. Self preservation is an instinct that is strong in everyone, and stronger in some.

I would like to hear from him before I settle on disdain. I believe he does have a right to safety, and the death threats he's receiving are too much (and no less cowardly than his actions, honestly).



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I appreciate your take on the situation... but I need a whole lot more than this. I don't trust a word the sheriff says and that's pretty much all we've got. Talk is cheap. Let the sheriff put up or shut up.

I want to see the videos. I want to hear the audio of the deputy's call to dispatch. I want to read a transcript of the deputy's statement. I want to read a copy of the procedures/protocols the deputy was trained to follow. I want to know what instructions/orders the deputy was given at the time.

I want to know what the deputy knew and when he knew it. I want to know where the deputy was when the fire alarm was pulled. I want to know where the deputy was when the shooting began. I want to know when the deputy knew which building the shooter was in. I want to know if the deputy had any reason to believe it was another drill and NOT a live shooter. I want to know if the deputy was told to stand down... to wait for backup... that backup was on the way. I also want to know what prior interactions the deputy had with the shooter. And I want to know what the deputy reported to the department that was not followed-up (like so many other tips to authorities).

I want to know that this deputy isn't just a fall guy for the sheriff... and I want to know that those guards at his home are really for his protection and not something far more sinister.

I want the whole truth, AND the evidence. Not just this guy's say so.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea


I want to know that this deputy isn't just a fall guy for the sheriff


I don't think he's a fall guy for anything. The sheriff has been pretty open about discussing lapses in his agency's response to things. They've suspended two other deputies who got information about the shooter and didn't do anything with it. So far, this sheriff seems to be willing to stand up and admit to failures within his own agency.


I want to know what the deputy knew and when he knew it.


We can't know that, and never will. What we'll know, at best, is what the now former deputy chooses to articulate about what he knew and what he didn't know. Without being inside his head, we won't ever know what he knew, when he knew it, and what he chose to do about it, or not do about it. We can come up with a reasonable scenario using other evidence, but nobody knows what was in his head except him.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


I would like to hear from him before I settle on disdain. I believe he does have a right to safety, and the death threats he's receiving are too much (and no less cowardly than his actions, honestly).


Absolutely. One should not beget the other.


I find it most reasonable to believe he either froze, or he chose his safety over theirs. In the former, i can't blame him. In the latter...i can blame him, but have to also understand that charging into death isn't something most people believe to be prudent. Self preservation is an instinct that is strong in everyone, and stronger in some.


I agree, to a point. Freezing in the moment happens. We know it does. That's why we train to overcome it. Not having trained hard enough to overcome it is, in my opinion, inexcusable.

For me, it's simple. Few people are talking about, and fewer still will remember, that an unarmed officer ran towards gunfire to help people. Far more people are talking about, and will remember, that an armed, on-duty officer stood behind a concrete pillar as shots rang out, talking on his radio.



posted on Feb, 23 2018 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

When I go through my thoughts and analyze the emotions that come with them, im struck by how much Heinrich (i believe was his name) elicits a strong emotional response of admiration in me. I don't feel like he was "ho hum", i admire him for a very brave act.

The coach, Scott Biegel, that shielded children (dying in the act) elicits the same emotional response as Heinrich does in me: admiration for his extreme bravery.

If they are extremely brave for doing what they did...i have trouble rationalizing that Peterson is disgusting for not following suit. Its not binary. Act and you are brave, don't act and you are a coward. Where does it sum to anything other than zero?

Its like the old days where we would put people in gallows so that the public could pelt them with rotten veggies. Maybe we should just put the dude in the gallows and get it over with for him?

ETA: im not arguing with anyone here. Just posting my thoughts.
edit on 2/23/2018 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join