It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
If the tape was on a 20 minute delay, how could anybody have possibly known the shooter had left the building? Answer: they didn't, and BCSO is trying to coverup a craptastic command display. At 1430 they received a call that the shooter was still inside the building and in a specific classroom. At 1432 we have the first mention of "need perimeter." Are we supposed to believe that Jordan became privy to information nobody else had in those two minutes, but then didn't bother to mention that information when deputies were watching video and trying to locate the shooter inside the building? No, what we can believe is that BCSO is scrambling to cover for Jordan.
In the email, the BSO spokesperson also shed some light on the allegations against Jordan’s commands writing, “Captain Jordan asked if a perimeter had been established after the shooter left the building.”
“She carries herself with a quiet confidence that others who work around her see and respect and has a natural command presence and makes decisions that are sound and all-encompassing, and has an excellent understanding of the agency’s goals and objectives,” stated a 2016 performance evaluation.
The problem I have with this report is that so far as I know, FoxNews keeps referencing dispatch logs that they've obtained but are not releasing for some reason. I for one would like the ability to read these logs for myself, rather than relying on a media outlet to hand-feed us bits and pieces of it. Even better would be the actual recordings, because it seems to me that tone and inflection are a key element here.
According to the timeline given by the BCSO, the shooting stopped at 2:28. And according to this article, the dispatch logs indicate that at 2:29 they still did not know where the shooter was. At least one call identifying a shooter in building 1200 came in to dispatch. It apparently was not passed on in a timely manner.
And I don't blame Capt Jordan for making the decisions she made under the circumstances.
What would be the penalties/repercussions if an LEO did enter a building with a shooter against protocol and/or orders? Would there be any fines or civil penalties? How about criminal penalties? Would there be any penalties/repercussions for the department?
Correct, and two officers radioed as such and stated that they were entering building 13. Incidentally, you can also hear a reference to "ROTC uniform" during that set of transmissions. In any event, at least two officers were entering a building regardless of whether they positively knew where the shooter was. Why those were the only two that decided to make entry, I don't know.
I do. Setting a perimeter should never take priority over locating the shooter. At a minimum it should be done concurrent with entering and clearing the area. As one of the articles mentions, unless you've already got dozens of officers working to locate the shooter there's no sense in ordering everybody to a perimeter.
I don't know of any agency that doesn't have a policy to enter and interdict as soon as possible, including solo officer entry, so I can't speak to the first part of your question.
I've been trying really hard to picture what an appropriate response would look like when you can hear shooting but cannot pinpoint it.
So it seems completely appropriate to me for her to have done so. What am I misunderstanding?
I don't know a) what the building layout is as far as numbers go. As in where is building 13 in relation to building 12; I also don't know b) if those officers entering building 13 misspoke or misidentified the building they were entering. Everything we've been told is that Peterson and other officers were outside building 12 as the shooting happened. I think, if they were still reporting shots fired, they at least had the area narrowed down and could have proceeded as such.
Because the priority is to locate the shooter, not to contain the shooter.
This is where her ambiguity on the radio adds immensely to the confusion, and I think where we differ is that you're giving her the benefit of doubt and I'm not willing to.... Had she issued explicit commands I would be more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she didn't so I'm not.
originally posted by: howtonhawky
How were they to know the motives and actions of the shooter?
Did they know if there were more than one shooter?
Were there hostages?
Were dead man switches in place if police entered?
Were there bombs set at entries?
Only a dumbass would go in without intel or orders but sometimes that works and sometimes it does not
So are you claiming that when arriving on scene with unknown shooters locations it is not proper to set up perimeter until intel is gathered?
does not sound rite
i am thinking you are upset you were not there
I'm claiming that when you're standing outside a building and can hear gunfire coming from said building