Heroic school deputy in Florida

[poikilotrm]

Armed deputy at Florida school resigns after failing to engage shooter
[Reuters]
By Bernie Woodall
,Reuters•February 22, 2018
https://www.yahoo.com/news/armed-deputy ... 36886.html

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. (Reuters) - The armed deputy assigned to the campus of a Florida high school during a deadly shooting last week stayed outside the building during the attack and failed to engage the shooter, the county sheriff said on Thursday.

As a consequence, Scott Peterson, on duty as the school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, resigned from the department, said Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel, who earlier has suspended the officer from the force. He did not say if Peterson would face criminal charges.

Israel said he decided to suspend Peterson after viewing a video that showed the deputy's actions during the rampage that killed 17 people. A former student Nikolas Cruz, 19, is accused of carrying out the attack with an AR-15-style assault weapon.

“What I saw was a deputy arrive at the west side of Building 12, take up a position and he never went in,” said Israel. The building is popularly known as "the freshman building."

Israel said he would not release the video that shows Peterson’s actions at this time and may never do so, “depending on the prosecution and criminal case.”

[a_canadian]

Unfortunately, human nature being what is is with all the variations in responses to fear, more than 9 out of 10 people will respond similarly whether they have a gun or not. Wishful thinking is great. Training is better. But still, the majority of trained soldiers sent to battle never kill anyone on the other side. Many run away. That's not to say I blame them, it's just how some people function.

Please try to stifle your traditional sniping when I post. I'm not anti-gun, certainly not on the side of the huge outcry to ban 'assault rifles' or whatever capacity of magazines, as I thoroughly understand that such measures mean exactly nothing to those with criminal intentions. I'm mostly just contributing the thought that perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on the old deputy there. He was scared. Maybe he froze. Got confused. Whatever. Ideally he'd have carefully moved in and stopped the threat, but few among us will do that. Maybe if his own kid was in there things might have gone differently. So maybe armed parents need to do rotation duty in American schools now? I don't know. But it'd be nice if there was room for rational discussion in this mess instead of all the yelling as people pick sides.

[doubloon]

If you would provide reliable data to back up your claims you might get sniped less.

More than one person in the Parkland shooting did what needed to be done or more.

I tend to agree most of us will never know for sure what we would do in such a situation until it actually happens but that's not a reason to not get out of bed. I also agree there is no need to eviscerate the deputy.

I'd be OK with the idea rezoning schools not to be gun free, as we have seen demonstrated time and time again it's only the law abiding people who remain unarmed in gun-free school zones. It's ridiculous to me to continue to require people to act as live targets for unstable felons. If I were a teacher today I would go to work armed every day with the hope I never got caught and I never had to use it.

I would be more inclined to seek out vet's for guard duty instead of parents. Someone with no personal attachment to particular students on campus and, hopefully, someone familiar with the human silhouette as a viable target.

I am not yet ready to support TSA style goons at the gates to grope kids on a daily basis.

[John A.]

I heard he retired. Full benefits. Not resigned.

Also has numerous deputies guarding his house and family.

[0101silent]

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... ndividuals+

[ick]

Unfortunately, human nature being what is is with all the variations in responses to fear, more than 9 out of 10 people will respond similarly whether they have a gun or not.

I am almost certain that this statement of yours is true, probably 9 out of 10 people DO run. They key is to allow the sheep dog to be a sheep dog and NOT force sheep dogs all across the country to disarm in the hope that a gun free zone will deter a shooter... because 9 out of 10 sheep dogs will obey the law and, unfortunately, be disarmed when being armed counts. Then you get situations where a person that could have done something is relegated to charging a shooter and simply ends up absorbing slugs that could have hit someone else. What a wasted opportunity that the heroes of the recent shooting were disarmed by foolish laws. Especially the heroes that charged the shooter even though they had no weapon.

Wishful thinking is great. Training is better. But still, the majority of trained soldiers sent to battle never kill anyone on the other side. Many run away. That's not to say I blame them, it's just how some people function.

Is this statement dishonest or just sloppy? "A majority of trained solders sent to battle never kill anyone" is likely true if you aggregate EVERY solder in a combat zone because you are thereby including hundreds of support soldiers that don't actually confront the enemy. If you include those soldiers along with the one guy in combat actually engaging then what is the ratio? 100 support soldiers behind every front line troop? So yes, by that standard "majority... never kill".

Unfortunately when you the add the statement "Many run away" is where you get really sloppy. We are not talking about desertion, abandonment of a duty or post without permission, or absence without leave (AWOL).... when discussing flight from actual combat, perhaps we should call it cowardice, and you state "Many run away".

How many is "Many run away"?
51%?
Many is quite a lot.

As usual your "thinking" leaves a lot to be desired. It is sloppy

I agree, though, that we should not destroy this man for failing to engage. When it was time to stand up and be counted he was found wanting. He is going to have to deal with that the rest of his life. What must that be like?

[a_canadian]

Sorry guys, it seems I've allowed myself to fall victim to a popular fallacy, engendered primarily in the book 'Man Against Fire' by S.L.A. Marshall. It's been so much propagated that on the several occasions I've found it referenced (as regards the majority of soldiers not firing at the enemy) on a few different sorts of websites, it has seemed a universally accepted truth. Looking into this more deeply this afternoon I find that in fact it has been thoroughly debunked, that his methodology if it can be called that (mostly guessing) was deeply flawed and that no supporting research has come to light since. That may be in part because military branches prefer not to make such studies... but I guess we can't know either way about that. So again, my apologies for this reference as it was plainly wrong. Not something I made up, just something I ought to have researched more before propagating it further.

[johndoe3]

Sorry guys, it seems I've allowed myself to fall victim to a popular fallacy, engendered primarily in the book 'Man Against Fire' by S.L.A. Marshall. It's been so much propagated that on the several occasions I've found it referenced (as regards the majority of soldiers not firing at the enemy) on a few different sorts of websites, it has seemed a universally accepted truth. Looking into this more deeply this afternoon I find that in fact it has been thoroughly debunked, that his methodology if it can be called that (mostly guessing) was deeply flawed and that no supporting research has come to light since. That may be in part because military branches prefer not to make such studies... but I guess we can't know either way about that. So again, my apologies for this reference as it was plainly wrong. Not something I made up, just something I ought to have researched more before propagating it further.

https://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psycholo ... dpSrc=srch

Canadian, if you are interested, the data is available in Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. He cites stats from the WW1 era, in which many soldiers without proper training froze up in their first combat engagement, or sprayed bullets, or seemingly deliberately missed their targets (only about 20% of first-time soldiers in WW1 performed adequately under fire, mostly young men from rural areas who grew up hunting). Grossman was part of the effort in the US Army to improve it towards 100% of trained soldiers today actually shooting and hitting their targets in combat. They do that through many training changes including eliminating bullseye targets and using man-shaped or man-likeness targets and pop-up man targets on ranges.

The difference is significant where 200,000 bullets were fired for each enemy killed in Vietnam, to today where it is 1/5th of that or better. It's all a matter of proper training and acculturating new soldiers to combat before they get there the first time. Any civilian or policeman could learn in the same way before they have to use it under fire, even if they learn it on their own--use targets that look like people so that the trainee becomes acquainted with shooting at another human being. Realistic computer video games also train a person in this new way, by shooting people in the video game. The downside for society is that many teenagers playing these realistic shoot-em-up video games are also trained to be able to kill through repetitive playing of the video games as Col. Grossman shows in his book (including many school shooters who were mentally challenged).

[poikilotrm]

Tirns out four deputies stood there and did nothing but listen to children die. F**king s**tstains. For all of my faults, and I have many, I am sometimes ashamed. One thing nobody has ever called me was coward. These “men” deserve to be spat upon wherever they are seen. They ought to publish their pictures and personal information.

[a_canadian]

Yeah, well, that was my initial reaction as well. Disgust. But then I reflected on the variable nature of humankind. In my experience, action has always been the obvious route, to actually do something to make a given situation better whether that's at a slow pace or a split second decision and intervention sort of thing. But most humans don't work like that. Which is maybe something we can work on, in the way we raise our kids, but there does seem to be research evidence to support the idea that the majority will tend to freeze rather than take action in such circumstances. Hard to put a moral judgment on what amounts to evolutionary variability.

[poikilotrm]

...

[poikilotrm]

If you are a cop, the job description encompasses acting in the name of public order and the law. They have exactly zero excuses for their behavior.

And I find it quite easy to identify their moral failings.

[a_canadian]

Yeah, good point. If you're gonna be a cop, you need to step up when folks are in danger, otherwise there's really no excuse for the fat salary and long hours warming a squad car seat.

[fishman]

Cops are not legally required to help you.

The US Supreme Court says:
"police do not owe a specific duty to provide police services to citizens"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_ ... f_Columbia

Yet you're legally required to help cops

Michigan law (my home state. Most states have this)
"750.483 Neglecting or refusing to aid sheriff, coroner or constable; misdemeanor."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refusin ... ce_officer


If that's not the most fucked up thing you've heard today then I don't even want to know what you've been up to today.

[whiterussian1974]

You are all absolutely correct. Police and GOv't Agencies have ZERO duty to protect. So disarming the Populace is as stupid as it gets.

Anyone who can qualify to get a CHL in FL should be allowed to carry if they are a School Employee, or even Parent/Volunteer. If they pass the Background, they will do better than those cowards just passing time between Side Jobs until Retirement.

"Gun-free Zones" are more accurately "Free Fire Zones." The children truly ARE fish in a barrel. Why not admit that schools and malls are killer Magnets just as Trailer Parks are Tornado Magnets?

This is why School Choice is so important. Let each Person decide where they will have their Needs best met. Not holding Children Hostages to Teachers' Unions. "Hey, Hey, NEA; how many kids did you kill today?"