DEFENDING THE INDEFENSIBLE
I refer to the most recent (as of this writing) mass murder, namely of Florida high school students. Specifically, I focus on the behavior of the “cowardly” police officer who “did nothing” while the shooting occurred. He has retired, and---without doubt---his productive and accepted life is over. Most people would agree with this social, if not legal, penalty. I offer an alternative view.
I admit, as always, that my sources are the commonly available mass media. Thus the “facts” may not be facts at all. However, my points will be explained, even if the reports are wrong.
First, (reportedly) the officer was “trained” for this kind of event. Thus his inactivity is inexcusable. Really? The school had over 3000 students! Are we to believe that, during training exercises, he stood somewhere, and watched over 3,000 students leave their classes? And what actions did he then act, as if the event were real? As the students repeatedly re-entered and exited schools, did he stand in several dozen different locations to be “trained?” And, of course, some other actor pretended to be a mass killer, and hid in---oh I do not know---about any of the several hundred places that a shooter could conceal himself. The trainee, of course, checked every classroom, every office, under every desk, every closet, and so on, infinitely. This would take only… oh, maybe six months, if done daily. The school would be suspended for these sessions, or was it decided that it was good to have an armed man burst into classrooms while students were present?
Professional police departments---and this sheriff’s department appear to be, at best, a third class outfit---really are trained NOT to react immediately to such a situation. The first goal is to stop and, if possible, to secure the area, and/or then gather information. Had he run into a building the next few police officers could not have gained knowledge regarding the situation. What would one want: (1) police who stopped and planned a coordinated approach, or (2) four nervous and armed guys running around, individually, and knowing almost nothing? They most likely would be ineffective, if not additionally dangerous.
I repeat: Real police, in hostage situations, are told first to secure the area. Then they wait until others arrive. This was not a hostage event. However, this was not necessarily known by the first officer. And that policy might have been the best course of action.
I could add more, but this is enough. There are situations for which there are no proper responses, but only less bad ones.
Comments