Deputy who didn’t stop Florida shooting thinks he ‘did a good job’

NY Post ^ | February 22, 2018 | 10:57pm | David K. Li

[conservative98]

The sheriff’s deputy who failed to engage the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School “believed he did a good job” because he called in the location of the massacre and gave a description of the shooter, a top union official said Thursday.

School resource officer Scot Peterson, who resigned in disgrace from the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, was “distraught” about shooting that killed 17 people — but believed he did his duty, according to the president of the Broward Sheriff’s Office Deputies Association.

“He believed he did a good job calling in the location, setting up the perimeter and calling in the description (of Cruz),” said the union official, Jim Bell.

[DoughtyOne]

It’s not ludicrous.

He didn’t kill every kid in each room.

Some kids that survived, may not have if a gunfight had taken place in one of the rooms.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you for your comment. I’ve expressed my vies on this and repeating them would not be productive.

[DoughtyOne]

In certain situations, it’s feudal to enter the fray.

Sure people with concealed carry enter into situations all the time. When the circumstances seem reasoned, they do it.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the additional comment.

He was there. He knew the location. He knew what the chances were the he could impact the situation favorably.

He didn’t think he could. He didn’t.

You can make of it what you will. So have I.

[DoughtyOne]

NO! I am only trying to mention real world circumstances that you can’t rule out.

I appreciate your service, but I am not convinced this guy was the bad guy some folks are making him out to be.

[nonliberal]

Sheriff, superintendent of schools and the coward deputy.

[DoughtyOne]

Just grand. Thanks for the mention.

[DoughtyOne]

That’s how I see it (moving parts).

I mentioned up thread I would not have entered this thread if it didn’t seem this guy was being almost universally trashed.

If there had been some pros and cons out there, it wouldn’t have been as critical for me to offer up some defense for the guy.

I’m not convinced he’s as bad as some folks have made him out to be.

Thanks for your thoughts on it.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Mariner.

I think folks on both sides have made some good points.

I wasn’t convinced this guy should have 100% of our posters against him, so I’ve tried to provide some counter-balance.

Your comments seem reasoned. That’s how I would approach it.

[DoughtyOne]

I doubt he gets relieved. If you have seen that he only works part of the day, you may have a point.

Breaks and eating are not unreasoned most of the time. In the decade he’s been there, this is the first situation like this.

(I believe I read he started there in 2007)

[DoughtyOne]

I know we all wish this hadn't happened, or it had been stopped at 12 victims, but I'm not sure if this guy had run right in he would have stopped this incident right then and there.

That's true. Many situations are surprising and unexpected for police. I'll try to take a little more time with arguments more carefully written here in order to avoid any misunderstanding.

If I gave you a hard time, I proabably shouldn't have.  When you're going up against a good portion of the posters on a thread, it can get a bit frustration.  Thanks for this nice response.

In cleaner jurisdictions, police are required to act alone more than most people are led to believe. Many have done so successfully. When an attacker is in the act of trying to murder his victims, an officer must immediately try to stop the attacker.

In certain situations, I agree with this.  In others, I truly don't.  I'm not trying to be agrumentative, but there are situaitons where you can't simply charge into the home, or some other setting.  You have a duty to help when you can, and an obligation to your family, the department, and the jurisdiction when you can't.  You have been trained and have built up a long history of experiences and incorporated a lot of learned concepts into your policing.  The department has spent a lot of money on you, and the city has a big investment in you also.  You aren't only obligated to yourself, to use your head.  You are an asset too.  There's nothing to be ashamed about, if the cards don't seem to support your rapid direct invovlement.

A calm car stop requiring an arrest of a likely dangerous someone will sometimes wait for backup. An arrest of a potentially dangerous someone asleep in his bed or high on a drug and not attacking anyone at the time might wait for a team. Not so for an attack in progress.

I generally agree with your thoughts here.  I cannot say I do in all instances.  Sometimes the cirumstances do not support the idea you should go in.  When they don't, I don't want an office sacrificing himself for an almost certain negative outcome.  If an officer chooses to go in, I support his decision.  If he choosed not to, I will generally support him.  I can't say that I always could.  If there was a very good chance of him being successful, I would frown on his decision not to.

For other examples, a robbery or home invasion in progress must be stopped as quickly as physically possible by he who arrives alone or arrives first. If he is already on site, he must do it right now. If several officers arrive at the same time without waiting for each other, that's better.

I don't agree that you must charge into a robbery or home invasion in progress.  What you're looking at is a hostage situation, and a perp that you have no idea how he/she will react.  Even with a second officer in these two scenarios, I think it's best to set the parameter and wait for a team to work on the problem.  At this point, you'll need a qualified negotiator.    

Maybe there's a jurisdiction that allows for victims to be killed, while one officer on site waits for backup. As a local constituent, though, I wouldn't willingly, politically allow such a jurisdiction to continue that kind of policy.

In the two above situations, rushing the home would be very problematic.  First of all, the victims could be jeopardized.  Second, you would be running into the barrel of a gun.  As much as you would like to, there are times when you need to use your head and back off until a team arrives.  Let the perp know you're there, and there's no exit.  And then wait for a special tactics team to pick up the ball..

How does a police officer have a better chance at prevailing in situations that would appear to weight against him? Better training and more training is the real edge. It's always beengn that way. So yes, backup when time allows. If a life might be saved by acting now, then act now.

I have not problem with that, as long as circumstances are clear that you can effect a rescue.  In most of these types of situations, there's a blind aspect to this.  You have no idea where the perps are, and what their control over the hostages is.  Rather than rush in, you alert them that you are there.  This means they need hostages to bargain with.  That's about all the stabilization you can effect safely.

These are my thoughts.  Thanks for yours.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree. Thanks, and take care...

[DoughtyOne]

Okay. Thanks.

I appreciate the give and take here.

Take care.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm using this post to sign off the thread.  You can ignore it.

Folks, I came onto this thread, because it seemed so lopsided against the deputy.  I generally take a pass on these threads, but I wanted to see at least some defense of the deputy here.

I think there are about ten entities that share blame here, so I didn't like seeing the deputy trashed universally.  I'm not convinced he was the bad guy some folks are making him out to be.

I have tried to respond to most if not all the folks who opposed my views.

I'm going to leave the thread now.  

I think my views have been expressed, and those who oppose me have had a chance to say so, and explain why.

Take care.

[Postman]

Agreed. A perimeter of one armed coward keeping watch from behind a car is, by definition, a very inadequate perimeter. I suspect he thinks he may also have surrounded the suspect.

[Postman]

You’re back???? You said you were going nighty-night and would re-enter the fray on the morrow..

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

Thanks. I'm still trying to figure out what happened. The sheriff said his policy was to always approach shooters in this kind of situation, but reportedly, even when 4 deputies were there they did not go in. See story:

Coral Springs police upset at some [3 more] Broward deputies for not entering school

[BykrBayb]

Thanks for being a voice of reason.
Have a blessed night.

[GOPJ]

Or maybe he’s nuts...

http://allnewspipeline.com/Florida_Shooter_MKUltracated.php

http://allnewspipeline.com/Florida_Shooter_MKUltracated.phphttps:

//www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hearings/95mkultra.pdf

http://allnewspipeline.com/Florida_Shooter_MKUltracated.php

---

https://archive.org/stream/BeholdAPaleHorse_267/BillCooper-BeholdAPaleHorse.txt

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]