Replies

Before I say anything else, let me say that I respect your opinion and feel that you believe what you are saying. I disagree with it, but wholeheartedly acknowledge that neither of us can truly say what would have happened if different actions had been taken.

The shooter was spending enough time in each room, to shoot a number of people. Some of those people survived. Who’s to say they would have if an officer charged in and a gunfight ensued.

You say that as if there would be a gunfight only if the officer charged in. There was a gunfight going on already. It was a very one sided gunfight, but it was a gunfight.

Do you really believe that a shooter in a room full of unarmed people is likely to kill more people if he is being challenged by someone with a gun than if he is not?

The ones who survived were likely hiding in the room and not making themselves easy targets. The gunman would have entered the room from the door in the hallway. It is unlikely that he would have ventured far into the room, instead shooting from the doorway or just inside. That would give him the biggest advantage in a scenario where no one was challenging him.

Had someone engaged him from outside the room, that would likely have drawn his fire towards the hallway, away from the people in the room. And it isn't as if there would have been any people just wandering down the hallway at that time.

Perhaps you believe that the gunfire from the officer would have killed people. Keep in mind that those who survived were likely hiding to keep from being targets. That would have likely put them out of the way of the officer's fire as well. Particularly because his target would have been a very obvious one.

Even if the officer's shots would have hit someone in the room, it is less likely to be fatal than being hit from the weapon that the shooter was using.

What happens if he goes in, the crossfire winds up killing five more, and the officer dies also? What would that have accomplished?

That highly unlikely scenario would not accomplish anything productive. But I could likewise pose the following question; What happens if he goes in, and five less get killed, but the officer dies in the process? What would that have accomplished? It is no less likely that the scenario that you put forth.

One of the reasons that I would favor engaging the shooter is that in a good portion of these cases, once engaged, the shooter will kill themselves. It isn't always the case, but it has been on many occasions.

A question I have for you is under what circumstances would you believe that going into the building to engage the shooter would be worthwhile? How many people do you feel would be needed? What type of weapons would they need? What type of intel on the situation would they need? I am honestly curious about when and if you think force should be used against the shooter.

As a (somewhat) side note, I would point out that I think the actions of the officer should be judged against his training - and I do not know what that training is. If the policy in this situation was to stay outside and wait for backup, then he followed what he was trained to do.