I read the issue of SWAT magazine that immediately followed the massacre and it is a HILARIOUSLY EXTREME example of rationalization —SWAT couldn’t enter the structure and do ANNNNYTHING because of the alarms and spraying water from the sprinkler system....blah, blah, blah....
Basically these guys just lived to walk around acting tough but when there was the TINIEST chance they could get injured or killed, well, that was a TOTALLY different story.
They just cowered outside patiently —for hours— while kids were getting killed, and then for very well afterwards. They were unwilling to face any danger AT ALL.
Cops have no duty to protect any adult or child. That’s just how it is. Everyone is on their own, but many have this illusion that a 911 can save you.
Unfair.
The SWAT guys followed doctrine, which assumed a standoff, negotiations, etc. Perfectly reasonable doctrine appropriate for what happened in the past.
New situation means the old doctrine was inadequate.
Just as on 9/11 the doctrine was that in a hijacking you did as you were told, flew around for a few hours or days in discomfort, then sold your story for a bunch of money.
SWAT and airline passengers now have different doctrines.
There was one wounded faculty member, in particular, who almost certainly bled out because of that delay in confronting the two scum.
Of course, if the SWAT team had entered the building and accidentally killed an innocent student, you would have been the first to blame them.
That’s the problem with you keyboard cowboys. You have an alligator mouth and a hummingbird ass.
Who is John Stone?