Parkland Florida School Shooting

[AZgunguy]

Mass shootings may statistically be rare events, but the perception is that they aren’t. With the caveat that I am far out of my lane, IIRC, the tactic of “hold a perimeter and wait for SWAT” began to be discredited after Columbine.

SROs have had to know that their job isn’t just a mixture of Officers Friendly and Krupke. SROs are the ones who are on the scene when a school-shooting starts; the only one there with the best tool to end it.

Kids are apparently being taught “run, hide, fight.” Parkland had kids who could have run but didn’t, dying to help others escape.

So I ask: Is it wrong to expect an armed SRO to be at least as brave as unarmed kids? Is it wrong to charge one who was not with the equivalent of cowardice in battle (or, as the Brits used to put it, “lack of moral fibre”)?

I feel that he should be charged because his job is protection of the school and he failed miserably at it. He chose to stay safe while other officers ran inside when they arrived and dealt with the situation.
Too often I have seen where an officer can't hack the street and ends up as the SRO, that needs to stop. If a cop can't hack it, he needs to find a job he can hack. The problem we run into is that there is already a shortage of officers, and now more people might decide to find another profession. Makes for an interesting conundrum.

[Stephanie B]

That's plausible on a school campus. The echoes around the buildings can be very deceptive. Charging into the wrong building wouldn't have helped much, and then he'd have been nailed for hiding in another building. ... What would be the determination he had run into the wrong building, fully convinced that's where the shooter was which ultimately would have led to the same outcome?

"Trying and failing" is an entirely different issue than "failing to try." If he truly thought that the shots were coming from Building X and charged in there, then the worst that can be legitimately said is he was wrong.

"Dispatch, I think the shooter is in Building X, I'm going in." I don't see anything actionable, unless he later admitted that he knew the shooter was in Building Z.

[Stephanie B]

I feel that he should be charged because his job is protection of the school and he failed miserably at it. He chose to stay safe while other officers ran inside when they arrived and dealt with the situation.
Too often I have seen where an officer can't hack the street and ends up as the SRO, that needs to stop. If a cop can't hack it, he needs to find a job he can hack. The problem we run into is that there is already a shortage of officers, and now more people might decide to find another profession. Makes for an interesting conundrum.

Yes, it does. I would presume that the cops who can hack the streets are going to want to stay there, rather than be a SRO. Maybe an answer is to rotate cops through that job; give them x weeks of training in SRO-manship and then assign them for a school year. It'd be like mess-cranking, everyone has to do it once. (Probably wouldn't work out. What do I know, closest I came to being a cop was standing shore patrol watches.)

Still, that gun that's riding on the SRO's hip is not there for show. It's not a token of office. It's not the equivalent of a kirpan.

There are some jobs where an element of heroism is part of the job description. Not every soldier is Alvin York, but every nation fully expects its soldiers to do their jobs when the bullets are flying about. We make fun of nations whose soldiers show less than what is expected ("_____ Army rifle for sale, never fired, only dropped once"). On the civilian side, firefighters and cops are both in jobs where there is a chance that they may have to lay their lives on the line to save others. That may not seem fair. But if somebody is not willing to accept that part of the job, then don't put on the badge; if one needs a city job, then drive a garbage truck or hire onto Public Works or go get a teaching certificate.

[ranger]

I like your idea of rotating officers through the SRO role. I have never been in law enforcement so I do not know if good idea or not.

[Caballoflaco]

I feel that he should be charged because his job is protection of the school and he failed miserably at it. He chose to stay safe while other officers ran inside when they arrived and dealt with the situation.
Too often I have seen where an officer can't hack the street and ends up as the SRO, that needs to stop. If a cop can't hack it, he needs to find a job he can hack. The problem we run into is that there is already a shortage of officers, and now more people might decide to find another profession. Makes for an interesting conundrum.

As has been hashed out, Florida doesn’t have a law against dereliction or neglect of duty for police officers, other states do. If there isn’t a law on the books then you can’t charge, no matter what your feelings say, or how many votes you hope to get in the upcoming elections. The most American solution would be for Florida lawmakers to pass a law making LE dereliction of duty a crime. Hell, you could even name it the Coward Scot Peterson Law.

The current charges seem to be just another circus to appeal to voters emotions.

[whomever]

"Maybe an answer is to rotate cops through that job; give them x weeks of training in SRO-manship and then assign them for a school year. It'd be like mess-cranking, everyone has to do it once."

My wife was a teacher, and so got to see several different SRO's in action. It takes a certain mindset - the best of them were outgoing, friendly to the kids, etc, etc. The worst stood at the side of the hall, arms folded, glaring at the kids from behind dark sunglasses.

That matters, even excluding everything besides preventing shootings, because the best way to prevent shootings is when the kids are comfortable enough with the SRO to come by and say "Hey, I dunno anything specific, but David has seemed awful tense lately...".

I'm a little doubtful that a few weeks of training could have changed guy #2 into guy #1.

[HCM]

I like your idea of rotating officers through the SRO role. I have never been in law enforcement so I do not know if good idea or not.

It’s not a good idea. As critical as it can be, the role of defender vs mass shooting is is still a rare, outlier event.

The problem with such a rotation is a good cop knows his beat and as such good SRO knows his / her school and the kids in it. They can be a very effective resource in both dealing with crime in school (involving both students and parents) and crimes committed by students off campus.

For a pure “defender”job like an elementary school, the best answer is retired guys who can handle trouble if it comes up, but has experienced enough that their idea of a “good day” is when nothing happens. This is the the thought process behind the U.S. Marshals hiring retired cops for federal court security and it has proven effective.

[AMC]

Still, that gun that's riding on the SRO's hip is not there for show. It's not a token of office. It's not the equivalent of a kirpan.

Unfortunately, for far too many, yes it is. It is a gun shaped rabbit's foot. A magical token that they believe keeps the bad things at bay. This is increasingly true in many large cities, especially out west. I have commented before that we in California are being transformed from Law Enforcement to Law Encouragement. Community Engagement is the overriding concern of the agency....not enforcing the law, or maintaining public safety. Our agency is touting the 30% drop in use of force incidents as a major victory. Unsaid is that this comes at the cost of an over 70% reduction in self initiated activity by the cops.

The courageous personality types you're referring to are quite literally being weeded out in the hiring process, in favor of friendly inoffensive folks who "look like the community". City HR can overrule the Department and order the hiring of a candidate who has multiple disqualifying factors in their background (think arrests, integrity issues, clear mental health problems) because "diversity". Our Police Commission actually rewrote our use of force policy to enshrine "time and distance" and "tactical repositioning", and it states that no one will be held in neglect of duty for not responding aggressively to crimes in progress...they will have fulfilled their duty to de-escalate. Peterson would've gotten a Commission Commendation.

[Totem Polar]

"Trying and failing" is an entirely different issue than "failing to try."

^^^This really is the nut of the issue.

"Still, that gun that's riding on the SRO's hip is not there for show. It's not a token of office. It's not the equivalent of a kirpan."

Unfortunately, for far too many, yes it is. It is a gun shaped rabbit's foot. A magical token that they believe keeps the bad things at bay. This is increasingly true in many large cities, especially out west. I have commented before that we in California are being transformed from Law Enforcement to Law Encouragement. Community Engagement is the overriding concern of the agency....not enforcing the law, or maintaining public safety.

^^^and this is the issue.

[BehindBlueI's]

I like your idea of rotating officers through the SRO role. I have never been in law enforcement so I do not know if good idea or not.

Anything people get rotated through is going to be looked at as a punishment assignment and treated as such by large chunks of the work force. It also takes a certain mindset and personality to be good at the 99%+ of the job that's not active shooter response. I can tick off 5 cops off the top of my head I'd take in the Active Shooter Lottery I wouldn't want dealing with students routinely. I'm probably in that group as well. I don't have the patience, I don't like dealing with other people's children, and I've certainly not gone out of my way to stay to maintain cultural touchstones with the youngest generation.