I can easily take a gun into a school, church, nightclub, or upper floor of a (casino) hotel, or any other building & use it. If I manage to get my car into one of those buildings, it’s probably not so useful for anything more & fairly tough to move around &/or hide it. (Alan Alda’s solid gold Ferrari in Tower Heist being the exception, but then again, that was a movie). A car will only work so well against a soft target crowd outside. Parades & other large crowd gatherings now routinely have trash trucks, or even better, dump trucks filled with sand (for a few extra tons of immovibility) to prevent an unauthorized vehicle from getting into said crowd & injuring anyone.
I responded here to not continue the hijack:
https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=20813770#post20813770
Well where I live we don’t have transporters so we have to walk to the buildings.
We get firearms training at least 3 times per year.
Once a year we do the state required Qualification Standard. The 75 feet distance on the last segment is a bit ridiculous for a handgun and a lot of trainers and chiefs balked at it but the state wouldn’t budge.
Once per year we train AR-15’s and shotgun qualification.
Once per year we put the first two trainings together and train active shooter scenarios which involves either simunition ammo or frangible bullets.
All of these are good training to have and as the years go on the more this stuff should become second nature. But as you may know very, very, very few police shootings involve active shooters. Most are so called “routine” contacts that go to shit and the target is on average 15 feet or less away. So while active shooter and combat shooting are extremely important they should be in addition to the “paper target” and barricade shooting, not instead of.
Sorry, Let me try again:
I see what you mean: that word really is the crux of my post. removing it completely invalidates my point. Good catch!
Did you have an article on that? I heard of one recently where the shooter was disarmed by men without guns, but then one of them was shot by the cops when they showed up.
So, you are backing away from your claim that people will drive cars through school walls?
He’s probably referring to the church shooting in Sutherland Springs, Texas.
I don’t think so, in that case, the shooter had already left the building, and then was chased down the road by the guy with a gun.
He is claiming that someone saw the shooting, left the building to go get his gun while people were being shot, then, after he was armed, he went back into the church and shot the killer.
I hadn’t heard that story.
That must have been what happened at Bowling Green.
IMO if he was an armed officer assigned to the building and he didn’t try to engage an active shooter, what was the point of him even being armed? I feel sorry for the guy but that was pure cowardice/negligence, people were counting on him and he failed.
You just can’t be this dense.
I second the invitation to the other thread, because I’d like to hear your explanation, too.
To back you up, here’s a story of a woman, at an elementary school, who killed zero. :rolleyes:
So, I’ll take that as a no, you do think that cars crashing through walls is the weapon of choice. You must live in a constant state of terror.
What was your comment about not having a teleporter have to do with anything then?
So Coward Cop is also a Skeevy McPervpants.
That article is about Andrew Medina, a security monitor at the school, while the OP is about Scot Peterson, a “resource officer” at the school.
Get your facts (and people) straight. Medina was a coach at the school, not the resource officer, Scot Peterson.
The WaPo had a pretty good article that gave Peterson’s narrative of events, and I find it pretty credible. I’ve always been skeptical that the situation confronting Peterson was a straightforward as people believe. I don’t think Peterson was overcome with fear that day; I think he was confused. Yes, he still effed up badly, but there’s a difference in botching a response because of confusion and botching it out of fear. Nobody knows how they’re going to respond in such extraordinary circumstances.
Update: coward cop facing the music.
I have serious concerns about using the criminal law in this way. Is the standard that the officer must always go charging through the front door with no information and getting a bullet in the head? That helps nobody.
This “for the children” stuff, IMHO, has gone too far when someone is facing years in prison for a split second decision that any of us might have made. I remain ready to be convinced otherwise, but this sets a very dangerous precedent.
It’s not exactly standard. After Columbine the feeling about tactics changed. For the most part it became “one may, two must.” Personally I wouldn’t wait for backup but it can be argued you can be more effective with two officers. But that’s tactics not the law.
I don’t know the basis for the perjury charge but the others seem to be a big reach to me and seem to go against previous case law.
I think the problem was that he repeated the decision for lots more seconds.