TexasCHLforum.com

Paladin wrote:

OlBill wrote:So he followed orders?

It appears Peterson was the first to know about Cruz on school grounds and the gunfire, so Peterson could have acted before the radio calls went out.

Rob72 wrote:If your profession is arms, does your primary decisional domain include violence? If the essential framework (for applying OODA) does not include receiving and/or delivering violence, you have models in place that have inherently failed before you have contact, right? E.g., if I'm a triathelete, I have to have a plan for changing a bike tire, at speed. It may only happen once in 5 years, but that plan is imperative, if I plan to win.

We have a domain in which we operate, in which certain events are common/probable/possible, and our OODA-loop should be tagged to key event points within that domain, and flexible for greater/lesser resource demands, and capable of cascading, perhaps in some state of chaos, but with direction towards a goal of survivability and maintenance of resources/assets. If I'm "free-flying", in a completely new environment, with unfamiliar resources and no intel, then I am left with only a reflexive loop, with diminishied survivability.

A measure of mental "war-gaming" is necessary to validate a decisional model, and clearly, that didn't happen, so I'm not sure of the disagreement...?

In any event, I do agree, there is quite a bit more to the story, and I would not expect it to be good.

Rob72 wrote:

OlBill wrote:
I've been thinking about your reference to Boyd's Loop. Very interesting.

I would say that the shooter shattered everyone's loop with his first shot.

So what does it take to get it back?

How do you regroup and regain the initiative?

Of course I disagree about it not being a rifle vs. pistol fight.

The ability to verbalize and execute (in drill) your decisional model, and to do so with injected random variables, is a strong indicator of success(or failure). If the first shot broke the decisional process for someone, then by definition, they had no effective decisional model with which to begin.

School officers: (should)

* intimately know the terrain
* intimately know many, if not most, persons at the scene
* be trained to initiate a fundamental response, regardless of the nature of the threat. Afterall, their job is to maintain order.
* have assessed their personal capabilities
* rectified deficiencies
* have assessed hardware capabilities/deficiencies
* made reasonable efforts to notify Command of their personal findings

Bottom line, whether it is a fire alarm, gunshot, "Big BOOM," whatever, the initial Assess, Secure, Intervene, should be pretty uniform, and immediately implemented.

troglodyte wrote:
Pawpaw and Textension are correct. This is not a pistol vs. rifle toe-to-toe fight. Nobody is expecting Peterson, or anyone else, to charge the Bolivia army with Butch and Sundance. I have never been remotely in this type of situation but I was a teacher for many years and thought of this situation many times. The officer only had to find the shooter, engage, upset his OODA, and neutralize the threat or at least buy time until the Calvary comes or the kids can get away. Move to the threat but do so in a way that you can be effective. Blinding rushing in may do nothing more than get yourself killed and now you have squandered away the opportunity to deter or neutralize the bad guy.

We are arguing the pistol vs. rifle yet we expect our teachers to turn away an attacker with books and staples, or a fire extinguisher if they are so lucky to have one in their room. No, not all teachers should be armed. Not all are cut out for it. Let the ones that are willing and able have the tools to protect their kids. The teacher's first responsibility is to take care of the students in their immediate care, not search and destroy. If the opportunity arises to engage outside the classroom or hold down the hallway then that is a bonus. Staff that is more mobile, principals, custodian's, office staff, may have more opportunity to S&D but even then it has to be carefully calculated.

Paladin wrote:

OlBill wrote:
His job is to "charge in" to a rifle while armed with a pistol?

You are completely correct to think that charging in alone with a pistol against a rifle is extraordinarily dangerous. Perhaps fatal. A person would need serious skills to win that fight.

Reading through the reports it appears that Deputy Peterson was well aware that Cruz was a self declared "school shooter" before the shooting happened. Peterson saw the expelled Cruz arrive on campus and instead of moving in behind Cruz and detaining Cruz before Cruz could pull his weapon out of the duffel bag, Peterson chose to "call it in", wait until Cruz started shooting, and stood outside the building for 6 minutes while people were dying. That's how I'm understanding the situation.

anygunanywhere wrote:

OlBill wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:

OlBill wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

OlBill wrote:We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

I disagree. That is an unrealistic expectation. People who do it will do it regardless their job, like the coach. Many if not most won't. None of us know what we would have done, we just like to think we do.

How do you train somebody to "charge in"? How do you train somebody to fight a rifle with a pistol?

When did he know how many shooters there were?

He signed on for the job. He took the paycheck for 30 years. He wore the badge for 30 years. He put on the facade for 30 years. He failed in the seconds that it counted. He is a coward. He is scum.

Defend his actions if you want. We are known by the company that we keep. Thanks for posting Bill.

Good day.

anygunanywhere wrote:

OlBill wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

OlBill wrote:We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

anygunanywhere wrote:

OlBill wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

OlBill wrote:We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

OlBill wrote:We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

srothstein wrote:First, in the interest of full transparency, I did not read all of the posts on five pages, I skimmed them and read the ones I thought looked interesting.

There seems to be a discussion in some circles of what the true responsibility of an armed person is in a case like the school shooting in Parkland. In my opinion, it differs by the person and why they are carrying. I carry as a retired peace officer. I no longer have any obligation to charge in to a shooting. But as Charles pointed out, some of us are wired to run to the sound of guns and there is little doubt in my mind that, assuming I was there for some reason, I would go try to engage the shooter. I doubt anyone could find fault in me if I did not do so though.

If you have an LTC, I believe you have no obligation to defend anyone else other than yourself. I would not find any fault in any LTC who did not charge in, and would consider the ones who do when not required to be heroes. You are just wired that way, I guess, and I have no problem with that.

A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in. In this case, I agree that it is not his being a hero, but him doing the job he is paid to do. I never agreed with the secure the perimeter training we received in the past and am glad studies after Columbine said to do otherwise. The ALERRT program at Texas State has professors who researched this and say the best way to end a shooting is for the first responders to get in there and challenge the shooter. In most cases, the shooter will suicide rather than face the police though this is not a guaranteed response. The shooter might really shoot back at the police and the first responder who goes in might die. But he saves lives while doing so even if it is just by distracting the shooter while more of the victims get away.

And one of the thinks that bothers me right now is the news coverage all focusing on the deputies who did not go in. We are missing the chance to honor a true hero. There was a man there who was not armed and was never expected to respond to a shooter the way he did. But the football coach, who helped out as a part-time security officer on campus, knew what he was doing and put himself between the shooter and students. Aaron Feis died while being a hero. I don't want us to focus on the cowards and not remember to honor the true heroes.