TexasCHLforum.com

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

howdy wrote:

jmra wrote:

Texas_Blaze wrote:Are police officers obligated to protect? No.

Morally or legally?

They felt neither at Columbine, Luby's, McDonald's, Virginia Tech......

Now you've totally lost me. I have no clue what you are implying.

Your question was are the Police morally or legally required to act, and my comment eluded to the fact that at the mass shootings of Columbine High School (for over an hour and a half), the Luby's cafeteria in Texas, the McDonalds in California, at Virginia Tech and so on, the Police did not enter the building until the shooting stopped. They formed a defensive position outside the building and waited. They were under no legal or moral obligation to intervene in the shooting.

I think we are getting off the original subject.

We are getting off track but in my opinion you are twisting the SCOTUS ruling which dealt with liability and the ability to sue officers not what their legal and or moral obligations are. As to responses to active shooters, the common theory on how to react and what is the best and safest way to respond has dramatically changed. The 1999 Columbine shooting being the initial and primary reason for said change. At one time it was thought the best way to proceed would be to wait until you had overwhelming force and attempt to negotiate before attempting direct confrontation because in most hostage situations it was believed that method would minimize casualties. Now dept are training to send officers in as soon as possible because it is believed to quickest way to end these situations in no small part due to the tendency for active shooters to suicide when confronted with law enforcement instead of trying to engage LEO's. Active shooter you would use one tactic but against a terroristic threat you would use a different tactic. Law enforcement didn't refuse to engage at Columbine because they didn't care or some court said they didn't have to. They used the tactics they were trained in against a scenario that they just were not prepared for. Considering how many police officers put their lives at risk for their fellow citizens the anti cop thing goes a bit too far when you try and portray individual officers as uncaring.

The only real criticism I might have is how close you let him get to you when first confronting him. I would of kept him at arm length and not allowed him closer. Putting your arm out to stop him from getting closer would almost certainly be taken by the other guy as an aggressive move and wind him up a bit but it maintains needed space if you do have to defend yourself.