|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 24, 2018 0:16:56 GMT
So we now know of a decorated officer who was outside the school, and did not intervene against the shooter: www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/nikolas-cruz-florida-shooting.htmlWas it neglect, or merely a paralysis of fear? (And please, let's not do a gun control debate. Let's just focus on what this man did, or didn't, do.) |
|
|
|
Post by jasonward on Feb 24, 2018 0:43:43 GMT
How on earth can we answer that question? What is cowardice anyway? In WWI we used to execute/murder by firing squad, soldiers that couldn't face being in the fight as cowards, but now we recognise it's no such thing, it's either overcome with fear (which intensive and prolonged training deals with) or it's PTSD.
So what exactly is cowardice? And how the on earth does Trump or indeed anyone know what was happening in Scot Peterson's head?
Maybe he's a coward, but I suspect he was terrified and overwhelmed, if that's cowardice then there are a lot of cowards out there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 8:30:44 GMT
He was trained to do a job that no amount of training can possibly get you ready for should the worst actually happen. I've seen fear completely paralyse otherwise "brave" people and it's not something they're able to control. I wouldn't judge the man - I'm sure he's in a horrible place of his own.
To have the President of his country publicly call him a coward and failure - a President who avoided Vietnam only to later mock John McCain because "the real heroes don't get captured" - just goes to show how much of a sociopathic bully sits in the Oval Office these days. While the rest of the world just marvels at how "thoughts and prayers" and "Maybe all teachers need guns" are the only solutions being mooted by those high enough in American office to make change.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 24, 2018 9:03:02 GMT
The initial impression is to label him a coward, but on second thought who knows how bad things could have gotten if there were two sides firing guns. It could have started a mass panic, or gotten the gunman panicked and the last thing you want in a situation where someone is armed with an assault rifle (which has no business being in an urban area whatsoever) is that someone being panicked.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 9:25:34 GMT
The initial impression is to label him a coward, but on second thought who knows how bad things could have gotten if there were two sides firing guns. It could have started a mass panic, or gotten the gunman panicked and the last thing you want in a situation where someone is armed with an assault rifle (which has no business being in an urban area whatsoever) is that someone being panicked. Taking the political debate aside though - that was the job. Saying "Could have made it worse" wouldn't be a valid defence as his job is explicitly to provide security and prevent crime at that school which at that time meant taking action and going after the shooter. We can judge the merits of the job role as outsiders who come from countries where this kinda thing just doesn't happen but that would be glib navel gazing. The SRO scheme is designed specifically to have him fire back should that happen. He can't act in a pacifist way in that situation if he accepted the job. His job was to take the shooter down by any means necessary. Not to decide on his own - and I've not heard anyone but you suggest this - that he'd only make things worse. He's being used as a patsy for the event - they're trying to make him the villain rather than the shooter, the NRA or the Second Amendment. I would never - ever - label someone a coward for freezing when asked to take a life. If anything I think it makes Peterson more human than his President or those who accused some of the kids of being actors. I couldn't - but then I'd never apply for that job. |
|
|
|
Post by nucleusofswarm on Feb 24, 2018 9:26:00 GMT
To have the President of his country publicly call him a coward and failure - a President who avoided Vietnam only to later mock John McCain because "the real heroes don't get captured" - just goes to show how much of a sociopathic bully sits in the Oval Office these days. The irony has certainly not eluded me. |
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 24, 2018 9:41:17 GMT
The initial impression is to label him a coward, but on second thought who knows how bad things could have gotten if there were two sides firing guns. It could have started a mass panic, or gotten the gunman panicked and the last thing you want in a situation where someone is armed with an assault rifle (which has no business being in an urban area whatsoever) is that someone being panicked. Taking the political debate aside though - that was the job. Saying "Could have made it worse" wouldn't be a valid defence as his job is explicitly to provide security and prevent crime at that school which at that time meant taking action and going after the shooter. We can judge the merits of the job role as outsiders who come from countries where this kinda thing just doesn't happen but that would be glib navel gazing. The SRO scheme is designed specifically to have him fire back should that happen. He can't act in a pacifist way in that situation if he accepted the job. His job was to take the shooter down by any means necessary. Not to decide on his own - and I've not heard anyone but you suggest this - that he'd only make things worse. He's being used as a patsy for the event - they're trying to make him the villain rather than the shooter, the NRA or the Second Amendment. I would never - ever - label someone a coward for freezing when asked to take a life. If anything I think it makes Peterson more human than his President or those who accused some of the kids of being actors. I couldn't - but then I'd never apply for that job. Still, in any situation where there's a gunman the key thing should be to isolate them from other people (potential casualties) and get them to stand down their weapon(s). If you've got a weapon and you hear someone firing from a direction you can't ascertain, what would you do? Because I've seen in many films and TV shows soldiers or other armed people point their weapons right where they think the noise is coming from. Add in a finger on the trigger (normally a gun safety no-no), as well as a crowded environment (a school full of teenagers), and that risks other casualties. It's a horrible situation to begin with. Ideally the deputy would shoot the gunman or incapacitate him in such a way that no one would be harmed (shoulder or arm, so he could no longer use the assault rifle). The NRA needs to see things as they are. They have fostered the idea that Americans need guns to be safe and their wealth is blood money because of this. Guns are causing more problems than they solve, and there needs to be reform and education around responsible gun use. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 9:54:14 GMT
But you're talking theoretical and fictitious scenarios here rather than dealing with what actually happened. You're talking "ideally what should happen is..." when clearly there's no way of making this ideal. You're talking "In the movies..." when this was as real as it gets. Peterson's boss, and most law enforcement who have spoken on the issue- said he should have killed the shooter. Not tried to disarm him or humanely shoot him - blow his head off. This is the done thing in these scenarios, and not just in the US. Again, we could debate the rights and wrongs of this - and probably agree as liberals - but we're talking about this specific incident not speculating on a hypothetical.
Peterson didn't even go in the building while those shots were going off so I've really no idea what you're talking about saying he could have isolated and disarmed the shooter. How could he take the guy down, humanely or otherwise, if he won't go in? Again...this happened - we're not talking what should have happened in an ideal situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by omega on Feb 24, 2018 10:16:25 GMT
But you're talking theoretical and fictitious scenarios here rather than dealing with what actually happened. You're talking "ideally what should happen is..." when clearly there's no way of making this ideal. You're talking "In the movies..." when this was as real as it gets. Peterson's boss, and most law enforcement who have spoken on the issue- said he should have killed the shooter. Not tried to disarm him or humanely shoot him - blow his head off. This is the done thing in these scenarios, and not just in the US. Again, we could debate the rights and wrongs of this - and probably agree as liberals - but we're talking about this specific incident not speculating on a hypothetical. Peterson didn't even go in the building while those shots were going off so I've really no idea what you're talking about saying he could have isolated and disarmed the shooter. How could he take the guy down, humanely or otherwise, if he won't go in? Again...this happened - we're not talking what should have happened in an ideal situation. The only insight into the situation I have is from news reports on the evening news and the internet. I understand there are factors beyond my understanding and I'm not claiming any expertise in handling weapons. If Peterson had gone in, could the death toll, which was 17 too many, have risen? It's clear Cruz wasn't in sound mental condition, having anger management issues and displaying disturbing tendencies as well as being quite the keyboard warrior. He'd gotten into a fight with his ex girlfriend's boyfriend and been suspended. If he'd been confronted, while armed with an assault rifle, would he have reacted in a violent way? Could Peterson have dealt with the threat Cruz posed without further loss of life? Peterson didn't do his job, he froze. That's consistent in the human character. But could any action taken have had any impact on the tragedy? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 10:41:50 GMT
But you're talking theoretical and fictitious scenarios here rather than dealing with what actually happened. You're talking "ideally what should happen is..." when clearly there's no way of making this ideal. You're talking "In the movies..." when this was as real as it gets. Peterson's boss, and most law enforcement who have spoken on the issue- said he should have killed the shooter. Not tried to disarm him or humanely shoot him - blow his head off. This is the done thing in these scenarios, and not just in the US. Again, we could debate the rights and wrongs of this - and probably agree as liberals - but we're talking about this specific incident not speculating on a hypothetical. Peterson didn't even go in the building while those shots were going off so I've really no idea what you're talking about saying he could have isolated and disarmed the shooter. How could he take the guy down, humanely or otherwise, if he won't go in? Again...this happened - we're not talking what should have happened in an ideal situation. The only insight into the situation I have is from news reports on the evening news and the internet. I understand there are factors beyond my understanding and I'm not claiming any expertise in handling weapons. If Peterson had gone in, could the death toll, which was 17 too many, have risen? It's clear Cruz wasn't in sound mental condition, having anger management issues and displaying disturbing tendencies as well as being quite the keyboard warrior. He'd gotten into a fight with his ex girlfriend's boyfriend and been suspended. If he'd been confronted, while armed with an assault rifle, would he have reacted in a violent way? Could Peterson have dealt with the threat Cruz posed without further loss of life? Peterson didn't do his job, he froze. That's consistent in the human character. But could any action taken have had any impact on the tragedy? You again seem to be reviewing the job of the SRO for some reason - his job was to engage and take the suspect down. Fast and hard - he doesn't get to stand back and ask if putting himself in the situation makes it worse - his job was to get inbetween the kids and danger. NOW. Yes - he didn't - but you seem to be arguing a point that he might have been acting out of some kind of zen-focus where he thought more people would be endangered by his actions than his inaction. Which he couldn't possibly have known. Not even those in the media defending him from Trump's attacks are coming up with this stuff, because it's not pertinent at best and wildly speculative. "He froze, he was scared, he's human" is enough - or should be. We don't need to invent scenarios in which the kids would be safer with SROs doing nothing because it might make the killer even madder. That's out-there. Well intentioned but not practical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 24, 2018 11:07:37 GMT
It certainly highlights how ridiculous the idea of arming teachers would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Timelord007 on Feb 25, 2018 8:48:08 GMT
Until one is faced with a extreme life or death situation nobody knows how one will react, when i was sexually assaulted as a 12 yr old my whole body froze with fear, for two decades i struggled to understand why i didn't fight back so i don't judge this persons actions, yeah he was a cop he was sent to do a job but he froze he's human.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 10:09:02 GMT
Just a heads up, this is fairly intense. I'll put it in spoiler tags so people can skip it and if you're not up to it, don't let curiosity get the better of you, listen to your instinct and skip it. A friend of mine who worked in the police force knew a man who answered a call to respond to gunshots in a country town. He found a young woman who had been shot by her grandmother for being gay. The grandmother had shot herself shortly after shooting her grandchild. He took her up into his arms and he left with her to the car to radio for an ambulance. What happened to the girl is unclear, I hope she lived, but reports later discovered that the grandmother had been alive. She had failed in her suicide attempt and didn't have the strength to raise the shotgun against him and put one in his back. That broke him. His nerve snapped. The potential danger had him put on desk work for the rest of his time he served on the force. He said that if he'd known that the grandmother was still alive, he'd have never gone in. Is that heroic? No, but it is human. We are biologically programmed to value our own lives (even in the worst depths of despair) and we're an imperfect lot. We're capable of being partisan, petty, arrogant, snobbish as well as brave, selfless and genuinely miraculous. Personally, I can't bring myself to judge him because he's going to spend the rest of his life wrestling with that moment of time. I hope the poor man ends up being okay.  I really hope that mental health continues on its arc towards de-stigmatisation. I really want to see these outreach programmes gain traction and kids learn that it's okay to talk about these sorts of things. It's important. |
|
