BCSO Captain that called for a perimeter at Stoneman Douglas identified

A few days ago we learned that a Broward County Sheriff's Office captain had, apparently, ordered a perimeter to be set up at Stoneman Douglas HS rather than having officers make entry into the school. That captain, previously known only by her unit identifier, has now been identified. The Sierra unit in question has been identified as BCSO Captain Jan Jordan. It appears that Jordan was another hire brought in shortly after Israel took over as Broward County Sheriff.

The problem I have with this report is that so far as I know, FoxNews keeps referencing dispatch logs that they've obtained but are not releasing for some reason. I for one would like the ability to read these logs for myself, rather than relying on a media outlet to hand-feed us bits and pieces of it. Even better would be the actual recordings, because it seems to me that tone and inflection are a key element here. Personnel at the school are claiming that they took Jordan's "Need perimeter" transmission as an order, but Jordan is claiming (through a BCSO PIO) that it was an interrogative and not an order.

A couple of things that come to mind for me:

1) being a captain, Jordan should know better than to make ambiguous transmissions like it appears she did. If you're asking a question you ask a question, and if you're giving a command you give a command. You don't word vomit into the radio and expect everybody else to figure out what the # you meant.

2)

In the email, the BSO spokesperson also shed some light on the allegations against Jordan’s commands writing, “Captain Jordan asked if a perimeter had been established after the shooter left the building.”

If the tape was on a 20 minute delay, how could anybody have possibly known the shooter had left the building? Answer: they didn't, and BCSO is trying to coverup a craptastic command display. At 1430 they received a call that the shooter was still inside the building and in a specific classroom. At 1432 we have the first mention of "need perimeter." Are we supposed to believe that Jordan became privy to information nobody else had in those two minutes, but then didn't bother to mention that information when deputies were watching video and trying to locate the shooter inside the building? No, what we can believe is that BCSO is scrambling to cover for Jordan.

3) Fox cites multiple "sources" that state when a supervisor gives a command that's it, officers have no choice but to comply. In this situation, I would disagree with that assessment. If you're outside a building and can hear gunfire and you receive a command from a supervisor who is not there to leave the area and stage, that flies directly against well established policy when it comes to this sort of situation, one should probably take a moment to consider the totality of the circumstances and then act accordingly.

Fox article IDing BCSO captain

Fox article with timestamped logs

a reply to: Shamrock6

I really appreciate your knowledga and experience here, thank you for the insight. What a cluster #$@% that response has turned out to be.

This definitely smells of a CYA situation now. You are absolutely correct in saying a commander COMMANDs. Offering ambiguous statements on a radio will (and did) get people killed. Indecision is dangerous in these situations. As a commander, you make a decision and go with it based upon your current information at hand. If you are wrong, then you are wrong. Hindsight is always 20/20 and has the benefit of information not available at the time of the decision.

Seems the information on the location of the shooter WAS available to her, yet she failed to convey that to the officers on the scene. A command such as,

"We have reliable reports of the shooter in room XYZ at this time. Engage the shooter at that location, taking caution as you deem appropriate at the scene. The main goal is to neutralize the shooter. Secondary is to attend the wounded and other victims on scene. Keep command abreast of the progress. Good luck."

This provides specific information of the location, a command to engage, and provides the officers on scene the ability to use their professional judgement on scene and adjust based upon that information. It also informs them of the primary and secondary goals of the operation and to keep communication open with updates.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Posting to follow.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I have zero law enforcement experience, but I have known 18 year experience military high ranking people with out a single clue when it comes to radio communication.


Is it possible she was a good politician and ended up in a position she had no business being in, assuming the article is correct.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Honestly her resume doesn't appear to be all that terrible. She spent 20 years with Fort Lauderdale PD, which is where she met/knew Israel. Worked as an investigator for the Broward County Public Defender, then got on with BCSO in their civil division. However...

“She carries herself with a quiet confidence that others who work around her see and respect and has a natural command presence and makes decisions that are sound and all-encompassing, and has an excellent understanding of the agency’s goals and objectives,” stated a 2016 performance evaluation.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Having waded through my fair share of manager submissions for performance evaluations on their subordinates, I can tell you that I read them with a healthy dose of skepticism.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Great post, Shamrock

The problem I have with this report is that so far as I know, FoxNews keeps referencing dispatch logs that they've obtained but are not releasing for some reason. I for one would like the ability to read these logs for myself, rather than relying on a media outlet to hand-feed us bits and pieces of it. Even better would be the actual recordings, because it seems to me that tone and inflection are a key element here.

I'm totally with you here. When the facts are withheld, rumors and mis-truths fill the void. But I think this is by design in this case. I'm pretty sure that what we've been told... the facts that have been released... are pretty much true as far as they go. But it's not the whole truth. I also believe that certain facts are being released in a certain way for a certain impression -- and effect. And I find it very VERY disturbing that the effect they want is to throw the LEOs under the bus. At least some of them. I continue to be "Team Peterson" and for now I will also be "Team Jordan."

According to the timeline given by the BCSO, the shooting stopped at 2:28. And according to this article, the dispatch logs indicate that at 2:29 they still did not know where the shooter was. At least one call identifying a shooter in building 1200 came in to dispatch. It apparently was not passed on in a timely manner.

Am I supposed to believe that Sheriff Israel didn't know this when he publicly named and shamed his deputy? Yes, I am supposed to believe it... but I don't.

And I don't blame Capt Jordan for making the decisions she made under the circumstances.

But I do have a question for you: What would be the penalties/repercussions if an LEO did enter a building with a shooter against protocol and/or orders? Would there be any fines or civil penalties? How about criminal penalties? Would there be any penalties/repercussions for the department?

The vast majority of us would give any such hero a standing ovation and rules be damned!!! But what would be the official response?

a reply to: Boadicea

According to the timeline given by the BCSO, the shooting stopped at 2:28. And according to this article, the dispatch logs indicate that at 2:29 they still did not know where the shooter was. At least one call identifying a shooter in building 1200 came in to dispatch. It apparently was not passed on in a timely manner.

Correct, and two officers radioed as such and stated that they were entering building 13. Incidentally, you can also hear a reference to "ROTC uniform" during that set of transmissions. In any event, at least two officers were entering a building regardless of whether they positively knew where the shooter was. Why those were the only two that decided to make entry, I don't know.

And I don't blame Capt Jordan for making the decisions she made under the circumstances.

I do. Setting a perimeter should never take priority over locating the shooter. At a minimum it should be done concurrent with entering and clearing the area. As one of the articles mentions, unless you've already got dozens of officers working to locate the shooter there's no sense in ordering everybody to a perimeter.

What would be the penalties/repercussions if an LEO did enter a building with a shooter against protocol and/or orders? Would there be any fines or civil penalties? How about criminal penalties? Would there be any penalties/repercussions for the department?

I don't know of any agency that doesn't have a policy to enter and interdict as soon as possible, including solo officer entry, so I can't speak to the first part of your question. As for disobeying orders, that would depend on the circumstances. There's no black and white answer. "Yes I heard the order to establish a perimeter but when I heard it I was looking through the lobby doors and could see the shooter so I entered and made contact" isn't going to be handled the same way as "yes I heard the order but I was near an outdoor bathroom facility and kicking in the door seemed like a good idea at the time." One is likely to garner an official response from the agency, the other probably wouldn't.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Would there be a chance that there was a conversation going on at the station with the comms mike being accidently opened in the middle of it. I used coms in some of my work, and while I never did that, there were occasions when other stations did do that when busy jawing. It does seem like a broken sentence.

a reply to: smurfy

I don't think so because the officer transmitting, who is on scene, pauses when the other person is speaking. To me that seems like he's transmitting while somebody is trying to talk to him and he's pausing to listen to them.

I could be entirely wrong, but that's what it sounds like to me.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Correct, and two officers radioed as such and stated that they were entering building 13. Incidentally, you can also hear a reference to "ROTC uniform" during that set of transmissions. In any event, at least two officers were entering a building regardless of whether they positively knew where the shooter was. Why those were the only two that decided to make entry, I don't know.

I was wondering about something like that... if officers would kind of fan out and enter all surrounding buildings or the most likely locations. I've been trying really hard to picture what an appropriate response would look like when you can hear shooting but cannot pinpoint it. In my head I keep thinking, "Okay, one officer can only do so much." But the more officers on scene, it seems to me the more options they have. Whether they've pinpointed the shooter or not.

I do. Setting a perimeter should never take priority over locating the shooter. At a minimum it should be done concurrent with entering and clearing the area. As one of the articles mentions, unless you've already got dozens of officers working to locate the shooter there's no sense in ordering everybody to a perimeter.

Hmmm... okay. I'm wondering now if I understand what a "perimeter" is and its purpose. I understood a perimeter to be established when the location of a perp is unknown in an effort to surround and contain the perp and prevent escape. So it seems completely appropriate to me for her to have done so. What am I misunderstanding?

I don't know of any agency that doesn't have a policy to enter and interdict as soon as possible, including solo officer entry, so I can't speak to the first part of your question.

Actually, I think that answers the first part of my question perfectly!

a reply to: Boadicea

I've been trying really hard to picture what an appropriate response would look like when you can hear shooting but cannot pinpoint it.

I don't know a) what the building layout is as far as numbers go. As in where is building 13 in relation to building 12; I also don't know b) if those officers entering building 13 misspoke or misidentified the building they were entering. Everything we've been told is that Peterson and other officers were outside building 12 as the shooting happened. I think, if they were still reporting shots fired, they at least had the area narrowed down and could have proceeded as such. Entering two buildings with a chance to interdict a shooter is better than entering zero buildings with zero chance.

So it seems completely appropriate to me for her to have done so. What am I misunderstanding?

Because the priority is to locate the shooter, not to contain the shooter. This is where her ambiguity on the radio adds immensely to the confusion, and I think where we differ is that you're giving her the benefit of doubt and I'm not willing to. It's entirely reasonable for the scene commander to dictate where EMS is going to stage and to start routing units to that area while still directing law enforcement units to enter the shooting. Telling people to hold and set a perimeter doesn't stop the shooter, who could well be hiding in a bathroom reloading mags while law enforcement is backing off. Setting a perimeter and a staging area is all well and good, but not when it's at the expense of getting into the buildings. Had she issued explicit commands I would be more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she didn't so I'm not.

So are you claiming that when arriving on scene with unknown shooters locations it is not proper to set up perimeter until intel is gathered?

does not sound rite

i am thinking you are upset you were not there

a reply to: Shamrock6

I don't know a) what the building layout is as far as numbers go. As in where is building 13 in relation to building 12; I also don't know b) if those officers entering building 13 misspoke or misidentified the building they were entering. Everything we've been told is that Peterson and other officers were outside building 12 as the shooting happened. I think, if they were still reporting shots fired, they at least had the area narrowed down and could have proceeded as such.

Yeah, this is part of the problem. I cannot find a diagram which numbers/names all the buildings, nor anything that correlates numbers with names. That adds to the confusion. I have read that Peterson and the other dude were on the south side of Building 1200, between two other buildings. But if you look at a diagram, in that position, he's pretty much between several buildings. At least initially. And I would think echoes and repercussions and all that would be greater and more confusing in that position. Apparently he moved to the parking lot at some point, which I assume would be the north parking lot. At that point I would think he knew there was shooting in Building 1200, even if he couldn't isolate it to just that building. Do you think that's a fair assumption?

But it would help a great deal if we could understand which building is which, and who was where!

Because the priority is to locate the shooter, not to contain the shooter.

D'oh!!! (Said in my best Homer Simpson voice) Okay, I gotcha -- finally! The goal is to catch the shooter, not to set up a perimeter. Setting up a perimeter might be an appropriate and effective tool to do so, but it is not the only or first tool go-to... i.e., the first and foremost priority is to get to the shooter! And that's where the first LEOs should have been directed.

Thank you -- and my apologies. I really don't mean to be dense!

This is where her ambiguity on the radio adds immensely to the confusion, and I think where we differ is that you're giving her the benefit of doubt and I'm not willing to.... Had she issued explicit commands I would be more willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she didn't so I'm not.

And here's where I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, because I keep thinking there must be a reason for that. It might not be a good reason, and I'm keeping that in mind! But I don't understand why she wouldn't take command of the situation -- that would seem to be the definition of her position -- and get the job done. I understand we can never ever over-estimate the gross levels of incompetence some government officials are capable of... but do you really think it's that simple? Is there anything you've seen that would make you wonder if she knew/believed something we don't know about? For example, that there were multiple shooters?

And I apologize in advance if this is a stupid question, but I have to ask: Wouldn't she be getting her information from the same dispatch as the police departments? So wouldn't they all have the same information? Or is this part of the problems they're having with their communications system? I know that BCSO was running the show, does that mean police officers were taking their orders from BCSO too? Or would their police commanders have been issuing orders also?

How were they to know the motives and actions of the shooter?

Did they know if there were more than one shooter?

Were there hostages?

Were dead man switches in place if police entered?

Were there bombs set at entries?

Only a dumbass would go in without intel or orders but sometimes that works and sometimes it does not

originally posted by: howtonhawky
How were they to know the motives and actions of the shooter?

Did they know if there were more than one shooter?

Were there hostages?

Were dead man switches in place if police entered?

Were there bombs set at entries?

Only a dumbass would go in without intel or orders but sometimes that works and sometimes it does not

As well as going in could draw more fire and possibly cause more student casualties.

a reply to: sligtlyskeptical

not only that but even posting practices and procedures on the internet is not very smart either.

I too wish i were there to be a hero and save some lives but sadly we were not.

Second guessing every decision in the public view just makes us feel better but does not make us safer.

Trump said it well.. I would definitely have gone in.lol

like i said only a cowboy would have gone in and sometimes that works but mainly it does not.

hindsight is 2020

a reply to: howtonhawky

So are you claiming that when arriving on scene with unknown shooters locations it is not proper to set up perimeter until intel is gathered?

I'm claiming that when you're standing outside a building and can hear gunfire coming from said building, it is not proper to worry about setting up a perimeter rather than entering the building.

does not sound rite

This isn't church, so that's not surprising.

i am thinking you are upset you were not there

I'm not surprised you're thinking about me on a personal level. You seem to do it a lot.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm claiming that when you're standing outside a building and can hear gunfire coming from said building

nice msm style response

except that is not what happened now is it.

the officer stated he did not know where the fire crackers were being lit

also we still do not really know if the other three even heard gunfire or if they were on scene at that time of shooting