BCSO Captain that called for a perimeter at Stoneman Douglas identified

Maybe there won't be a next time but if there is you and bruce willis can save the day

smash that bug!

originally posted by: sligtlyskeptical

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.

And doing nothing will GUARANTEE kids will be shot dead. So, when considering a maybe versus a definite death toll, I'll risk the maybe to stop the definite. Waiting outside has proven in the past to simply allow more time for more killing. That is a guarantee. In making that decision, you are guaranteeing that the government folks want us to allow to protect us will be unwilling to do that on the change it "might", "maybe", "perhaps" cause more death. Preventing people form defending themselves in this case will ensure their deaths.

Wait outside until the shooting stops. Then just count the dead. Sounds like that is an Agenda 21 plan to me. Personally, I would rather defend myself, then I am the only one I can depend upon in that situation. Why should these teachers and administrators have that decision removed for them in favor od the police waiting outside until they are dead.


Nice plan.

SMH

a reply to: Boadicea

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?

I'd have to see that diagram you're referring to in order to come to some sort of conclusion on it. I frankly just don't have any idea where he was in relation to one building or another, or where one building is in relation to another, etc.

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?

Not really. I think it really is probably as simple as she was unclear over the radio (and that's why it would help to hear the tapes) as to what she was trying to do. She says she was asking a question, the officers on scene say they took it as an order. I think she was getting the same info everybody else was, in that the shooter had not been located, victims outside, gunfire continuing, officers on scene, etc., and just vomited words at her radio.

Wouldn't she be getting her information from the same dispatch as the police departments?

From what I understand, multiple agencies use the same dispatch center in Broward County. BCSO operates the dispatch center and then farms out the calls to either a BCSO unit or another agency if it's in their response area. That said, I've never worked in a system like that so I just don't know what they'd do with inter-agency comms.

a reply to: howtonhawky

a reply to: Shamrock6

just vomited words at her radio

you just won the internet

a reply to: howtonhawky

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

Actually what the officer said was that the initial call he got was about firecrackers but once he arrived he realized it was gunfire.

If you're going to try and argue, at least have some concept of what you're pretending to talk about.

a reply to: Shamrock6

that is where you are wrong. i am not arguing.

i am learning

the point was that he stated that he did not go in because he did not know where the shooter was

how is it that you always drop the ball in order to try to find one single mis type or mis speak that does not even have validity to the overall point.

the overall point is that the armchair quarter back seeks to demonize without having just cause because lack of info.

HOW can anyone claim the cops should have gone in if they were not there and do not know all the facts.

Are you just searchin for escape goats or just looking to make people feel unsafe by talking shat bout the police while pretending to be on the side of the leo.


Please show some valid wrong doing that exist without the help of falsifying evidence or inferring what you would have done or perhaps you could just admit this thread is opinionated to the max.

now go ahead and highlight one or two of my words here and drop the main point as usual

peace out

a reply to: howtonhawky

that is where you are wrong. i am not arguing. i am learning

Stating something as a fact is not learning, it's a declarative statement.

except that is not what happened now is it. the officer stated he did not know where the fire crackers were being lit

That's pretty clearly stating that my comment is inaccurate, and that your comment is correct. That's arguing, not learning.

the point was that he stated that he did not go in because he did not know where the shooter was

He's said several things. Expressing my doubt about the accuracy of his comments is entirely within reason, and I'm not the only one to have done so.

how is it that you always drop the ball in order to try to find one single mis type or mis speak that does not even have validity to the overall point.

Speaking of validity to the overall point, how is it you never have anything relevant to say and then start spewing this nonsense when it gets pointed out that you're wrong about what little you do have to say?

HOW can anyone claim the cops should have gone in if they were not there and do not know all the facts.

Because we know what the policy says they should have done and what the training says to do. Just because you don't doesn't change that.

Are you just searchin for escape goats or just looking to make people feel unsafe by talking shat bout the police while pretending to be on the side of the leo.

Pointing out errors in action isn't scapegoating anybody, it's laying blame where blame belongs. If that upsets you, that's a you problem.

Please show some valid wrong doing that exist without the help of falsifying evidence or inferring what you would have done or perhaps you could just admit this thread is opinionated to the max.

I haven't falsified anything. Just because you're ignorant of something doesn't make it false. I know the argument from incredulity is a favorite of yours, but it's a fallacy for a reason. And, as an aside, I've never claimed this thread isn't my opinion. And my opinion is drawn from facts, which I present along with my opinion.

now go ahead and highlight one or two of my words here and drop the main point as usual

Funny how you whine about this in a thread where I've responded not to just to others, but you specifically, point by point.

peace out

Toodles.

a reply to: howtonhawky

HOW can anyone claim the cops should have gone in if they were not there and do not know all the facts.

Cause there boss said they should have gone in found and removed the threat, Now I also think the sheriff is probably the biggest failure in this department, but at least in this he was right.

The part I want to know about is the "not on scene yet" commands. Is that correct? That is a big no no in the fire service. As a somewhat old guy now, you know who is a good officer. Bad officer making bad commands, you ignore until you they are jumping up and down screaming " THIS IS A DIRECT ORDER", then decide if you would rather face a panel disobeying that order or listen to them and watch people die. I know what I would do.
We also did cross training with PD on this very situation (my tin foil hat was spinning that day). We are to form attack teams with PD where we make entry to treat victims with four officers covering all sides. Studies from Columbine and others have shown viable patients bled out waiting for help.

Op thanks for your take on this, as I feel it is a fair assessment.

IMO The BSO(as we called them when I lived in the county) should really let this Captain Jordan go if not reprimand her. It seems in there best interest, especially if they want to regain respect in the community. Sheriff Israel should have overridden her command, he needs to be addressed as well. When it comes down to such a situation there's no time to argue facts, actions speak louder than words.

a reply to: dreamingawake

To be fair, I don’t think Israel should have involved himself unless he was already in the area. The last thing you need at a moment like that is a sheriff or chief who’s even further removed from things to start giving orders.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Sorry I didn't get back to this yesterday...

I'd have to see that diagram you're referring to in order to come to some sort of conclusion on it. I frankly just don't have any idea where he was in relation to one building or another, or where one building is in relation to another, etc.

I'm basically working off this information:

In response to the firecracker call Mr. Peterson along “with Security Specialist Kelvin Greenleaf exited the 100 Building and ran north the couple of hundred yards to the 1200 Building.”

Time

"What I saw was a deputy arrive at the west side of building 12, take up a position," Israel said of the footage.

Peterson acted consistent with his training and "took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner," Peterson said.

CNN

There's a pretty good diagram of the school with a few buildings labeled here. It's not complete, but it helps. Note that the orientation is with north facing to our right (not at the top).

Looking at that picture, he would be coming from the left (from the south to the north), and directly to the west of Bldg 1200 is another building. But he took up his position between the "700-800 buildings corridor/corner." So he didn't take a position between Bldg 1200 and the building to the west, so perhaps between that building to the west and the one due south? I really don't know. I don't think we have any way to know unless and until all the buildings are numbered for us.

But my main point was that from what we know, Peterson was not north or east of Bldg 1200, which means that he was somewhere in that area south and west of Bldg 1200 and pretty much surrounded by buildings. And I'm thinking the sound of gunfire would be much different in that somewhat enclosed area as opposed to if he were in the parking lot north of the building for example.

a reply to: Shamrock6


Thank you for offering some independent thinking and analysis. You and others offer far more insight and perspective, you ask far more intelligent questions, than any in the mainstream media do.

The details regarding setting up a perimeter seems to mesh with the reports on WSVN saying that certain first responders were not allowed by law enforcement to enter the building after they had arrived.

Like so many of these incidents, as time goes on the more the story does not add up. At first a believer in the official narrative, I am now quite suspicious.

no one here cares about facts and circumstances. They just want an escape goat for their alfa feelings of superiority cause they would have stopped the killer if these cowboys were there.

We do not need facts we just need people fired and laws changed cause it makes us feel good.

gimme your rights cause i believe i am the best arm chair cop around

perhaps we could wait until if ever the report being done by the real professionals comes out before we cast so much judgment or else we may find ourselves in a similar situation trying to help but falling short due to circumstances beyond our control.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Welp the problem with your statement is even the Sherriff said they should have immediately entered the school, addressed the shooter and ended the shooter.

That has been the standard since columbine, so this is not finding a scapegoat as much as wanting to know where the department failed that at least 1 possibly more did not seem to know or understand that the sherriff expected them to enter the school.

So either they failed to follow training, or the training was poor/non-existent, either way the people not distracted by the emotional do nothing ban X movement want to know where was the failure so it can be fixed.

Lastly if some of the rumors about the Sherriff turn out to be true the people of broward county deserve to know so they can kick his butt form the position, since the state is actually investigating we just might see the truth.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
no one here cares about facts and circumstances. They just want an escape goat for their alfa feelings of superiority cause they would have stopped the killer if these cowboys were there.

We do not need facts we just need people fired and laws changed cause it makes us feel good.

gimme your rights cause i believe i am the best arm chair cop around

perhaps we could wait until if ever the report being done by the real professionals comes out before we cast so much judgment or else we may find ourselves in a similar situation trying to help but falling short due to circumstances beyond our control.

SO, comments and thoughts from actual LEO's here (other ATS members) are irrelevant considering they have been through the required and relevant training? Have we learned nothing form the disaster at Columbine that waiting outside does nothing by embolden the shooter to kill more people, as well as risk those injured bleeding out and dying while those that we've been told will protect us (because we cannot arm and protect ourselves) wait outside and do not protect us?

Please... Those are facts.

a reply to: Krakatoa

hey i like facts

my point mainly is that we do not have all the facts yet and until the report is released then we should not espouse guilt.

I am actually airing on the side of caution for the benefit of the officers because i have a small idea of what serious situations can be like and the thoughts many involved can have in regards of what they could have done different.

When the stuff hits the fan it changes things very much.

Now if you are sure that the absolute policy was to storm the building then perhaps they should feel ashamed but it is a big deal in the lives effected either way.

The first causality of war is always the battle plan.

The first causality of war is always the battle plan.

The first causality of war is always the battle plan.

The first casualty of war is the truth, and that seems to be the case here with Parkland.

a reply to: TexasTruth

The College of Emergency Surgeons did a study on Sandy Hook and their assessment was that many victims died needlessly from blood loss related to long response times. Why this didn't cause an avalanche of lawsuits I'll never know but it wouldn't surprise me if the very same thing happened in Parkland. Again, I'd bet there are no lawsuits over it, just the gun makers, sellers and everyone else who didn't have a damn thing to do with it.