Why Didn’t Scot Peterson Try to Stop the Parkland Shooter? - The Atlantic
Why Didn’t Scot Peterson Try to Stop the Parkland Shooter? - The Atlantic
Why would an armed officer stand by as a school shooting unfolds?
Long form article on school shootings, police dept scapegoating, training for active shooters, and the confusing time to be a police officer where public feedback wants deescalation in most scenarios, but expect military or warrior mentality training for school shootings responses.
Because cowardice is not an actual crime—courts have consistently ruled that police officers have no specific constitutional duty to protect citizens, except for those in their custody—Florida prosecutors argued that Peterson, in his job as a school resource officer, was a “caregiver” for the children at Stoneman Douglas. His trial would thus be an experiment in a new arena of police accountability: Can cops be criminally punished for failing to move toward gunfire?
Peterson had received only three specific active-shooter trainings, in 2007, 2012, and 2016. Although other courses had taught relevant or adjacent skills—“tactical pistol,” “combat life saver”—or had been lectures that focused on things like the history of mass shootings, Peterson had spent very little time learning how to do one of the most dangerous and complex tasks required of law enforcement: confront a shooter who has a semiautomatic rifle.
In one solo-response exercise, the script prompted instructors to say: “There is no reason to give up a good position of cover … Remember, the cavalry is on their way, so it’s better to hold, than to expose yourself to unknown threats.”
Over the past few years, the public has witnessed multiple distressing moments of baffling police behavior. All those cops standing, impotent, in the hallways of a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school while children were slaughtered. Cops killing Black motorists after traffic stops escalated needlessly. To policing experts, both problems fall under the same umbrella: improper use of force. Too little force, too much force—both lead to terrible outcomes.
Nobody is sure any longer what the job of policing is, Morgan told me, or how to weigh its different priorities. This squares with what cops have been telling me in recent years: It’s never been a more confusing time to be a police officer.
You're viewing a single thread.
tbf, an active shooter situation is unique. When bullets are flying, I think it is very reasonable to flip away from de-escalation to a combat situation mentality. Whereas any situation where active combat is not occuring leaves de-escalation as a potentially viable path.
It's not like police should be expected to approach every situation with just one mentality, that would be counter-productive. No single mentality can handle the broad array of situations that real life can throw at a person, even if we might wish that we could just stay on one consistent mentality, for simplicity's sake. That's just wishful thinking though. No single mentality can solve life.
If that becomes confusing, then I start to wonder why this idea of different mindsets for different situations is so new. Do they need to ticket every speeder? No, it can vary based on the severity of the offense. That's not life-or-death though, so I understand that it is easier without combat adrenaline surging through your system.
I agree an active shooter is a a unique situation. But there's questions of what police get trained on and how many hours of drills or practice for certain scenarios they have. There are questions of SHALL vs MAY language in active shooter response trainings. And this article also talks about individual psychology and warrior mentality that can't be tested until it is really tested in a real scenario. Sure a person maybe should be fired for not standing up to the real life or death test, but is that criminal?
Also I think the interview of the civilian that did stop a active shooter situation is important. He did not think the officer was guilty of any crime. He believes he handled it well because he does more firearm training and drills than the average cop. He joked he loved competing against cops and gun comps because they were so bad and had weird drills where they had to change diapers on baby dolls and shoot with the ff hand for this competition.
Which is why people talk about reallocating funds toward agencies that handle many situations better.
But how does that help school shootings which are specifically discussed in this article? Do we need designated SWAT officers at every school?
See, that money would go to mental health services, education, etc.
Removing the indoctrinated from America's twisted gun culture maybe a part of that but it’s also outside the scope of police reform.
Yeah. But I think part of the article's thesis is that although there was a cop in the school in Parkland who didn't do anything helpful, it was unclear if he violated training procedure. On one hand the public wanted to crucify this officer for doing nothing to actively stop the shooter, but on the other hand many in the public behind defund the police type movements don't believe there should be cops in schools (let alone armored and heavily armed one) which would have not done anything either to have an armed and armored officer in this school situation.
Not sure what the answer is, but I think it's a complex one that requires folks to temper the ideal situation for real practical near term change.