Good guy with a gun (uniformed cop) at Parkland Highschool shooting didn't engage shooter...

Lmao he was being paid 75,000$ a year. I bet he picked the job because he figured it would be smooth sailing to retirement.
 
Seems a little harsh to out this cop like that. In progress he may have thought there were multiple shooters and was waiting for backup? How often are cops told to wait for backup vs going in solo guns blazing? Like others have said I’d like to think I’d go in at least because it’s kids, but who can say for sure (I’m pretty sure I would btw)? I’d guess dying would be easier than living with his irl decision.
 
I think what we can take from this is that all guys names Scot(t) Peterson should be banned. They don’t seem to turn out right.
 
a boy tried to stop the shooter? can u link

I think he's referring to Peter Wang. He didn't try and stop the shooter, but was killed holding a door open for others to escape.
 
Do we really expect an officer with a handgun to engage unknown number of assailants with AR-15's?
Yes. Thats why they deserve respect.

If we get soft on our officers and say its ok if the bad guys win, society loses.

...

and i dont think you will be able to tell the difference of caliber indoors even if that mattered. a single shot from a 9mm will likely stop someone indoors. he would have had the element of surprise as well.
 
I've always wondered how I would handle these situations in person. What if you are in a position to stop the shooter, and during a struggle regular Joe shows up with a gun? Sorry but the types of dudes that live by conceal carry aren't the type of people I want thinking on their feet.

lol

If you think people shouldn't carry because you're gonna win a wrestling match with a gunman then I don't really have a response. Better not call the cops either. :D
 
The simple lesson here is that you can't count on anyone for your own safety but you. Maybe that's sink in with anyone who believes regular Joe shouldn't be allowed to carry in public.

Except if someone is really scared then that person drawing a gun with people around isn't exactly increasing safety. A gun still requires you to know what you're doing (not just being a good shot, but also being able to handle the various situations that can occur) if you're not to endanger more people. So the solution isn't that simple.
 
Except if someone is really scared then that person drawing a gun with people around isn't exactly increasing safety. A gun still requires you to know what you're doing (not just being a good shot, but also being able to handle the various situations that can occur) if you're not to endanger more people. So the solution isn't that simple.

Except that there's been multiple cases of civilians with guns stopping mass shooters already.

How quickly you forget just a few months ago the mass shooter in Texas was chased and killed by a civilian with an AR15 before he could target another soft target area.
 
But... teachers with guns would've saved the day..?
 
He chose the wrong line of work. He has to live with those deaths on his conscience for the rest of his life.
I shudder to think what kind of hell his life will be if he actually knew any of the victims.
 
Except that there's been multiple cases of civilians with guns stopping mass shooters already.

And there's multiple cases of civilians shooting innocent people. Surely you're bright enough to get the obvious fact that the point wasn't that no civilian could ever stop a single crime?
 
Except if someone is really scared then that person drawing a gun with people around isn't exactly increasing safety. A gun still requires you to know what you're doing (not just being a good shot, but also being able to handle the various situations that can occur) if you're not to endanger more people. So the solution isn't that simple.

You will always endanger people when you engage. Hell the gunman could shoot at you and miss hitting other people.

The question is do less people die because you engage or more people.

I'm going to say the odds are you are going to save lives because just have the mind set to engage in a situation like that means you are thinking.
 
lol

If you think people shouldn't carry because you're gonna win a wrestling match with a gunman then I don't really have a response. Better not call the cops either. :D

<TrumpWrong1>
You realize people have taken out gunmen before while they're reloading? Just off the top of my head, the Arizona shooter was stopped while reloading.
 
You will always endanger people when you engage. Hell the gunman could shoot at you and miss hitting other people.

The question is do less people die because you engage or more people.

I'm going to say the odds are you are going to save lives because just have the mind set to engage in a situation like that means you are thinking.

The solution presented isn't going to just effect mass shootings so that's a hard question to answer, which was my point. I didn't say what the solution is, my point was that there are enough factors involved for there to not just be a simple answer.
 
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/us/florida-school-shooting/index.html




If this were the military...

Article 99 of the Uniform Code for Military Justice states that a member of the armed forces who is guilty of “cowardly conduct” in the presence of the enemy “shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”


What should happen? Early retirement doesn't seem like justice.
 
Damn coward. Then again who knows how any of us would react in a active shooter situation unless he's a combat vet or something you dont know how any cop would react.
 
We had a football coaching diving in front of bullets and a scrawny Asian kid guiding students to safety while ignoring his own. Those are heroes.

This cop was trained and did nothing. Fuck.
 
Back
Top