Deputy Scot Peterson

[anygunanywhere]

We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

[OlBill]

We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

I disagree. That is an unrealistic expectation. People who do it will do it regardless their job, like the coach. Many if not most won't. None of us know what we would have done, we just like to think we do.

How do you train somebody to "charge in"? How do you train somebody to fight a rifle with a pistol?

When did he know how many shooters there were?

[OlBill]

We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

Leaving ? I didn't write that.

[eyedoc]

These are my comments:

Remember Garland--a city police officer used his service handgun to take out two charging Jihadis armed with AK47 rifles... So much for disparate fire-power.

You're incorrect. The initial reports mistakenly identified Officer Gregory Stevens as killing the two gunmen. The post mortem showed that the lethal shots were all done by 4 SWAT team members.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2218538

" Two gunman shot dead after opening fire outside a controversial Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas earlier this month were killed by SWAT team members and not a single traffic officer as initially reported, police said Monday.

The correction by Garland Police Chief Mitch Bates follows officials initially lauding a single Garland police officer for eliminating Elton Simpson, 31, and Nadir Soofi, 34, after police say they stormed the Curtis Culwell Center armed with assault rifles.

Bates, speaking at a press conference, said that traffic officer did shoot and wound the suspects but that it was four members of the SWAT Tactical Response Team that killed the armed duo during the May 3 attack."

He still wounded them both and stopped the attack. That is what counts. HE had the guts to attack them and protect the public. HE wounded them and stopped the attack. The swat team administered the coup de grace.

[Jay2121]

Yes that was his job to go in. You don’t think there was not a rifle in the squad? Really? This man and I use that loosely was a supreme coward. Rifle or pistol that was his job.

[anygunanywhere]

We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

I disagree. That is an unrealistic expectation. People who do it will do it regardless their job, like the coach. Many if not most won't. None of us know what we would have done, we just like to think we do.

How do you train somebody to "charge in"? How do you train somebody to fight a rifle with a pistol?

When did he know how many shooters there were?

He signed on for the job. He took the paycheck for 30 years. He wore the badge for 30 years. He put on the facade for 30 years. He failed in the seconds that it counted. He is a coward. He is scum.

Defend his actions if you want. We are known by the company that we keep. Thanks for posting Bill.

Good day.

[LTUME1978]

Several years ago, I took a 3 day law enforcement level Response to Active Shooter Class that was taught by a very good, nationally recognized instructor in the law enforcement circles. Most of the class was made up of law enforcement (Federal Officers, State Troopers, and more that a few SWAT along with one Judge that is a very good shot). I was among a very small number of civilians in the class. Some of the things we learned is that statistics show that for every minute someone waits to intervene in an active shooting, on average three people are killed. From that data, law enforcement has been taught that the first person to respond goes in rather that waiting on others before responding. We all shot the class with pistols only and had to make shots out to 65 yards to simulate shooting down a long hall in a school. Yes, it can be done. A 1911 (with its really good trigger) starts looking like a pistol of choice for a class like this and shooting at extended ranges. The training was extensive including staying in the fight with various body parts out of actions from gun shot wounds.

I have to wonder, if these officers had received similar training (which they should have had), why they did not engage. That is their job, rifle or no rifle in their hands. Did they get an order not to engage? Were they all cowards? I find it hard to believe that they were all cowards so I am wondering what else was going on.

[OlBill]

We're mad at him for not being a hero.

Doing the job you are paid to do doesn't make you a hero, regardless how dangerous that job may be. We're mad at him for not doing his job because he's the worst kind of coward.

Chas.

With all respect, he's not paid to die. He's not paid to fight a rifle with a pistol. Any other outcome would have been pure luck.

Yes he is.

I disagree. That is an unrealistic expectation. People who do it will do it regardless their job, like the coach. Many if not most won't. None of us know what we would have done, we just like to think we do.

How do you train somebody to "charge in"? How do you train somebody to fight a rifle with a pistol?

When did he know how many shooters there were?

He signed on for the job. He took the paycheck for 30 years. He wore the badge for 30 years. He put on the facade for 30 years. He failed in the seconds that it counted. He is a coward. He is scum.

Defend his actions if you want. We are known by the company that we keep. Thanks for posting Bill.

Good day.

I'm not defending his actions. I simply understand the psychology of the situation. Those kids needed a hero who could beat a rifle with a pistol, there was only a mortal human being there.

"We are known by the company we keep"? Nice.

Just so you'll know, I kept and keep fine company.

You have a nice day as well.

[Paladin]

His job is to "charge in" to a rifle while armed with a pistol?

You are completely correct to think that charging in alone with a pistol against a rifle is extraordinarily dangerous. Perhaps fatal. A person would need serious skills to win that fight.

Reading through the reports it appears that Deputy Peterson was well aware that Cruz was a self declared "school shooter" before the shooting happened. Peterson saw the expelled Cruz arrive on campus and instead of moving in behind Cruz and detaining Cruz before Cruz could pull his weapon out of the duffel bag, Peterson chose to "call it in", wait until Cruz started shooting, and stood outside the building for 6 minutes while people were dying. That's how I'm understanding the situation.

[C-dub]

A police officer on duty has an obligation to charge in.

How does this statement (Or is it your opinion?) align with the SCOTUS decision in 2005 that says the police have no constitutional duty to protect an individual from harm?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/polit ... otect.html

Is it a difference between constitutional duty versus the obligation or nature of the job? Especially since they were there at a school for a reason? Or would that SCOTUS decision not really pertain in this case since it was not really an individual per se, but rather the student body and staff as a whole?

[OlBill]

His job is to "charge in" to a rifle while armed with a pistol?

You are completely correct to think that charging in alone with a pistol against a rifle is extraordinarily dangerous. Perhaps fatal. A person would need serious skills to win that fight.

Reading through the reports it appears that Deputy Peterson was well aware that Cruz was a self declared "school shooter" before the shooting happened. Peterson saw the expelled Cruz arrive on campus and instead of moving in behind Cruz and detaining Cruz before Cruz could pull his weapon out of the duffel bag, Peterson chose to "call it in", wait until Cruz started shooting, and stood outside the building for 6 minutes while people were dying. That's how I'm understanding the situation.

I don't dispute the failures all up and down the chain leading to the first shot being fired.

I don't dispute the failures to enter after the 2nd guy arrived. Now it's two pistols - much better odds.

I don't dispute Peterson not being fit for the any police job post incident.

I do dispute the notion that we can sit thousands of miles away and judge the man that was on the ground. Nobody knows what they'll do until they're there, in the situation. Even if they did it last time. I've seen men that committed heroic acts and the next time couldn't move.

I also dispute the notion that the police can or have an obligation to protect us.

He's a man, subject to human failings. No more, no less.

[Txtension]

His job is to "charge in" to a rifle while armed with a pistol?

You are completely correct to think that charging in alone with a pistol against a rifle is extraordinarily dangerous. Perhaps fatal. A person would need serious skills to win that fight.

You really do not need skills in that situation, and you, singular, do not need to win that fight. You need training like what society pays professionals for. In that position your job is to get in the fight, and pin your target down. That is, force him to stop shooting at children and take cover. Hopefully the rest of your team is maneuvering for the kill. Even if 'you' get pinned instead, that is still time that you have robbed from the shooter and delivered to your team --and others like children who need to run away.

Please forgive my use of the second person. Just used for emphasis!

[Pawpaw]

Successfully confronting the shooter in this situation would not be all that difficult.

He's shooting and you're not. That means you can easily locate him, but he doesn't know you're coming. Tracking him down and cherry-picking your shot would not be that hard.

Yes, there's a possibility that he might pop out of a classroom while you're halfway down a hallway. If you're on your toes with the correct mindset, he's the one that gets surprised - not you. You still have a distinct and overwhelming advantage, if you don't lose your head. Remember, your adversary is a 17 year old kid, not a seasoned professional.

This is "Active Shooter 101" stuff. Anyone who's even read about the subject should know this. Any LEO certainly should. You don't rush in blindly, you quietly but quickly stalk your prey (the shooter).

[howdy]

I was told in the Marine Corps that there are worse things than dying. Ex-Deputy Peterson is now living that reality.

[MaduroBU]

A .357 Magnum with a 180 grain JHP at 1325 FPS is a horrifying close range weapon. A 10mm pushing a 200 grain JHP at 1200 FPS is fearsome as well. A .357 Sig moving a 147 grain XTP at 1400 FPS isn't a love tap.

All of those rounds are available, common, and effective to at least 50 yards. Against a highly skilled opponent, a sidearm vs a rifle is a crippling disadvantage. Against a burnout who bought a rifle for the sole purpose of committing exactly one crime, it is possible to even the playing field. I carry a .380 ACP because my use case is escaping someone who wants to kill me or a loved one. A peace officer may ve required to be far more aggressive without forewarning, and as such should probably arm him or herself accordingly.