Larry Pratt - "What Went Wrong At Columbine


PDA






emc
November 12, 2003, 09:16 AM
Interesting article, and plenty of food for thought here.... I would certainly like to learn more about the issues raised by Brian Rohrbough.

For LEOs out there, with the training that you've had, what would your plan of action be if you were faced with a Columbine like situation? I have not heard an LEO comment on this, and would like to know if Rohrbough's statements on what the officers did initially at Columbine are a valid complaint. Thanks!

*************************************************************

WHAT WENT WRONG AT COLUMBINE


By Larry Pratt
June 12, 2003
NewsWithViews.com

Brian Rohrbough is the father of one of the victims at Columbine. In an interview I conducted with him for my talk show Live Fire, my listeners were informed of the continuing lawsuits pursued by Rohrbough to pry the information from the authorities who have engaged in a massive cover-up.

The killers were well-known to the school and the police as very dangerous characters. After stealing equipment from a van, they were reported to have made death threats against a student. The Sheriff denied that any such report had been made, but unhappily for the Sheriff, the father had kept a copy of the report on the official form used for that purpose.

Rohrbough said that other death threats had been made, as well. The police had recovered from the killers pipe bombs which had been reported to them.

A year before Columbine, a search warrant was drawn up to search the house of the killers but was never executed. For two years the Sheriff's department denied that there had been a warrant. It has now been revealed in court that the cops were lying. Rohrbough suspects that one of the killers' parents was close to someone in the Sheriff's department.

One of the killers was being medicated on a psychotropic drug. There is a line at many of the county schools in the cafeteria where the drugs are handed out. The schools get $1000 per year from the federal government for handing out the drugs that the parents pay for.

The Sheriff's department covered up the records of the juvenile diversion program that the killers had attended. The parents had described in documents for the program that the kids were angry. One of the killers answered questions on a form saying that he wanted to kill someone, wanted to kill himself and hurt as many people as possible. They wrote essays in a creative writing class where they described the joys of murdering innocent people. The only negative comment by the teacher who graded the paper was that you should not swear at people before murdering them.

In a class they produced a video depicting the blowing up of the school. The killers had been on the internet bragging about the bombs they built. They even put their names on the bombs.

Other video tapes were made by the killers bragging that they wanted to kill as many people as possible. They had a hit list, but that has not been released yet -- although Rohrbough is trying to get it in produced in court.

The school authorities reported concerns about the killers to the Sheriff department's school resource officer. The officer denied that he was ever told that information. This is one of the many lies that Rohrbough has uncovered in the over 30,000 pages of documents he has gotten out of the clutches of the authorities.

Rohrbough accuses the police of having been cowards. Most of the officers he hastens to add wanted to go in, but the first officers on the scene became cowards. They had a gun fight with the killers and ran to hide behind their cars instead of running into the school. Their cowardice soon became the orders from above, ultimately from the Sheriff himself.

There was about seven minutes before the killers killed anyone inside the school (two had been killed outside, including Rohrbough's son). Obviously, if the officers had gone into the building immediately, there is a great likelihood that many lives could have been saved.

It is now known that the police waited for three hours after they knew the killers were dead before they finally entered the building. This was the time during which a teacher bled to death in plain sight of the world.

Rohrbough has alleged that the county lied about 28 material facts. When he presented this in a case against the county, the judge said that the government is immune from criminal penalties when it lies. The county's defense, when they were caught lying, was to hide behind the doctrine of sovereign immunity which protects bureaucrats from liability for their misdeeds. As a result, they actually argued in court that they were not responsible for protecting the victims or the dying teacher.

As a result, Rohrbough's litigation has focused on freedom of information suits to obtain the documents which have exposed the government's lies.

The Governor's commission to investigate Columbine was on the verge of issuing a report saying that everyone in authority had done all they could when Rohrbough dug up the non-executed search warrant. The commission never did hammer the police for allowing two killers to roam the halls while the cops cowered outside.

The commission recommended two improvements. One was to improve communication technology between police departments and the Sheriff's office in the county. But Rohrbough has learned that the difficulty was solved almost instantly. The other recommendation was that troubled students not go to their diversion programs in the same car. That was all the commission could come up with!

Rohrbough lamented that there were no teachers or other adults with a concealed firearm in the school. He pointed to the case of Israel where teachers have been encouraged to arm themselves. Certainly, if the police are going to insist that they have no responsibility to protect victims from criminals, then it is unconscionable for the police and politicians to oppose people protecting themselves, including legalizing firearms for self defense in schools.

Rohrbough is of the opinion that the killers' accomplice who legally bought the guns for the killers had advance knowledge of the crime. According to her, she told the killers when she gave them the guns, "You're not going to do anything stupid, are you?" She was not prosecuted for transferring firearms to persons ineligible to own them. Rohrbough suspects that she was not prosecuted because she played the politically correct game of testifying that if there had been a gun show background check she never would have bought the guns.

One good thing that has resulted from the revelations of official misconduct was the defeat of the Sheriff in the next election

If you enjoyed reading about "Larry Pratt - "What Went Wrong At Columbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mark Tyson
November 12, 2003, 09:21 AM
Ah, but you're missing the point. It's so much easier to punish law abiding gun owners for the misdeeds of the criminals. After all, we happily comply with the most outrageous, nonsensical laws. Criminals have trouble obeying even the basic ones.

emc
November 12, 2003, 09:33 AM
Excellent comment, Mark, and your sarcasm is justified! Sadly, all too many people can't grasp the essence of the point that you're making.

Ed

7.62FullMetalJacket
November 12, 2003, 09:57 AM
So, what we have here is a documented pattern and practice, police failing to take action against a known threat, and police failing to "protect and serve" those within the school during the event.

Brian Rohrbough documented the failures of the system, and the system fails to recognize its mistakes. The public in general has been fed the story that the "gun show loophole" "allowed" these kids to shoot up the school. Seems to me the "well connected" loophole is more likely. These kids were screaming for attention, made public threats, portrayed school destruction in video and writing, were caught with pipe bombs, and, more to the point, had garnered the attention of police sufficient to obtain a warrant. Which was never acted on.

Do any of you feel safer? How about your family attending high school?

This was so obvious that even government school matriculants could have figured it out.

Arm the willing teachers. Do not rely on the police.

Langenator
November 12, 2003, 10:18 AM
Summary: the school district and local law enforcement agencies (police and sherriff) missed plenty of opportunities to stop Klebold and Harris. Ever since the attack, they've engaged in a cover-up that would do both Nixon and the Clintons proud. Nobody has been reprimanded, punished, or fired, either for not stopping it before it happened, or for the demonstrable cowardice of the officers at the scene.

It has been far easier for the politicians, law enforcement officials (basically, pols with uniforms), and antis to blame the guns than to admit that the system failed so catastophically and make painful but needed changes.

I wonder-if the propane bombs had work, would they still blame the guns?

Mark Tyson
November 12, 2003, 10:19 AM
I like the idea of arming teachers, but I think there's a couple issues that need to be addressed first. First I think it will have to be concealed carry, and weapon retention could be a concern. Second, police will have to be informed that some of the teachers are armed.

Do any schools actually have armed teachers?

7.62FullMetalJacket
November 12, 2003, 10:30 AM
Many teachers will not choose to be armed. Perhaps adminstrators would be a better choice, such a Vice Principals and such. I do not believe we need armed guards, since they would spoil the atmosphere and simply become the first target. However, if one CCW would have been present, this could have ended quickly, since the Blue force had a Yellow streak.

TheEgg
November 12, 2003, 10:39 AM
As a result, they actually argued in court that they were not responsible for protecting the victims or the dying teacher.

Certainly, if the police are going to insist that they have no responsibility to protect victims from criminals, then it is unconscionable for the police and politicians to oppose people protecting themselves, including legalizing firearms for self defense in schools.

So obvious, yet ignored by so many!

[sheep mode one]
Just call 911!
I don't need a gun, the police will protect me!
It is the job of the government to deal with crime, not mine.
[sheep mode off]

The only thing I would disagree with in this article is the assumption that the actions of the police stemmed primarily, or even partially, from cowardice. I think it came more from a lack of proper training and leadership. ALL of the cops that I know would put their lives at risk to save kids, given the opportunity -- I just think that the situation was so bizarre to them, they did not know exactly what the right thing to do was. I think the blame lies with the leadership, who did not do their job.

DaveB
November 12, 2003, 10:48 AM
I cannot believe that cowardice - of the physical kind - has any thing to do with what happened at Columbine. I know some LEOs, and I would say that none of them lack physical courage. It has to be something else.

But what? I can't imagine giving an order to pull out of a school when there were gunshots inside. An assault with guns blazing would also be out of the question, but don't we pay these guys to be capable of making decisions under pressure?

I don't get it. It's fun to talk about loopholes and warrants, but once the shooting started, it became a tactical problem.

I can't imagine not ordering at least some cops in. I can't imagine obeying the order to leave the building while children were being shot. Maybe that's why I'm not a cop.

db

Hutch
November 12, 2003, 10:54 AM
Lord, this is heartbreaking. Any wonder some people don't accept the .gov as their savior? "Yeah, we lied. Yeah, we knew. No, we aren't liable. Go cry a river"

Coronach
November 12, 2003, 11:31 AM
If you read the after action reports, it was not a lack of courage that prevented the cops from going in. This has been discussed many times before, so I shall be brief.

The fact of the matter was that /no one/ had an 'active shooter' plan in effect. The SOP for gun-armed madmen was to hold the perimeter and call for SWAT, because using SWAT was viewed as safer for the people inside as well as for the officers. And so, when confronted with a horrifying and novel situation, the decisionmakers stuck to the playbook, even though it didn't fit the scenario presented.

Now, that said, its still perfectly on-point to debate the futility of relying on .gov for your personal protection. Even if the cops had moved in right away (as is SOP most places now for active shooters), its still gonna be far to late for some.

Mike

emc
November 12, 2003, 12:03 PM
Mike, thanks for your comments. From what you are saying, the procedure is for the officers on the scene are to maintain a perimeter and then wait for the SWAT team.

It's my understanding that you are an LEO. Pratt states that the building was finally entered after 3 hours. Not being completely familiar with some of the details surrounding the response to the threat here, and the facts surrounding the entry into the building, are there any mitigating circumstances which would have caused a three hour delay on the entry? I guess I always had the impression that SWAT teams were relatively quick response. I'm not trying to point fingers, but just want the best understanding possible on all of the various facts that play into what did take place.

Thanks,

Ed

tcsd1236
November 12, 2003, 12:20 PM
EMC: That WAS the procedure at the time of Columbine. WAS. Major events like this are the foundation for changes in LE training..at the same time, administrators reflexively say "well, that happened THERE, it was a a rare event, it will never happen HERE" to justify not implementing the training in their agency....so agencies wind up repeating each others mistakes because admin types bury their heads in the sand...

As was said, it was SOP to establish the perimeter and hold for negotiators and supervisors to arrive. Its not a matter of circumstances "delaying" the officers.

SWAT teams have a minimum response time of 45-60 minutes, depending on the team, where they are coming from and where they need to respond to. Thats a minimum time.

emc
November 12, 2003, 12:36 PM
Good info, tcsd! I've never seen anything that discussed SWAT team response times. Clearly, a minimum of 45-60 minutes would make a very big difference. Thanks!

OF
November 12, 2003, 12:50 PM
So, maybe the actions of the officers on the scene are debatable...I still think there is a point where one has to acknowledge that policy is not working and get in there and save people. When the shooting started, it wasn't a hostage situation - it was a murder in progress. That said, the actions of the department subsequently are most certainly cowardly.

Even if we give the officers in the parking lot the benefit of the doubt, the department deserves no such benefit.

- Gabe

El Tejon
November 12, 2003, 12:55 PM
What went wrong in Red? The chickens came home to roost in Public Schools.

Governmental schooling reinforced the nihilism of the Welfare State.

Mark Tyson
November 12, 2003, 01:44 PM
Wasn't there an lawsuit brought against the police by some parents of victims for failing to protect the students?

MrAcheson
November 12, 2003, 02:24 PM
Firstly, sorry but LEOs are not responsible for your personal safety. It sucks, but they don't have to come to the rescue and the courts have defended this repeatedly. It would be nice if we got our rights back in light of this, but I doubt it. The grabbers are not logical like that.

Secondly, the cops at Columbine were following their SOP. They established a perimeter and held it for personnel that were properly trained for the task of entering the school and taking on the gunmen (gunboys?). They did this because they feared that a gun battle in the halls of the school would only get more people killed, possibly due to friendly fire since their officers were not trained for the task. The average LEO at Columbine wanted to go in, but the officers in charge ordered them to follow the SOP, so they did. I suppose you can blame the officers in charge, but they were doing what they thought was best in a difficult situation and they hadn't had any experience in this sort of thing either. Don't change horses in mid-stream and all that.

As for stupidity beforehand, yeah its possible and a damn shame. On the other hand a lot of this crap is 20/20 hindsight. Knowing the future maybe Hitler's mother should have strangled him in his crib. Its not exactly fair to judge someone's decisions when you have time and information they could never have had. You can only judge them on whether they made the right decision with what they had then not what you have now.

DaveB
November 12, 2003, 02:27 PM
Governmental schooling reinforced the nihilism of the Welfare State.

Sorry. Bulls*it.

db

Sean Smith
November 12, 2003, 02:39 PM
You can only judge them on whether they made the right decision with what they had then not what you have now.

Absolutely true. However, they knew then essentially what we know now, i.e. that a bunch of kids were getting blown away while they sat there waiting for SWAT. It isn't a big stretch to conclude that if you let people keep shooting kids over time, more kids will die over time.

El Tejon
November 12, 2003, 03:15 PM
DaveB, change bull to chicken (the coming home to roost kind). Red schools had a long history of teaching nihilism. For example, this is the same school system that made national news teaching acceptance of death classes.

The killers at Columbine celebrated the nihilism that their school pushed upon them. Reap what you sow.

tcsd1236
November 12, 2003, 03:39 PM
Sean,the first ad hoc team of officers entered the school within minutes of their arriving.....you couldn't have multiple teams entering the school simultaneously.That in itself would have been a disaster in the making. Have you ever seen a layout of the school in question? The place was huge. It takes time to clear a place like that using standard SWAT procedures.I was at a seminar attended by members of the JeffCo SWAT Team less than a year after the event and they did a lecture on the timeline, pictures of the school, diagrams, etc. from this incident. The bottom line for me is that I believe the armchair QB's on the net who have slammed this incident for years now couldn't do any better themselves.

Coronach
November 12, 2003, 04:18 PM
I was gonna respond, but tcsd1236 is faaaaaaar more in-the-know than me. So, what he said.

The important facts are:

1. LE recognized Columbine as a cluster, and has adopted new policies for active shooter situations.

2. No matter what, the cavalry is always gonna arrive too late for some of the victims. The question is how late, and for how many.

Mike

PS Our active shooter response plan is...exhilirating to say the least. Will it work? Would it have helped at Columbine? I dunno. That place was a huge maze...all I can say with certainty is that there's almost no way it could end up worse.

Sean Smith
November 12, 2003, 04:50 PM
I don't think you can have it both ways... either waiting for SWAT was right for the circumstances, or it wasn't. Change in policy is tacit admission that it wasn't.

Will it work? Would it have helped at Columbine? I dunno. That place was a huge maze...all I can say with certainty is that there's almost no way it could end up worse.

Bingo. You can never know for certain how things that never happened will turn out. But pretending that old behavior wasn't wrong... and the wrong decision under the circumstance, even given only what was known at the time... doesn't serve any practical purpose. You can still do what you thought was right at the time, and be completely wrong.

I believe the armchair QB's on the net who have slammed this incident for years now couldn't do any better themselves.

Irrelevant. The question is if the police could have done better. The answer is clearly yes. At least, they seem to think so, otherwise why change their tactics after the fact?

Travis McGee
November 12, 2003, 05:01 PM
The officers on the scene were physical cowards, no ifs ands or buts.

While kids were dying and bleeding out, the cops played the game of "After you!", "No, after you!"

"We must wait for the governor!"
"Yes, we must wait."
"I don't believe I have authority. Let's wait to find out."

And while the cowardly commanders dithered, none of the cops on scene said: "The hell with you! I'm going in in five minutes. Those who are going in with me, fall in over here. You can fire me tomorrow, but now, I'm going in!"

None of the cops on scene with their kevlar vests and SMGs did, though. They all waited and dithered while their bosses engaged in a coward's bureaucratic circle jerk. Five real men among those cops could have gone in and at least saved the bleeding wounded.

But instead, they hid outside behind vehicled, while kids were murdered and bled to death.

Cowards.

There was no 'first responder' policy in 66 at the Texas Tower. There weren't even SWAT teams. But heros stormed the observation deck anyway, at great risk to themselves, to stop the sniper Charles Whitman.

Coronach
November 12, 2003, 05:04 PM
I don't think that either of us are trying to have it both ways. I also dont think that either of us are saying that the departments could not have done better...but the area where they could have done better was on the preparation side, not once the bodies started hitting the floor.

But remember, training regular officers to do such things, and giving them the tools to do it, is oft dismissed as "militarization of the police." In the same vein, as soon as someone mentions that Smallville, USA has a SWAT team (in order to ensure rapid, timely response), the first question asked is "why do they need such a thing?" :rolleyes:

So, we don't want the cops to prepare for these eventualities, but we're perfectly willing to demand that they formulate a plan that will work when the unthinkable happens. Well, THAT is a recipe for disaster. The battle for Columbine was lost, but it was lost months before Harris and Klebold left for school that day.

Mike

Hkmp5sd
November 12, 2003, 06:18 PM
SWAT teams have a minimum response time of 45-60 minutes, depending on the team, where they are coming from and where they need to respond to. Thats a minimum time.
It's not just a matter of SWAT getting to the scene. Once there, they do not form up and charge into the building. They deploy their sniper for long distance visual information. They send up scouts to gather information. They interview all of the witnesses for more information. All of this is processed by the senior officers who then determine the game plan.

The SOP is based on confronting a barricaded gunman, possibly holding hostages. In 99.99% of their calls, that's what they encounter. Given their training and SOPs were based on that, 3 hours isn't an unrealistic amount of time before entering.

Standing Wolf
November 12, 2003, 09:08 PM
Do any schools actually have armed teachers?

I could be mistaken, but I believe teachers in Utah can now legally carry concealed firearms.

7.62FullMetalJacket
November 12, 2003, 09:33 PM
You would be right. CCW into schools in Utah. No problem. I do not know of any that are armed, but then they are concealed!:cool:

Matt G
November 13, 2003, 01:47 PM
When Columbine first occured, I was furious about what I perceived as the cowardice of the first responding cops, even though I, too, had gone through the pre-Columbine police academy doctrine of training that said "Secure and hold for SWAT."

Later, I got some more of the word about how it went on. I still would find it hard not to go in, but here's the thing about a crisis: one person is in charge of the crisis scene. To make your plan work, you have to follow the directions of the Crisis Scene Manager/Commander. (Gone toward "managers" now, because one school of though puts the initial first responder in charge of the scene, with the assumption that he has the best picture of what's going on. Thus your first year rookie may well be telling a lieutenant or deputy chief what to do.) Allow multiple good-hearted cops with good intentions to go charging into a maze-like large school building individually, and you're asking for trouble, possibly re-arming your BG's. That was the view at the time, and still, to a certain extent, is actually true. Without getting specific about modern tactics, I can say that this is now addressed.

Coronach is right: the new plan is certainly "exhilerating," but will it be perceived as the better way, if (when) it finally gets implemented by a suburban community's P.D.? Time will tell. Doubtful it will be worse than the Columbine "solution". :(

Coronach is also right again, that cops constantly walk the line between "you should have prepared for such an exigency!" and "why in the world do you need rifles? Why do you need to train like that?!? You're cops, not soldiers!" Truth is, your average infantry platoon could probably do a far superior job to clearing a building than a group of street cops who may or may not have military experience, and who might, in a proactive department, practice such excercises once a year.

If you enjoyed reading about "Larry Pratt - "What Went Wrong At Columbine" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!