It's true that we don't have all the facts. And, like it or not, we very well never will since our sole source of information on this will very likely remain the media.
And the media is somewhat less reliable, in my opinion, than "hearsay evidence".
Gun free zone laws or not, this man has a legal right to carry his firearm as he did. We can argue the point as to whether or not he should be ALLOWED to do so all we wish by saying the laws which apply to the rest of the citizens should also apply to LEO as well. However, the fact remains that he STILL has a legal right to carry his firearm under such circumstances and THAT is the point which counts here.
I'm not LEO. However, I DO have a limited legal right to possession of a firearm on school grounds under South Carolina law, specifically Section 16-23-420 (Carrying or displaying firearms in public buildings or areas adjacent thereto). I have, and will continue to, exercise that right. It says, in part:
The provisions of this subsection related to any premises or property owned, operated, or controlled by a private or public school, college, university, technical college, or other post-secondary institution, do not apply to a person who is authorized to carry a concealed weapon pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 31, Title 23 when the weapon remains inside an attended or locked motor vehicle and is secured in a closed glove compartment, closed console, closed trunk, or in a closed container secured by an integral fastener and transported in the luggage compartment of the vehicle.
This is entirely within the scope of the GFSA
Granted, I cannot have my firearm actually on my person like this LEO is allowed, but I am still allowed to have it WITH me in the vehicle (as prescribed) whenever I drop my children off at school.
Though the LEO DOES have a legal right that we do not, this isn't a case of a LEO "lording a right" he has over the rest of us. It's a case of someone (or several someones) complaining about even THAT right.