Douglas County Schools buy AR-15's!

[Warp]

But the police officer is usually INSIDE the car where the gun is stored. He doesn't have to leave a building (possibly under fire), get his rifle, and then run back -- all while people are being killed.

Police officers park their cars all the time around here. They absolutely are not always in the car. I see police officers inside of malls for example, and they aren't carrying rifles.

It's pretty simple...a rifle in the car in the parking lot or otherwise right nearby beats a rifle in a car (with an office also in the car) many miles away.

Still in a perfect world if it were up to me there would be storage inside the building at a need to know basis location. And there would be multiple such locations. All rifles would be configured the same or substantially similar

 

[Vern Humphrey]

This is getting silly.

Several of us have pointed out, if there is an active shooter, and the officer is inside the building, he cannot leave the building. So what good is a rifle in the car?

 

[Warp]

This is getting silly.

Several of us have pointed out, if there is an active shooter, and the officer is inside the building, he cannot leave the building. So what good is a rifle in the car?

Why not?

I must have missed where they said rifles will be in the cars but officers won't be allowed to go get them


You know, the US has already had two would be school shootings, that I can think of, where somebody inside went out to their car, retrieved a gun, went back in, and confronted and stopped the shooter.

 

[X-Rap]

The problem with this forum is people draw lines and make absolute statements when there can be so many variables.
It doesn't matter if the rifle is in the car or a safe on the other end of the building, what matters is that someone respond immediately with what they have and those following on to up arm as much as possible.
If a second or third responder has to go just outside an entrance he was near rather than cross the campus to access a rifle in the office why wouldn't he?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[danez71]

The problem with this forum is people draw lines and make absolute statements when there can be so many variables.

I completely agree. Life is not black and white. Arguing as if it is tarnishes any points made.

original said by Warp

It's pretty simple...a rifle in the car in the parking lot or otherwise right nearby beats a rifle in a car (with an office also in the car) many miles away.

I totally agree with this too.... in fact I said it twice days ago in this thread.

Are there better options? Certainly.

But sometimes in life you don't get cake and ice cream..... and you only get to enjoy one of them.

But isn't that better than not getting either?

This is an incremental step.... an evolutionary step... in the right direction.

Maybe we should take a step back and enjoy some ice-cream.

And rather than admonish the cook for the lack of cake, start working on baking one.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Originally posted by Warp:

Why not?

I must have missed where they said rifles will be in the cars but officers won't be allowed to go get them

Obviously, you did. Go back and re-read the thread, especially the part where there was a discussion of the principle that an LEO does NOT leave a building where there's an active shooter -- he stays and uses whatever he has available at the time.

You also missed the part about the officer at Columbine, who left the building because he "only had 7 rounds remaining" and he "went to get help." He later committed suicide.

 

[Realist]

Does this mean they don't carry a sidearm?

 

[Realist]

And relates to this ... how?
As there are more and more CCW permits on the streets this is a net good.
Your presumption that someone motivated enough to get a CCW would not continue with training is questionable.

 

[Warp]

Obviously, you did. Go back and re-read the thread, especially the part where there was a discussion of the principle that an LEO does NOT leave a building where there's an active shooter -- he stays and uses whatever he has available at the time.

You also missed the part about the officer at Columbine, who left the building because he "only had 7 rounds remaining" and he "went to get help." He later committed suicide.

Is this 'principle' part of the SOP (or whatever they call it) in this county?

If the 'principle' is a hindrance to being effective, maybe it shouldn't be touted as a principle.

I'm not seeing anything that prevents an officer from up-arming himself (or herself) with a rifle right then and right over there.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

If the 'principle' is a hindrance to being effective, maybe it shouldn't be touted as a principle.

I'm not seeing anything that prevents an officer from up-arming himself (or herself) with a rifle right then and right over there.

And when he returns from his excursion, and finds all the children who have died in his absence, what then?

 

[Warp]

And when he returns from his excursion, and finds all the children who have died in his absence, what then?

When he is shot and killed right after and right before all the other children are killed, because his pistol rounds were stopped by the shooters soft armour, what then?

I can make up hypotheticals where any decision is the wrong one all day long, too.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

When he is shot and killed right after and right before all the other children are killed, because his pistol rounds were stopped by the shooters soft armour, what then?

Then he will have died because he did not have the proper weapon ready to hand.

 

[Warp]

Then he will have died because he did not have the proper weapon ready to hand.

Explain why he chose not to properly arm himself when he easily could have.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Because YOU told him to leave his long gun in his car, of course!

 

[Warp]

Because YOU told him to leave his long gun in his car, of course!

-No I didn't, don't lie

-So the proper armament is in his car, why did he choose not to retrieve it?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

You and a few others on this thread said he should leave the long gun in the car. He cannot retrieve it BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HE IS SWORN TO PROTECT ARE BEING KILLED BEFORE HIS EYES and he cannot abandon them.

You should have thought of this earlier -- as I said, if a long gun is needed either an officer who does not interact with the students should have it, or it should be stored in a readily accessible place INSIDE the building.

 

[danez71]

You and a few others on this thread said he should leave the long gun in the car. He cannot retrieve it BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HE IS SWORN TO PROTECT ARE BEING KILLED BEFORE HIS EYES and he cannot abandon them.

Wait a minute Vern.

Who says that?

Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that LE doesn't have a duty to protect?


Are you saying the LE (or anyone for that matter) is forbidden from pulling back in order to reposition and gain an advantage?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Hasn't SCOTUS already ruled that LE doesn't have a duty to protect?

No. The SCOTUS has said there is no INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to protection, but there is a collective right. An LEO under orders to provide security at a school has a duty to carry out his orders and protect the students.

Are you saying the LE (or anyone for that matter) is forbidden from pulling back in order to reposition and gain an advantage?

The officer who fled the school at Columbine was disgraced forever and committed suicide. The general consensus is that one cannot abandon helpless children in the midst of an active shooting event.

Now let's imagine your officer who decides he needs the weapon which he left in the trunk of his car. He hot foots it out to the parking lot, gets the weapon, and returns to find the shooting is all over -- dozens of children are dead, and the perpetrator has left the scene.

What did this officer accomplish by abandoning the children?

 

[Warp]

You and a few others on this thread said he should leave the long gun in the car.

No, I did not. If you believe otherwise, please provide a quote. Otherwise I will continue asking you to please stop lying.

Hint: Here is what I actually said

Police officers park their cars all the time around here. They absolutely are not always in the car. I see police officers inside of malls for example, and they aren't carrying rifles.

It's pretty simple...a rifle in the car in the parking lot or otherwise right nearby beats a rifle in a car (with an office also in the car) many miles away.

Still in a perfect world if it were up to me there would be storage inside the building at a need to know basis location. And there would be multiple such locations. All rifles would be configured the same or substantially similar

You should have thought of this earlier -- as I said, if a long gun is needed either an officer who does not interact with the students should have it, or it should be stored in a readily accessible place INSIDE the building.

As you said?

You mean as I said

Police officers park their cars all the time around here. They absolutely are not always in the car. I see police officers inside of malls for example, and they aren't carrying rifles.

It's pretty simple...a rifle in the car in the parking lot or otherwise right nearby beats a rifle in a car (with an office also in the car) many miles away.

Still in a perfect world if it were up to me there would be storage inside the building at a need to know basis location. And there would be multiple such locations. All rifles would be configured the same or substantially similar

BTW: An officer could go to his/he car to retrieve a rifle. I have yet to see any reason why they could not, except your hypothetical situation where you don't think they would.

A faculty/staff calls the officer to say they are witnessing a person or persons pulling guns out of a car in the parking lot on the other side of the building and are now walking towards the door...the officer's car is parked right by the entrance let's say 20 yards away...nope he isn't going to get that rifle because...well because you said he can't?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Talk about disingenuous!!

 

[Warp]

Talk about disingenuous!!

-
Why would quickly retrieving a nearby rifle to really take the fight to the shooter(s) be considered "abandoning children"??

 

[danez71]

No. The SCOTUS has said there is no INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to protection, but there is a collective right. An LEO under orders to provide security at a school has a duty to carry out his orders and protect the students.

The officer who fled the school at Columbine was disgraced forever and committed suicide. The general consensus is that one cannot abandon helpless children in the midst of an active shooting event.

Now let's imagine your officer who decides he needs the weapon which he left in the trunk of his car. He hot foots it out to the parking lot, gets the weapon, and returns to find the shooting is all over -- dozens of children are dead, and the perpetrator has left the scene.

What did this officer accomplish by abandoning the children?

Thanks for clarifying the SCOTUS ruling. Ive never really looked at it.

The other stuff you wrote, I dont disagree with, its just that its a human not being able to deal with the aftermath. That's not really what being discussed.




I re-read the thread.


Warp did not say they "should" leave it in the car as you stated.


However, yes, you were the one that started down the path that it should be on campus and not in a car 1st.

 

[Warp]

I have said that having a rifle in the car is better than not having one at all, it is an option, and it could be a very good option to have. Or it could be irrelevant. The only way to know is after the fact...so I stick to "it's better to have a rifle in the car than not at all".

And as I said, if it were up to me, there would be rifles stored in the school. You could even go so far as to have the officers carry magazines on their person and not keep any ammo with the rifles.

Edit: Even in hindsight it might not be clear

 

[X-Rap]

Vern, let's pretend the gun is I the safe in the office and the shooter is in the library at the other end of the building. Does the cop run 150 yds down hallways to retrieve his rifle then so he doesn't have to leave the building?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Sam1911]

Now let's imagine your officer who decides he needs the weapon which he left in the trunk of his car. He hot foots it out to the parking lot, gets the weapon, and returns to find the shooting is all over -- dozens of children are dead, and the perpetrator has left the scene.

What did this officer accomplish by abandoning the children?

I have to admit I don't see what's gained by painting an unwinnable situation. Officer stays and fights with handgun, maybe dies, maybe saves no-one. Maybe prevails. Officer runs to car to retrieve rifle. Maybe returns in time to save lives. Maybe doesn't. It isn't possible to define the outcomes of this hypothetical in any but pre-determined arbitrary ways.

The officer who fled the school at Columbine was disgraced forever and committed suicide. The general consensus is that one cannot abandon helpless children in the midst of an active shooting event.

The officer who left Columbine did so because he was out of rounds and running away. An officer racing to retrieve a more capable weapon is NOT doing the same thing. I am quite certain you comprehend the crucial difference between the two.

Would either decision be the right one? Maybe. Maybe either, maybe neither. Dying in place in front of a bunch of dead children is not materially superior, either. Sometimes there isn't a satisfactory answer.

And X-Rap has a perfectly apropos question. There are many situations where an officer could be inside a building and yet farther away from a rifle stored therein than he is from a rifle stored in his vehicle.

You wanna paint another pre-determined hypothetical based on that?