LE and Columbine? Lessons learned?

[john l]

Guys,
What do you think Law Enforcement has learned from Columbine? Do you think that SWAT teams have changed their TACTICS in a school shooting situation?
I wasn't there, and I am not a LEO, but I wonder what the story was behind the police officer assigned to the school? Where was he? What reason did he not actively hunt the shooters? Isnt that why he was an officer? That part of the equation has always bothered me. I mean, if you don't intend to go into harm's way, then be a hairdresser or something. Don't wear a badge or sign up for the Marine Corps. You can go ahead and flame me, but geez, what the heck are we paying the cops for ?
John L.

 

[Mulliga]

As I understand it, there were two separate officers in the school who "traded shots" with the killers. Given that Klebold and Harris were armed with fairly inexpensive weapons (Hi-point carbine and Tec-9), I'm very surprised that neither officer was able to hit them. Then again, the standard service pistol or revolver is no match for a carbine at extended distances.

The SWAT team didn't reach the library until roughly three hours after the two began shooting.

Perhaps the real lesson to be learned from Columbine is that the officers assigned to a school better be good shooters. In addition, a patrol carbine or shotgun (or both) would be worthwhile additions to the standard police car on campus.

 

[Fed168]

The doctrine at the time was to hold and contain. Line officers were not trained to handle a situation like this. End result being that all officers are now taught to one degree or another a response to an "active shooter", so an immediate response is given as opposed to the older response.

John L- you really don't know what will happen until the incident occurs. Any number of things could have gone through that officer's mind. Officers do go into harm's way- but they gotta do it carefully. Rushing into something like this about garuntees that person's demise- kinda look before you leap.

No offense taken.

 

[mondocomputerman]

john l, I have wondered the same thing in the past. They probably felt way undergunned to start off with. Did they ever leave the school building?

 

[Sarge111]

Columbine and others like it...

changed the way we think, train and respond to active shooter incidents.

I'm 'old school' by current standards. We generally responded to 'high threat' environments by pouring in more cops, with bigger clubs and guns.

Then the SWAT phenomenon kicked in and pretty soon every little burg or police station had their own team, complete with ninja suits and MP5's. Well, admin has to justify all that expenditure so pretty soon they're using the SWAT team for not just search warrants and hostage situations- but felony warrant services and a lot of other calls that blue-shirts had been doing unassisted for years.

It takes policy and procedure to get these things done, so department policies started to reflect these changes. Pertty soon you couldn't change a roll of TP in the station-house john, without having a swat team clear the room for you first. It got pretty ridiculous in some locales, and nothing used to tickle me more than to arrest some supposed badass myself, while the swat team sat on the guy's house.

I have nothing against the concept of SWAT (been on a team myself), and there are times when nothing else will do- but specialization is for insects. What Columbine did was to teach us that there are times when you just can't wait for the cavalry- so you BECOME the cavalry. Get pumped, grab a couple of uniforms, and go through the place like a dose of salt- crushing threats and rescuing the innocent as you go. I happen to like this attitude because it is precisely the mindset that has always enabled good men to go willingly into harm's way, for the sake of others in trouble.

You still have to react, intelligently and lawfully of course, to the conditions you encounter as you proceed. Close range, fast-moving fireams training has improved radically, and a lot of officers have benefitted as a result. If any good came of these tragedies, that is probably it.

 

[Ankeny]

I teach in a local high school and I travel back and forth on those long drives to pistol matches with a couple of LEO firearms trainers and members of the regional Tactical Response Team. I asked if school shootings have changed how tactical teams respond. The answer is a resounding YES.

The members of our tac team have all been back to school for additional training and the patrol officers have also been trained. Without going into detail, our guys are not going to covey up like quail and sit around and wait while some nut shoots the school full of holes. School shootings in my area will not be treated like a traditional "barricaded suspect" or "hostage" scenario. Our guys have adopted similar tactics and techniques as used by the military for agressive and dynamic entry in a war time hostage rescue environment involving an active shooter. I guess you all know what that means...

 

[LawDog]

Lessons learned?

1) If you don't have a SWAT team, and you get a Columbine-type situation, then your department is negligent and your boss should be taken out and shot.

2) If you do have a SWAT team, but haven't yet had a Columbine-type situation, then your department is nothing but a bunch of militarized jack-booted thugs with Fascist egos and your boss should be taken out and shot.

LawDog

 

[Jeff White]

Actually it's brought things full circle. When I started in 1985 most departments (if they had SWAT) would establish the inner and outer perimeter while waiting for SWAT. But the supervisor on the scene had to develop a SHTF plan in case the shooting started before SWAT could arrive. At some point it was decided that that was too dangerous for patrol officers to do and it became doctrine to wait. Now we're back to taking action if action needs to be taken.

Today we have active shooter programs that train the first responding officers to go in and eliminate the problem if that's what's called for.

Jeff

 

[grnzbra]

New report about the shooters - they wanted to be bombers.

A new report on Columbine shooters. Actually, they wanted to be bombers.

 

[Baba Louie]

I would like to think that most of this nations LE agencies SWAT teams have at least walked through their local high schools and have simple copies of the floor plans available with the thought in mind of such emergencies...
Alas and anon, I fear not.
However, Hope springs eternal

 

[george_co]

Things Have Changed

Here in Colorado, I am aware that most LE agencies are now training for dynamic entry. Approximately two weeks ago our local agencies held mock attacks at our local high school. They included not only PD & Sheriffs, but also Wildlife officers and other armed officers not normally associated with with these kinds of duties.

The training included the use of paintballs or simunitions (not sure which) with active defenders. In my job I am around LEO fairly frequently and mentioned to some of them that one reason that I got it was because of their failure to respond to Columbine. They assured me that what happened with the response at Columbine won't happen again. I just pray they don't ever get a chance to prove it.

Edited to Add: Most of the officers I talk to are pretty ashamed of how Columbine was handled.

Its just like the comment about the military always fighting the last war. People and institutions change to meet today's threat, which will probably not be anything like the threat tomorrow. In the old days, people didn't normally shoot people just for the heck of it, they wanted something. Now, people don't want anything they just want to kill people and make a statement.

The best kind of response is where officers are trained in a multitude of situations and they can the respond based on the situation. I suspect that Chiefs of Police and there attorneys don't like that, because it gives to much room for plaintiff's attorneys to sue them.

I doubt this is worth two cents.
Be Safe
George

 

[PaladinVC]

When I went through the Police Academy (I was Tackleberry ), we had a section on school shooting incidents. It consisted of a video and about four hours of lecture by a former state cop who had retired about a decade before Columbine.

The basic scenario was that some kid (a hispanic-looking fellow, although all the other students were white) had flipped out and was shooting up the school with a Tec-9. The two town cops on duty showed up, and a State cop and the off-duty town cop showed up about five minutes later. Since the SWAT unit was about an hour away, they couldn't wait, so they got out their shotties and carbines and basically stormed the place. They marched briskly through the halls in a "T" formation, ignoring wounded victims except to ask where the psycho kid was, and when they finally encountered him they gave him a verbal warning and then plugged him when he made a move to shoot at them.

That's what we were taught to do. Granted, it's just one scenario, but it was a short training segment. Once the kid had been whacked, the evacuation was completed and bomb sweeps started up.

 

[sendec]

Find Bad Guys. Stop Bad Guys.

That's pretty much the active shooter doctrine in a nutshell. At the risk of sounding fruity. Columbine has empowered patrol officers. They now realize that they may have to cowboy and -girl up and take care of business just like they did in the olden days like the 1970's. There may be a place for SWAT, but it is not nor ever should have been as a replacement for actual police officers doing actual police work like actually hunting actual bad guys.

I dont think the public understands how convoluted and Byzantine the police command structure can get. In a multi-jurisdictional situation like Columbine getting a decision made and executed can be well nigh impossible.

SWAT has been seen as a panacea. Columbine and the Bank ofAmerica has shown what the SWAT concept is not good at - a dynamic flexible response to a fluid evolving situation.

 

[foghornl]

"Gun-Free School zones"......aren't.

The everyday "Line Patrol Officer" should be better prepared to take an active role when there are shots fired in a school zone.

When there is an active shooter situation, you need a lot more than a handgun.

 

[john l]

Thank you all for your insights on this thread. Thanks for taking the time to explain to me, as one on the outside, the mindset of LE at the time.
And of course, my biggest gripe is the shooter's themselves- it is a small consolation to blame LE when criminals do their deeds, and leave a wake of despair and turmoil in so many lives left behind. As a parent with small kids, it makes me even more resolved to stay involved in my kid's lives, and really try to know what they are doing as they grow older- but hey, maybe Harris and Klebold's parents thought they were in tune with what their little thugs were doing also........
sad commentary on society, but it does sound like that the officers today are more empowered to act on an active shooter, and I really do believe that most LEOs are the type to be willing to go in harm's way.
John L

 

[molonlabe]

lets see...Lessons learned.
LE was a bunch of boneheads and failed to act not only on scene but for the prior year to the incident.
Swat was a bunch of yellow bellied cowardes.

I supposes as they were hunkered down outside they thought fireworks were going on inside the school. I say if you can't take the heat of you job get the **** out.

From
A firefighter that can't remember when the last time he didn't go into a burning building because I might get burned. (Fully involved not included)


LawDog said it all. I think that that swat team just wanted to run aroung with FA MP5's and look cool to their girlfriends. I would give you spit for any of them or their leader. Their action that day have long troubled me in comparison the the brave men who gave their lives in the twin towers. Someones head should have been on a pike over that.


LawDog
2) If you do have a SWAT team, but haven't yet had a Columbine-type situation, then your department is nothing but a bunch of militarized jack-booted thugs with Fascist egos and your boss should be taken out and shot.

 

[Ankeny]

 

[sendec]

I had a really witty comment, but what's the use?

 

[Rebel Gunman HK]

I think the word "dynamic" has become the new "tactical"!

 

[tcsd1236]

When there is an active shooter situation, you need a lot more than a handgun.

Tell that to my bosses at TCSD; they continue to refuse to issue us rifles. I can teach and qualify the Sgts who ARE issued rifles, but I cannot carry one myself, in spite of the fact that I have had more rifle training between the military and LEO training than anyone else in the agency. Go figure. Most of my fellow officers don't think ahead, either...they carry the slugs and 00 buck they have in and on the weapon with no reloads readily available beyond that. I have suggested thatw e upgradde to extended tubes to at least have more rounds in the weapon..the cost was only soemthing like $30 per 870, but nope.the admins wont go for it....Me, I carry extra handgun and shotgun ammo in the car...just no way of knowing when you'll get more ammo out on the street a half hour from the office if you need it.
At least my part time agency lets me carry my Bushmaster.

 

[bill2]

LEO skills

I'm curious about law enforcement shooting skills. I don't know if any of you have gone to John Ross' web site (john-ross.net) but he writes about the gun culture, and specifically talks about police agencies and many cops not having any gun training before they become cops, as well as trying and succeeding in avoiding qualifying with their personal weapons by getting the range officer buddy to sign off on the card. When I went to Front Sight years ago, when they were still in California, one of the senior instructors said after graduation was over that I shot better than probably 80 % of cops and that was not a good thing.

So how good are cops, whatever agency, with their issued weapons - pistol/rifle/shotgun? Do all cops train regularly or do they avoid it? How good are SWAT teams compared to regular cops? Do most cops enjoy shooting, or they avoid it if they can? I know these are very general questions, but any responses would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[M1911]

So how good are cops, whatever agency, with their issued weapons - pistol/rifle/shotgun? Do all cops train regularly or do they avoid it? How good are SWAT teams compared to regular cops? Do most cops enjoy shooting, or they avoid it if they can? I know these are very general questions, but any responses would be appreciated.

Some cops are very good. They didn't get that way through the training they received in the academy. And they don't stay that way through the annual qualification on the job. A cop who is a good shot was a good shot before he joined the force and stays that way because he trains on his own time. Many (most?) are not so good.

Several years ago I chatted with a police officer from a department in a large Northeastern city (several thousand officers). He was a training officer in the department. He told me that less than 10% of the officers were serious shooters. He said that even a number of officers on the SWAT team were not real shooters.

I took a class with a training officer from a large sherrif's office in the Southwest (one of the largest in the nation, I think). He was pretty good. He said that in general his officers were very poor when they left the academy and were even worse a few years later (due to lack of practice).

I'm a fair shooter. I've never qualified in IDPA, but when I do shoot IDPA, I'm probably near the higher marksman or lower sharpshooter level. In other words, I'm not the worst at the match but I'm not that far from the bottom. David Sevigny blows me away. A friend of mine is a detention/deportation officer with BICE (formerly INS). Unlike most police departments, they must qualify quarterly. He qualifies relatively high. I'm a better shot than he is, even when using his duty gun.

There are many police officers who are outstanding shots and are far, far better marksman than I. But the sorry fact is that many police officers are very poor shots. They have limited training and that training may not be high quality. They work long, hard hours. Many moonlight to make ends meet. The last thing they want to spend time and money on is going to the range.

M1911

 

[tcsd1236]

So how good are cops, whatever agency, with their issued weapons - pistol/rifle/shotgun? Do all cops train regularly or do they avoid it? How good are SWAT teams compared to regular cops? Do most cops enjoy shooting, or they avoid it if they can? I know these are very general questions, but any responses would be appreciated.

As with any other law enforcement related skill, you have people with a wide range of abilities. Some of our guys are natural drivers and do well on vehicle operation. Some are good shooters. Most guys do enough to get through the qualification courses we put them through. Very few officers spend any amount of time shooting outside of formal range qual days; after all, most of them wouldn't be carrying a gun if it wasn't for their job requirements.

Shooting, while very rarely a critical LE skill, is done on a much less frequent basis than just about any other LE -related task.Unless the officer is a gun enthusiast, they aren't going to invest personal time in improving their skills. I routinely used to invite officers to shoot at my own range because the PD range is off limits outside of formal training days, and I very rarely get any more than a quarter of those people actually attending who had even SAID they would show up, let alone out of those who were invited.

 

[mete]

This is all after the fact. In the two years before the shooting there were 15 contacts between the shooters and authorities. The signs were there but apparently ignored . This has happened many times, in many situations.

 

[Checkman]

Ah yes 20/20 hindsight. If we were just issued crystal balls and could suspend due process and the constitution. At least in regards to those individuals who we believe have the "potential" to be homicidal or at least very evil in the future.

My wife is a teacher and has a student (2nd grade) who like to kill small animals, start fires and basically can't read or write. Mom is a waste and a cranker (meth user). Now that kid is meeting two of the three things that we usually find in most serial killers backgrounds. If he's wetting his bed then he's just fullfilled the "profile" of a serial killer.

Now as a cop does that mean I can grab this kid and put him away in a cage for the rest of his natural life? Of course not. Sorry but I'm not working for Health and Welfare and I'm not a doctor. But if he does fullfill this profile in the future I'm just another incompetent officer who could have prevented a horrible tragedy and didn't.

Bad cop no donut.