Long form article on school shootings, police dept scapegoating, training for active shooters, and the confusing time to be a police officer where public feedback wants deescalation in most scenarios, but expect military or warrior mentality training for school shootings responses.
Because cowardice is not an actual crime—courts have consistently ruled that police officers have no specific constitutional duty to protect citizens, except for those in their custody—Florida prosecutors argued that Peterson, in his job as a school resource officer, was a “caregiver” for the children at Stoneman Douglas. His trial would thus be an experiment in a new arena of police accountability: Can cops be criminally punished for failing to move toward gunfire?
Peterson had received only three specific active-shooter trainings, in 2007, 2012, and 2016. Although other courses had taught relevant or adjacent skills—“tactical pistol,” “combat life saver”—or had been lectures that focused on things like the history of mass shootings, Peterson had spent very little time learning how to do one of the most dangerous and complex tasks required of law enforcement: confront a shooter who has a semiautomatic rifle.
In one solo-response exercise, the script prompted instructors to say: “There is no reason to give up a good position of cover … Remember, the cavalry is on their way, so it’s better to hold, than to expose yourself to unknown threats.”
Over the past few years, the public has witnessed multiple distressing moments of baffling police behavior. All those cops standing, impotent, in the hallways of a Uvalde, Texas, elementary school while children were slaughtered. Cops killing Black motorists after traffic stops escalated needlessly. To policing experts, both problems fall under the same umbrella: improper use of force. Too little force, too much force—both lead to terrible outcomes.
Nobody is sure any longer what the job of policing is, Morgan told me, or how to weigh its different priorities. This squares with what cops have been telling me in recent years: It’s never been a more confusing time to be a police officer.
But is that a core position where the dsa will revoke endorsements of members? Presumably members can have argument and debate about positions. Also, it's questionable to suggest AOC is somehow strongly pro Israel. So why is there such a dumb headline stance on discussing anti semitism because some folks are afraid it might come off as pro Israel?