This is going to be a very interesting case although we all like to think a person in that position that is armed is going to be a hero until the time comes who knows even the person themselves.
Even police officers have never been charged for not acting but you see them all the time taking cover and not running into the line of fire.
It was a bad look watching the video of him standing there doing nothing but directing other police officers rather than be actively taking action.
Forget that this is in America. We now have armed guards in schools so this could occur here. What is everybody else’s thoughts. Both on what should happen by law and what should be the responsibility and role of that person in good work ethic
If your issued with a firearm, training and employed to secure that whatever, in this case a school then absolutely he had a responsibility to act, if on the inside i’m all for lone wolf action at his chosen appropriate moment, but on the outside ie closed/blockaded doors then theres really no choice but to wait for an appropriate team to gain entry with the correct tools, professional door kickers train to do that all day everyday, its a really tough call, it could go either way but solo building clearance is one of the most dangerous things anyone can take part in
I agree not a far too distance instance would be the Lindt cafe situation. There is never a single police officer that is going to rush in and start shooting. Easy to plan what should have been done after the fact.
Exactly so can a security guard be charged with Negligence I could understand it more if it was like a bodyguard to the President but this guy who knows exactly what his job description is as Resource Officer the guy is in his 50s I would see them more as a visible deterrent at best.
My reading is that an SRO is a currently serving Police officer. He would have had training in his 30 years being a deputy. Directing other officers to remain 500 feet away from the building is much worse than not a good look.
Perjury is the icing on the cake.
It may be an unpopular opinion - but fuck him, people died because he chose to not do his job.
This is US law so hard to relate to here. And we dont have much in the way of facts.
BUT, I have spent the last 17 years watching managers and supervisors doing their best dodging their legal and job description responsibilities. (in fact going out of their way to break the law) And I mean 1000s of times.
So not a surprise to me. Not at all. Seems to be a human trait.
Im not really thinking of the law here or making a judgement based on law to a point. To me it is more about if you take that job what is your moral duty of care.
It seems in the US that the older practice would have been to stay out of harms way and call in for reinforcements. However I read that they no have a practice for what they call an active shooter which is more run in and start a gunfight with the shooter despite possible hostages. The second scenario I guess is based on acting faster and cutting your losses. Perhaps gained from the 911 plane hi jackings. You might as well act perhaps you may get wounded one hostage killed but doing nothing will result in bigger losses.
Even as a police officer if you are going to face charges for under reacting as well as over reacting it puts you in a very awkward position.