If you want to wear a badge, decide if you are ready to go into harm’s way before you take the oath.
“…that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion…”
United States Oath of Office
Time flies. In 2003, I was mobilized with my reserve unit in New Orleans, and I was discussing with a then lieutenant colonel (now retired colonel) how some reservists got “hip pocket profiles” when they realized they may get deployed to a combat theater. In English, someone “discovered” a medical issue that would prevent them from being sent.
The officer I was speaking with was a basic training company commander in 1990, in the middle of the Gulf War. He mentioned how some of his recruits were disturbed they may actually have to go into combat. They joined the Army for the GI Bill to pay for college, etc.
When I signed my ROTC scholarship contract in 1983, I remember one part I had to initial was acknowledgement that I had no moral compulsion against using arms against another human being, and I may be called to serve in combat or other hazardous situations. I was eighteen and I took that oath knowing a war was not on the radar, but the possibility was there.
A couple of news articles on active shooter situations came out recently, and neither show police in a good light. First, on the May 2022 school shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde TX. The US Department of Justice released its review of the reaction of the local police in the immediate aftermath of the attack, and the report is damning. From the report:
The most significant failure was that responding officers should have immediately recognized the incident as an active shooter situation, using the resources and equipment that were sufficient to push forward immediately and continuously toward the threat until entry was made into classrooms 111/112 and the threat was eliminated. Since the tragic shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, a fundamental precept in active shooter response and the generally accepted practice is that the first priority must be to immediately neutralize the subject; everything else, including officer safety, is subordinate to that objective…
It specifically criticizes the now retired Chief of Police of the Uvalde Independent School District Police Department (UISDPD) Pete Arredondo. Chief Arredondo stated he was confused and not sure he was in charge at the scene. Excuse me, Chief, you have stars on your collar, no one else on the scene did, so that makes you “the most rank,” i.e., the HMFIC (if you need that translated, PM me).
I’ll focus on one thing in particular, aside from the multiple other failures on the scene, like not checking the door. Leadership. According to DOJ, Chief Arredondo prioritized clearing the building of other teachers and students before engaging the shooter. Chief, your priority is first, last, and always to stop the killing. Not to mention for a generation we have taught teachers, students, nurses, etc. to do three things in case of an active shooter: RUN! HIDE! FIGHT!
Chief Arredondo also had another critical failure, lack of communications. The first requirement of Critical Incident Management is to establish communications. Without communications, the other six tasks (Establish Inner Perimeter, Establish Outer Perimeter, etc.) are not achievable. Again, from the report:
Communications difficulties exacerbated these problems. Per UCISD policies, Chief Arredondo was the on-scene incident commander, but he lacked a radio, having discarded his radios during his arrival thinking they were unnecessary. And although he attempted to communicate with officers in other parts of the hallway via phone, unfortunately, on multiple occasions, he directed officers intending to gain entry into the classrooms to stop, because he appeared to determine that other victims should first be removed from nearby classrooms to prevent further injury.
A phone is communication one on one. In an incident like this, communications to all personnel are critical. That is why you have radios, to broadcast to all units.
I received a report last week on how the Uvalde Police are implementing change, specifically getting different equipment. Sorry, the issue in 2022 was not equipment, it was personnel, specifically the senior leadership. The equipment (firearms, etc.) needed to engage the shooter was on site.
Another ugly report is from Florida. A school resource officer is being sued for his inaction during the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland FL:
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. — A lawsuit filed by families of the 17 people killed and other victims of the Parkland, Florida, school massacre against a former sheriff’s deputy who failed to intervene can go forward, a judge ruled, rejecting his motion to dismiss the case before trial…
Security videos played during that trial show that 36 seconds after (Nikolas) Cruz’s attack began, Peterson left his office in the administration building, about 100 yards (92 meters) away, and jumped into a cart with two unarmed civilian security guards. They arrived a minute later at the three-story classroom building and Peterson got out near the east doorway to the first-floor hallway.
Cruz was at the hallway’s opposite end, firing his AR-15-style semiautomatic rifle.
Peterson, who was not wearing a bullet-resistant vest, didn’t open the door. Instead, he took cover 75 feet (23 meters) away in the alcove of a neighboring building, his gun still drawn. He stayed there for 40 minutes, long after the shooting ended and other police officers had stormed inside…
I posted on this shooting in American Thinker in 2018, and I mentioned how no one really knows how you will react until you are under fire. Also, by law, a peace officer is not required to put themselves at risk. That being said, I recall the words of an academy classmate who was running the Houston Police Department’s Active Shooter training, “I’m not going to second-guess them (the officers at Columbine CO), but we all have a badge, and we entered this profession knowing what was expected of us. And people have to know we will do what has to be done.”
In the aftermath of these two incidents, police must take a look at themselves. Again, you never know what you will do until the bullets start flying, but you should prepare yourself mentally on what is coming. If you are unsure, that’s understandable. If you sure you can’t, get another line of work.
Or to steal the phrase from another cop friend, “If you’re not willing to go in, turn in the badge.”
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
2 thoughts on “Police: Go In. Or Go Home.”