Quote:
Originally Posted by Land O Lakes
So do you think parents should:
1) be allowed to go in and stop the shooter?
2) be allowed to go in and retrieve their kid?
3) not be allowed to go in under any and all circumstances?
I think that is a very complicated question.
I prefer to look at from the point 3. Should the police be able to stop you going in, if they have decided they are not and instead will just set up a parameter and contain strategy?
Think of it like firemen rushing in to a burning building and bringing people out, one by one. You hear the fire chief say, 'That is it, no one else is going in. I think the building is going to collapse'. I think that is fair of him to say and to protect his firemen. But if you are a parent on scene and know your kids are still in there, should they be able to stop you taking that risk?
What if the Chief was wrong and the collapse was not imminent and you had lots of time to get in and out but they stopped you acting? Should you be allowed to risk your life, if you want to?
Some will say the risk of a parent rushing is different, which it is. But every situation is different. A person in the school, who chooses to actively defend themselves has that right but in doing so might put others at risk. Make it harder for the police, if they are coming in or have a sniped in place to take the bad guy out. Other negatives may come from that person acting as opposed to standing down and leaving it in the hands of the cops. But they are allowed to defend themselves regardless.
So my view is that if Police or Fire stand down, due their OWN personal risk, then others should not be blocked from stepping up.
Where I would be more cautious is if police are marshaling to go in and some parent wants to just rush in first. If the police are engaging then I believe they can clear the crime scene of reactive people.