• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Police shoot, kill armed man outside Scarborough elementary school

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,248
Points
1,060
Still trying to stay away from the story but caught something about the mass shooting in Texas. The Texas police waited outside the classroom for 45 minutes while the gunman was inside killing kids. I hope Canadian police have been trained to make better decisions.
 

RangerRay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
657
Points
1,110
I was flabbergasted when I heard that. My understanding was it was SOP for police to immediately enter a building with a mass shooting event, even if it’s one officer with no backup. Maybe that was an urban legend?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,533
Points
1,140
I was flabbergasted when I heard that. My understanding was it was SOP for police to immediately enter a building with a mass shooting event, even if it’s one officer with no backup. Maybe that was an urban legend?
Not an urban legend.
AS response best practices are to immediately confront the shooter, to limit the damage they can do.
I was revolted to hear that at least 2 officers sat at the school entrance while hearing the shooter fire on the children in a classroom.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,294
Points
1,160
Not an urban legend.
AS response best practices are to immediately confront the shooter, to limit the damage they can do.
I was revolted to hear that at least 2 officers sat at the school entrance while hearing the shooter fire on the children in a classroom.

Since Columbine there has been a TON of research and training done across the LEO spectrum, in the States especially, on how to deal with a school shooting situation like this and it all involves 'on scene' police entering the school immediately to save lives, not waiting for SWAT.

Diamond formations of four man teams are one tactic that I know is practised. Here's one example of some of the material out there:

Slide 8: Traditional vs. New Tactics

Traditional Deployment to an Active Shooter Event

Upon Patrol Deputies arrival at the scene
-Secure the Perimeter.
-Gather Information/Help Victims.
-Wait for S.E.B. to arrive.

Unfortunately in situations such as Columbine this precedent failed.

Rapid Deployment to an Active Shooter Event - New Tactic used by Law Enforcement.

Upon Patrol Officers arrival at the scene…
-Enter the area / building as fast as possible.
-Sole objective is to Neutralize the hostile threat with the least amount of force possible.
-Turn scene over to Special Weapons Team when they arrive.


 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,025
Points
1,090
Not an urban legend.
AS response best practices are to immediately confront the shooter, to limit the damage they can do.
I was revolted to hear that at least 2 officers sat at the school entrance while hearing the shooter fire on the children in a classroom.
What the actual f**k… I literally have no idea what to even say or think!

I understand department policies can change drastically from one agency to another, but in this day in age I think we have ALL taken courses on how to approach/conduct operations in response to a mass shooter. Both as individual officers as well as moving into the building as a group.

But I’m pretty sure no agency has a policy of ‘sit tight & wait for additional officers to arrive while the school shooting takes place down the hall.’


I realize that the primary role of a school resource officer isn’t to protect the school from a mass shooting. But 🤯🤬😡
 

Booter

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
588
Points
810
What you’re seeing there is two stages- hot to the target and then the cold
At the entrances facilitating the evacuation. I bet within a few minutes there was about 100 law enforcement personnel on the scene- who would know two initial contact teams had moved into the school to confront the threat- so those new on the scene would be creating safe corridors and evacuating the building.

Why they were held up at the classroom door is the issue.

It doesn’t make sense to have a dozens of officers rolling to the contact point to funnel through one door,

The conversation is why the initial teams couldn’t breach.

This is also a place where the conversation is- if the door is barricaded. What other points of entry to the classroom are available, exterior windows, dry wall, emergency exits- brick walls with the right motivators.
 

Booter

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
588
Points
810
The time I saw this morning said the first two contact teams were in within 4 mins on the scene.
 

Booter

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
588
Points
810
Oh that timeline is totally different than what I’ve seen. Disregard my last couple messages. That’s not what I saw broke down previously
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,294
Points
1,160
FWIW there is some issues with the narrative...


Not a good moment in LE.

You know it's not good when the Beaverton weighs in...

Uvalde police promise that with more funding they will be able to wait even longer in parking lots​


UVALDE, TX – Following revelations that police in Uvalde, Texas waited up to an hour in a parking lot outside Robb Elementary before attempting to stop the shooter inside, police department officials have vowed that they will put any and all funding increases into getting those wait times up even higher.

“Our officers avoided doing anything to help, and actively prevented others from assisting from the moment they arrived at Robb Elementary,” explained police spokesperson Michael Banks, “however, budget constraints only allowed them to keep this up for about as long as it takes to get a new pair of glasses from LensCrafters. We’re hoping that city and state officials will finally give us the financial resources to increase those crucial wait times to the point that you could fit in a Marvel movie, or if we’re lucky, maybe even long enough for a DC movie! With increased funding, we can do less for longer.”

Uvalde police promise that with more funding they will be able to wait even longer in parking lots
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,418
Points
1,360
This entire event has shades of 2014 Parliament Hill Shootings or Gabriel Wortman, all over it.

Basically a bunch of patrol officers from different agencies that don't talk to each other show up with no clear leadership and nobody knowing who is in Command of the operation.

The leadership that does eventually take control ends up being incompetent and probably makes the situation worse.

I've read that it was Border Patrol Agents that happened to be in the Area that ended up ultimately responding and subduing the threat.

This is why you still need a few Cops who are hard asses with some initiative, that can go "Follow Me!" and lead the other mushrooms in to the frey.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,358
Points
1,110
Even then, "shoot to wound" is not a thing. It hasn't been for ages. We all know EOF; if you're at the point where you have guns up, you're shooting to kill. Centre of mass, rounds forward until the threat drops.

Shoot to wound is a fantasy set up by Hollywood and people who have never had a weapon pointed at them.

You’re out of your lane and giving incorrect info. Police don’t “shoot to kill” any more than we “shoot to wound”. If deadly force is used, it’s to stop a threat of death or grievous bodily harm. That’s what the law allows. That means we shoot to stop the subject’s behaviour that’s presenting that threat. When we can’t articulate that we still reasonably perceive that threat, our authority to use deadly force stops. That’s how Forcillo from Toronto Police ate a criminal conviction in the Sammy Yatim shooting. His first shots were justified; his second series of shots after the threat changed was not.

If deadly force is lawfully used, then whether they live or die is an incidental result to the behaviour change.

I don’t have enough accurate info to comment on Uvelde and who did what when. I don’t trust most of the info that’s out there enough to hang an opinion on it. I’ll just say, in general terms, as someone who has instructed active shooter, that up here if there’s an active threat to life, the expectation is you go in, even alone if you have to.

TTPs vary and I won’t elaborate on them, but active shooter response is all about - same thing - changing the behaviour away from threat to innocent life. Maybe they switch from slaughtering kids and fight cops. Shitty, but still an improvement. Maybe they barricade and it becomes a negotiator / tactical call with a team immediately ready to take the door on a moment’s notice. Sometimes, on becoming aware of police presence, the subject will suicide, and that’s fine too.

But all of these are predicated by moving swiftly to the threat based on the best info you have- shots, screams, fleeing victims/witnesses, blood trails, 911 call info, or whatever intelligence you have. You move to the threat with every intention of winning a one on one fight where only one person will walk away and it ain’t gonna be the other guy.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,358
Points
1,110
This entire event has shades of 2014 Parliament Hill Shootings or Gabriel Wortman, all over it.

Basically a bunch of patrol officers from different agencies that don't talk to each other show up with no clear leadership and nobody knowing who is in Command of the operation.

The leadership that does eventually take control ends up being incompetent and probably makes the situation worse.

I've read that it was Border Patrol Agents that happened to be in the Area that ended up ultimately responding and subduing the threat.

This is why you still need a few Cops who are hard asses with some initiative, that can go "Follow Me!" and lead the other mushrooms in to the frey.
Disagreed WRT Parliament hill. Very distinct from Portapique. Parliament happened super fast, and mounties and the Sergeant at Arms moved to the threat swiftly. From first to last shot was mere minutes and within a couple hundred meters linear. The next ten or twelve hours were a cluster, but the actual threat was addressed swiftly. Also, the Parliamentary security were not armed at the time. Today the guy wouldn’t even make it to the front door.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,418
Points
1,360
Disagreed WRT Parliament hill. Very distinct from Portapique. Parliament happened super fast, and mounties and the Sergeant at Arms moved to the threat swiftly. From first to last shot was mere minutes and within a couple hundred meters linear. The next ten or twelve hours were a cluster, but the actual threat was addressed swiftly. Also, the Parliamentary security were not armed at the time. Today the guy wouldn’t even make it to the front door.

Totally true Brihard. My comment about it being like Parliament Hill was more to do with the absolute cluster that happened afterward and the mass confusion with different agencies running around that didn't talk to each other, lack of effective command structure, etc.

We have been lucky in Canada that in most of these attacks, the perp has had very low capability. Zehaf-Bibeau is someone I would classify as someone with low capability.

Wortman and Mayerthorpe are two examples of what can happen with attackers that have higher capability.
 

Fishbone Jones

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
821
Points
1,060
Kev, would the cars be carrying ballistic shields and plate carriers in the trunk? Could they not be used to gain entry and search? Level 4 equipment should defeat anything a gunman is carrying, I would think.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,358
Points
1,110
Kev, would the cars be carrying ballistic shields and plate carriers in the trunk? Could they not be used to gain entry and search? Level 4 equipment should defeat anything a gunman is carrying, I would think.
Plate carriers are very common now. Shields and breaching equipment are more hit or miss for ‘first on scene’ patrol units, and every police force is it’s own story. But yeah, absolutely, have the kit available (not necessarily every car, but at least on scene swiftly) and use it.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
607
Points
1,260
Shields and breaching equipment are more hit or miss for ‘first on scene’ patrol units, and every police force is it’s own story.

Uvalde has its own SWAT team. They should have forcible entry equipment.

In addition, emergency services could lend the police their forcible entry equipment.

According to the report posted, police used a key.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,358
Points
1,110
Uvalde has its own SWAT team. They should have the required equipment.

In addition, emergency services do forcible entry on a regular basis. They could lend the police their equipment.

According to the report posted, police used a key.
Sure. Small town SWAT, probably part time, probably a mix of officers who work patrol and who work special units and gear up and go when a call comes. You can probably get a couple of them on scene with the kit they keep in their trunk pretty quickly. That gives you at least a small element for an immediate action if needed (like if shots start again). For a deliberate operation (eg, the negotiator says “guys this isn’t going well” and the incident commander says “ok, we’ll do a dynamic entry”), assembling a full team and bringing all the additional kit you’d want on hand generally takes longer. Kev can talk much better than I to specifics, though. I’ve worked alongside tactical teams but have never been on one nor done their course.
 
Top