Stem Academy in Highlands Ranch shooting

[.455_Hunter]

I heard he took one of the suspects into custody. Beyond that, he fired at what turned out to be a deputy, missed, and wounded an innocent student. Not sure how that falls into the category of "doing what he needed to do".

Good grief- The first part of that statement was a pretty damm important task.

The second part was unfortunate, but not surprising given the situation. I guess the preference here would have been for the shooting to continue unabated while the "unarmed" security guard cowered with the other students. I guess too, that no LEO should ever respond to an active shooter because of the chance of friendly fire- I will take a Deputy getting shot at and a student wounded to prevent a massacre zone from expanding.

[Bailey Guns]

Good grief- The first part of that statement was a pretty damm important task.

The second part was unfortunate, but not surprising given the situation. I guess the preference here would have been for the shooting to continue unabated while the "unarmed" security guard cowered with the other students. I guess too, that no LEO should ever respond to an active shooter because of the chance of friendly fire- I will take a Deputy getting shot at and a student wounded to prevent a massacre zone from expanding.

Yeah...because being sure of your target really isn't that important.

The day after the shooting, 9Wants to Know reported that investigators were looking into a possible incidence of ?friendly fire? that apparently began when the security guard saw the muzzle of a gun coming around a corner and shot back.

(my bold)

How do you, with any semblance of reasonableness, get to

no LEO should ever respond to an active shooter because of the chance of friendly fire

because I questioned the security guard's actions? That's absurd.

Not only that but the guard may have violated the law by having a gun on school property. He violated the terms of the contract as far as we know. And now we have a "good guy with a gun", that wasn't supposed to have a gun, shooting at a cop and wounding a student. So much for advancing the argument of guns in schools by anyone other than a cop. I'm not discounting what the guy did in terms of handcuffing the suspect. But FFS...another way to look at it is the guard was responsible for wounding 11% of the casualties during the incident. I'm not sure how you spin that into a good thing but, hey...knock yourself out.

[.455_Hunter]

Yeah...because being sure of your target really isn't that important.

(my bold)

How do you, with any semblance of reasonableness, get to because I questioned the security guard's actions? That's absurd.

Not only that but the guard may have violated the law by having a gun on school property. He violated the terms of the contract as far as we know. And now we have a "good guy with a gun", that wasn't supposed to have a gun, shooting at a cop and wounding a student. So much for advancing the argument of guns in schools by anyone other than a cop. I'm not discounting what the guy did in terms of handcuffing the suspect. But FFS...another way to look at it is the guard was responsible for wounding 11% of the casualties during the incident. I'm not sure how you spin that into a good thing but, hey...knock yourself out.

OK- His mistake caused 11 percent of the casualties. Let's say he did NOTHING, and the perp figured out the safety catch on their weapon. Now how many casualties are there? That's the same Catch-22 of because the person stops a mass shooting from occuring that there wasn't a mass shooting.

Would you have the same derogatory opinion if the shot(s?) at the Deputy and the wounded student were fired by another responding LEO, or would that be just be an unintentional "fog of war" result of a high stress situation?

Would any of this help the guard when if/when the DA decides to throw the book at him? Probably not, but the prosecution sure wouldn't want me on the jury.