Quote Originally Posted by .455_Hunter View Post
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.