Again, that would be a standoff type situation. I'm talking about where a gunman is actively in the process of shooting people.
If a shooter goes into a classroom and a cop hears shooting going on, he knows that it is probably not a hostage situation, and if bullets are not flying towards the doorway, the cop knows that the shooter is probably not focussed on the door. The cop would be concentrating on taking out the shooter, whereas the shooter's attention is elsewhere. Simply comparing what type of guns they have does not give an accurate picture of who would be more likely to kill the other.
Technically, the fact that he controls whether the people can leave or not, makes it a hostage situation. The term used in law enforcement, which IMHO is a better way to distinguish between the two, is "active shooter."
The issue here is that the situation can go from active shooter to hostage situation simply upon hearing steps coming towards the room.
But more importantly, even the police don't believe this is realistic. Like I said previously, the old model was to stand down and wait for a SWAT team. The new model is to wait until you have 2 - 4 officers and for them to enter the building as a team.
They've received additional training as these situations become more common (or at least more in the public consciousness) but they're not bulletproof. They still feel that it will take more than one or possibly two officers to take down an active shooter.
Best practice is to give someone enough time to shoot multiple classrooms full of kids?
I'm guessing you've never actually served in law enforcement or the military? You don't send people in to get slaughtered if they don't have a high degree of likelihood of neutralizing the threat.
What would be the point of a lone cop rushing into a room and getting shot? One on one against a superior weapon, the cop is more likely to become a victim (or even a hostage) than he is to take down the shooter.
Even the article you linked to earlier had an outcome with two cops entering the room and one of them was shot in the stomach. The notion of some Bruce Willis cop going in there and taking down an active shooter is a bit unrealistic.
Pyle said the Athens Police Department does a lot of what he calls "active shooter training" so individual officers can respond and not have to wait for a special response team.
"An active shooter situation, whether it be at a school, shopping mall or anything, is a police response and a emergent response is required," he said. "We train our officers on how to respond to that. Basically it's a solo response. It's quite possible that a single police officer could respond to an active shooter situation, and even has the potential to stop it or end it."
Athens Police Officers Trained For School Shooting Incidents | WOUB
Thank you for bolding your points but perhaps you should have also bolded:
It's quite possible ...
...and even has the potential
That's an important distinction, especially if you are that officer or a member of his immediate family.
But the more important point is that, the suggestion that a teacher or a $12 an hour security guard can do the same is, well, uhm, laughable.
If there was one armed security guard at a school basketball game and suddenly someone starts shooting the crowd, the guard suppose to run outside and go hide behind a tree? Even if he ran out into the hallway, he's not then going to peek his head in the doorway to get a look at the shooter and see if he could take him out from behind or something?
It's very situational but I suspect you're aware of that. I don't mean that as a cop out to your hypothetical but there's really not enough detail in what you've presented to offer any sort of analysis of the best course of action.
Is the shooter alone? Is it 2, 3, or 10 shooters? Does he have an assault rifle or a 6-shooter? Is he indiscriminately firing at everyone or did he have a specific target? Is the guard close enough to mount an attack? Has the shooter already spotted him and targeted him?
There are a lot of factors that would play into what the proper response should be for the guard.
So "more good" is doing nothing to try to stop children being killed so that we can guarantee that one cop lives?
As messed up as it may sound, yes, sometimes doing nothing until you have the means in which to neutralize the situation is the best course of action.
For instance, you're on patrol and a sniper shoots someone in your squad. Do you run out from a position of cover and try to save him or let him bleed out?
Well, until you neutralize the sniper, you gotta let him bleed out. Running in there and trying to help is exactly what the sniper wants. He is waiting for someone to come into his crosshairs.
If you're a combat medic, do you put yourself at risk by rushing into fire to give aid to a member of your platoon or do you stay behind cover until you can get to your man safely? Military SOP is to stay put. If you get shot trying to give aid not only have you increased the number of injured (or dead) but you've seriously compromised the unit's ability to fight as now everyone else who is injured will not have a medic.
But again, my point was that even in the scenarios above, those are highly trained personnel. They have multiple weapons (shot gun in the squad car, perhaps even an assault rifle, and their sidearm) and body armor. They also have communications with other officers converging on the situation and can make a determination of whether or not waiting for backup (or additional backup) is the better of two very difficult options (wait or go in).
This is not the kind of task you leave up to people who are marginally trained. No $12 an hour guard or gym teacher is qualified for even prepared for this type of situation.
That was the original point I made that you took issue with and so far, I am not convinced otherwise by your arguments.
