the officers had weapons(including rifles), body armor (which may or may not have been rated to stop rifle rounds),training, and backup. The victims in the classrooms had none of these things.
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE ASSESSMENT
16It is not surprising that officers who had never been shot at before would be overwhelmed by the directed gunfire. This is especially the case if they had not been consistently training to deal with this type of threat. However, even after retreating, the officers were still presented with a clear driving force. The suspect was actively firing his weapon when the officers entered the building,and a reasonable officer would assume that there were injured people in the classrooms. Theofficers also knew the suspect was still alive and preventing them from accessing the wounded in the classrooms. These injured people are a driving force (ALERRT & FBI, 2020, p. 2-17) Once the officers retreated, they should have quickly made a plan to stop the attacker and gain access to the wounded. There were several possible plans that could have been implemented. We list a few here:A.
Perhaps the simplest plan would have been to push the team back down the hallway and attempt to control the classrooms from the windows in the doors. Any officer wearing rifle-rated body armor (e.g., plates) would have assumed the lead as they had an additional levelof protection. A team of 4 officers could have utilized the windows in the doors to controla large portion of the classroom from the hallway. Two officers would have taken angular positions on each window. This would have allowed them to cover a large portion of each classroom and the officers would have been likely to see and engage the attacker. Again,this would have been dangerous, but the priority of life scale dictates that the officers assume risk to save innocent lives. It is also worth noting, the officers had weapons(including rifles), body armor (which may or may not have been rated to stop rifle rounds),training, and backup. The victims in the classrooms had none of these things. If the classroom doors were locked, some of the officers on the door windows would have been able to provide cover while the other officers breached the doors.B.
If the officers believed that they could not establish control through the doors, they shouldhave found another way to stop the killing and dying. One option would have been to breach the exterior windows of the classrooms. Ideally, this would have involved breaking more than one window simultaneously and then raking the blinds out of the window. It is likely that the suspect would have fired at the officers, but the exterior construction of the building would have provided them with good cover. After the windows were broken (i.e., ported), the officers could have planned to simultaneously stand up in the windows toconfront the attacker (i.e., cover). The room would have been substantially darker than the bright exterior conditions at the time. However, breaking the windows and raking the blinds would have increased lighting in the room. Hand-held or weapon-mounted lights could also have been used to increase visibility (see Supplementary information regarding anassessment of breaching options).C.
Both options a and b could have been done simultaneously. The window breaks could have been used to signal the start of the assault and draw the suspect’s attention from the doors. The window officers would stay behind the cover of the exterior wall while the doorofficers had priority of fire. Then the window officers could stand and cover the rest of the room.D.
Other options (such as breaching the sheetrock walls or having an officer run past the rooms to draw fire while other officers moved up to cover the interior windows) could also have
LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE ASSESSMENT 16It is not surprising that officers who had never been shot at before would be overwhelmed by the directed gunfire. This is especially the case if they had not been consistently training to deal with this type of threat. However, even after retreating, the officers were still presented with a clear driving force. The suspect was actively firing his weapon when the officers entered the building, and a reasonable officer would assume that there were injured people in the classrooms. The officers also knew the suspect was still alive and preventing them from accessing the wounded in the classrooms. These injured people are a driving force (ALERRT & FBI, 2020, p. 2-17) Once the officers retreated, they should have quickly made a plan to stop the attacker and gain access to the wounded. There were several possible plans that could have been implemented. We list a fewhere:A.
Perhaps the simplest plan would have been to push the team back down the hallway and attempt to control the classrooms from the windows in the doors. Any officer wearing rifle-rated body armor (e.g., plates) would have assumed the lead as they had an additional levelof protection. A team of 4 officers could have utilized the windows in the doors to control a large portion of the classroom from the hallway. Two officers would have taken angular positions on each window. This would have allowed them to cover a large portion of eachclassroom and the officers would have been likely to see and engage the attacker. Again, this would have been dangerous, but the priority of life scale dictates that the officers assume risk to save innocent lives. It is also worth noting, the officers had weapons(including rifles), body armor (which may or may not have been rated to stop rifle rounds),training, and backup. The victims in the classrooms had none of these things. If the classroom doors were locked, some of the officers on the door windows would have beenable to provide cover while the other officers breached the doors.B.
If the officers believed that they could not establish control through the doors, they should have found another way to stop the killing and dying. One option would have been to breach the exterior windows of the classrooms. Ideally, this would have involved breaking more than one window simultaneously and then raking the blinds out of the window. It is likely that the suspect would have fired at the officers, but the exterior construction of the building would have provided them with good cover. After the windows were broken (i.e., ported), the officers could have planned to simultaneously stand up in the windows toconfront the attacker (i.e., cover). The room would have been substantially darker than the bright exterior conditions at the time. However, breaking the windows and raking the blinds would have increased lighting in the room. Hand-held or weapon-mounted lights could also have been used to increase visibility (see Supplementary information regarding an assessment of breaching options).C.
Both options a and b could have been done simultaneously. The window breaks could have been used to signal the start of the assault and draw the suspect’s attention from the doors.The window officers would stay behind the cover of the exterior wall while the door officers had priority of fire. Then the window officers could stand and cover the rest of the room.D.
Other options (such as breaching the sheetrock walls or having an officer run past the roomsto draw fire while other officers moved up to cover the interior windows) could also have
See Full Report Below
[advanced_iframe src="
