by Lynn Mandaville
A good guy with a gun.
A bad guy with a gun.
What do they have in common? A human being. And a lethal weapon.
How shall we reconcile the two?
This will not be my usual tirade about weapons of murder, gun control or the place of the Second Amendment in today’s America.
What I’d like to explore instead is the way we are viewing the armed school guards (aka school resource 0fficers) charged with protecting public schools in this brave new, uncertain world.
On one hand we have a county deputy in Parkland, Fla., who allegedly may not have simply failed to respond to the carnage inflicted by a semi-automatic rifle occurring Feb. 14, but actually intentionally avoided the scene. On the other hand we have a former special forces school guard who bravely confronted a student armed with a handgun.
The Parkland officer was a 33-year veteran of law enforcement. The Maryland officer was only one year older than the Parkland officer’s tenure as a cop.
This generational gap is striking to me in that the Parkland officer, when beginning his career in law enforcement, and as a school security guard, probably never considered that his job would entail shooting down a school kid who was using a semi-automatic rifle during a mass murder in what used to be a safely-assumed safe envrionment, a school. The Maryland officer would have been only 16 years old when the Columbine murders occurred, the same age as some of those victims. School shootings became the flavor of the month during his formative years. Such a confrontation might have been on his radar when he made his career choice. In my opinion, each man had, or has, a different assumption about what his job might entail, and, therefore, a different response to his situation.
Please don’t misunderstand me. If the Parkland officer is, indeed, found guilty of dereliction of duty, he needs to face the consequences of his actions. I think it behooves us, however, to understand his choice of flight over fight when the threatening situation presented itself.
Survival of the fittest depends on human beings choosing the response that will preserve their lives when faced with peril. Be it a bear, a marauding army, or a psychotic teen with an automatic rifle, what action will best insure survival? Flight. When faced with the odds of survival against that rifle, it would take a fool, or a fool trained to ignore his natural response, to go into the fray.
When we speak of civilians, there is one standard by which to judge the response. The civilian fleeing the danger is wise. But when we speak of armed men in uniform, we call the former a coward. We call the latter a hero.
I’m beginning to view them both as collateral damage to the shooter. Both are victims of a sort. One will be vilified for a natural human response to danger. The other, just doing his job, will be raised to a status that might make him uneasy, or, worse, might transform his killing of the offending teen into a heroic act he cannot live with.
And public opinion drives the judgment of both men without any compassion or empathy for what each may be enduring.
It is natural for us to weigh in on the morality and courageousness of these two individuals. We can, based on our own age, strength, training and upbringing, guess at our own actions when faced with similar circumstances. We can acknowledge our special forces training and excellent physical conditioning, knowing full well we would dive headlong into danger. Or, we can admit to lacking the intestinal fortitude and physical prowess to face a person with superior firepower to our own, not deluding ourselves into thinking that we can overcome the flight response and rush in with pistol blazing.
Right now I am feeling a deep sympathy with anyone whose charge it is to face the possibility of gunning down a child who is holding a weapon he should never have gotten his hands on.
It is clear we have a very long way to go to even establish dialogue between the two camps of pro- and anti-gun people. I don’t presume to tell others how to deal with this complicated issue.
I believe it is in us all to be more open, less personally threatened, by this major important issue. Some of us will have to dig deeper than others to overcome the emotionally charged aspects of the discussion.
The mental and physical well-being of our children depends on us adults actually being adults. It will also depend on us adults listening to the children who will inherit this country from us in the not-so-distant future.
If thoughts and prayers are to have any effect at all in this arena, it may be in our efforts to meditate and center our minds on finding peace and understanding for all involved.
As you so aptly said “it is time for adults actually being adults” – that I wholeheartedly agree with. However, you want children (anyone under 18?) per your quote “It will also depend on us adults listening to the “children who will inherit this country from us in the not-so-distant future” – you really think that?
You expect to listen to children, with fully unformed brains and lack of worldly knowledge to give direction to adults?
I’m not saying we shouldn’t have dialog between the generations, but to listen and act with young people to form solutions on how to alleviate the school massacre situations is folly. Most know nothing of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and all the amendments to the Constitution nor the history behind the formation of both. Our young are the most electronically able and aware (as evidenced when my grandbaby can operate my phone better than I), but they are unaware and naive. They have no experience on how the world and law works. They operate to the most recent trinkets and flashing lights on computers and computer games. Think “Jake” (Angus T. Jones( on 2 1/2 Men). Yes, there are some with genius level learning, but no life experience to accompany the education. Think a world like “Lord of the Flies” if their ideas were enacted upon and commonplace.
As for the officers on the scene, one going into the school and the other remaining outside, I believe the people commanding the situation was issuing orders (the two were from different commands) – one was instructed to hold until help arrived and the other was ordered to advance. That was the last I heard of the police involvement in the situation. As usual when things like this happen, the police command does not correctly assess the situation while not on scene. There’s more to this than was reported at the time and only a few days afterward did the story fully unfold. Sounds like the chief of police screwed up, but time will tell.
Your heart is in the right place, but your view is clouded by your liberal leanings and learning. You might want to reassess your position. But since liberals are always right (not), I doubt you’ll change.
As in all things, especially news reports, there are multiple sides to every story. My intent was to look at performance of duty from an angle we don’t usually consider. Your comments about the details of the event are warranted, particularly the part about “time will tell.”
When I say we should listen to the young people I meant really listen to them. I did not say act upon everything they say. The listening part is where most of us fall down on the job in daily life. We don’t take the time to honestly hear what is being said. Psychologists call it active listening and mirroring of what’s been said. I’m sure you know this already. Just hearing someone is a powerful act of respect. One need not act upon what one hears. You might agree that one of the difficulties we face as a nation is that our politicians don’t listen to us. I communicate with my reps frequently. If they respond at all it’s in a form letter that tells me they haven’t even paid attention to what I’ve expressed as their constituent. I’d like to at least know they paid attention to the concern before they blew me off.
But enough of that.
I am one liberal who listens and sometimes changes if it is warranted. My piece was meant more as a philosophical observation on recent events.
I’m glad you were listening to me. Honest.
You have given us another article which provokes much thought. You bring up the point of how we view the armed school guards. I wish someone would explore how we came to feel the necessity to have armed school guards in so many of our schools.
The main common denominator in the school shootings seems to be mental illness. The system failed the Parkland shooter long before he purchased the gun. This young man had already lost his family support. I know nothing about the stability of his family; but the signs of a mental problem and possible violence were there for a long time.
I have heard it said many times, “If you have a problem with a bully or are concerned about someone’s actions, tell an adult”. Quite often this means tell a teacher or a counselor. The question I ask; is there anyone with training to evaluate a mental problem in the school? Please realize that mental illness means much more than “hearing voices”, not being able to recognize right from wrong or being “idiotic”. It can also include a feeling of being doomed for failure. It can include not being able to cope with the stress of everyday life. It can include a feeling of worthlessness.
We have to take the lid off the stigma of mental health. I would much rather my tax dollars go towards mental health education than an armed teacher or security guard.
Not all bullies turn into killers. Not all kids who are bullied turn into killers. We need to find the trigger points.
I still applaud the students who are protesting and trying to correct a problem which has long been overlooked by our legislators. I only hope we don’t have to wait until they can vote to see some action.