Mr. Brooks

Time is relative. In an active shooter situation (or really any decision a police officer has to make) 4 minutes is a long time. The entire incident took 6 minutes. I'm not trying to predict what would have happened if he'd entered. The bottom line is that his training told him he was suppose to enter and he didn't. Law enforcement trains for a reason. It's so they know how to react to a given situation, without needing four minutes to assess it.

More from the sheriff, this deputy's boss: When asked by reporters to describe how the video made him feel, Israel responded, "sick to my stomach" and "devastated." "It doesn’t matter who went in first, it doesn’t matter in what order you went in," he said. "What matters is that when we in law enforcement arrive at an active shooter, we go in and address the target and that’s what should have been done." This doesn't line up at all with what people are saying in here, specifically this part: "What matters is that when we in law enforcement arrive at an active shooter, we go in and address the target and that’s what should have been done." Why is the sheriff saying they are trained and/ or expected to go in and address the target in an active shooter scenario, if this isn't correct. It's also well known that this has been the accepted tactic in active shooter situations since Columbine. So, there is little reason to doubt that this was their policy as well.

We'll never agree if your stance is that law enforcement should sit back and do nothing while children are massacred, because it might be dangerous. Never. And again, if your assessment is correct, then why are his supervisors, who know what he was trained and/or expected to do, saying that he should have gone in? Do you think you are more qualified to assess that than they are? Or do you think they are lying?

Gomez will be flipable at the deadline. That's exactly what a rebuilding team should be doing.

The vast majority of people who are charged with a crime didn't intend to be evil. I never accused him of being evil. This is a complete straw man argument. We hold people liable in every single segment of criminal and civil law for things other than direct malicious intent. And this isn't a mob looking for a scapegoat. His superiors have stated that he didn't do what he was supposed to do. Not sure why people don't believe them, as they know far better than any of us what was expected of the officer.

Well the opinion that we are only allowed to discuss one part of the list is the main reason for the disconnect on this issue, IMO. We disagree on this specific part of the issue, big time. This guy disgraced and let down his community, and every child and parent of the school. I believe he deserves some liability, in the same way passenger ship crew are charged if they abandon ship before helping everyone evacuate. This isn't much different to me. They didn't sink the ship, but they obligated themselves to a duty when they signed up for the job.

Better than last year I suppose, but still probably barely a top 20 rotation in baseball.

Actions (or inaction) can cause people to die. Do you believe some people have a duty to act? Police, military, passenger ship crew? I just can't agree that there is never a duty to act, sorry.

Ok. But once the school shooting is in progress, who has a duty to stop it?

How many people can an AR15 kill, in a packed school in 4 minutes? That's a long time.

It almost seems like you are arguing that he's not really a real cop. If he's just there to counsel kids, and not intervene in a violent incident, then why is he armed? If he's not expected to act as a police officer, then hire a counselor, not a cop. You don't want teachers doing law enforcement's job, but it seems you are arguing that you want this police officer to be doing the guidance counselors job.

I don't want to live in a world where it's acceptable for a police officer to stand by and do nothing while people are being murdered. As much as I agree that more guns is in no way the solution, law enforcement is armed and trained for a reason. Standing outside and waiting for the shooter to run out of bullets isn't the answer either. The people who know the situation the best (his superiors) are all saying he should have gone in. You don't want teachers armed (neither do I), but you also don't want police to enter either? I'm not sure who you think should have the duty to attempt to stop a murder in progress then. The military? I don't know you at all, so perhaps I'm completely wrong. But, I just can't imagine you'd feel this way if you had a loved one murdered, then found out that a police officer could have attempted to stop it (or give first aid), and chose to do nothing.

Nope. It was going to be close down the stretch even with Butler.

Falvine hand picked Kinley, even knowing he was going to create 40 and 25 man issues like this. They obviously think they see something there that can be fixed. They might be completely wrong in that regard, but if they were going to dump him to keep an equally fringe prospect like Chargois, then they wouldn't have taken him in the first place.

He was a sheriff's deputy. He took the same oath as every other sheriff deputy. This has nothing to do with good guy with a gun opinions. We're not talking about civilians or teachers here, we're talking about a sworn law enforcement officer who chose to ignore his duty, and did nothing while 17 people were being slaughtered.

Keep in mind he also made it to the last possible team before being claimed. They probably thought they could sneak him through, and were almost right. Even if Chargois does get healthy and make it, I still won't rip them for this one. There are only 40 roster spots, and it's kind of silly to suggest that they would cut someone they hand selected (Kinley, Sanchez), over an oft injured fringe holdover from the previous regime.

Well his superiors disagree. Broward County Sheriff: "What I saw was a deputy arrive ... take up a position and he never went in," Israel said at a news conference. Israel said Peterson should have "went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer." Peterson was suspended without pay, after which he resigned. County Superintendent Robert Runcie said, "I'm in shock and I'm outraged to no end that he could have made a difference in all this. It's really disturbing that we had a law enforcement individual there specifically for this reason, and he did not engage. He did not do his job. It's one of the most unbelievable things I've ever heard." I can't possibly disagree with you more Nick. For one, it's not true that school shootings are the only situation in which an officer is expected to intervene, before waiting for backup. An in progress domestic assault is another example. In fact, any situation in which human life is in clearly imminent danger, the officer should be expected to intervene. Secondly, don't sign up for the job then. Police, military, fire fighting, those jobs aren't for everyone. There are plenty of other occupations out there. There are also countless brave men and women who do feel compelled to take an oath to risk their lives protecting others. Anyone not 100% sure should step aside and let someone who is take their job. It doesn't matter if they were kids, adults or senior citizens. If people are actively being murdered, a police officer has a duty to intervene. It's not a hostage situation or burglary where there is doubt about intent or imminent danger. There is nothing to assess here. It's not much different than a crew that abandons ship without evacuating passengers, or a soldier that abandons his comrades in a fire fight. Those are criminal offenses, and this should be as well.

I mean the guy can't stay healthy. You can't pitch from the trainer's room. It sucks, but not every body can handle throwing a baseball really hard overhand. His can't.

Where did I imply a teacher should be held liable? This guy isn't a teacher. He's a police officer. He should be the one to act, so the teachers don't have to. Perhaps the football coach wouldn't have lost his life heroically protecting his students if this guy had done his job? Maybe it wouldn't have helped, I dunno, but it might have. And, I'm not calling for police officers in schools either. But, in this situation there was already a police officer there, and he did nothing.

1) A defensive position? What was he defending? Law enforcement learned after Columbine that treating an active school shooter like a hostage situation is the wrong strategy. This guy knew what he was supposed to do, he just chose not to. That is why he resigned. He wouldn't be resigning and/or facing disciplinary action if he did what he was supposed to do. 2) You don't think police officers are trained in ways other than "gung-ho" and getting picked off in the first 3 seconds? 3) What exactly was he able to do by staying alive? I'm not asking for someone to be a hero. This guy isn't a citizen or a teacher or a janitor. He's a police officer. Don't sign up for the job if you aren't willing to risk your life in a situation like this. 4) Where are you drawing a parallel between my comment and arming teachers? Arming teachers is a terrible idea. Perhaps the worst idea I've ever heard. Why would a teacher be held liable? Again, why are you drawing that parallel? The officer swore a duty (and pulled a paycheck) to protect and serve the community. The teacher is there to teach. 5) Again, not looking for a hero. Do people not know that this is a sheriff's deputy that I'm referring to? 6) If you've read anything I've written in this thread, you'd know I'm a proponent of gun control, and I think more guns as a solution is a laughably awful idea. Again, not sure where you are drawing your assumption from that I want more guns, and that I'm on the wrong path. This guy is a police officer. He is going to have a gun. Law enforcement is precisely precisely who should be armed and trained to respond to these shootings, not teachers. Are you saying police officers shouldn't intervene in a school shooting? If not, I don't know what you are lambasting me for. They had a police officer on site when a school shooting broke out. Unlike a hero with a gun, he's actually trained to use it. Instead he cowered in fear, despite the oath he took to protect and serve. While children were terrified and murdered in front of their friends and teachers. I don't know how the guy can sleep at night. He was entrusted by the community to protect their children, and when the time came, he chose to protect his own safety instead.

It's beyond crazy to expect a sheriff's deputy to try to stop someone who is actively murdering children? Police officers swear an oath to protect and serve. Nobody is asking for Rambo, just for the police officer to do his job.

Everyone would love that. But, he's going to use his first option this year, so the clock is ticking. You don't really want a guy using all 3 options before you even get a look at them, so if they don't think he can be up sometime in 2019, they may have to start considering RP at some point.

Jacob Pearson is my pick for a big jump this time next year.

Sure. But my point is, the goal shouldn't just be to be an above average team either. If my 3rd starter is league average, then sure by definition and averages, he's a "#3 starter", but my goal would be upgrade as many spots as I can. I'd want a solidly above average starter in that spot, with maybe a league average guy #4, and an almost league average guy #5. Probably not possible to have a step up at every position, but that wouldn't stop me from trying.

Correct. Because the goal (I'd hope) is not to be just a league average team.