|
I just want to make clear that I'm not blaming the police for anything. People do the best they can with the information they've got and the responsibility rest with the shooter (or terrorists in those cases).
And I'm not excusing incompetence, but in hindsight, we can always see which threats turned out to be real or that a initial understanding of a crime was wrong. We're often not aware of the number of times a similar threat was never carried out or the times the initial impression was correct.
Sure, we can say that we want every threat treated as if it will occur or a worst case scenario plan followed no matter what the initial impression was. But I don't think that most of us would want to deal with the level of inconvenience, invasiveness, and limits on our freedom that such procedures would bring. (I'm not talking about times we'd know that we were putting up with something to actually keep someone safe; I'm talking about people being worn down by constant false alarms.)
Unless we're honestly willing to live in a police state, I don't think we can be protected by others. And we might benefit from more recognition that our safety is in our own hands.
I know what I'm directed to do at work in certain safety situations, and in almost every instance, I'm going to follow the directions that I've been given, especially because I'm more likely to encounter a drill than anything real. But I also know that if we had an active shooter come into the building suddenly, it probably wouldn't matter and it wouldn't provide much protection for the people nearest to him/her. If you're actually in a room or hall with an armed shooter who has already shot a victim and is still shooting or ready to shoot, waiting for help or looking for help probably isn't a viable option.
I've got no perfect plan instead, but I too wonder if we'd be better off recognizing that it might come down to you having to take action yourself.
|
Threaded Mode
