Question for LEOs and anyone who trains with them

[Hawkmoon]

In discussing Uvalde with a few active and retired police officers, the response I have gotten is disgust over the delay in entering the classroom to engage the shooter. As one retired officer stated it, "When the first officer gets there, he does i -- no questions." It had been my understanding that this was supposed to be S.O.P. ever since Columbine.

Yet after Parklands, the SRO who DIDN'T go in after the shooter defended himself by claiming that by "setting up a perimeter" he only followed his department's protocol. If I remember correctly, it was later brought out that Broward County's protocol didn't say the first responding officer "shall" immediately enter and engage the shooter, it said "may." And, of course, "may" is optional, meaning that if the first responder "may" choose to enter and engage, he/she "may" also choose NOT to enter and engage.

Doing some research on what training standards currently exist, I came across one from the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP):
https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/ActiveShooter2018-UpdatedFormat%2007.16.2021_0.pdf

I was more than a bit surprised to find the word "may" used in this document.

B.   Individual Officer Intervention

1. In some instances, an individual officer may be present within or near the active shooting location, such
as a mall or school. Whether on or off duty, in uniform or civilian clothes, he or she may determine that
immediate action is necessary and reasonable to stop the threat. That decision may take into consideration
the officer’s capability to effectively intervene, based on his or her training

Does anyone know if this IACP document is used by most (or all) police agencies in the U.S.? Are there other S.O.P.s in use nationally that use "shall" rather than "may" with respect to whether the first responding officer(s) should immediately enter and engage? If so, can I find these policies on the Internet?

[230RN]

I took the quoted "mays" as permission to go in, not as qualifying a direct order to enter.

[Hawkmoon]

I took the quoted "mays" as permission to go in, not as qualifying a direct order to enter.

That's the problem. It's a conditional permission, not a requirement.

Of course, the IACP is an organization made up of political animals. I don't know if their document has any credibility, which is what I'm asking. Using "may" rather than "shall" provides lots of wiggle room to NOT respond, and then say "I was following the protocol."

It turns out the FBI has also issued a protocol for responding to school shooters, and the FBI protocol is much more direct:

https://www.msnbc.com/jose-diaz-balart/watch/uvalde-searches-for-answers-as-outrage-grows-over-surveillance-footage-of-shooting-144065093787

So far I haven't been able to find a copy of the FBI protocol, but I'm still looking.

[Unisaw]

Here’s Kyle Lamb’s take on Uvalde:
https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/15/police-failures-in-uvalde-are-what-happen-when-law-enforcement-cares-more-about-woke-politics-than-training/

He doesn’t mince words.

[T.O.M.]

In my prosecutor days, I got volunteered to advise the tac team and the school resource officers on this, mainly because I had a military background, my father was a school administrator, and I am a gun nut.  Their policy, written by a civil lawyer, said "may" and not "shall."  Policies like this are rarely written by lawyers using "shall," because they do not account for variances in the situation.  In other words, if the policy says "shall enter," and the officer observes an IED, the "shall" policy will do more harm than good.  "Shall" does not allow for discretion, which may save live.

That said, I cannot help but wonder how any of these Texas cops can live with themselves.   The shame of cowardice is hard to live with.

As an aside, the local policy was that the first pair of responding officers on scene "may" form an entry team and make entry.  No need to wait for brass permission.  And I have no doubt they would go. 

[cordex]

Local policy is that one may go in alone subject to their analysis of the circumstances, but if there are three or more then they must go in.

Whether that “must” would be satisfied by running into the building and setting up camp outside the room is unknown.

[Unisaw]

Here’s an assessment of the response prepared by recognized experts:

https://alerrt.org/r/31

To a layperson (me), the report benefits from perfect hindsight but is nevertheless pretty damning.

[MillCreek]

From a civil liability perspective, I would use 'may' in drafting a policy to allow for the exercise of discretion and professional judgment.

[AZRedhawk44]

Here’s an assessment of the response prepared by recognized experts:

https://alerrt.org/r/31

To a layperson (me), the report benefits from perfect hindsight but is nevertheless pretty damning.

The report is a self-fellating ouroboros.  The writers cite themselves for their justifications for their conclusions. 

The only other context where that is permitted is religious scripture.

I agree with the conclusions, but find the self-adulation to be distasteful.

[230RN]

I took the quoted "mays" as permission to go in, not as qualifying a direct order to enter.

In my prosecutor days, I got volunteered to advise the tac team and the school resource officers on this, mainly because I had a military background, my father was a school administrator, and I am a gun nut.  Their policy, written by a civil lawyer, said "may" and not "shall."  Policies like this are rarely written by lawyers using "shall," because they do not account for variances in the situation.  In other words, if the policy says "shall enter," and the officer observes an IED, the "shall" policy will do more harm than good.  "Shall" does not allow for discretion, which may save live.

That said, I cannot help but wonder how any of these Texas cops can live with themselves.   The shame of cowardice is hard to live with.

As an aside, the local policy was that the first pair of responding officers on scene "may" form an entry team and make entry.  No need to wait for brass permission.  And I have no doubt they would go.

(Emphases mine)

Thank you, T.O.M.

Terry, 230RN

[Hawkmoon]

The report is a self-fellating ouroboros.  The writers cite themselves for their justifications for their conclusions. 

The only other context where that is permitted is religious scripture.

I agree with the conclusions, but find the self-adulation to be distasteful.

I wouldn't have expressed it quite like that, but I agree.