How WaPo finds excuses for the politically correct

2018-02-26

Consider the horrifying school shooting at the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida (Wikipeda),
and the widely reported fact that an armed Broward County Sheriff's Deputy, Scot Peterson,
stayed outside the building where the shooting was taking place,
even though he had knowledge of the shooting.
Surely most people, certainly me at least,
find such conduct outrageous.
He had a weapon to use against whoever was shooting inside the school building.
He had the charter, I would presume, to do whatever he could to protect the students.

On 2018-02-26, a news report quotes Peterson, through his lawyer,
as explaining why he didn't go in:

2018-02-26-MH-Peterson-speaks-through-his-lawyer

I’m no coward, says deputy who didn’t go inside Parkland school during massacre
By David Ovalle And David Smiley
Miami Herald, 2018-02-26

No doubt that explanation will receive considerable examination.
I am in no position at this time (2018-02-28) to address its validity.

But let us go back in time, to 2018-02-23, before that explanation had been proffered,
and look at how far the Washington Post went to try to explain his inaction:

2018-02-23-WaPo-why-didnt-the-officer-rush-into-floridas-parkland-school-mass-shooting

Why didn't the officer rush into Florida's Parkland school mass shooting?
by William Wan and Amy Ellis Nutt
Washington Post, 2018-02-23

[An excerpt:]

What could have been going though his mind that stopped him from going in?
And what usually happens afterward to a first responder who fails to respond?

...

“What police are called on to do is not natural,”
said Ellen Kirschman, a clinical psychologist who has worked with police departments across the country for more than 30 years.
“Instead of running away from danger, they run toward it.”

We need a psychologist to tell us this?
Of course such information has been part of the common understanding.
You don't need a Ph.D. to get that much.

But that is why police work is not for everyone.
When people sign up for police work, like when they join the Army with the intent to go into the infantry,
the risk is plain.
Does anyone think that those who go into such occupations are not aware of the risks?
And if they do take such a job, knowing the risks, and then fail to do their duty,
they have failed to perform their end of the job contract.

After some further remarks, the WaPo article contains this gem:

With all the public scrutiny and vilification of the deputy at the school,
several police psychologists expressed worry about his mental well-being.

“I would not want to be in that man’s shoes,” said Kirschman, the police psychologist.
“The guilt and self-blame he must be feeling, let alone what’s being heaped on him from the outside.
After something like this happens, I’ve seen officers torment themselves sometimes to the point of suicide.”

Kirschman said she is especially concerned because Peterson has resigned.
“I don’t know what kind of support or counseling he’ll get since he resigned.
I don’t know what happens to his medical benefits,” she said. “He needs counseling with someone who knows police work. His family will need support.”

Officers involved in controversial shootings often experience a sense of betrayal, she said.
“The betrayal makes the experience much harder.
You feel betrayed by the community you risked your life to protect.
Betrayed by your own friends in the department.
Betrayed by the administration that’s throwing you under the bus,”
Kirschman said.

“The funny thing about police departments is that when you’re recruited, police are told,
‘We have your back.’ ‘The family in blue’ and all that,” she said. “But in high-attention situations like this, you see departments quickly turn against their own officers when they need support most.”

Take another look at this:

Officers involved in controversial shootings often experience a sense of betrayal, she said.
“The betrayal makes the experience much harder.
You feel betrayed by the community you risked your life to protect.
Betrayed by your own friends in the department.
Betrayed by the administration that’s throwing you under the bus,”
Kirschman said.

Wait a minute!
Just who betrayed whom?
In my view, based on what was known on 2018-02-23
(later information may cause revision,
but let us recall what WaPo know when that article was written),
the evidence was that Deputy Peterson had betrayed his responsibility to use his service weapon to protect the students.
That was, I would think, at least part of his job.
Why was he issued his weapon otherwise.
Yet "Ellen Kirschman, a clinical psychologist" thinks it was Peterson who was the betrayed one,
betrayed by his own department and the community.

That to me is all too typical of how, in my view,
some psychologists have a very distorted way of thinking.