I live in the Coral Springs and Parkland community. I remember the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, and I know our community will always carry the weight of that day.
Before I began learning about public safety technology, I assumed the most important question in an emergency was: How quickly can someone send an alert? Speed matters. Seconds can make a difference. But I’ve come to understand that an alert is only the beginning. What happens in the moments that follow matters, too.
Now, I find myself asking more questions: Who receives it? What do they know? And how can they tell whether the information they are acting on is current?
Knowing where help is needed
One detail from the Parkland response has stayed with me. On page 186, the state’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission report describes an incorrect update about the shooter’s movements. The report attributes it to a miscommunication about whether the surveillance video being viewed was rewound footage or a live feed.
I don’t share that detail to suggest that one piece of technology could have changed the outcome of that day. It illustrates how difficult it can be to build an accurate picture while an incident is unfolding. Information may be available, but responders need to understand what it shows, when it was captured and whether conditions have changed.
“There’s an emergency at the school” tells someone help is needed. Knowing the building, floor or room helps responders understand where to go. Knowing when that information was last confirmed helps them assess what they may encounter. That distinction has stayed with me: information becomes useful when it helps someone make a decision.
Reaching everyone who needs to act
Before the Marjory Stoneman Douglas shooting, I hadn’t fully understood how many people may have a role in a single response. On-site staff, security teams, dispatchers and first responders each have responsibilities and may need different information to carry them out. When details pass through a series of calls or messages, those people may be working from different versions of what is happening.
On page 221, the commission report documents that 69 seconds passed between Coral Springs receiving the first 911 call and a Broward Sheriff’s Office dispatcher first attempting to notify law enforcement personnel of the shooting. By that time, all 24 first-floor victims had already been shot.
That finding helped me understand why the path information takes matters. Receiving a call is one step. Getting useful information to the people who need to act is another. Fast notification means more than sending an alert quickly. It also means helping the people involved make informed decisions together.
Connecting what an organization already has
Schools, hospitals and other organizations may already have cameras, access control, fire panels, public address systems and emergency communications tools. Before working in this industry, I assumed those systems would naturally work together during an emergency. Having them in place, however, does not automatically mean they are connected.
If people must check multiple systems, relay details by phone and piece together what is happening, they may have plenty of information without a clear, shared picture of the incident.
The commission report offers another example. On page 226, it explains that the Coral Springs Police Department and the Broward Sheriff’s Office operated separate radio systems that could not be linked during the response. Having communication tools was only part of the challenge. The people using them also needed a reliable way to communicate with one another.
That lack of connectedness creates ambiguity, which ultimately leads to longer notification and response times. The real value is in the speed of the initial notification and then keeping people, systems, and responders connected afterward so action can happen faster.
These lessons helped me understand SOS Technologies’ focus on connected response. SOS LIVE 2.0 is designed to bring alerts, real-time location information and incident context together, helping the people involved move from notification toward coordinated action and response. What resonates with me is the practical purpose behind that connection: helping people spend less time piecing together information and more time using it to respond.
It brings me back to the questions I now ask about preparedness — who needs to know, what do they need to know, and how will that information reach them?
Preparedness begins before an emergency
On page 179, the commission report describes responders discussing the need to obtain a school map and establish incident command. That made me think about the practical details of preparedness: Do responders have access to building layouts? Does everyone understand who is coordinating the response? These are questions I would not have known to ask before entering this industry.
Perhaps the most important lesson for me is that emergency response depends on decisions made well before an incident occurs. Organizations need to determine who should be notified, what information they need, how their systems connect and what happens if a usual communication path is disrupted.
I’m still new to this industry, and I continue to learn from people with years of experience. Living in this community gives those lessons a personal weight. When I think about emergency preparedness now, I look beyond the moment an alert is triggered. I think about whether the people trying to help have clear, timely information and whether they can use it together when every second matters.