Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law enforcement studies Orlando response.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    Pretty much what I outlined.

    We're Not Delta

    We're not SEALs

    We're not Green Berets

    Hell....most of us aren't even Marines.

    You can ask us to show up and give it our best.....you cannot demand us commit suicide.

    This situation was a worst case scenario all the way around. Look at the Bataclan, and you'll see what another one looks like.
    I can only imagine the confusion inside the nightclub that night..

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Pretty much what I outlined.

    We're Not Delta

    We're not SEALs

    We're not Green Berets

    Hell....most of us aren't even Marines.

    You can ask us to show up and give it our best.....you cannot demand us commit suicide.

    This situation was a worst case scenario all the way around. Look at the Bataclan, and you'll see what another one looks like.

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Police told not to pursue Orlando shooter for ‘15 or 20 minutes — could’ve been longe

    Food for the second guessers...
    ORLANDO — After an initial burst of fire between Omar Mateen and a security guard at the Pulse nightclub, a group of five to six police officers arrived on the scene within minutes, broke through a large glass window and entered the club as the killing of 49 people was underway inside, according to a Belle Isle police officer who was among the first responders.
    In the first public accounting of those critical early minutes by an officer who actually went inside the club, Belle Isle police officer Brandon Cornwell, 25, said the ad-hoc team spent the first seconds inside “trying to locate exactly where the shooter was — we kept hearing people scream and shots fired.”
    http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/pol...FZB?li=BBnb7Kz

    Leave a comment:


  • Biscuit
    replied
    Originally posted by MarkV View Post
    All this wriggling. Put simply guns are not a religious object, suggesting that they are not a good idea is not insulting the prophet. There are far too many in the USA and it is simply too easy to get hold of one. If you are not armed to the teeth and beyond the govment is not going to take your rights away (and even if you are they could do so anyway), guns make huge profits for some very obese cats and sooth the psyches of some very odd people. Time to wake up and do something. Reason and logic are what the USA was founded on (a member of my family signed the declaration) - don't throw it away,
    I can respect that we have different opinions on the matter, and understand your perspective. In part, I see the points you've brought up as different issues within the firearms debate. I also see it as oversimplification of the issue. For example, characterizing gun owners as 'very odd people' makes it difficult to have a reasoned and logical discussion. Some gun owners are 'very odd people', but so are some teachers, doctors, and lawyers.

    I agree that we have to do something, but don't see any black and white steps to be taken. Unfortunately, some of the most logical steps are also violations of the Constitution and/or lack the popular support necessary to come to fruition. Fear, whether rationale or not, on both sides of the debate seems to be the biggest obstacle we face in moving forward with solutions.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    We have so many guns that we could send our extras to Britain back in 1940.

    Leave a comment:


  • MarkV
    replied
    Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
    I see your argument as the academic one, based purely on reason and logic. On its face, it makes perfect sense. However, if I were the one in the bar, I'm sure I would feel differently. For instance, if I had had one or two drinks or if I wasn't drinking at all that night, I'd likely make the best choices I could make in such a situation. I abstain from alcohol for extended periods, and have no issue entering a bar carrying a concealed firearm during those times.

    I also live alone. I don't care how drunk I am. If I wake up to someone in my house one night, I'm going to defend myself. Ironically, Colorado does allow concealed carry in bars, but my understanding is that it is technically illegal to use a gun to defend myself in my home if I am intoxicated, or under the influence of a controlled substance.
    All this wriggling. Put simply guns are not a religious object, suggesting that they are not a good idea is not insulting the prophet. There are far too many in the USA and it is simply too easy to get hold of one. If you are not armed to the teeth and beyond the govment is not going to take your rights away (and even if you are they could do so anyway), guns make huge profits for some very obese cats and sooth the psyches of some very odd people. Time to wake up and do something. Reason and logic are what the USA was founded on (a member of my family signed the declaration) - don't throw it away,
    Last edited by MarkV; 19 Jun 16, 14:19.

    Leave a comment:


  • Biscuit
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    But then the numbers killed by drunks shooting each other in night clubs over a year or two would may well be higher than the deaths in a terrorist attack.

    The NRA itself says guns and alcohol don't mix. It's common sense.
    I see your argument as the academic one, based purely on reason and logic. On its face, it makes perfect sense. However, if I were the one in the bar, I'm sure I would feel differently. For instance, if I had had one or two drinks or if I wasn't drinking at all that night, I'd likely make the best choices I could make in such a situation. I abstain from alcohol for extended periods, and have no issue entering a bar carrying a concealed firearm during those times.

    I also live alone. I don't care how drunk I am. If I wake up to someone in my house one night, I'm going to defend myself. Ironically, Colorado does allow concealed carry in bars, but my understanding is that it is technically illegal to use a gun to defend myself in my home if I am intoxicated, or under the influence of a controlled substance.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    But then the numbers killed by drunks shooting each other in night clubs over a year or two would may well be higher than the deaths in a terrorist attack.

    The NRA itself says guns and alcohol don't mix. It's common sense.
    Not everyone in bars drinks. I used to go there to watch others drink.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    I was replying specifically to the Orlando shooting. The nightclub was a gun-free zone, where lawabiding citizens can't legally carry. The antis always state that a bunch of people shooting at each other in a crowded space is terrible. I was just saying that even if several people were to shoot back (I used "drunk" facetiously), the death toll would have been less. How many people were only wounded until he shot them again, after the fact? How many bled out in the 3 hours before the survivors were rescued?
    But then the numbers killed by drunks shooting each other in night clubs over a year or two would may well be higher than the deaths in a terrorist attack.

    The NRA itself says guns and alcohol don't mix. It's common sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • johns624
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    You don't need to be a firearms expert to know that a bunch of drunks playing with guns is not a good thing....
    I was replying specifically to the Orlando shooting. The nightclub was a gun-free zone, where lawabiding citizens can't legally carry. The antis always state that a bunch of people shooting at each other in a crowded space is terrible. I was just saying that even if several people were to shoot back (I used "drunk" facetiously), the death toll would have been less. How many people were only wounded until he shot them again, after the fact? How many bled out in the 3 hours before the survivors were rescued?

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by Surrey View Post
    You don't need to be a firearms expert to know that a bunch of drunks playing with guns is not a good thing....
    Your ability to constantly miss the point and twist others statements is habitual and becoming a bit annoying.
    Terrorist, regardless of their cause, will pick vulnerable sights that are target rich. They do it in the night clubs of Paris, in the market places of towns across the Middle East, on Norwegian islands, on school play grounds and classrooms, and in movie theatres. Even on US Army bases on US soil knowing that nobody present is carrying ammunition.
    This is a fact, you can take from it any conclusion you desire.
    If presenting more target rich environments is your answer that is your right.
    Some sheep rush to the slaughter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Surrey
    replied
    Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
    Rethinking your post, I'd have to agree.
    ISIS has publicly told its supporters to copy the Paris attack wherever they are.
    You don't need to be a firearms expert to know that a bunch of drunks playing with guns is not a good thing....

    Leave a comment:


  • Urban hermit
    replied
    Originally posted by johns624 View Post
    Once again, a murderer attacks people in a gun-free zone. I see a pattern here...
    Even with a bunch of drunks shooting back, the death toll wouldn't have been as bad...
    Rethinking your post, I'd have to agree.
    ISIS has publicly told its supporters to copy the Paris attack wherever they are.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bwaha
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    I know I'm really tardy with this response, but I felt it was worth doing. Again, my background is as both a patrol and tactical officer with military background.



    Semper Fidelis is the Marine corps motto. How many marines are cheating bastards? Protect and serve is a motto, not an oath. I will go through hell to save you, bit I won't commit suicide for no gain for a complete stranger. Stop acting like cops are either so hard that they're jack booted thugs, or so soft that they're just revenue agents. We can't be both simultaneously. I might have made entry, but then I have a heavy vest, long guns, access to a shield, 2 other team members and a medic on my shift. Plus the training for that.....even then I'd be expecting to wake up in the hospital. Given the totality of the circumstances, any patrol officer rushing in would have become a casualty, giving the shooter additional weapons and ammo, and goading more officers to attempt a rescue, piling on casualties as under equipped and under trained officer friendlies walked into an infantry firefight with a pistol and less than 50 rounds.
    I never saw it in that fashion. I'll give my speed loader and my Hawg to any uniformed cop. Better than that I'll put my ass on the line and try to save your ass.

    Sorry, best I can do...

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    I know I'm really tardy with this response, but I felt it was worth doing. Again, my background is as both a patrol and tactical officer with military background.

    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Does anyone have body armor that can withstand that round at close range?

    That's not a rhetorical question, BTW.


    Yes. Level 3 and 4 hard plates will stop .223. As a swat officer I'm issued a heavy vest and helmet. I also have personally purchased plates and carrier which I had before I made the team. Most officers do not have these, either because the agency forbids personal weapons and armor as it can be a liability issue, or the agency cannot afford the additional 400 dollars per officer to add a plate carrier to their gear. I personally don't know of any agency that issues out level 3 or 4 plates to non specialist patrol officers.



    Granted, but one guy with a pistol and determination could have ended this in the first 5 minutes.

    Generally speaking a pistol is a defensive arm. You can use it offensively against a similarly armed suspect granted the determination and skill and willingness to get stuck in. But against a rifle it's something that you use to suppress so you can get to hard cover and hopefully a long gun of your own. In the open or making entry, pistol and pistol armor versus rifle is suicide.

    Here is why-
    The shooter was alone (and granted, he was not worried about 'friendly fire' or 'target justification' so he WAS one guy confronting over 100 people at once. If the situation included one or two unknown people with guns .... well, he probably wouldn't have done it.
    Would he?

    Considering that he was willing to take on the swat team after they did a dynamic wall breach and there was no way he thought he'd survive, yes he'd go on the offensive against any responding patrol officer, and 9 times out of 10 the patrol officer would die without stopping the carnage.

    But add an unknown into the mix like someone that can or is shooting back, while the event is in progress, and he has to look to his own self-preservation just to prolong his little event

    .
    Eh, as I noted, he's indiscriminately shooting in a target rich environment. One guy shooting back will distract, but aside from sheer luck the patrolman is dead.


    See it from the enemy point of view; if they rush you, you are done. If you have to pick out the guy shooing back and somebody throws a chair into your face before you get him, you are done. If you make a mistake and shoot the wrong guy first, you are done.
    Sure changes the equations that lead to 50 dead, does it not?

    A lot of if in that. And you're relying on the victims to not only fight back but discriminate. More likely they see the officer as a second shooter, or get in his way. Remember he has to place his shots......that crowd is going to make his chances of getting a clean shot impossible.



    "Average"? ... since when?
    That is a huge problem, if it is correct. I always thought that the biggest advantage that Cops had over Gang-Bangers is that the Cops are the ones that can shoot straight.
    What the is going on here?

    Go roll on the mat for 3 minutes then do a qualification course. You'll see. Most agencies put somewhere between 250 and 1000 rounds per officer a year....budget and time just won't allow more. Most tactical officers burn through over 250 rounds a month.....some might even go through that in a week. Considering that gang members don't practice at all and have no training to speak of....patrol officer is better. But under high stress they're still not world class for the most part.


    Well, that's a hell of a revelation, but it won't do the Police any good. What are they supposed to be nowadays, armed revenue agents?
    Past arguments on this subject are coming to mind...

    Well, I recall those arguments talking about how militarized police had become. There's been a huge push to soften police, and diversified police, and that kills your tactical acumen. You simply cannot find a large number of people who are motivated and frankly crazy enough to go hunting a rifle armed shooter solo, much less with inadequate soft gear, AND be officer friendly on the beat. Not only is the equipment needed wholly different, the mindset is too. Swat operators do not make poster children for community relations. And community impact officers are quite incapable of summoning the massive hardened steel balls to go running into a dark club in the middle of the night after a terrorist.

    If you want patrol to be able to handle these situations in the manner you're demanding, then you'll have to accept a harder and less friendly patrol division. You'll also have to accept them wearing external vests, rifles, and other scary military gear. You'll have to recruit for a certain psychological mindset rather than a diverse force. You can't ask that single mom working on the street to commit suicide for complete strangers. As has been noted, training and the psychological effects of kids means that she might, might, go hard charging into a school like mama bear. But that's not guaranteed
    .

    But if that is really the overall truth, then "To protect and serve" just became "To protect myself, and serve the State".
    And at that point, you only get the cooperation of the people at the point of a gun.
    And it better be loaded.
    Semper Fidelis is the Marine corps motto. How many marines are cheating bastards? Protect and serve is a motto, not an oath. I will go through hell to save you, bit I won't commit suicide for no gain for a complete stranger. Stop acting like cops are either so hard that they're jack booted thugs, or so soft that they're just revenue agents. We can't be both simultaneously. I might have made entry, but then I have a heavy vest, long guns, access to a shield, 2 other team members and a medic on my shift. Plus the training for that.....even then I'd be expecting to wake up in the hospital. Given the totality of the circumstances, any patrol officer rushing in would have become a casualty, giving the shooter additional weapons and ammo, and goading more officers to attempt a rescue, piling on casualties as under equipped and under trained officer friendlies walked into an infantry firefight with a pistol and less than 50 rounds.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X