Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Law enforcement studies Orlando response.

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

  • Law enforcement studies Orlando response.

    As we should, every encounter with a active shooter must be reviewed and analyzed.
    Different agencies have their own policies, and each situation is different and has its own challenges.
    San Bernadino of example, different circumstances, different response, and just like San Bernadino, each detail of Orlando will be broken down and studied.

    LOS ANGELES -- At 2:02 a.m. on a muggy night in central Florida, a gunman traded shots with an off-duty police officer, slipped into a nightclub with a rifle and killed at least 50 people in the most lethal mass shooting in U.S. history.

    At 5:05 a.m., a tactical unit stormed the club and the shooter was killed. The intervening three hours required responding officers to choose a strategy: Do they charge in on a barricaded suspect, risking hostage lives? Or do they negotiate with a mass shooter, hoping to save those still inside?

    Police training on the subject has evolved since 13 people were killed by a pair of teenage gunmen at Colorado's Columbine High School in 1999. At that time, many officers were taught to respond to a mass shooting by simply containing the scene, preventing violence from spreading.

    But for many departments, the high death toll at Columbine prompted a reevaluation, with officers often opting to confront a shooter on the rampage as soon as possible, before he or she can inflict further carnage.
    http://www.officer.com/news/12219841...se-to-massacre
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    The difference is that the 'go in' method of dealing with active shooters is specifically intended for schools.

    It is not generally recommended in other situations. Firstly, schools are large enough for a response to enter safely. Secondly, the emotional appeal of children at risk will motivate most officers.

    To address this situation from a command staff viewpoint, you have to look at three separate issues:

    1) firstly, line troops are not equipped for this sort of mission. Their body armor will not withstand 5.56mm rounds, they do not have helmets, shields, or distraction devices. They are not trained as individuals or as teams for this sort of work. You need a team effort to engage an active shooter, and an ad hoc group of patrol officers who have not trained together are at serious risk.

    2) The risk to bystanders and hostages. Patrol officers will have only average levels of marksmanship training, and are held to a very average standard of marksmanship. Inserting them into a situation with hostages or uninvolved subjects exposes the agency to severe liability.

    3) Police officers are not required to risk their lives. They are not infantry; there is no 'acceptable losses' in taking an objective. If the scene commander says 'follow me', and no one does, that is that. No one is getting fired or even disciplined.

    So the reality is that if the active shooter is in a building with limited points of egress, you treat him as a barricaded subject: establish a perimeter, attempt phone contact, summon the tactical team.

    San B was an entirely different situation: they caught the shooters outside, on the move. That opens up a vast range of options for the scene commander.

    Orlando was handled as well as it could. They were fortunate that their team was well-trained and had the ability to breach the outer walls, a capability that few agencies can muster. Their speed of response was reasonable given the circumstances of the event.
    Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

    Comment


    • #3
      Law enforcement always studies the latest atrocity, but it never alters or prevents the next one when it comes.

      We haven't learned the most critical lesson of all, and until we do we are going to keep on losing:

      When you fight, you fight to win...or else.
      Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        1) firstly, line troops are not equipped for this sort of mission. Their body armor will not withstand 5.56mm rounds,
        Does anyone have body armor that can withstand that round at close range?

        That's not a rhetorical question, BTW.

        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        they do not have helmets, shields, or distraction devices. They are not trained as individuals or as teams for this sort of work. You need a team effort to engage an active shooter, and an ad hoc group of patrol officers who have not trained together are at serious risk.
        Granted, but one guy with a pistol and determination could have ended this in the first 5 minutes.
        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?
        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.

        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?

        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        2) The risk to bystanders and hostages. Patrol officers will have only average levels of marksmanship training, and are held to a very average standard of marksmanship. Inserting them into a situation with hostages or uninvolved subjects exposes the agency to severe liability.
        "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?

        Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
        3) Police officers are not required to risk their lives. They are not infantry; there is no 'acceptable losses' in taking an objective. If the scene commander says 'follow me', and no one does, that is that. No one is getting fired or even disciplined.
        ....
        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...

        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.



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

          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?



          "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?



          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...

          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.
          Agreed, if they had mobbed him the casualties would've been much lower. Hell twenty people throwing bottles of booze probably would've taken him down...
          Credo quia absurdum.


          Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
            Agreed, if they had mobbed him the casualties would've been much lower. Hell twenty people throwing bottles of booze probably would've taken him down...
            But anyone rushing him in the first wave would have faced almost certain death. It would only be those following who could have got close enough to stand a chance of taking him down. And that is a big ask. Unless he is reloading or otherwise distracted it would be suicide for an unarmed person to try and rush someone with an automatic weapon. Better to run or hide until there is an opportunity to escape.

            I too am surprised thst armed police can and presumably would refuse to engage an active shooter, especially when the police heavily outnumber the shooter.
            "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Surrey View Post
              But anyone rushing him in the first wave would have faced almost certain death. It would only be those following who could have got close enough to stand a chance of taking him down. And that is a big ask. Unless he is reloading or otherwise distracted it would be suicide for an unarmed person to try and rush someone with an automatic weapon. Better to run or hide until there is an opportunity to escape.

              I too am surprised thst armed police can and presumably would refuse to engage an active shooter, especially when the police heavily outnumber the shooter.
              Depends on distance. At under about 20 feet (7 yards), he'd get a few... literally, a few... of the attackers before they were on him physically.





              That's one on one with prepared defense. Here you have a guy facing the zombie version moving like the gun v. knife version. Dude was doomed if the crowd bum rushed him. He'd have been lucky to get more than a few and probably most of those would have survived their wounds.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                The difference is that the 'go in' method of dealing with active shooters is specifically intended for schools.

                It is not generally recommended in other situations. Firstly, schools are large enough for a response to enter safely. Secondly, the emotional appeal of children at risk will motivate most officers.

                To address this situation from a command staff viewpoint, you have to look at three separate issues:

                1) firstly, line troops are not equipped for this sort of mission. Their body armor will not withstand 5.56mm rounds, they do not have helmets, shields, or distraction devices. They are not trained as individuals or as teams for this sort of work. You need a team effort to engage an active shooter, and an ad hoc group of patrol officers who have not trained together are at serious risk.

                2) The risk to bystanders and hostages. Patrol officers will have only average levels of marksmanship training, and are held to a very average standard of marksmanship. Inserting them into a situation with hostages or uninvolved subjects exposes the agency to severe liability.

                3) Police officers are not required to risk their lives. They are not infantry; there is no 'acceptable losses' in taking an objective. If the scene commander says 'follow me', and no one does, that is that. No one is getting fired or even disciplined.

                So the reality is that if the active shooter is in a building with limited points of egress, you treat him as a barricaded subject: establish a perimeter, attempt phone contact, summon the tactical team.

                San B was an entirely different situation: they caught the shooters outside, on the move. That opens up a vast range of options for the scene commander.

                Orlando was handled as well as it could. They were fortunate that their team was well-trained and had the ability to breach the outer walls, a capability that few agencies can muster. Their speed of response was reasonable given the circumstances of the event.
                I am not intending this to be critical in any way but to understand your first point. I get that most patrol members do not have the equipment that SWAT does. How does this differentiate between a school shooting versus a club or mall? The time is the key. I get that it takes SWAT some time to get to a scene, access it and deal with it. But from the time ANY call comes in, the response time of SWAT will be the same. Whether school or nightclub, those members must be paged and then respond. There should be no difference in those response time unless SWAT sits in a room all dressed and ready to go for school hours, which of course is not the case.
                I do get your points on being motivated more when it comes to children because I myself felt this way and so did my men as firefighters. We were willing to push the boundaries to save kids.
                Last edited by DeltaOne; 14 Jun 16, 16:23.
                "War is hell, but actual combat is a motherf#cker"
                - Col. David Hackworth

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                  Depends on distance. At under about 20 feet (7 yards), he'd get a few... literally, a few... of the attackers before they were on him physically.


                  That's one on one with prepared defense. Here you have a guy facing the zombie version moving like the gun v. knife version. Dude was doomed if the crowd bum rushed him. He'd have been lucky to get more than a few and probably most of those would have survived their wounds.
                  I think the problem is that non-gun owners think of them as a magic wand. I know cops worry about a guy with a knife getting into close range.

                  I'll stand on my previous statement. If the patrons hurled bottles and stuff at the shooter he would've flinched, ducked, and reacted in a non-shooter profile. If he had been mobbed at the same time it would've been over in seconds...

                  That the sheeple have been trained to flee or hide just leaves the shooter free to murder others...
                  Credo quia absurdum.


                  Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                    Depends on distance. At under about 20 feet (7 yards), he'd get a few... literally, a few... of the attackers before they were on him physically.





                    That's one on one with prepared defense. Here you have a guy facing the zombie version moving like the gun v. knife version. Dude was doomed if the crowd bum rushed him. He'd have been lucky to get more than a few and probably most of those would have survived their wounds.
                    But the crowd would have to have some kind of organisation to overpower him and you still have to have those at the front prepared to die. Neither likely to happen in a night club situation.
                    "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                      But the crowd would have to have some kind of organisation to overpower him and you still have to have those at the front prepared to die. Neither likely to happen in a night club situation.
                      Well the solution is for people to decide beforehand to fight rather than flee or hide. Maybe the guberment should promote such a attitude and encourage people to take martial arts. Imo it should be a required course in grade school. I'd prefer Aikido to be the mandatory course as it teaches a way of peace, rather than destruction. Also it teaches respect for others. (Which is going by the wayside.)
                      Credo quia absurdum.


                      Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                        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.
                        LEO's gave up "Protect and Serve" at least a decade ago. Now it's "respond after the fact and look into it".
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                          But the crowd would have to have some kind of organisation to overpower him and you still have to have those at the front prepared to die. Neither likely to happen in a night club situation.
                          If they can organize gay rights parades all over America, they can organize themselves to stay alive.
                          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            LEO's gave up "Protect and Serve" at least a decade ago. Now it's "respond after the fact and look into it".
                            Boy Scout motto, be prepared. If someone tried to break into your house would you either grab your gun or phone as a first option?

                            I know what I'd do...
                            Credo quia absurdum.


                            Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                              Well the solution is for people to decide beforehand to fight rather than flee or hide. Maybe the guberment should promote such a attitude and encourage people to take martial arts. Imo it should be a required course in grade school. I'd prefer Aikido to be the mandatory course as it teaches a way of peace, rather than destruction. Also it teaches respect for others. (Which is going by the wayside.)
                              I used to teach ju jitsu, from which aikido is derived, but even when I was at my best I would not stand much chance against someone with a machine gun. Real life is not like the movies. May get a small chance if he was reloading or if his gun jammed like those American servicemen on that French train. Or if he was overly distracted killing someone else. But then again your relying on other people to die to get you close enough to act.
                              "To be free is better than to be unfree - always."

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X