Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Police are the true "Coalition To Stop Gun Violence"

Why do we, as Civilians, feel obliged to carry guns?   Don't we trust the Police to protect us?

Generally speaking, no.   We do not.  We expect to be the only innocent armed person at the scene for a significant period of time.  The saying (and I've used it myself) is "When Seconds Count, The Police Are Just Minutes Away".

Yes, that's true if they are not at the scene when "gun violence" begins.   Travel time accounts for most of  the "Response Time" which allows gun violence to continue ... and for the individual which the police refer to as an ACTIVE SHOOTER to claim more victims.

But consider the best case scenario: what if they ARE at the scene?   Then it may take them more minutes to engage the shooter.  Why?

Remember Columbine?

So.  They finally got to Dave Sanders, who was dead at that point.  He was shot close to 11:30 AM.  The shooters killed themselves at 12:05.  The SWAT didn't make it to him until 2:40 PM.  Pat Ireland just rolled himself out of the library at 2:30 PM to save himself from bleeding to death.   The SWAT caught him but between that and Coach Sanders, they decided it was even more dangerous than they'd thought so they called a halt for a while.
That's what "police response" looked like in 1999.

Why 'tactical loitering' doesn't cut it anymore:
By Charles Remsberg, August 21, 2013

 Three respected trainers I talked with recently are concerned about what they call “tactical loitering” and/or “dithering.” Are they off base?
 The terms refer to first responders who arrive at the scene of an urgent, life-threatening crime-in-progress — particularly an active shooting — but instead of taking immediate action, they stall, waiting either for other officers or a supervisor to show up or, in the most extreme cases, waiting for SWAT (a la pre-Columbine). 
 Such delaying is rumored to have occurred in some recent high-profile active-shooter situations, whereas contemporary training calls generally for first arrivers to promptly enter the killing site — considering that option even if they are alone — and begin the critical task of tracking down and neutralizing the offender(s).
H/T: Fred @

Those 'respected trainers' had much to say about police responses to "Active Shooter" situations, which mostly revolved about the demonstrated fact that many officers, when called to those scenes (usually an "Gun Free Zone") tend to wait for backup.  Or for the Swat Team.  Or for a Supervisor.  Or for someone else -- anyone else -- to make the decisions and provide the critical force which these "First Responders" do not considered themselves to provide ... unaided.

Drilling down from Fred's very helpful start, it's possible to find Remberg's article at PoliceOne dot com; where he pitilessly examines the deplorable tendency of police toward "dithering":

Don Alwes, a nationally recognized tactical trainer who moderated a panel on active-shooter response at the latest ILEETA conference, told me he has it on “good authority” that entry into several mass murder scenes of late was delayed unnecessarily for as long as five minutes after the first officers arrived.
This is significant, as (reviewing the 69 comments by active LEO personnel) we learn that: *

Active killer events are dynamic, relatively brief incidents averaging less than six minutes. Known delays in notifying law enforcement time may be nearly the same as the killing time. This does not include our response time, locating time and stopping the murderer time in a typically large facility. Law enforcement is handicapped by time, distance, faulty belief systems, unrealistic training and sometimes paralysis by analysis. 
Only half of RMM [Rapid Mass Murder] are stopped. The lack of effective tactics partially explains why LE action has only accounted for about one third of the RMM aborts. LE can and should be doing much better. Misinformation, unproven theory, financial and ego invested biases all work against us. Those that fail to understand the element of TIME in context, also fail to understand what active killer countermeasure tactics are more likely to work and why. The potential of one murder attempt per second has already been documented, (2011 Tucson AZ). 
Eight out of ten times, the citizen aborts have been initiated by a single actor. LE successful stoppages are close behind with initiation by a SOLO officer seven out of ten times. Presently, the Single Officer’s Lifesaving Others has been five times more effective than initiation by two officers and ten times more effective than three, four or more officers at stopping the killing. This is both remarkable and significant.
*Ron Borsch, on Friday, September 27, 2013 [emphasis added]

The "Comment Policy" at PoliceOne.COM is clear:

You must be a verified law enforcement professional and a member of PoliceOne to comment.
,,, so we are assured that the quotes are directly from verified (and presumed active, or at least retired and experienced) LEOs.

Which adds weight to the following comments, which range from the encouraging ...

I started instructing 13 years ago and teach firearms and patrol tactics. I taught from the beginning that our safety is not the most important thing at a scene it is the innocents we swore to serve. Keep your oath or get out of my career. There is no room for fear in law enforcement. Fear is the greatest sin it is a lack of faith whether in your god or your tactics it is you saying I do not know how to do my job. Lack of fear is not macho it is determination and confidence.
... to the discouraging ...

If you don't know where the bad guy is, you are probably walking into a trap or ambush. A minimum of two officers is needed. If the next cop walks in without being briefed, you could end up shooting eachother. If the first responding officers get wiped out, the pattern can continue or the bad guy can get away. If the bad guy gets away, the shootings can continue. No one wants the shootings to continue, but one has to look at the bigger picture. To go all John Wayne just begs for trouble. Be patient, cool-headed and use tactics, a plan and good communication with oncoming help.
(Note that in the latter comment, there is no consideration of the consequences if the 'bad guy'' is not even confronted by a 'good guy with a gun'.  It just might be possible that the mere presence of a 'good guy with a gun' would suffice to stop the slaughter. See below.   But the majority of LEOs seem more aggressive .. please read ALL the comments before you get your attitude.)

IN THE MEAN TIME, while we are waiting ...
... we 'civilians', we 'compensators for a small penis' find ourselves in a situation where we are indeed (Codrea, listen up) "The Only Ones" on the scene with both the will and the tools to stop the Active Shooter, and everyone only hopes that we have both the skill and the determination to act.

Sometimes the results of those small acts of random violence by innocents, promptly applied and perhaps even without great precision, lead to an immediate cessation of the gun violence which various gun-control groups so devoutly desire.

At the Clackamas Mall Shooting in Oregon on December 11, 2012, during the early Christmas shopping frenzy, the reports are that the Active Shooter  fired 16 rounds, killed two people, and then inexplicably shot himself.  He had come to the mall armed with 145 rounds of 5.56 ammunition for his so-called "Assault Rifle".

Later reports are that an off-duty security officer pointed his Glock (which he had illegally carried into the infamously "Gun Free Zone" which is the typical venue of The Silence of The Lambs) at the shooter, and that when the shooter saw the muzzle of another gun ... he shot him self with his 17th round.

The police found his body 22 minutes after the first shot was fired.

Sometimes, a 'small penis' is better than no penis at all, even if it never actually 'goes off'.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

In many departments the policy is to stand back observer, call for back up and wait for SWAT to arrive and handle the situation.