The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: ericire12 on November 29, 2008, 09:09:01 PM
-
Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back
Jerome Taylor talks to the photographer who took this picture of the terrorist attack in India ...
(http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00047/gunman_47241t.jpg)
"There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."
"I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."
Read the entire story here:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/mumbai-photographer-i-wish-id-had-a-gun-not-a-camera-armed-police-would-not-fire-back-14086308.html
-
One word comes to mind... pathetic. The officers that chose cowardice over performing their duties should be charged with accessory to murder for all of the lives lost under their "protection".
-
One word comes to mind... pathetic. The officers that chose cowardice over performing their duties should be charged with accessory to murder for all of the lives lost under their "protection".
OR even worse, they were "sympathetic to the cause"... enough to hide long enough or "wait for orders" long enough to let the terrorists get their plan in action. It has happened before in that part of the world.
-
I wish I could say that this is something that I have only heard or read of in other countries, but it is not. Does anyone remember Katrina? Why do I not blame President Bush and FEMA for the issues down there? I do not blame them because the Federal Government is to handle NATIONAL issues and come in and ASSIST local issues. With more than a week of warning the Governor and Mayor did not act in a way to protect their citizens, and many emergency workers, law enforcement included, fled the area for their own safety.
-
It wasn't all that long ago all LEO's were taught to hold a perimeter and wait if you had an active shooter. It didn't change until Columbine.
-
It wasn't all that long ago all LEO's were taught to hold a perimeter and wait if you had an active shooter. It didn't change until Columbine.
Interesting. So I wonder what is the deal with kicking down doors to make an arrest with a warrant? I don't understand the reasoning between the two. An active shooter killing citizens vs. the kicking a door down to make an arrest. In one instance innocents are being targeted/killed and in the other instance a "bad guy" is being arrested....I understand the element of surprise thing.
You mentioned long ago....is this no longer the emphasis of training, to hold the perimeter?
-
I've got the impression from my LEO friends that policy has/is changing to quick reaction by whoever is there rather than waiting for a team if an active shooter is present.
I'm not so sure that policy would be as effective if facing a team of trained terrorists as opposed to Columbine type shooters. You would face terrorists piece-meal, which may do nothing but get the cop killed too. Theory behind getting in quick on the Columbine types is they are more likely to end it by killing themselves when faced with armed resistance. I doubt terrorists would react the same way.
One more good reason to carry. I'm under no impression other than if caught in a similar situation, I'm maggot-meat walking if I do nothing. So I'm gunning for all it's worth.
-
One more good reason to carry. I'm under no impression other than if caught in a similar situation, I'm maggot-meat walking if I do nothing. So I'm gunning for all it's worth.
+1 and as many zeros as we can fit behind it!
-
Interesting. So I wonder what is the deal with kicking down doors to make an arrest with a warrant? I don't understand the reasoning between the two. An active shooter killing citizens vs. the kicking a door down to make an arrest. In one instance innocents are being targeted/killed and in the other instance a "bad guy" is being arrested....I understand the element of surprise thing.
You mentioned long ago....is this no longer the emphasis of training, to hold the perimeter?
I have heard that the policy is slowly changing because of Columbine, but again, the LEOs are not obligated to intervene at any time under any circumstances. Their sole legal obligation as a police "force" (not on an individual basis) is to preserve public order.
Anyone with fairly recent LEO training want to comment on this? I'm guessing the training now is:
1. Call it in
2. Take cover
3. IF you can intervene and end the shooting without putting yourself or others at risk, intervene
4. Otherwise, wait for backup and/or the SWAT team
-
Yup, they have no legal obligation to intervene.
-
One more good reason to carry. I'm under no impression other than if caught in a similar situation, I'm maggot-meat walking if I do nothing. So I'm gunning for all it's worth.
Yeah, I'm starting to rethink the fact that I dont carry any extra mags.
-
Yeah, I'm starting to rethink the fact that I dont carry any extra mags.
I always do. It's tough being a realist amongst those living in a state of blissful denial. Seems if you actively plan for defense, you're 'paranoid'. To them I guess it's better to perish as a 'normal' person should when faced with violence. ::)
-
I am not a LEO, nor am I privy to the specifics of their training regarding engagement of hostiles. That being said, as an armed citizen, I have no legal obligation to intervene in a terrorist attack either. However, if I am armed and have even a little support, as these officers had in each other, I would consider it my duty to act instead of allowing innocent people to die. Maybe I'm crazy, or maybe I would react differently if actually in that situation. I would like to think the fear of a lifetime of regret would be greater than that of being shot, though.
Swoop
-
I basically agree with all the comments thus far. I fully intend to carry more ammo than just what will fit into the gun, ie spare mags. I also feel that the cops are called to a situation because the general public is under the impression that they have an obligation to intervene in an active shooter situation. If they will not intervene, I'd rather get a buddy to help me take care of the shooter, rather than have the cops guard the perimeter. Now we know why the Israeli's carry all the time. I don't remember any problems they've had in which a citzen did not solve the situation when the cops refused direct action. I do remember a recent event in which a terrrorist got ahold of a bulldozer and drove it down the street. I heard on the news that an Israeli citizen took a cop's gun and killed the terrorist. Problem solved. We could use people like that here in the US. And laws that let them take that kind of action without fear of prosecution.
-
If they will not intervene, I'd rather get a buddy to help me take care of the shooter, rather than have the cops guard the perimeter.
if I am armed and have even a little support, as these officers had in each other, I would consider it my duty to act instead of allowing innocent people to die.
Swoop
Both very noble..... But I have to tell you, the only thing I would be concerned about would be getting out alive.
It may sound cowardly, but I have a wife and kids. I carry a gun to survive and to protect the lives of my loved ones. The only way I would engage an active shooter would be in a situation where I HAD TO in order to get me and my family out alive.
Dont get me wrong, what you are saying is very heroic and I commend anyone who would commit such acts of bravery.... BUT my number one concern in a situation like the one in India would be to make sure my wife did not become a widow and that my kids do not have to grow up without a father.
When I am out and around town I usually am with my kids and/or wife, and in those situations the same rules apply. If I am alone and see a person being attacked by a bad guy, I would engage him if I had enough of a tactical advantage to swiftly end the situation (i.e. all the time in the world for a headshot) without any real danger to myself -- The element of surprise would have to be near 100%...... BUT there is no way in hell I would start a shoot out to save a perfect stranger if my wife and two little kids were anywhere close.
-
Not cowardly at all. Cowardly would be running and leaving your family on their own. My personal instinct is to help if able, simply because it's my nature.
If my wife and kids were with me, I've got to balance the two. My wife in the past has not acted properly when faced with a bad or possibly bad situation.
-
I have heard that the policy is slowly changing because of Columbine, but again, the LEOs are not obligated to intervene at any time under any circumstances. Their sole legal obligation as a police "force" (not on an individual basis) is to preserve public order.
Anyone with fairly recent LEO training want to comment on this? I'm guessing the training now is:
1. Call it in
2. Take cover
3. IF you can intervene and end the shooting without putting yourself or others at risk, intervene
4. Otherwise, wait for backup and/or the SWAT team
Here is a link where the work on this topic is discussed. It is a long read with some links to other resources. So if you are inerested, here it is.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6278
-
First let me say, as I did on the MB Blog side, that the picture of the terrorist standing there (basically unarmed BTW, no mag in the AK) plus some footage of a couple of mall and school shootings should be made into a commercial with a voice over with "The Police can't help you until it's actually over" and a graphic stating "This only happens in 'Gun Free Zones'."
Second, I recently completed a CrimJustice course with our local Sheriff as the instructor. He was the SRT commander and taught "Active Shooter Response" for a number of years. The policy here, and in a lot of other places, is that the first responding officer is to make entry and at a minimum locate and possibly neutralize an active shooter. The days of "Hold and wait for SWAT" are over. There is a lot of emphiasis on single and multiple (two-four) officer building clearing being taught at the Academy. Active shooters and terrorists aren't planning on walking out and want the body count as high as they can get it. Waiting for back up will only add to the count. Plus as a "Duty to act" an officer is acting for the common good by stopping a shooter which is above the protect the individual rule.
Third, the officer that stopped the Utah Mall shooting a couple years ago kicked himself repeated for not having at least one extra mag. He carried a 1911 but only had the 8+1 to use against a guy with plenty of firepower. Even only one mag would have been 17 rounds to stop the threat. Even if the AWB is enacted and the limit is 10 in a mag that's 21 available if you need it. The extra weight/discomfort is nothing to needing it if the exriment impacts the rotator. You as an individual may not be responsible to act but you should use all means available to you to escape and stay alive. If that means going on the offensive to get to an exit so be it.
my $.02
-
Both very noble..... But I have to tell you, the only thing I would be concerned about would be getting out alive.
It may sound cowardly, but I have a wife and kids. I carry a gun to survive and to protect the lives of my loved ones. The only way I would engage an active shooter would be in a situation where I HAD TO in order to get me and my family out alive.
Dont get me wrong, what you are saying is very heroic and I commend anyone who would commit such acts of bravery.... BUT my number one concern in a situation like the one in India would be to make sure my wife did not become a widow and that my kids do not have to grow up without a father.
When I am out and around town I usually am with my kids and/or wife, and in those situations the same rules apply. If I am alone and see a person being attacked by a bad guy, I would engage him if I had enough of a tactical advantage to swiftly end the situation (i.e. all the time in the world for a headshot) without any real danger to myself -- The element of surprise would have to be near 100%...... BUT there is no way in hell I would start a shoot out to save a perfect stranger if my wife and two little kids were anywhere close.
I agree 100%. The only way I would intervene further would be if I had the backup of a trusted friend. They are not usually around when I'm out with the family so I don't see that happening unless I know 1,000% that the family is safe!
-
On a related note, it was almost one year ago that Jeanne Assam demonstrated the proper way to deal with an active shooter when he made the mistake of coming into her New Life church. If I recall correctly, he had an AR, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns and ammo out the wazoo. She had her Beretta 92. Surely the last thing he expected was for someone to return fire and to confront him in an aggressive posture.
Terrorists would probably respond differently, specially if they had any training. I don't think she would have.
-
Terrorists would probably respond differently, specially if they had any training. I don't think she would have.
Just remember that terrorists are generally cowards that will break off an attack when confronted. Most attacks are stopped in the planning phase when the target becomes too great a threat (armed, secure). The "training" is how to carry out an attack not respond to a armed force. Palestinian bombers have vaporised themselves (minimizing damage) at the threat of force when a Police officer or armed citizen realizes there is an attack occurring.
-
Both very noble..... But I have to tell you, the only thing I would be concerned about would be getting out alive.
It may sound cowardly, but I have a wife and kids. I carry a gun to survive and to protect the lives of my loved ones. The only way I would engage an active shooter would be in a situation where I HAD TO in order to get me and my family out alive.
Dont get me wrong, what you are saying is very heroic and I commend anyone who would commit such acts of bravery.... BUT my number one concern in a situation like the one in India would be to make sure my wife did not become a widow and that my kids do not have to grow up without a father.
When I am out and around town I usually am with my kids and/or wife, and in those situations the same rules apply. If I am alone and see a person being attacked by a bad guy, I would engage him if I had enough of a tactical advantage to swiftly end the situation (i.e. all the time in the world for a headshot) without any real danger to myself -- The element of surprise would have to be near 100%...... BUT there is no way in hell I would start a shoot out to save a perfect stranger if my wife and two little kids were anywhere close.
+1...I agree 100%
Nothing cowardly about being a dedicated family man. Protect you and yours first.
I'm not saying I would never help a bystander....but the odds would have to tactically in my favor.
-
First let me say, as I did on the MB Blog side, that the picture of the terrorist standing there (basically unarmed BTW, no mag in the AK) plus some footage of a couple of mall and school shootings should be made into a commercial with a voice over with "The Police can't help you until it's actually over" and a graphic stating "This only happens in 'Gun Free Zones'."
Second, I recently completed a CrimJustice course with our local Sheriff as the instructor. He was the SRT commander and taught "Active Shooter Response" for a number of years. The policy here, and in a lot of other places, is that the first responding officer is to make entry and at a minimum locate and possibly neutralize an active shooter. The days of "Hold and wait for SWAT" are over. There is a lot of emphiasis on single and multiple (two-four) officer building clearing being taught at the Academy. Active shooters and terrorists aren't planning on walking out and want the body count as high as they can get it. Waiting for back up will only add to the count. Plus as a "Duty to act" an officer is acting for the common good by stopping a shooter which is above the protect the individual rule.
Third, the officer that stopped the Utah Mall shooting a couple years ago kicked himself repeated for not having at least one extra mag. He carried a 1911 but only had the 8+1 to use against a guy with plenty of firepower. Even only one mag would have been 17 rounds to stop the threat. Even if the AWB is enacted and the limit is 10 in a mag that's 21 available if you need it. The extra weight/discomfort is nothing to needing it if the exriment impacts the rotator. You as an individual may not be responsible to act but you should use all means available to you to escape and stay alive. If that means going on the offensive to get to an exit so be it.
my $.02
That is the current training that I have seen. Officers are now taught that you must neutralize the active shooter as quickly as possible.
-
On a related note, it was almost one year ago that Jeanne Assam demonstrated the proper way to deal with an active shooter when he made the mistake of coming into her New Life church. If I recall correctly, he had an AR, a shotgun, and a couple of handguns and ammo out the wazoo. She had her Beretta 92. Surely the last thing he expected was for someone to return fire and to confront him in an aggressive posture.
Terrorists would probably respond differently, specially if they had any training. I don't think she would have.
In this incident, there was an eye witness report of another armed church member who did not engage the shooter, even after being urged to shoot by the eye witness and also did not give his firearm to the eye witness who identified himself as a Viet Nam era combat veteran (cannot really fault someone for not handing their loaded weapon to someone though)
-
In this incident, there was an eye witness report of another armed church member who did not engage the shooter, even after being urged to shoot by the eye witness and also did not give his firearm to the eye witness who identified himself as a Viet Nam era combat veteran (cannot really fault someone for not handing their loaded weapon to someone though)
First decission we need to make is whether or not to carry. The second and tougher is whether or not to use the weapon. There is no way to answer number two until you are forced to make the decission.
-
First decission we need to make is whether or not to carry. The second and tougher is whether or not to use the weapon. There is no way to answer number two until you are forced to make the decission.
Exactly right. I am licensed to carry, but that doesn't mean I enjoy the need. To actually have to pull it out of the holster & pull the trigger is something that I think about everyday. I will if I have to, but I sure as H*LL don't want to!
-
First decission we need to make is whether or not to carry. The second and tougher is whether or not to use the weapon. There is no way to answer number two until you are forced to make the decission.
Exactly.
It is as much mental as it is physical preparedness.
One can always make the conscious choice NOT to use a firearm, even if it is available.
It's always better to have and not need, than to need and not have....IMO.
But if one is not mentally prepared to use said firearm when necessary, then it should be left at home.
-
Exactly.
It is as much mental as it is physical preparedness.
One can always make the conscious choice NOT to use a firearm, even if it is available.
It's always better to have and not need, than to need and not have....IMO.
But if one is not mentally prepared to use said firearm when necessary, then it should be left at home.
Not for Plaxico! ;D
-
Not for Plaxico! ;D
Yes, that rule doesn't apply to the NFL "Pigskin Plinkers"...... ;D :o ;D