I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera

[ericire12]

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 ...

"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

[SwoopSJ]

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".

[jaybet]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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.

[cookie62]

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.

[Sponsor]

[Rastus]

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?

[Fatman]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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!

[Pathfinder]

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

[Fatman]

Yup, they have no legal obligation to intervene.