Another Mass Shooting in the US

[Blue in Munich]

^^^^ This. With bells on.

It’s all well and good saying officers “only” need to be trained to use an assault rifle, but whilst the dream sounds achievable the simple reality is that it’s not.

I’m sure BIM will agree that, when the carrying of CS spray became the norm in the UK many officers, myself included, looked around at our shift colleagues and identified at least one person we wouldn’t trust with a biro, never mind an incapacitant spray.

And yet on this thread we have contributors who think it is achievable to train people who are essentially equivalent to panda drivers in this country to storm premises with assault rifles? Really? Have a word, people!

I used the word elite because that is precisely what Tactical Firearms Units in the UK (SWAT in the US) are. They are the best of the best. The majority never achieve that level. And if you have a lunatic running amok with an automatic weapon in an enclosed premises, anything less than the best of the best will not work. You cannot send in second rate firearms officers and hope for anything less than carnage.

Sometimes it’s perhaps best for the armchair experts to concede that they really do not know better after all, and that real life, more often than not, does not bear any more than a passing resemblance to the movies.

Do you mean the sort that when it didn't spray would turn it towards themselves to look at the nozzle whilst still having their finger on the trigger...

I'm reminded of an incident when we were first issued ASP's (extending batons). The first recipient of an ASP came on duty the day following his training, and his colleagues were keen to see how it worked. The baton holder gave an impromptu demonstration whereby he drew the baton in a low profile stance and then moved to a high profile stance, racking the ASP out, shouting the necessary warning and then returning the baton to the defensive position, pointing behind him over his right shoulder. Everyone was very impressed, except for the Sergeant who had decided the best place to watch was over the officer's right shoulder; the very place to which the ball end of the baton was returned, quite painfully for the skipper, who was known by a nickname relating to the incident for the rest of his service.

 

[Billysboots]

Do you mean the sort that when it didn't spray would turn it towards themselves to look at the nozzle whilst still having their finger on the trigger...

The very same. And their equivalent in the USA should be trained to carry an assault rifle? Truly frightening ?

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I feel for the victims families but it is hard to sympathise when they won't give up their guns.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

^^^^ This. With bells on.

It’s all well and good saying officers “only” need to be trained to use an assault rifle, but whilst the dream sounds achievable the simple reality is that it’s not.

I’m sure BIM will agree that, when the carrying of CS spray became the norm in the UK many officers, myself included, looked around at our shift colleagues and identified at least one person we wouldn’t trust with a biro, never mind an incapacitant spray.

And yet on this thread we have contributors who think it is achievable to train people who are essentially equivalent to panda drivers in this country to storm premises with assault rifles? Really? Have a word, people!

I used the word elite because that is precisely what Tactical Firearms Units in the UK (SWAT in the US) are. They are the best of the best. The majority never achieve that level. And if you have a lunatic running amok with an automatic weapon in an enclosed premises, anything less than the best of the best will not work. You cannot send in second rate firearms officers and hope for anything less than carnage.

Sometimes it’s perhaps best for the armchair experts to concede that they really do not know better after all, and that real life, more often than not, does not bear any more than a passing resemblance to the movies.

Really Billy, you are prone to exaggeration.
I don't think you would like to be referred to in disparaging terms like "panda driver" when in fact you are a Police officer.
The army take young men and make them capable of being able to handle and fire assault rifles. It's done as a matter of course, almost.
It certainly isn't given a mystique type elitism.
Why do you not give the Police training officers of U.S. Police Forces the same respect you give ours? Have you knowledge of their methods etc.
I haven't .But I have no reason to believe they are as incompetent as you make out.
As for your sentence beginning, "You cannot send.........." - what the hell do you think was going on in that school from the moment that lunatic walked in.?
Please sit and with your watch time out 5 minutes - and see what a hell of along time that is in context of someone striding through a school shooting anyone he meets! Jesus, you seem to have completely lost sight of that scenario.
There are firearms incidents and there are firearms incidents, and a hostage or standoff is one for Swat. This is not one for Swat, because their arrival time cannot be tolerated.
Perhaps you could give us some idea how long it would take to gather and deploy to the scene such a team. I'll bet it's not like in the movies, jusrva matter of minutes!
To get back to your view of P.c U.S plod being incapable of being adequately trained ( really, that's not fair), here is an extract from Bureau of Justice of US figures as to amount of time on firearms training.






Major training areas included operations
(an average of 213 hours per recruit); rearms, self-defense, and use of force (168 hours); self-improvement (89 hours); and legal education (86 hours).

That's all I'm intending to say about this, because I don't think there's any more I can add to my posts, except do not assume that you and BIM have exclusive knowledge of Police matters...?

 

[Hobbit]

Seems a bit odd the there are so many senior officials in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, now saying the response was seriously flawed… just saying… for a friend…

 

[Billysboots]

Really Billy, you are prone to exaggeration.
I don't think you would like to be referred to in disparaging terms like "panda driver" when in fact you are a Police officer.
The army take young men and make them capable of being able to handle and fire assault rifles. It's done as a matter of course, almost.
It certainly isn't given a mystique type elitism.
Why do you not give the Police training officers of U.S. Police Forces the same respect you give ours? Have you knowledge of their methods etc.
I haven't .But I have no reason to believe they are as incompetent as you make out.
As for your sentence beginning, "You cannot send.........." - what the hell do you think was going on in that school from the moment that lunatic walked in.?
Please sit and with your watch time out 5 minutes - and see what a hell of along time that is in context of someone striding through a school shooting anyone he meets! Jesus, you seem to have completely lost sight of that scenario.
There are firearms incidents and there are firearms incidents, and a hostage or standoff is one for Swat. This is not one for Swat, because their arrival time cannot be tolerated.
Perhaps you could give us some idea how long it would take to gather and deploy to the scene such a team. I'll bet it's not like in the movies, jusrva matter of minutes!
To get back to your view of P.c U.S plod being incapable of being adequately trained ( really, that's not fair), here is an extract from Bureau of Justice of US figures as to amount of time on firearms training.






Major training areas included operations
(an average of 213 hours per recruit); rearms, self-defense, and use of force (168 hours); self-improvement (89 hours); and legal education (86 hours).

That's all I'm intending to say about this, because I don't think there's any more I can add to my posts, except do not assume that you and BIM have exclusive knowledge of Police matters...?

We may not have exclusive knowledge of police matters but I’d ask you please to concede that we perhaps know more than most on this thread.

I’m in no way disparaging of cops in the States. I wouldn’t want their job, thanks very much. But do you really, genuinely think that every frontline, sidearm carrying officer in the States is capable of being trained to the level required to use an assault rifle safely? Really? If so, with respect, you are breathtakingly naive.

Cops in all countries are merely members of the public, but they choose to be cops. It doesn’t turn them into robots capable of doing anything there happens to be a training course available for. Are all cops in the UK capable of driving to advanced level? No. Can they all reach the fitness level required to work in Tactical Support Teams? No. And trained to the level where they can safely carry firearms? No.

What I am trying to explain to you, and failing miserably it seems, is that your halcyon view that the police in the States can be routinely trained to deploy with assault rifles is totally unrealistic.

I know and understand the UK police. You, by your own admission, do not. And whilst you consider me to be someone who exaggerates, has it not maybe occurred to you that some of your responses are extremely patronising of someone who has spent 30 years gaining first hand experience of a job you appear to think I actually know nothing about? And when it comes to exaggeration, perhaps you’d do well to look closer to home, because your post is laced with it. For example, where have I said, or suggested, even once, that the police in the States are incompetent? Nowhere.

I have not worked in the States, but I know enough about people who work within the law enforcement community to understand that not everyone who puts on a uniform is capable of being trained to the level to carry out every conceivable operational duty. Far from it, in fact. And certainly not when it comes to high risk activities such as firearms deployment.

Your extract detailing training requirements is interesting. But where in there does it suggest everyone is capable of attaining the standard required? Nowhere, that’s where, because they’re not.

My final point on this is that there are always going to be times, regrettably, where police officers have to accept that they are simply not equipped to intervene, the direct consequence being that there will be collateral losses, very often loss of life. What they will not do is cast aside their responsibility to their own safety, and that of their colleagues, to prevent those collateral losses. Moreover, I have first hand knowledge and experience of times when very explicit orders have been given not to intervene in life threatening incidents at a cost to police officers’ lives.

That’s the reality.

 

[Billysboots]

Seems a bit odd the there are so many senior officials in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, now saying the response was seriously flawed… just saying… for a friend…

And you’ll note, Brian, from one of my earlier responses, that I accepted that such findings were entirely possible.

 

[Swango1980]

Got to feel a little sorry for police, when some members of the public have an expectation that they should put their lives on the line for a situation they are very likely to he the underdog.

I've not served in the police, but I am sure they have many roles to undergo on a daily basis. They are always in more danger than your average job (and their salary may not reflect that), but are trained sufficiently to keep themselves as safe as they can.

However, going into a building to face a crazy person with an assault rifle is just mental. Firstly, the gunman is crazy, so probably not so fearful of getting killed, which could well give him an advantage straight off the bat. Secondly, the police officer probably doesn't know who the gun man is. They could be ex military, and had extensive training in firearms. Good luck if you are asked to go in with your handgun to face that nutter.

Surely it is easy to understand why such actions are left to highly trained specialist armed officers? Officers who extensively focus their training for these very type of situations, rather than having to put up with all the regular nonsense a regular officer needs to deal with?

 

[RRidges]

Ok thanks for clarifying that.
Seems to me the first step that needs to be taken in the US is that guns must be registered. I can't see how that would be against the 2nd amendment, so the NRA couldn't object. Then introduce severe penalties for anyone found in possession of an unregistered weapon, plus an amnesty to hand them in.

You obviously don't understand the nature of the attitude of many americans, especially those south of the line, to either guns or decrees from Washington!
Missouri, where I work, actually recently passed a law that allows citizens to sue law enforcement agencies and officers for $50,000 if they can show their state gun rights are infringed upon - by federal ones. That law is being disputed in Missouri Federal Court, but demonstrates the attitudes of many states!
The NRA is against ANY restriction on ANY firearms!

 

[theoneandonly]

Seems a bit odd the there are so many senior officials in Texas, and elsewhere in the US, now saying the response was seriously flawed… just saying… for a friend…

Nice bit of gloating. Stay classy.

 

[bobmac]

While we continue to discuss what happened 6 days ago in Texas, there have been 12 more mass shootings in the states with over 50 people killed or injured.

 

[IanM]

While we continue to discuss what happened 6 days ago in Texas, there have been 12 more mass shootings in the states with over 50 people killed or injured.

At least folk are exercising their 2nd Ammendment rights... bloody madness

 

[bobmac]

At least folk are exercising their 2nd Ammendment rights... bloody madness

Yeup, the right to bear arms and bury their children

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Yeup, the right to bear arms and bury their children

 

[ColchesterFC]

Yeup, the right to bear arms and bury their children

Yep, Texas, the state where they don't want women to get an abortion because they want the children to be born and grow up so that they can be murdered by a crazed gunman in a school instead.

 

[SocketRocket]

I'm no expert but have been trained in the military to use firearms. To me a semi-automatic pistol is a preferential weapon to use inside a building to a semi-automatic rifle, it's easier to operate at short range.

The shooter in this case had barricaded himself in the classroom and was systematically killing the young children, I appreciate the Police may not have known this but I find it difficult to agree they should not have made any attempt to stop the killing, why do you arm Police if not to use their weapons to protect the Public. Yes, there is a big risk that you would be injured or killed yourself but if a terrorist is running around stabbing people to death then there's also a chance of a Police Officer being wounded or killed but some took that risk in the UK who were armed only with a baton, some civilians with a fire extinguisher and a chair.

The Police admit they made a mistake holding back so long.

 

[RichA]

I'm no expert but have been trained in the military to use firearms. To me a semi-automatic pistol is a preferential weapon to use inside a building to a semi-automatic rifle, it's easier to operate at short range.

The shooter in this case had barricaded himself in the classroom and was systematically killing the young children, I appreciate the Police may not have known this but I find it difficult to agree they should not have made any attempt to stop the killing, why do you arm Police if not to use their weapons to protect the Public. Yes, there is a big risk that you would be injured or killed yourself but if a terrorist is running around stabbing people to death then there's also a chance of a Police Officer being wounded or killed but some took that risk in the UK who were armed only with a baton, some civilians with a fire extinguisher and a chair.

The Police admit they made a mistake holding back so long.

Did the police know for definite that he wasn't holed up in a classroom that had 30 kids in it?
This makes a hell of a difference.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

Did the police know for definite that he wasn't holed up in a classroom that had 30 kids in it?
This makes a hell of a difference.

Know I said I'd finished my bit, but need to reply.Reports indicate that police and parents are outside a school from which have fled kids saying there's someone shooting .
Those outside the school can hear gunshots at frequent intervals! (God, isn't that enough to tell you what's going on?)
Calls are being received from kids inside the school reporting shooting and asking desperately for police help.
This was not a hostage or standoff situation.

 

[SocketRocket]

Did the police know for definite that he wasn't holed up in a classroom that had 30 kids in it?
This makes a hell of a difference.

It seems that they did.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm no expert but have been trained in the military to use firearms. To me a semi-automatic pistol is a preferential weapon to use inside a building to a semi-automatic rifle, it's easier to operate at short range.

The shooter in this case had barricaded himself in the classroom and was systematically killing the young children, I appreciate the Police may not have known this but I find it difficult to agree they should not have made any attempt to stop the killing, why do you arm Police if not to use their weapons to protect the Public. Yes, there is a big risk that you would be injured or killed yourself but if a terrorist is running around stabbing people to death then there's also a chance of a Police Officer being wounded or killed but some took that risk in the UK who were armed only with a baton, some civilians with a fire extinguisher and a chair.

The Police admit they made a mistake holding back so long.

Is there a misunderstanding that the police did nothing at all?

According to reports, police did actually enter the school only 4 minutes after the gunman. One officer called out "yell if you need help". A girl said help, the gunman entered the classroom and shot her. An officer barged into the room (there were 3 in total at this point), but retreated as soon as the gunman started firing back, injuring 2 of them. Another 4 officers had entered behind them. Meanwhile, officers were busy stopping many parents from rushing into the school. Completely understandable why parents would, but they would have been sitting ducks.

It is clear that the responding officers simply did not have the training or equipment to adequately deal with a gunman wearing tactical armour and an assault rifle. Hence, 7 officers entered the school and then had to retreat. They needed to wait for a Border Patrol Tactical Unit to arrive.

I'm sure mistakes were made, is any operation perfect, especially when lives are lost? There will always be "what if" questions. I can sort of see why someone may feel it had become a hostage situation / gunman barricaded away. After the initial rampage, if he had been stuck in the same classroom with other students, I would have though the assumption would be he'd have killed them immediately, and if he didn't then he'd be keeping them alive for a reason? So, maybe there was a genuine hope that they'd have enough time to get the tactical unit onsite within the next 30-60 minutes, and then make their move, rather than have poorly trained officers barge in again and just have the gunman open fire on them and the remaining students?

It is easy for us to sit at home and speculate, especially with hindsight, what should have been done. Truth is, most of us (if not all) have not been in that situation, and were definitely not in that specific situation. I'm sure it is an extremely stressful event in which the person in charge can see the pros and cons of any such decision. And, it cannot be a good feeling as a regular officer if you are expected to go in and confront this individual, especially when the odds are that you will be the one that gets killed. As I said, the police did respond immediately after the gunman entered the school, at which point they quickly realised they were biting off more than they could chew.