"Do the actions of the police make sense to any of you?"

The only thing I dread is that the action report hasn't been made public. That means there is no success story at all.

There are lots of conversation starters about tactics, among them the fact that police tactics at schools have changed after Columbine to send two officers in immediately rather than wait to establish an overwhelming force with the problems those bring, but a school's open areas and good lighting are nothing like a dim nightclub.

There are scattered reports that the cops killed a few of those people as it is. That is to be expected of any great force arriving with a command to be fast at stopping a threat. Such imperatives are why more bystanders are shot by police than are shot by private citizens defending themselves. They just can't tell who is who at first.

You can't expect the police to just go in and start shooting an armed individual who might (gasp) shoot back.

Now, unarmed folks, that's another story.

1) they had no intel. Was he the only shooter? Were there others in the bathrooms? Were the bathrooms rigged to explosives? 2) The police are under no obligation to risk their lives for you. They're people. They want to go home each night, too. They'll risk a lot for you, but not without any idea what they're facing.

If you show up in an ER, and have a fever, and have recently traveled to west africa, they're going to slap you into isolation and call people who can handle that level of contagion. And if you code while they're waiting, they're going to watch you die. Because while it IS their job to save you, they aren't expected to die to do so. They want to go home tonite. Someone else won't always be there to save you. A better lesson for adults to learn can't be imagined.

What Momof4 said. Time delayed explosives are somewhat common in these situations. Also, how do you tell the difference between a shooter who is lying on the floor in someone else's blood and a victim who was shot?

The narrative of the Hero cop that will protect you is BS.

1st Rule of Policing: Police have the right and the duty to go home at the end of each watch. It does not matter how many non-law enforcement personnel are injured or killed or have their “rights” violated to achieve this goal as Police are entitled to impunity for their violence and protection from harm above all others.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/feds-release-excerpts-orlando-shooters-calls-police/story?id=39986351
Lee Bentley, the U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Florida,

"The brave men and women of the Orlando Police Department, the Orange County Sheriff Office, the FBI and others should not be second guessed, they performed valiantly during those early hours, Lives were saved because of their heroic work."

Most of it can probably be chalked up to the fog of war. As M4 said, they went in not knowing how many shooters there were, where they were, what they were armed with, or much of anything else. Witness reports that they had access to were doubtless confused and fragmented.

I'm sure (well, almost) that there will be an investigation, and probably there will be lessons to be learned. But every situation is different. As with any force, you have doctrine, but you can't do stuff like this "by the book" because there is always something that isn't in the book. Until we find out more, I will not pass judgment one way or the other.

The contrast is startling. We have had several suicide threats with and without hostages where the police didn't have patience and went in (one time with full SWAT) where violence wasn't even threatened but police went in with guns blazing. I've thought "Good God, why can't they just be patient."

Now when there is an active shooter and lives are on the line, I'd like the police to go in more quickly.

I live in an open carry state. Many people feel that this kind of violence could be stopped if everyone had guns. I am picturing a scene like this where many people have guns. The police come in and see an active shooter. They have a clear shot, but don't realize that it's the "good guy" trying to take down a maniac. How are the police going to know who is who?

What Momof4 said. Time delayed explosives are somewhat common in these situations. Also, how do you tell the difference between a shooter who is lying on the floor in someone else's blood and a victim who was shot? ~ Ben at June 28, 2016 5:28 AM

Not to mention the building being dark with flashing lights and loud music playing, being full of civilians screaming and running in various directions, and being full of hiding places for a gunman (or gunmen) - tables, bars, alcoves, etc. It's not like the shooting arcade at the state fair.

Now throw in a whole host of media types who will second-guess the police actions afterward and ruin a few careers (and lives) along the way. Ferguson Effect?

This is not a group of professionals doing a post-mortem of the operation to improve future operations. This is the media and families Monday morning quarterbacking to try and make sense of their loss. The person at fault her is Mateen, not the police.

Now when there is an active shooter and lives are on the line, I'd like the police to go in more quickly.

I live in an open carry state. Many people feel that this kind of violence could be stopped if everyone had guns. I am picturing a scene like this where many people have guns. The police come in and see an active shooter. They have a clear shot, but don't realize that it's the "good guy" trying to take down a maniac. How are the police going to know who is who?

Jen at June 28, 2016 6:43 AM

They can't, But the purpose of an armed citizenry is that the perp is dead before the police get there.

If there had been a gun behind the bar, chances are very good that Pulise wouldn't have been a shooting gallery for three hours, and there would be 40 less dead.

But this nightclub, of course, was cased and selected for its no gun policies under Florida state law.

In other words you have swallowed the propaganda of the anti gun nuts that an armed citizenry somehow makes mass shooter situations *more dangerous* hook line and sinker.

Posted by ??? a week or so ago. Should be taught in H.S. gym classes (teaching moments are teamwork, initiative, problem solving) but sheeple ...

(Obviously w/that many people taking a whack at the shooter when he came into their bathroom or around their table the shooter should be dead before the cops showed up.)

http://www.grahamtradecraft.com/the-killhouse-rules/

The Supreme Court decided in 2005 that the police have no responsibility to protect you.

Gonzales v. Castle Rock

These points are all well-taken, as were those of Pink Pistol Patton.

But I'll always doubt the wisdom of sending armed General Public types into the night to drunkenly sex dance with strangers in loud, dark settings. Merely including a designated driver in these teams of nightclubbers would add an incalculable amount of safety, much more by itself than would the sober sidearm.

I really like the tone by which Amy asked this question and by which everyone responded.

Momof4's reply reminds me of some rules. You might want to commit them to memory:

Nobody is coming to save you.
Everything is your responsibility.
Save who needs to be saved.
Kill who needs to be killed.
Always be working.

I'm kind of surprised he didn't torch the place. He had adequate time, and I'm pretty sure they had alcohol that would readily burn.

Jen asks:

I live in an open carry state. Many people feel that this kind of violence could be stopped if everyone had guns. I am picturing a scene like this where many people have guns. The police come in and see an active shooter. They have a clear shot, but don't realize that it's the "good guy" trying to take down a maniac. How are the police going to know who is who?

In the above situation, usually by the time the police arrive (5+ minutes), it's all over but for the crying. If you're onsite during an active shooter, you are the first responder.

The cops? clean up crew.

Not to mention, had they run in and stormed the bathrooms, and the bathrooms ended up being wired and everyone was blown to buts, people would want to know why they just stormed in, instead of waiting for intel. Police can't win.

By "incalculable" I meant "incalculably high amount of safety"...

...Not just for the sober driving, but for the clear head a the top of a scuffle to say "Relax, Dude... He didn't mean it that way."

After Columbine, it was determined the cops should get in and engage quickly.

That's what they train to do.

If they don't want to do that, they should return all of the Army and Marine assault and breaching equipment they've taken.

Columbine wasn't Islamic terrorists with bombs. The paradigm has shifted again.

"bathrooms ended up being wired and everyone was blown to buts"

Yuck. What a mess.

The police provide a valuable service as a disinterested third party to investigate and report events. Most often used by the insurance industry. Protecting people really isn't something they can do for one off incidents.

Momof4, your statement that police are not obliged to risk their lives to protect you is true, bud sad.

We literally put all the power of the state and state-sanctioned violence into the hands of the police. They are paid commensurate with that risk - knowing they may have to kill on behalf of the state, knowing they may have to die for it. I realize that police officers are civilians, but they are civilians who have been authorized to protect us and our system of justice, so that we don't have blood fueds, and revenge, and everyone having to carry a gun or a weapon at all times.

And yet they don't think (and you don't think) that it's their responsibility to die for us. We gave the responsibility for committing civic violence on our behalf to them, in exchaneg for giving up our right to vengeance. We said that we would trust if a system of laws that provided justice to most of us, even if there were instances of justice denied.

If we can't assume that police will be willing to die for civilians, then there is no point in us putting the power of state sanctioned violence in their hands, or paying them accordingly. If they want to enforce the law that benefits them as well without the responsibility of responding to violence on behalf of non-state agents, then they can get paid a lot less. There is a reason soldiers can pension out at 20 years, and cops at 25, and that is the higher risk of death.

Janie4,
You fell for their "logic" hook, line, and sinker.

Guns are for us, to protect us from enemies both foreign AND domestic, and also for enjoyment/putting food on the table.

We have laws totally irrespective of whether or not we can bear arms. The "arms" have nothing to do with laws.

In order to make the government and sheeple "feel" safer they ask/tell us to give up our arms. Of course (snort) they will "protect" us. (snort snort)

There's a reason for the 2nd Amendment and it has nothing to do w/shooting Thumper or Bambi.

There's a reason for the 2nd Amendment and it has nothing to do w/shooting Thumper or Bambi. ~ Bob in Texas at June 28, 2016 1:49 PM

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting season.

Memories of "the British are coming" were still fresh in the minds of the founding fathers, so they included the Second Amendment because the jackbooted thugs of a tyrannical federal government might be coming. Not because Bambi was coming.

Notice the Second Amendment says nothing about degree of weaponry, e.g., barring cannons (a military weapon) but not muskets in private hands. It makes no distinction between military and civilian arms, merely stating that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." [emphasis mine]

Since the Constitution did not apply to the state governments, the wording left room for state governments to restrict arms to state militias only, but not for the federal government to do so. And the Fourteenth Amendment applied the Constitution's restrictions on government control to the state governments. As a result, the Second Amendment applies to the states now.

...everyone was blown to buts. ~ momof4 at June 28, 2016 10:52 AM

Blown to buts. Gay bar joke? Too soon?

Police are paid for that risk? Really? If we paid people according to their risk of death, wall street investors would make nearly nothing, fishermen, loggers, police, front-line military, miners, and linemen (guessing here, but all have an element of potential death at least) would make millions. We don't pay according to risk. We pay according to perceived value. Few people expect to ever need the police, and have little interaction beyond getting ticketed. A city that announced a 20% sales tax, to pay police properly to risk their lives, would quickly find their city government voted out. Surgeons make many times more money than police or firemen. They won't risk their life for you. They'll help you, but they're going home tonite. Police DO, frequently, risk their lives for others. But let's not act like "willing to die for $38k" is a reasonable expectation.

Starting pay in my city for police is 60,000-72,000 a year with I counted 10 ways listed to increase it - ie 6.5% bonus for being a motorcycle cop. This is not including any overtime, which they regularly earn. They can also retire at 50 with 3% per year worked.

This pay/benefits/retirement was most definitely sold on 'our job is so dangerous protecting you'. If they are going to limit their actions to what's safe- making sure they are the going home every night - they sure as hell don't need to be making that much or retiring that early. Firemen make that and we have no problem expecting them to go into a burning building to save people.

Actually, I believe in the right to self-defense, and the right to bear arms. I'm specifically talking about what roles cops assume because they're an agent of state sanctioned vengeance.

Humans have a genetically - based tendency to value their own over all others. Regardless of the fact that people are drug dealers, a job that involves competitive violence for turf, or a soldier, or an abusive pig, when one of our own dies violently, we want blood. We want vengeance.

The nice thing about society is that it takes that primal instinct, marries it to our desire for reciprocity, and says to us "agree not to seek vengeance on your own. Trust us. We will seek it for you, and we will protect you, and make sure justice is done, and your desire for vengeance or justice can be sated".

Again, that's the ideal behind the social compact, it never works perfectly, or even well sometimes. But since few want to live in a world where we are expected to go out and face our father's murderer alone, or only based on who liked Dad, then it makes most of us better off than a world where the only check on abusing us is how many swords my sister can raise.

Sonehow, part of the agreement between cops and civilians became we wouldn't go into dangerous situations to save our loved ones, or do stupid things, because everyone suffers if everyone does that. We started leaving it to the professionals. But in exchange, we expect cops to do it for us, and be trained to do it. In that context, open carry reduces drastically the number of hostage situations where we'd need to n rush in, because there's a high risk to the perps that they'll die quickly, which makes everyone safer, and affirms our inalienable right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, and bodily autonomy.

Risk is priced into value, as is non monetary reward. People like authority, and power, and a cute uniform or showing you're badder than the rest can get you laid. And people like helping other people. And some people like violence and adrenaline rushes and living on the edge.

I'm not just giving a cop $38 or $60 grand a year. I'm also giving them status in the community, power, the right to use violence in my name, my trust they will investigate my death fairly and I will be avenged if necessary. And I'm giving them a leg up to get laid by individuals who find those things aphrodisiacs. So yes, the deal is, they get us to stay out of violent situations for fear of everyone getting killed, and they go in instead. If they don't like that deal, then they hand over their gun and do something that pays better, and has no risk of death.

J4's last 3 'grafs (especially) are money in the bank.

The initial responding officers did go in, as is the training doctrine (as pointed out above, after columbine, officers were trained to go in ASAP in an active shooter situation, previously they were told to wait for SWAT). At least 3 officers were on the scene within minutes of the first police reports of shots fired and units needed. They arrived and went in within minutes, cleared rooms in a chaotic situation and got as far as the bathrooms (where they figured he was) when the shooting stopped (or paused), and they were told to hold their positions and wait for SWAT. They had assault weapons but no tactical gear. After holding for some time (15-20 min?) they were told to withdraw outside and let SWAT take over. As to why they were told to stand down and why it took so long? I guess that will be looked at in excruciating detail over the next months and years. But officers DID follow their training and they DID go in. And then they did follow orders and hold and stand down, also as trained. (this narrative is of course from news, and so might not be accurate -- again I'm sure the timeline will be looked at in great detail). But that's what I have read about it so far.

"After holding for some time (15-20 min?) they were told to withdraw outside and let SWAT take over. As to why they were told to stand down and why it took so long? I guess that will be looked at in excruciating detail over the next months and years."

Wow. First I've heard of this. How many times over the years have we seen a situation where the battle was being won on the field, but the victory was then thrown away by a clueless or mendacious chain of command?

Another armed-Muslim-shot-by-cops story in the news today.

This time SWAT didn't wait around.

One thing no one seems to be talking about was slow access to the victims AFTER Mateen was dead. I know the cops thought that he might have booby-trapped the place, there was certainly that risk, but by not allowing first responders inside, several victims may have bled to death.

In trauma we have the concept of the "golden hour". You have about an hour to accomplish the most good that you can for that patient. Beyond an hour, outcomes get significantly worse. I keep thinking about that 18 year old girl texting her mom that she was bleeding. She didn't make it, but if someone was allowed to get to her sooner, she might have.

I know that if first responders had been allowed to go in on a volunteer basis, after Mateen was dead, but not knowing if the place was rigged with bombs, some would have taken the chance.

What someone needs to develop is a lightning-quick highly-maneuverable drone that has an AI ability to detect who the murderous monster is in a space full of people and blast him to smithereens.

But not these smithereens

Tweet provided by Crid...

No success story at all.