Today's mass shooting in the US

[dowie]

Feel a bit sorry for the sherif yes he should have gone in but none of us know if we would. It's really easy to say you would have been gun out running towards danger but until you are faced with that reality you'll never know.

he doesn't necessarily have to turn into Rambo here

simply entering the building, firing at the suspect and/or just shouting at him/making him aware of the presence of police could well be sufficient... it at the very least gives the suspect something else to be concerned about and restricts his movement/potentially allowing kids to escape... it doesn't mean the police officer at say one end of a corridor/hall or whatever needs to break cover and go charging at the suspect sacrificing his own life in the process etc..

 

[MissChief]

he doesn't necessarily have to turn into Rambo here

simply entering the building, firing at the suspect and/or just shouting at him/making him aware of the presence of police could well be sufficient... it at the very least gives the suspect something else to be concerned about and restricts his movement/potentially allowing kids to escape... it doesn't mean the police officer at say one end of a corridor/hall or whatever needs to break cover and go charging at the suspect sacrificing his own life in the process etc..

Its a school with 2000 students. It's not a small place so finding the shooter without blindly running round a corner straight into him with your pistol down and his AR15 up and ready to shoot just gets you shot.

 

[dowie]

Its a school with 2000 students. It's not a small place so finding the shooter without blindly running round a corner straight into him with your pistol down and his AR15 up and ready to shoot just gets you shot.

I think the rather loud bangs kind of give it away.. Also the police officer was already at the school and got to the building in the first minute

 

[wesimmo]

he doesn't necessarily have to turn into Rambo here

simply entering the building, firing at the suspect and/or just shouting at him/making him aware of the presence of police could well be sufficient... it at the very least gives the suspect something else to be concerned about and restricts his movement/potentially allowing kids to escape... it doesn't mean the police officer at say one end of a corridor/hall or whatever needs to break cover and go charging at the suspect sacrificing his own life in the process etc..

Or, you could just not have a kid with a gun in the first place.

Even you are only arguing that someone *might* be able to mitigate the damage done when someone has a gun and is already shooting up the place.

Why not just do all that can reasonably done to try and mitigate the number of shootings in the first place?

 

[dowie]

Or, you could just not have a kid with a gun in the first place.

sure... but that's got little to do with my post... or you could have no guns at all etc..

Even you are only arguing that someone *might* be able to mitigate the damage done when someone has a gun and is already shooting up the place.

Why not just do all that can reasonably done to try and mitigate the number of shootings in the first place?

indeed why not... but again that's not what is being discussed... the discussion/post you're quoting is based on the fact there are guns and that the shooting has happened...

 

[MissChief]

I think the rather loud bangs kind of give it away.. Also the police officer was already at the school and got to the building in the first minute

Sure you know roughly where the shooter is but don't know in which direction the shooter is moving. He could be moving away from you or moving towards you. You don't know so you move forward slowly from whatever cover is available in case he walks round the corner, AR15 up on his shoulder. This takes time. Any other way just makes you a dead 'hero' who tried to do something. And likely the subject of many Internet experts saying he should have waited for backup.

 

[dowie]

Sure you know roughly where the shooter is but don't know in which direction the shooter is moving. He could be moving away from you or moving towards you. You don't know so you move forward slowly from whatever cover is available in case he walks round the corner, AR15 up on his shoulder. This takes time. Any other way just makes you a dead 'hero' who tried to do something. And likely the subject of many Internet experts saying he should have waited for backup.

Yet the actual non-internet experts... like his police department and various other police departments say he should have entered.

As for the bad guy might be around the corner... perhaps they could think about training police officers to move around corners - I know it is America but perhaps they have got that covered and do have some training re: entering a building/dealing with an armed suspect etc.. rather than just issuing the police firearms and telling them to crack on.

Again though he was actively shooting people for 4 minutes after the police officer arrived outside the building, the big bangs that he was making in doing that ought to give some indication of where he is!

 

[wesimmo]

sure... but that's got little to do with my post... or you could have no guns at all etc..



indeed why not... but again that's not what is being discussed... the discussion/post you're quoting is based on the fact there are guns and that the shooting has happened...

It's not unconnected though. This poor guy has been vilified to the point I thought I read he needed protection because people blame him for the deaths.

By pretending that if he'd gone in there with a pistol everything would have been ok and they'd all have walked out singing and dancing, people are just reinforcing the view that arming people at schools would solve this problem.

It's a diversion from the real issue, "Yeah but it would have been ok if he'd done something." It simply wouldn't. Kids would still be dead, maybe a couple less if the deputy was lucky, maybe more if he'd antagonised the shooter further or indeed shot someone by accident himself. Let's not forget the kid stopped and walked out, it could have been much worse if there had been a firefight / hostage situation.

 

[dowie]

It's not unconnected though.

your comment about the kid not having access to a gun was unconnected (to my post)... I don't even disagree, it would be much better if guns were restricted in the US but that has little relevance to the discussion about the actions of the cop in the post you quoted.

This poor guy has been vilified to the point I thought I read he needed protection because people blame him for the deaths.

By pretending that if he'd gone in there with a pistol everything would have been ok and they'd all have walked out singing and dancing, people are just reinforcing the view that arming people at schools would solve this problem.

I'm not pretending anything, I'm stating that the policy is for him to have entered, that the professional law enforcement over there believes in that and that doing so in such a situation makes sense.

It's a diversion from the real issue, "Yeah but it would have been ok if he'd done something." It simply wouldn't. Kids would still be dead, maybe a couple less if the deputy was lucky, maybe more if he'd antagonised the shooter further or indeed shot someone by accident himself. Let's not forget the kid stopped and walked out, it could have been much worse if there had been a firefight / hostage situation.

It isn't a diversion from the real issue at all, you can still talk about the rest of the issue too, just because some people are discussing one aspect of it (as a result of a recent news story about the cop) doesn't prevent that - though please try not to conflate such discussions. Quoting me and telling me that it would be better if the kid didn't have a gun when I'm commenting on the actions of a police officer given that there was a gun and a shooting was happening isn't helpful.

You might as well quote me and state that perhaps if the US war of independent didn't happen then these incidents wouldn't occur etc.. I'd suggest that most people already agree that US gun laws are silly...

 

[IronWarrior]

Anyway, it turns out, he wasn't alone, there was 3 others who was waiting outside too, hiding behind their vehicles.

So 4 officers, all trained, all with firearms, did nothing to stop it for 4 full minutes and this nonsense about them going up against someone with an AR-15 with just a pistol is just nonsense, cop vehicles have secondly weapons stored in their vehicles from Shotguns to Semi-Auto Rifles too.

Even if they didn't have access to one, they are still well trained to deal with a shooter.

 

[enkoda]

You talking a lot of crap at the moment.

Anyway, it turns out, he wasn't alone, there was 3 others who was waiting outside too, hiding behind their vehicles.

So 4 officers, all trained, all with firearms, did nothing to stop it for 4 full minutes and this nonsense about them going up against someone with an AR-15 with just a pistol is just nonsense, cop vehicles have secondly weapons stored in their vehicles from Shotguns to Semi-Auto Rifles too.

Even if they didn't have access to one, they are still well trained to deal with a shooter.

Effective range of a 9mm Glock is around 60 yards.
Effective range of a Spas 12 or Remington 870 shotgun is around 30 yards with buckshot & 100 yards with slugs.
Effective range of an AR-15? 600 yards.
Even going on the assumption that they were aware some kind of rifle was involved, the shooter has the advantage of being able to easily pick them off from a distance.
The notion that the officers would have found the shooter within 4 minutes is pure speculation.

Maybe they were all cowards, only they know that.
Or maybe 4 officers, all trained, all with firearms, pooled their experience and made an informed decision that storming in wouldn't be the most sensible thing to do, could end up getting them killed, and crucially, is highly unlikely to have prevented any more deaths.

 

[dowie]

Effective range of a 9mm Glock is around 60 yards.
Effective range of a Spas 12 or Remington 870 shotgun is around 30 yards with buckshot & 100 yards with slugs.
Effective range of an AR-15? 600 yards.
Even going on the assumption that they were aware some kind of rifle was involved, the shooter has the advantage of being able to easily pick them off from a distance.

What inside those 600 yard wide classrooms and down those 600 yard corridors?

The notion that the officers would have found the shooter within 4 minutes is pure speculation.

so is the notion that they wouldn't... I mean the loud bangs kind of give him away a bit and they had the building he was in

 

[Rroff]

A good number only have shotguns in their cars though a reasonable chance some had rifles - but we don't really know.

Bit poor that if there was like 4 of them there they didn't try to coordinate something as Dowie says most of it would have been close range unless the shooter broke from the school buildings onto sports fields or the streets - these kind of things are really messy though - there is a good video highlighting it of the Baltimore bus shooting incident and that is with them knowing where the shooter was and IIRC all the officers in that incident had previous experience of this kind of thing and one of them nearly bought it there though largely that was because she panicked.

EDIT: They were lucky in that case as well the shooter had bought rubbish guns and they kept jamming.

What inside those 600 yard wide classrooms and down those 600 yard corridors?

I think a lot of people are imagining at least semiconsciously AR-15s in actual assault rifle configuration rather than the semi-auto variants most commonly owned in the US - even at close range I wouldn't fancy going up against a burst or full automatic AR with just a pistol :s none the less unless your pistol has got something like .224 the AR has significantly better ability to penetrate cover you might use.

 

[platinum87]

You guys should stop discussing firearms in terms of effectiveness and tactics and so forth, and stick to various laws and such, because the amount of **** here is pretty high.

 

[IronWarrior]

What inside those 600 yard wide classrooms and down those 600 yard corridors?

I was going to respond with something like that, but your reply was hilarious, I proper laughed. lol

 

[Rroff]

You guys should stop discussing firearms in terms of effectiveness and tactics and so forth, and stick to various laws and such, because the amount of **** here is pretty high.

Maybe follow that up with something actually constructive and informative rather than just sniping and rubbishing people.

 

[enkoda]

What inside those 600 yard wide classrooms and down those 600 yard corridors?



so is the notion that they wouldn't... I mean the loud bangs kind of give him away a bit and they had the building he was in

Of course, to accommodate those obese Americans that are everywhere!

 

[Caracus2k]

The officer had no idea what weapon was being used....

I would have to disagree a cop with circa 30 years service would likely know the difference between pistol fire and rifle fire just from the sound of a round being fired. That the shots were likely being made in 20-30 successive groups in quick order between pauses (reloads) would also be a fairly reliable indicator that you were dealing with someone armed with a semi automatic rifle (yes I know you can get extended magazines for pistols and I have fired a 9mm pistol with an extended magazine..... the main difference such a magazine makes is exponentially increasing the likelihood of suffering a stoppage as the magazine has to be made to far tighter tolerance to remain effective and the spring pushing the rounds up into the gun has to have a lot more spring tension which cause issues with the magazine working reliably with so many rounds in it)

Yet the actual non-internet experts... like his police department and various other police departments say he should have entered.

The link I posted earlier was quite clear that the standard operating procedure for a solo officer engaging an active shooter (or shooters) varies a lot between police departments in the US. The police force concerned are obviously fully aware of the issues of a handgun wielding officer trying to take on a rifle wielding suspect as the sheriff was confirming that they would be changing policy to allow for officers to be armed with rifles.

The best that could be said is that its far from clear that its universally (or even mostly) agreed that a solo officer is likely to be an effective agent in a active fire scenario in a building

What inside those 600 yard wide classrooms and down those 600 yard corridors?

The potential maximum range of a rifle is not really the important thing in of itself but what it does indicate is two things that are very important in a gun fight......

1) that a rifle is a much much better weapon than a pistol if you want to fire with any accuracy either on a range or in a firefight. I have fired a pistol and a selective fire rifle (mostly in semi automatic mode) with live ammunition in a 'move and fire scenario' (Rather then a more conventional stationary range firing position) and I can confirm that you will be lucky to hit much at all with a pistol.... what' the typical effective range of a pistol in a 'combat' scenario? This link suggests somewhere between point blank and 5yards (4.57m) which I would personally say is quite realistic (yes I know that you can train to improve on this and I'm sure the SWAT guys who daily train are a lot better..... but a 50 year old schools officer isn't going to be doing much high pressure pistol training)

and 2) that a rifle has a much higher muzzle velocity then a pistol and fire a far larger projective with far more penetration then a 9mm pistol round and with a lot lot more damage caused to any target hit

There's a reason (actually two) why pretty much every army in the world primary arms their troops with a rifle even though even though with these weapons the typical range they are a used at is in the 20-30 meter range (nothing like 600 feet/ 180 odd meters)........

1) because it easy to train to fire more accurately with a rifle then a handgun

and

2) Rifles are very effective weapons for neutralising an opponent quickly

 

[dowie]

The link I posted earlier was quite clear that the standard operating procedure for a solo officer engaging an active shooter (or shooters) varies a lot between police departments in the US. The police force concerned are obviously fully aware of the issues of a handgun wielding officer trying to take on a rifle wielding suspect as the sheriff was confirming that they would be changing policy to allow for officers to be armed with rifles.

And the police force concerned would clearly have wanted the officer to respond to the shooting instead of waiting outside, doing nothing, while kids were being killed..

 

[Rroff]

1) that a rifle is a much much better weapon than a pistol if you want to fire with any accuracy either on a range or in a firefight. I have fired a pistol and a selective fire rifle (mostly in semi automatic mode) with live ammunition in a 'move and fire scenario' (Rather then a more conventional stationary range firing position) and I can confirm that you will be lucky to hit much at all with a pistol.... what' the typical effective range of a pistol in a 'combat' scenario? This link suggests somewhere between point blank and 5yards (4.57m) which I would personally say is quite realistic (yes I know that you can train to improve on this and I'm sure the SWAT guys who daily train are a lot better..... but a 50 year old schools officer isn't going to be doing much high pressure pistol training)

and 2) that a rifle has a much higher muzzle velocity then a pistol and fire a far larger projective with far more penetration then a 9mm pistol round and with a lot lot more damage caused to any target hit

In a lot of these cases that won't really matter - unless presented with a direct target usually the police will mostly use cover and use suppressive fire to try and keep the perpetrator pinned down until SWAT or the likes turn up - if they do kill or disable them its usually because the shooter has panicked, made a mistake or broke cover for other reasons, etc. sometimes you will get individual officers more skilled or better equipped or just more Rambo, etc. who might take the fight to the shooter.

EDIT: Obviously this will depend a bit on the scenario and how imminent the danger to life is, etc.