Orlando shooting

Oh get a grip. We seem to be focussing more on destroying the cop's reputation than the evil sack of shite who murdered 49 people.
The comment I was replying to was:

That seems to have morphed into a discussion on whether or not the good guy really counts as a good guy unless he's killed in the shootout.
I'll bet it's news to US cops that they're expected to die in the line of duty.

 

The police are paid to protect and serve.
Haven't been following this because i get so bent, i post emotional bits.
If it is true- officer encountered the gunman and did not try to shoot - well...
The sacrifices of men in similar situations are legion.

 

They are expected to fight and protect the innocent. He failed to do that.

 

The vast majority do exactly that (what's expected of them) and many die in the process. One out of thousands ran. Sometimes in combat, trained and seasoned troops break and run also. It happens. It's easy to sit back and harshly judge the actions of others during horrendous situations while in relative comfort and safety.

He should face a review board to pour over his actions (or lack of action) during the incident. If things happened (with the policeman in question) the way it's being reported, then he should be terminated and face charges of dereliction of duty, and cowardice. Every department has their equivalent of those charges. Not sure if malfeasance would be appropriate here. But in any case, his career and life is ruined forever by an extremely poor choice made in a split second of a developing shit storm.

 

I don't think anyone is questioning the courage of police in general Bobby, I'm certainly not. Too many cases where they place their duty to protect above all other considerations, even self preservation. With the way the police have been beat up on since Ferguson I'm surprised more decide NOT to stand in the breach.

In the attack in Chattanooga the gunman was armed with a civilian AK-47, a 9mm pistol, had a shotgun and was wearing a chest rig full of mags. The CO of the Naval Reserve Center, a Navy Lt. Commander, engaged the shooter slowing him down so the personnel in the main building could evacuate, and buy time for the police to arrive. One of the Marines after getting all his men over the fence at the motor pool gun park, went to his POV and retrieved his 9mm and engaged the shooter to try and prevent him from continuing, he was killed. The first police officer to respond was shot, he continued to engage with his service pistol till other officers arrived, he will make a full recovery. The Marines that got over the fence rounded up all the civilians and herded them away from the scene. The Riverpark where the Reserve center was located is a very popular recreation spot. Many women with their children and lots of older people walking and bike riding. None of these Marines were armed but put saving the innocent and getting them out of harm's way above their own escape and safety. The FBI Director himself stated that the shooting would most likely have been a lot worse except for individual actions by the service members and first police on the scene.

From Navy Times:

"While White was waylaying the shooter, Doll and Cantu ran through the NOSC to get Marines out, Cantu recalled.









"We have multiple exits in the facility," Cantu said. "The Marines, when they were exiting the building, passed up an exit. They passed up an exit so they could go get the other Marines out of the building. We could have gone out right away, but we didn't."
The NOSC is situated in a city park with playgrounds and trails along the river bank. While the Marines were clearing the building Staff Sgt. Wyatt grabbed some junior Marines and told them to clear the neighboring playground, which was packed with kids, and get the kids away from the danger of flying bullets.
"The first Marines that took a bee[-line] out of the facility were junior Marines," Cantu said. "And Staff Sgt. Wyatt told them before they left to push the civilians back, to get them out, and they did. So you are looking at PFCs doing this amazing stuff, with no one to direct it: Just Marines doing Marine stuff."
When Cantu and Doll left, they cleared the back fence and hurried civilians into a utility building about 200 yards down the road.
"Those guys, the lawn care guys, they had a facility already set up," Doll said. "It was a perfect position, perfect posture. So we were able to push all the civilians — we had guys picking up kids, bringing them in — putting them into the break room.
"The break room was awesome, it was cement, all the way around and the door was able to be secured."
At that point, some Marines went out of the break room to set up a defensive position and watch for the gunman approaching. Others gathered food and opened the coke machine to pass out to the civilians while they waited for help to arrive."

What I find amazing was that in the immediate aftermath of the shooting the civilian DoD leadership was looking at going after the Navy Commander and the Marine (dead) who had retrieved his weapon. There was talk of holding up the Marines death benefits and pension/survivor benefits to his family. Public outcry effectively made that go away. The FBI Director even stated that the attack would likely have been much worse had the personnel at the reserve center and first police officers not acted in the manner they did. We would likely have had hundreds and not five dead. Even worse, IMO, is that as bad as you hate seeing any innocents killed, many of the dead would have been children and their mothers, for me an even more devastating loss.

So in this incident good guys with guns, and individuals placing protecting others above their own self-preservation did make a difference. They didn't kill the shooter but lessened his effect.

In San Bernadino the officer that was evacuation civilians while the shooters were still loose trying to calm the people he was helping;

"Hushed employees marched through the Inland Regional Center in a line, their arms raised, putting their lives in the hands of one brave officer.
"Try to relax, everyone. Try to relax. I'll take a bullet before you do, that's for damn sure," said the unidentified officer.
The tension grew as the group waited for the elevator to arrive. Some people held hands, while others looked down at their phones gravely.
As the elevator dinged and the door opened, the officer hurriedly said, "Go, go, go, go."

A pretty good indication he wasn't concerned with being "out gunned" but in his duty to protect others.

The bouncer, already mentioned, in the current shooting that wasn't concerned with his own safety, cleared an exit and got at least 50 people out before he left. He was unarmed so definitely "outgunned", but he did his duty as he saw it. 49 dead is bad, 99 is worse.

If anyone doesn't get the point, officers can and do, regularly, place their duty above their own well being. Do you think any one of the above mentioned people would have said, "I couldn't do anything, I was outgunned?"

 

He won't. We are living in the days of the Public Sector Union who will not allow members to face consequences.

I agree though, that most cops would have stood their ground. It's just bad luck that this cop was the one present on that night. If the facts are correct (which is questionable due to our lousy media), the shooter did not have any armor, so at these ranges the rifle vs pistol wasn't a particularly large advantage. Seek cover, and start shooting at his torso. I don't know what Orlando carries, but likely a .40. A couple of those in his torso and this would have been a much smaller body count.

 

Killing a man is no small act. Killing a man who is motivated is even more challenging. Killing a motivated man, who has already inflicted casualties, and created chaos, is unsurmountable.

Everyone would like to think that "they" would have reacted differently. The rub is that the police officer outside acted well within the scope of his duties and expectations. How would the officer been perceived if he had killed one of the people fleeing the night club; even if he had managed to kill the attacker? He would have been crucified for not following basic weapon handling (be sure of your target and what's behind it).

Civilian casualties in the Law Enforcement world are 100% unacceptable when they are the result of an Officer Involved Shooting.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people; if you don't like them don't use them and don't restrict "my" ability to have them.

This Patriot Rhetoric of : "I'll kill anyone who comes to take my guns" is nonsense. Many times I have heard "I'll never give up my guns" from someone who is restrained as a result of a Criminal, Civil, or Family Law Protective order. 99.9% have turned them in, the .01% who didn't changed their minds once they saw the reality of a 230gr. Federal Gold Dot wink at them.

If you want to sit on your porch drinking whiskey and shooting steal plates that's fine, just don't be an ass.

Rant Over

 

Think what you like, but unless the 2nd Amendment is repealed through legal means, many people are simply not going to give up their guns and thousands would die resisting or trying to enforce such a law. To do so is to give up everything in the Bill of Rights, to give up our form of government. I'm not talking about criminals here where the ban has been upheld by the Supreme Court. I'm talking about every day citizens exercising their rights.

Some years ago Canada banned many firearms, and/or set up a registration scheme that they finally had to drop because few would obey it. Due to an unfortunate series of canoe accidents many guns simply "disappeared" and there was nothing the Canadian government could do about it. That was passive resistance, but resistance to an overbearing government nonetheless.

In the US, you have a much greater challenge. You would need to pass an amendment revoking the Bill of Rights. You could never muster enough states to do that, and even if you could I suspect there are legal impediments to revoking such rights - such an amendment itself would likely be unconstitutional.

 

I read that the families of the victims can't even bury their dead in peace thanks to the idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church.

 

I was wondering when those meatheads would show up

 

Too bad they couldn't have swapped roles with the victims. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone, as the saying goes.

 

If I was guarding the Westboro Baptist Church, I'd wave the Jihadi over, hold the door open for him, chain the doors behind him so he nor the church members could get out and send in ammo, knives, axes, hatchets, food and wine. Whatever he might need.

 

Only 1 Jihadi? Heck, fly a bunch of them over for the event! Just make sure both radical groups have plenty of ammo before you chain the doors.

 

I thought that this was interesting. Getting a little bit hungry now.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe an amendment to the Constitution would, by definition, be Constitutional. Also, only an amendment revoking or modifying the 2nd Amendment would be needed (though the others would be at much higher risk if it was successful). Other than that, I agree with your point. The gun control activists would not have enough support to amend the Constitution.

 

With the deaths caused by drunk drivers maybe we should ban alcohol and cars. Oh, that's right. We tried banning alcohol via Constitutional Amendment. That worked well. Of course, we could still ban cars. After all, they have been used in mass killings and attempted mass killings:

cnsnews.com/news/article/woman-faces-2nd-degree-murder-charges-parade-crash

www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-crash-las-vegas-strip-casino-20151220-story.html

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30495873/ns/world_news-europe/#.V2X5QDdoto4


Oddly enough, everyone seems to blame the drivers and not the vehicles. It's understood that the act required the conscious and intentional act of a sentient being. Also, it's understood that it makes no sense to deny law abiding citizens the ability to own a car just because of the act of one person.

(grammar edit)

 

Cars aren't designed to kill people...a spurious connection. And obesity deaths are people killing themselves willingly, very different from someone else deciding one would think...again, spurious wool pooling...
From way over here, it almost looks like the government won't impose gun control...no one has the guts (and I don't blame them) so it 'seems' like the tactic is to rouse public opinion to a point where the public demand it...so the government is seen as aquiesing rather than imposing anything...clever if this is the case, certainly the long game, but perhaps the only way...this could be achieved perhaps with a referendum set up at the same time as an election (the question is just tacked onto the ballot paper) - and the people vote for it instead...keep the pollies out of the decision...would that not satisfy most quarters?

 

So your point is that the purpose for which the inanimate object was designed is more relevant than the intent of the human being who uses it? People who want to murder others will use what they can get or will break the law and get what they want illegally.

 

True, but we need cars for modern living...I live 30km from work for instance...we used horses until cars became available...modern living doesn't need firearms at all...
We all take an accepted risk driving...the risk assessment is low enough for most...

 

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people that all my guns combined.