TexasCHLforum.com

HankB wrote:... if this case runs true to form the odds are very high that the perp had been prescribed Ritalin, Luvox, Prozac, or some other psychoactive drugs,...

Millions of people take antidepressants and other psychoactive drugs without going on murderous rampages. Hundreds of thousands a week are laid off these days without going on murderous rampages. Millions of Vietnamese immigrants to the U.S. and their descendants go about their business without going on murderous rampages. Millions of law-abiding firearms owners go about their business without going on murderous rampages.

All that this incident and others demonstrate is that very little can be done to predict or prevent murderous rampages.

- Jim

Have you seen the news clip of Biden announcing this “tragedy” to a crowd he was going to give a speech to today...

He sounded so remenisent of President Bush when he announced the 9-11 attacks...

The gasps from the crowd was deafening...

And yet he did not miss a chance to drop the ever present hint of a need to “end” this violence...We all know what that means...

Good call there dipstick...You must have ate yer Wheaties or taken some Gincoba to ward off those brainfarts today...

“Never waste a good crisis...” (a tried and true liberal/socialist template)

Somehow, I just don't feel like being very nice after this...Knowing what they would like to do to us, that didn't do anything illegal today...

There is a section in this AP story (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6357584.html) that I think is highly instructional:

Thirty-seven people in all made it out of the building, including 26 who hid in the boiler room in the basement, cowering there for three hours while police methodically searched the building and tried to determine whether the gunman was still alive and whether he was holding any hostages, Zikuski said.

Those in the basement stayed in contact with police by cell phone, switching from one phone to another when their batteries ran out, Zikuski said. Others hid in closets and under desks.

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building.

Skiprr wrote:There is a section in this AP story (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6357584.html) that I think is highly instructional:

Thirty-seven people in all made it out of the building, including 26 who hid in the boiler room in the basement, cowering there for three hours while police methodically searched the building and tried to determine whether the gunman was still alive and whether he was holding any hostages, Zikuski said.

Those in the basement stayed in contact with police by cell phone, switching from one phone to another when their batteries ran out, Zikuski said. Others hid in closets and under desks.

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building.

When seconds count...

They staged for over an hour...in thier body armor with thier evil assault rifles...

Police heard no gunfire after they arrived but waited for about an hour before entering the building to make sure it was safe for officers. They then spent two hours searching the building.

And this after we've all heard how, in the wake of Columbine, everybody's active shooter training emphasizes getting in quickly.

ISTR a couple of the cellphone vids from VT showing officers staging at the parking lot (not even at the building, so this wasn't after they found the doors chained) for a while, with gunshots clearly audible.

An “Active Shooter” situation is defined as one in which shots are being fired and no demands are being made. Current doctrine is that when 3 or more first responders can group together, they are to immediately enter and move to the sound of gunfire.

A “Hostage” situation is defined as no shots being fired and demands being made by the actor or actors.

From everything that I have been able to find, when the first responders arrived, there were no shots being fired and no demands being made. In that situation, all first responders will wait and see if the possible hostage taker begins making demands. The first responders will not enter the scene but will secure the scene.

If no shots were being fired when the first responders arrived, they acted according to current policy.

Some ask "why do I" carry that piece of metal on my hip? Here's why:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090404/ap_ ... hootings_5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Zikuski said the injured receptionist stayed on the phone for 90 minutes, "feeding us information constantly," despite a serious wound in the abdomen."

The police sat outside for 90 minutes before entering!!!!!!!!! NINETY MINUTES!!!!!!! WOW!

Ryan

mbw wrote:If no shots were being fired when the first responders arrived, they acted according to current policy.

I don't fault individual LEOs for following their departments policy. Doing otherwise would create disorder on the scene and most likely end their careers.

I do think the policy is poorly thought out.

If the attacker stops shooting and nothing happens for an hour or more, that does not mean that the situation is stable. Victims may be dying who could be rescued with prompt medical attention; and the attacker may be systematically raping, stabbing, strangling, or torturing victims. (Look up Richard Speck to see what a psychopathic killer can do quietly without a gun).

I don't know what the best policy would be, but the notion of knocking a wall down with an armored vehicle sounds more effective than crouching on one's haunches for an hour.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:If the attacker stops shooting and nothing happens for an hour or more, that does not mean that the situation is stable. Victims may be dying who could be rescued with prompt medical attention; and the attacker may be systematically raping, stabbing, strangling, or torturing victims. (Look up Richard Speck to see what a psychopathic killer can do quietly without a gun).

If nothing else, the receptionist was known to be badly injured, almost certainly near the front door, and the fact that she was on the phone indicates the shooter was not nearby. They could have tried to get her out and treated, and get a police observer to take over reporting from her position.

Jim wrote-

"I don't know what the best policy would be, but the notion of knocking a wall down with an armored vehicle sounds more effective than crouching on one's haunches for an hour".

I agree!

However, I just finished reading the new Active Shooter course that is being taught nationwide as well as here in Houston. That is what they teach as current doctrine. The first responders are to wait until SWAT arrives B4 doing anything other than securing the scene if no shots are being fired. I don't think I agree with that.

Armchair quarterbacking is all well and good, but one thing I learned in PLDC is that people are going to get hurt no matter what /i] you decide to do. You are going to make mistakes no matter what. The winner of a battle is the one who makes one less mistake than the other guy.

Here's John Lott's 2 cents worth. Think any of the big 3 media will solicit his take on the shootings? It's a retorical question, no need to answer.

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/ ... nghampton/

I don't know what the best policy would be, but the notion of knocking a wall down with an armored vehicle sounds more effective than crouching on one's haunches for an hour.

To protect their hide and serve their ego.

Can you imagine if the police chief's house was on fire and the fire department rolled up, formed a perimeter to make sure the fire didn't spread to any other homes, and waited an hour after they saw the last flame or smoke to apply water?

The media for once is actually baiting the "spokespersons" and the chief of police here today...

I just heard the desk guy on FoxNews actually ask...

"What can police do to prevent this type of massacre from happening?"

The answer the Chief gave just now was sorely incomplete...

"Police cannot prevent this from happening." (I really understand why he said this, and understand the parameters "restrictions" he is forced to operate under...)

AND!!!

[my words] "If the laws of the state encouraged and allowed normal everyday law-abiding citizens to carry firearms on their person for self-defensive purposes, I would see that minimizing, and or deterring mass shootings like this, armed citizens would become a very effective means to combat this problem."



One of the days, after more people are murdered in our country, we may finally see the straw theat breaks the camels stubborn back on this issue...

Otherwise, I am going to invest in cangle companies that specialize in selling products just for candlelight vigils after more and more of these happen...