Quoted: Quoted: And you noticed none of them have responded since I posted the words of the police spokesman confirming what I said:  the cops were performing recon by fire.  They were laying down covering fire inside the building long after the killers were dead, shooting at nothing. Some of us do you jobs and other things to attend to. Anyways, that is the first time I've heard that said. Each of the breakdowns I've seen on Columbine all listed the shooters' death times around noon. I'll see if I can track down the NTOA's report on what occured and see if it mirrors that.

I've never heard it either, in many many articles and disections of the incident. I would chalk up the spokesmans comments as  being erroneous until it can be shown otherwise. And I would want to see this "source" that listed that many rounds.

Quoted: Even if the shooters were dead at 12:08 as I've read, the sheriff's office rep said the firing was going on for two hours past 11:25, which would be well after they comitted suicide. Perhaps the spokesman well, misspoke, but I've never heard anyone address his statement or the timeline when the police ceased fire.  I HAVE heard that well over 1,100 rounds were expended during the incident, only about 200 of which can be traced to the killers.  That would be 900 rounds expended into a school full of innocent kids and teachers, none of which hit the bad guys.

You been hanging out at places like this to get your Columbine info?

www.apfn.org/apfn/Columbine2.htm

Not exactly the most balanced place to get your info, but I have to ask, since their comments in the story are mirrored by your claims.

Simmer down fellas.  I think we can at least all agree that the police response was not what it should have been, and that there are qualified non-LE shooters out there who indeed WOULD run into that school to take on the crazies, even by themselves......and some cops wouldn't.   I can't recall who posted it but it was the "this is how we're trained now" line......wait until "3 or 4 LE show up and go in when there is an active shooter".  I don't agree with that.  My point was, if innocent people are being killed, a cop's job is to put himself in harm's way to defend those people...supreme court decisions, lack of backup, and cowerdly commanders be damned.  Really.  If the first couple LEOs who arrived had just run in, maybe they get killed.  What is the CO going to do, discipline them?  If they stop the carnage and save lives, including the teacher who died a slow, painful death, what is the CO going to do, discipline them?  Don't want to shoot the wrong kid?  Don't shoot them if they don't have a gun!  Hello???  

I do know one or two LEOs who, I'm pretty sure, if they got there first and the shooting was still going on, would grab a carbine (or shotgun, or sidearm), run to the sound of gunfire, and keep after them until they were out of the fight or have stopped it.....fuck what the boss is saying, and hope that backup shows up soon.  They would be smart about it, but they would stop those shooters, now.  One of them carries a whole shitload of ammo!!!

Wanna know why I'm not a cop?  Because that's how I feel, and I honestly don't know if, when the bell rang, I would really have the guts to do the job the way I feel it should be done.  If I chickened out, my conscience would never leave me alone.

Don't forget all the LAPD who "ran to the sound of the guns" at North Hollywood and duked it with armor clad, auto equipped gunmen with pistols.  That kind of blows the generalizations out of the water.  LAPD and it's officers shone in that incident.

The bigger story IMO, is Rescorla.  His story is one of a very, very, admirable man.  

After Columbine and Beslan, the cops should be prepared to charge in immediately.

Quoted: Quoted: Even if the shooters were dead at 12:08 as I've read, the sheriff's office rep said the firing was going on for two hours past 11:25, which would be well after they comitted suicide. Perhaps the spokesman well, misspoke, but I've never heard anyone address his statement or the timeline when the police ceased fire.  I HAVE heard that well over 1,100 rounds were expended during the incident, only about 200 of which can be traced to the killers.  That would be 900 rounds expended into a school full of innocent kids and teachers, none of which hit the bad guys. You been hanging out at places like this to get your Columbine info? www.apfn.org/apfn/Columbine2.htm Not exactly the most balanced place to get your info, but I have to ask, since their comments in the story are mirrored by your claims.

As much as you'd like to portray it that way, they are NOT "my" claims.  They aren't claims at all.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: And you noticed none of them have responded since I posted the words of the police spokesman confirming what I said:  the cops were performing recon by fire.  They were laying down covering fire inside the building long after the killers were dead, shooting at nothing. Some of us do you jobs and other things to attend to. Anyways, that is the first time I've heard that said. Each of the breakdowns I've seen on Columbine all listed the shooters' death times around noon. I'll see if I can track down the NTOA's report on what occured and see if it mirrors that.   I've never heard it either, in many many articles and disections of the incident. I would chalk up the spokesmans comments as  being erroneous until it can be shown otherwise. And I would want to see this "source" that listed that many rounds.

Yet no one ever came out and said "No, that's not right."  I read that article from more than one source back in the day...didn't save any of them, but I remember them and I was able to find the info both at the NY Times and the American Spectator.  If the spokesman was wrong, then you'd think someone would have come out and said, "No, we didn't fire a round after the two killers were dead."  Particularly since the implication from the article is that the police were slower to get to the wounded because they kept hearing gunfire...which was, according to the sheriff's dept spokesman, all coming from the police.

Good fucking God people! Does everyone on this site have to argue about everything!?!?!?

Quoted: MY only concern would be target identification.  K They had a report of an unknown number of students shooting up the place.  If the cops went in, how would they know where the suspects were, what they looked like, etc?  What happens when the cops hose down some fleeing students because they couldn't identify their targets?

There are reports that a SWAT team member may have killed a student, but the official report claims otherwise. The family claims there is a coverup.

Quoted: Good fucking God people! Does everyone on this site have to argue about everything!?!?!?

Of course we do!  Where the fuck have YOU been the last six years???

Rick Rescorla is a hero.

 

Bob

Quoted: As much as you'd like to portray it that way, they are NOT "my" claims.  They aren't claims at all.

You are posting these events as being factual. You are essentially saying : "this is what happened".That makes it your claim.

Quoted:  I can't recall who posted it but it was the "this is how we're trained now" line......wait until "3 or 4 LE show up and go in when there is an active shooter".  I don't agree with that.  My point was, if innocent people are being killed, a cop's job is to put himself in harm's way to defend those people...supreme court decisions, lack of backup, and cowerdly commanders be damned.  Really.  If the first couple LEOs who arrived had just run in, maybe they get killed.  What is the CO going to do, discipline them?  If they stop the carnage and save lives, including the teacher who died a slow, painful death, what is the CO going to do, discipline them?  Don't want to shoot the wrong kid?  Don't shoot them if they don't have a gun!  Hello???   I do know one or two LEOs who, I'm pretty sure, if they got there first and the shooting was still going on, would grab a carbine (or shotgun, or sidearm), run to the sound of gunfire, and keep after them until they were out of the fight or have stopped it.....fuck what the boss is saying, and hope that backup shows up soon.  They would be smart about it, but they would stop those shooters, now.  One of them carries a whole shitload of ammo!!! Wanna know why I'm not a cop?  Because that's how I feel, and I honestly don't know if, when the bell rang, I would really have the guts to do the job the way I feel it should be done.  If I chickened out, my conscience would never leave me alone. Don't forget all the LAPD who "ran to the sound of the guns" at North Hollywood and duked it with armor clad, auto equipped gunmen with pistols.  That kind of blows the generalizations out of the water.  LAPD and it's officers shone in that incident. The bigger story IMO, is Rescorla.  His story is one of a very, very, admirable man.

Depends on how many officers you have responding and in what time frame. If all you have is 2 officers responding, then you go in with 2. Problem being, you cannot effectively clear a building with two officers. Dead officers do no one, victims, or otherwise, any good by rushing in and getting themselves shot  by utilizing  ineffective response tactics in an active shooter incident.

Quoted: Quoted: As much as you'd like to portray it that way, they are NOT "my" claims.  They aren't claims at all. You are posting these events as being factual. You are essentially saying : "this is what happened".That makes it your claim.

No, the sheriff's spokesman presented the events as being factual.  They're his claims, if anyone's.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As much as you'd like to portray it that way, they are NOT "my" claims.  They aren't claims at all. You are posting these events as being factual. You are essentially saying : "this is what happened".That makes it your claim. No, the sheriff's spokesman presented the events as being factual.  They're his claims, if anyone's.

No, from the tone of your posts, you are clearly implying "this is what happened". Thats how you started out in this thread. You have backpeddaled a bit as the thread has gone on.

How the hell did all this bullshit come from Rick Rescorla's comment ? If you read the article all he was saying was if he was there he woulda went in without a second thought . A simple comment made among friends . And if you doubt he wouldnt do something like that you did not read read the article or have your head up your ass . This man clearly had balls of steel and did not care much for his own safety when others lives are on the line . Im sure he would be proud knowing you guys are bickering over the net about his comments .

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: As much as you'd like to portray it that way, they are NOT "my" claims.  They aren't claims at all. You are posting these events as being factual. You are essentially saying : "this is what happened".That makes it your claim. No, the sheriff's spokesman presented the events as being factual.  They're his claims, if anyone's. No, from the tone of your posts, you are clearly implying "this is what happened". Thats how you started out in this thread. You have backpeddaled a bit as the thread has gone on.

No, despite your dishonest insinuations, I have not, and it is not "my claim."  I am going by what I read FROM the sheriff's department spokesman written in multiple media reports.  Deal with his claims, if you wish, but stop trying to lie and call them mine.

Quoted: How the hell did all this bullshit come from Rick Rescorla's comment ?

It happened because a certain person who apparently claims to be in law enforcement called Rescorla a "hero from the perimeter."

Skipping all the pages up to this point... if I were an LEO, and there were innocent people being killed, be it in a school, mall, park, whatever, my response to anyone telling me not to go in would be

"Innocent people are being killed, you think you can keep me from going in!?!?!"

Don't want to put yourself in harms way?  Don't be a LEO.  

Exactly my point . The guy didnt call ny times the day after the attack and say it . This thread was about him and the outstanding character he possessed . Posts like that basicly shit on this thread .

Quoted: No, despite your dishonest insinuations, I have not, and it is not "my claim."  I am going by what I read FROM the sheriff's department spokesman written in multiple media reports.  Deal with his claims, if you wish, but stop trying to lie and call them mine.

Where exactly did the spokesman say: "Shooting blindly into a building where you know innocent civilians are located, when you haven't actually seen or been shot at by the opposition AIN'T professional." Oh, wait. That WASN'T the spokesman. That was you. My bad.

Quoted: Quoted: How the hell did all this bullshit come from Rick Rescorla's comment ? It happened because a certain person who apparently claims to be in law enforcement called Rescorla a "hero from the perimeter."

no "claims" about being in law enforcement; I'm actually doing the job day in and day out.  And I believe my actual comment was "Everyone is a hero and general outside the perimeter". The comment was directed at the people with the usual "If I was there I woulda.." bit.

Quoted: Quoted: No, despite your dishonest insinuations, I have not, and it is not "my claim."  I am going by what I read FROM the sheriff's department spokesman written in multiple media reports.  Deal with his claims, if you wish, but stop trying to lie and call them mine. Where exactly did the spokesman say: "Shooting blindly into a building where you know innocent civilians are located, when you haven't actually seen or been shot at by the opposition AIN'T professional." Oh, wait. That WASN'T the spokesman. That was you. My bad.

The guy said all the firing in the last hour or so of the incident was by the police.  He said that the bad guys were both dead by then.  Thus, the police WEREN'T SHOOTING AT THE BAD GUYS.  THEY WERE SHOOTING AT NOTHING, in a building they KNEW to be full of students and teachers.  The information was provided by the police.  The comments regarding the proffesionalism were mine.  If you don't understand this, you need therapy,  If you do understand it, you're simply being dishonest.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How the hell did all this bullshit come from Rick Rescorla's comment ? It happened because a certain person who apparently claims to be in law enforcement called Rescorla a "hero from the perimeter." no "claims" about being in law enforcement; I'm actually doing the job day in and day out.  And I believe my actual comment was "Everyone is a hero and general outside the perimeter". The comment was directed at the people with the usual "If I was there I woulda.." bit.

I would agree when its your average civi . But there no doubt in my mind  Rescorla was honest in his comment .

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How the hell did all this bullshit come from Rick Rescorla's comment ? It happened because a certain person who apparently claims to be in law enforcement called Rescorla a "hero from the perimeter." no "claims" about being in law enforcement; I'm actually doing the job day in and day out.

I don't know you from Adam.  You could be a cop or a janitor or the fucking King of Jordan for all I know.

Quoted: No, despite your dishonest insinuations, I have not, and it is not "my claim."  I am going by what I read FROM the sheriff's department spokesman written in multiple media reports.  Deal with his claims, if you wish, but stop trying to lie and call them mine.

OK, I'll "deal" with his claims.
www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/SHOOT_TEAM_TEXT.htm

141 Law Enforcement Shots Fired

   Among the many law enforcement officers who responded to Columbine High School on April 20, 12 officers fired their weapons:

       *

         four from the Jefferson County Sheriff’s Office,
       *

         seven from the Denver Police Department  
       *

         one from the Lakewood Police Department.

   Of all the bullet casings recovered from the high school, 141 were fired from law enforcement weapons.  

       *

         Sixteen of those rounds were fired by Jefferson County Sheriff’s deputies,
       *

         Four by a Lakewood Police Department agent;
       *

         The remaining 121 rounds were fired by Denver Police Department officers.  

   The majority of the shots were fired from the parking lot on the southwest side of the school and the grass and sidewalk areas outside the west entrance.

   There were also shots fired from the junior parking lot, a lower classroom hallway and the bottom of the stairs outside the cafeteria.

   In reviewing the ballistic evidence and the interviews with the officers, it was determined that the majority of the shots were fired toward the west entrance and the library windows.  This was done when shots were exchanged with the gunmen, and when law enforcement and medical personnel were evacuating students.

           There were no injuries or deaths as a result of shots fired by law enforcement officers.

Shots Fired by KLEBOLD and HARRIS..............

 
188 Shots Fired by KLEBOLD and HARRIS

Edited to alter messed up table that didn't cut and paste well. Look it up on the site.

 

Quoted: OK, I'll "deal" with his claims. snipped

Now you're REALLY being disingenuous and dishonest.
We've been discussing whether or not the cops said they used covering fire after the killers were dead for like 4 pages, and I've provided proof they said they did.  You haven't been able to address that at all, so you've siezed on one statement I made just recently that I have heard that 1100 shots were fired.  I don't have proof or evidence of how many shots were fired, it's simply something I heard shortly after the shootings on one of the many news programs that covered it.  It has not been the main point of debate or a main argument and you KNEW that it wasn't what I was talking about when I said "It's not my claim."  Yet you FAIL to address the statements of the sheriff's office spokesman and sieze on that one sentence to try to salvage your failing case.
I used to think you were at least a rational person, if a bit of an apologist for any police actions.  Now I know better.

Quoted: Quoted: [ Quoted: What I said was, the cops were shooting into a building where they knew innocent kids were, when they had no clear idea of where the bad guys were or how many of them there were. Even with the back pedal, you remain WRONG. As Gardner stepped out of his patrol car, Eric Harris turned his attention from shooting into the west doors of the high school to the student parking lot and to the deputy. Gardner, particularly visible in the bright yellow shirt of the community resource officer uniform, was the target of Harris’ bullets. Harris fired about 10 shots from his rifle at Gardner before his gun jammed. Although Gardner’s patrol car was not hit by bullets, two vehicles that he was parked behind were hit by Harris’ gunfire. Investigators later found two bullet holes in each of the cars. Officer Exchanges Gunfire Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy. It wasn't a backpedal and nothing you just said contradicts what I said.

1)What I said was, the cops were shooting into a building where they knew innocent kids were

So the police should have been shooting at the BG's, but it's unsfe to shoot into a building where multiple people are? Well that's a nice contradictory arguement. In my quote the CRO, Gardner WAS shooting at a KNOWN SHOOTER, Harris

2)when they had no clear idea of where the bad guys were

Did you read the stuff I cut and pasted? The CRO took multiple incoming rounds from Harris. Saw that Harris' weapon "jammed", and fired at him 4 times.............

3) or how many of them there were.

Well you aren't totally contradicted on this.............. But you just have to find and ID one at a time..................... It also fits in well with your argeuemnt about being careful about how you engage possible BG's in a school full of innocents.

Yeah, nothing you said was disproved

Quoted: [So the police should have been shooting at the BG's, but it's unsfe to shoot into a building where multiple people are? Well that's a nice contradictory arguement.

Nope.  That would be you either intentionally or accidentally misinterpreting my remarks.  The cops shouldn't have shot without a clear target.  You don't take a shot with innocent people around unless you have a target in your sights.  You can't be stupid enough to not understand that.

Quoted: Before Columbine, most shooters could be counted on to grab hostages and then negotiate. Rushing into such a scene would most of the time cause more casualties than it saved. In well over 90% of the cases, once swat arrives on scene, there is no more killing. Columbine changed all that. These guys were more like Arab terrorists in that they did not want to negotiate, they had no demands and only wanted to kill as many people as they could.

+1

You train like you fight and fight how you trained.  Prior to Columbine, that situation was outside of the training of most departments.  It's like Sept 11, most terrorists who took domestic flights over would ask to be flown to Cuba.  Nobody had trained for people flying them into buildings.

Cheers,

kk7sm

tag

Quoted: Quoted: OK, I'll "deal" with his claims. snipped   Now you're REALLY being disingenuous and dishonest. We've been discussing whether or not the cops said they used covering fire after the killers were dead for like 4 pages, and I've provided proof they said they did.  You haven't been able to address that at all, so you've siezed on one statement I made just recently that I have heard that 1100 shots were fired.  I don't have proof or evidence of how many shots were fired, it's simply something I heard shortly after the shootings on one of the many news programs that covered it.  It has not been the main point of debate or a main argument and you KNEW that it wasn't what I was talking about when I said "It's not my claim."  Yet you FAIL to address the statements of the sheriff's office spokesman and sieze on that one sentence to try to salvage your failing case. I used to think you were at least a rational person, if a bit of an apologist for any police actions.  Now I know better.

Given the relatively low number of LEO rounds reported as being fired in the section I quoted, it is very doubtful thay the officers were in there shooting at empty walls for two hours as you reported. I continue to believe the officer you quoted either misspoke or was misinformed.

Quoted: Quoted: [So the police should have been shooting at the BG's, but it's unsfe to shoot into a building where multiple people are? Well that's a nice contradictory arguement. Nope.  That would be you either intentionally or accidentally misinterpreting my remarks.  The cops shouldn't have shot without a clear target.  You don't take a shot with innocent people around unless you have a target in your sights.  You can't be stupid enough to not understand that.

I realize that  argumenets can be much more convincing if you construict situations where facts aren't involved.

The CRO was getting shot at by Harris, who was in the parking lot. He returned AIMED fire at him. He was unable to get hits on the suspect. Something about the tactical disadvatage of having a pistol while Harris had a long gun.

YOU SAID THE POLICE NEVER ENGAGED THE SUSPECTS.

You are wrong.

Your arguement that I am saying the police should be firing blind................. I never said anything of the sort. That was something you MADE UP, in regards to me saying it.

Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and start thinking beofre you post. 80% of what you have posted is incorrect, and sources that indicate your wrongness have been posted.

Quoted: You know what pisses me off about Columbine aside from the inexcusable inaction? The fact that when the cops DID go in, they performed a recon by fire in a school FULL OF INNOCENT KIDS AND TEACHERS! They were SHOOTING to cover each other as they advanced, shooting at blank walls...not knowing WHO might be on the other side of the wall! Shooting blindly into a building where you know innocent civilians are located, when you haven't actually seen or been shot at by the opposition AIN'T professional. No one SAW it happen, but they found bullet holes in the interior walls that came from the firearms the police were using. As both killers were dead before the cops entered the school, there was no legitimate target for them to have been shooting. The bullet holes were inside the school, in interior walls. What I said was, the cops were shooting into a building where they knew innocent kids were, when they had no clear idea of where the bad guys were or how many of them there were. It wasn't a backpedal and nothing you just said contradicts what I said.

From someone else post

In reviewing the ballistic evidence and the interviews with the officers, it was determined that the majority of the shots were fired toward the west entrance and the library windows. This was done when shots were exchanged with the gunmen, and when law enforcement and medical personnel were evacuating students.

-------------------

I could repost my links, and cut and pastes.

But even then I don't think you would learb to read. CRO Gardner was in a gunfight in the parking lot with Harris.

Your contention that the police never engaged BG's, but only fired blindly is wrong.

Your contnention that you have never read that the officers engaged the BG during the Columbine incident, shows that you either don't want to UNDERSTAND what happened, or are too stupid to read. Because simply reading the linked reports, from CNN, and Wilkipidia (sp) would list who fired when.

This also isn't the first time we have had this go 'round, and you make claims that are incorrect. There were links in prior threads refuting your previous stupid comments, that included accounts of police shots fired.

Now pull your head out of your ass.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OK, I'll "deal" with his claims. snipped   Now you're REALLY being disingenuous and dishonest. We've been discussing whether or not the cops said they used covering fire after the killers were dead for like 4 pages, and I've provided proof they said they did.  You haven't been able to address that at all, so you've siezed on one statement I made just recently that I have heard that 1100 shots were fired.  I don't have proof or evidence of how many shots were fired, it's simply something I heard shortly after the shootings on one of the many news programs that covered it.  It has not been the main point of debate or a main argument and you KNEW that it wasn't what I was talking about when I said "It's not my claim."  Yet you FAIL to address the statements of the sheriff's office spokesman and sieze on that one sentence to try to salvage your failing case. I used to think you were at least a rational person, if a bit of an apologist for any police actions.  Now I know better. Given the relatively low number of LEO rounds reported as being fired in the section I quoted, it is very doubtful thay the officers were in there shooting at empty walls for two hours as you reported. I continue to believe the officer you quoted either misspoke or was misinformed.

Rikwriter made it seem like the cops were advancing up the hallways, using a SAW or M60 for covering fire.  He quotes over 1100 rounds fired by the cops, when the true count is about 150, yet he claims you guys are putting words in his mouth and misquoting him, hahaha.  This is starting to get funny.