Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 10/28/2004 7:47:45 AM EST
To be specific, I need info on whether or not any teachers at Columbine had concealed carry licenses. Of course, they wouldn't have been able to use them due to laws about guns in schools.

Also, was there a police officer who put up some armed resistance to the murderers?

Citable material is appreciated. This is to counter a stupid person's editorial in the local newspaper.

Thanks.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:50:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By Shane333:
Also, was there a police officer who put up some armed resistance to the murderers?





I remember hearing that there was an officer that returned fire but was outgunned.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:57:02 AM EST
I've got a paper copy of the FBI's threat assessment perspective regarding school shooters. It's got some valuable info in it but probably not what you're looking for. Still a good read. You can find it on the FBI website, http://www.fbi.gov/publications/school/school2.pdf. I didn't read it super carefully so I probably missed something. MJD
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 7:57:15 AM EST
I had to google for awhile to find this. Some time ago I read nearly the whole thing. Better have a good chunk of time if you want to see it all, but its well organized and I liked the detailed timeline especially.

denver.rockymountainnews.com/shooting/report/columbinereport/pages/toc.htm

Warning: the more you read, the more angry you will become.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 8:49:51 AM EST
Thanks Duke-Nukem. I'll read through it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:39:09 PM EST
Yes, there was a cop who shot at the perps but REFUSED to enter the school. Pussy? I think so.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 3:46:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By BobCole:
Yes, there was a cop who shot at the perps but REFUSED to enter the school. Pussy? I think so.


He had already expended most of his handgun ammunition; what did you want him to do, throw rocks?
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 12:17:54 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
He had already expended most of his handgun ammunition; what did you want him to do, throw rocks?



No, I expected him to shoot from closer than 100 yards or whatever the hell it was he was shooting from. Either he was a first class dumbass or a pussy or both.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 4:33:45 PM EST

Originally Posted By BobCole:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
He had already expended most of his handgun ammunition; what did you want him to do, throw rocks?



No, I expected him to shoot from closer than 100 yards or whatever the hell it was he was shooting from. Either he was a first class dumbass or a pussy or both.


You expect him to successfully advance on a rifle shooter and engage armed only with a pistol? Be realistic.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 4:36:01 PM EST
which paper shane?
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 6:16:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By BobCole:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
He had already expended most of his handgun ammunition; what did you want him to do, throw rocks?



No, I expected him to shoot from closer than 100 yards or whatever the hell it was he was shooting from. Either he was a first class dumbass or a pussy or both.


You expect him to successfully advance on a rifle shooter and engage armed only with a pistol? Be realistic.



In the aftermath of Columbine, the Columbia, Missouri Police Dept. changed its policy regarding an "active shooter" scenario. In the event of an active shooter in public, the first two police officers on the scene are to break out their long guns, advance to the scene, and terminate the threat or die trying. No waiting for the fancy pants communications center van to show up in the parking lot. No waiting for the SWAT team to gear up in their tac armor and drive half an hour in heavy traffic in their armored car. You grab your 870 and your slugs, or, if you happen to be off-duty SWAT (on call 24 hours a day) you grab your G36, and you enter the area as a mutually supporting pair. You protect and serve, and if you die than you die taking bullets that otherwise would have been aimed at soccer moms and grade school children. If you don't like it or you don't think its realistic, than go be a plumber or a mechanic or something, because you won't be a cop in Columbia.

This is what one department expects of its officers, and I see no reason for other departments to expect less of their people.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 6:27:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2004 6:28:13 PM EST by The_Macallan]

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
In the aftermath of Columbine, the Columbia, Missouri Police Dept. changed its policy regarding an "active shooter" scenario. In the event of an active shooter in public, the first two police officers on the scene are to break out their long guns, advance to the scene, and terminate the threat or die trying. No waiting for the fancy pants communications center van to show up in the parking lot. No waiting for the SWAT team to gear up in their tac armor and drive half an hour in heavy traffic in their armored car. You grab your 870 and your slugs, or, if you happen to be off-duty SWAT (on call 24 hours a day) you grab your G36, and you enter the area as a mutually supporting pair. You protect and serve, and if you die than you die taking bullets that otherwise would have been aimed at soccer moms and grade school children. If you don't like it or you don't think its realistic, than go be a plumber or a mechanic or something, because you won't be a cop in Columbia.

This is what one department expects of its officers, and I see no reason for other departments to expect less of their people.


Link Posted: 10/29/2004 6:40:30 PM EST
The police responding to the Columbine attack did very well. Read the timeline and look at the diagrams. There is no way to way to fault them.

Or you could have them rush the school without securing a perimeter, like the Russians did at Beslan. That worked well.

If you think that police officer is a pussy, then you, by yourself, advance on an unknown number of gunmen with longarms while only armed with a pistol. Let everyone know how it turns out.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 6:44:31 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 6:48:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Yes all those cops in thier fancy swat gear hiding behind thier cruisers were and still are pussies.

Give a handgun to most any one of the parents of those children and they would have gone in.



And would have gotten exactly shit done. SWAT teams were entering the building less than 40 minutes after the shooting started. Why don't you actually educate yourself about the event?
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 6:56:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2004 7:13:13 PM EST by -Duke-Nukem-]
TNO, there is no way to prove this to you over the internet, but I'm not just blowing smoke about the Columbia PD's philosophy. After some discussion with the gentleman who wrote the policy, I have adopted it as my own.

If I see someone shooting up the playground across the street from where I work, I'm not going to sit there on the phone telling the 911 dispatch how the kids are getting shot in the back running away from this asshole. I'm going to my car, I'm deploying my car gun, which is a pistol, and I'm advancing and terminating the threat. The PD ballistics team can figure out who was the crazy and who stopped the crazy later on. Most loonies shooting up a playground generally can't shoot for shit, whereas I train "for that day" on a monthly basis with a warrior mentality. If the guy is a Hollywood shootout wannabe and has a full auto AK and a drum mag under it, well that's a damn shame, I'd better take advantage of the element of surprise, and aim for the head. But I'm not going to live the rest of my life remembering how I had a gun in my car and I watched innocent children get murdered because I was afraid to shoot back. I couldn't live with myself.

P.S., did you read the timeline? The 40 minutes that it took SWAT to enter the school was 40 minutes that those bastards roamed around the halls at will, shooting cowering children in the face at point blank range, shooting at propane bottles trying to detonate them, throwing pipe bombs into "locked down" classrooms, and eventually getting so bored with the whole thing that they literally killed each other before ever laying eyes on the aforementioned SWAT team. Dispatch advised that there were shots fired and explosions at 11:21. By 11:31 there are four officers on the scene, all are armed.

At 12:06, using a fire truck as a shield, Simmons' "Tac 6" ad-hoc SWAT team gain entry into the building. 40 minutes, just as you said. 40 minutes is WAY TOO LONG.

Now, if I took my FAL and my buddy Erik took his G3 clone and we went into my wife's middle school and we had free reign to murder helpless, stationary targets for 40 MINUTES while four police officers stood outside and formed a perimeter and "coordinated the situation" (whatever the fuck that means), do you think we could kill more than 13 people? How lucky were the students at Columbine that Harris and Klebold were more interested in going on an adolescent power trip than actually killing a large number of people?

Food for thought, friends.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 7:23:15 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
TNO, there is no way to prove this to you over the internet, but I'm not just blowing smoke about the Columbia PD's philosophy. After some discussion with the gentleman who wrote the policy, I have adopted it as my own.

If I see someone shooting up the playground across the street from where I work, I'm not going to sit there on the phone telling the 911 dispatch how the kids are getting shot in the back running away from this asshole. I'm going to my car, I'm deploying my car gun, which is a pistol, and I'm advancing and terminating the threat. The PD ballistics team can figure out who was the crazy and who stopped the crazy later on. Most loonies shooting up a playground generally can't shoot for shit, whereas I train "for that day" on a monthly basis with a warrior mentality. If the guy is a Hollywood shootout wannabe and has a full auto AK and a drum mag under it, well that's a damn shame, I'd better take advantage of the element of surprise, and aim for the head. But I'm not going to live the rest of my life remembering how I had a gun in my car and I watched innocent children get murdered because I was afraid to shoot back. I couldn't live with myself.



The Neutral Observer doesn't doubt you on the Columbia policy. Whether that policy is a wise one is another question entirely. There are very valid reasons not to charge into an unknown situation. It might work fine with one gunman, but if the two officers run into 30 men armed with AK-47s and RPGs? Or accidentally trip an explosive device? What if their information is faulty, and whoever has taken hostages but has not started killing them yet, and their actions precipitate a slaughter before any more officers arrive on scene? Remember, this is all resting on the heads of two patrol officers who might or might not have joined the force 3 months ago and know jack about the current situation they are responding to.

It takes time to respond and concentrate resources, and time to get a handle on the situation and gather enough information to act. The police and the military are two different beasts; the principles are essentially the same, but how they carry them out are quite different.

You are not a police officer, but the same rules apply. Are you being of more assistance by charging into an unknown situation against an unknown force, or would you be more helpful using your above average knowledge of weapons to observe and report over the telephone so that the responding officers have the best possible information about the situation? It's in your judgement, of course, and a tough call for anyone to make.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 7:31:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:

P.S., did you read the timeline? The 40 minutes that it took SWAT to enter the school was 40 minutes that those bastards roamed around the halls at will, shooting cowering children in the face at point blank range, shooting at propane bottles trying to detonate them, throwing pipe bombs into "locked down" classrooms, and eventually getting so bored with the whole thing that they literally killed each other before ever laying eyes on the aforementioned SWAT team. Dispatch advised that there were shots fired and explosions at 11:21. By 11:31 there are four officers on the scene, all are armed.

At 12:06, using a fire truck as a shield, Simmons' "Tac 6" ad-hoc SWAT team gain entry into the building. 40 minutes, just as you said. 40 minutes is WAY TOO LONG.

Now, if I took my FAL and my buddy Erik took his G3 clone and we went into my wife's middle school and we had free reign to murder helpless, stationary targets for 40 MINUTES while four police officers stood outside and formed a perimeter and "coordinated the situation" (whatever the fuck that means), do you think we could kill more than 13 people? How lucky were the students at Columbine that Harris and Klebold were more interested in going on an adolescent power trip than actually killing a large number of people?

Food for thought, friends.



The Neutral Observer read the timeline. 40 minutes to receive initial reports of the situation, dispatch officers to the scene, place someone in command of the scene, remove and secure those civilians they could see, try to determine the location, number, intentions, and armament of the gunmen, etc...
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 7:43:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2004 7:49:02 PM EST by -Duke-Nukem-]
TNO, I appreciate your points, but for me, the greater the threat, the greater the need to end it. Yeah 30 guys with RPG's would certainly ruin my day, but hopefully I could ruin at least some of theirs as well. And I wouldn't rush into a hostage situation unless there is shooting going on RIGHT NOW. At that stage, sharing my firearms expertise on the phone would not be enough to assuage my conscience.

There are innocent people being killed. I have in my position a fine instrument of death. I have been training most of my adult life to use that instrument to kill some people in order to save the lives of other people. Any other bystander who decides to get on the phone and dial 911, that decision is up to them, I won't call them a pussy, but someone else is going to have to do that, because I'll be too busy focusing on my front sight. And I'm not just being a "chairborne ranger" here, after Columbine I thought long and hard about what my response would be if I ever found myself in such a scenario. These days, as a result of my ultimate decision, it is very unusual to find me in a place where I can't deploy a firearm in less than 45 seconds, even when I'm not packing my CCW. There are many reasons to have a car gun, and this is one.

EDIT: TNO, as you can tell this was a very personal decision for me. I understand your point of view and it is valid, but I hope you also understand my point of view and why I came to the philosophy I have. If you had talked with the Captain as I had, you might have better reasons than what I have typed here at midnight on a Friday.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:01:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By ajm1911:
which paper shane?



Deseret News editorial section a couple of days ago.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:06:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2004 8:10:19 PM EST by Lexington]

Originally Posted By Shane333:
To be specific, I need info on whether or not any teachers at Columbine had concealed carry licenses. Of course, they wouldn't have been able to use them due to laws about guns in schools.



IIRC, at that time guns were not allowed on school property, however the law provided an exemption for peace officers and holders of valid CCW. My permit was valid at the time (and still is) and I had to know the law. I packed on grade school playgrounds all the time.

Colorado was "may issue" at the time too. The CCW exemption on school grounds was negotiated away to get our "shall issue" bill to pass. Why did we have to get CCW out of schools? Because we're the state with the infamous Columbine incident and guns near schools are baaaad. They just might go off by themselves.

A teacher with a CCW was probably forbidden becasue of the school board's or state's right to make rules and policy about what state employees may do at the state's places of employment. But a non-faculty person with a CCW on campus at the time of the shootings was a legitimate possibilty.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:16:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2004 8:17:42 PM EST by The_Neutral_Observer]

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
TNO, I appreciate your points, but for me, the greater the threat, the greater the need to end it. Yeah 30 guys with RPG's would certainly ruin my day, but hopefully I could ruin at least some of theirs as well. And I wouldn't rush into a hostage situation unless there is shooting going on RIGHT NOW. At that stage, sharing my firearms expertise on the phone would not be enough to assuage my conscience.

There are innocent people being killed. I have in my position a fine instrument of death. I have been training most of my adult life to use that instrument to kill some people in order to save the lives of other people. Any other bystander who decides to get on the phone and dial 911, that decision is up to them, I won't call them a pussy, but someone else is going to have to do that, because I'll be too busy focusing on my front sight. And I'm not just being a "chairborne ranger" here, after Columbine I thought long and hard about what my response would be if I ever found myself in such a scenario. These days, as a result of my ultimate decision, it is very unusual to find me in a place where I can't deploy a firearm in less than 45 seconds, even when I'm not packing my CCW. There are many reasons to have a car gun, and this is one.

EDIT: TNO, as you can tell this was a very personal decision for me. I understand your point of view and it is valid, but I hope you also understand my point of view and why I came to the philosophy I have. If you had talked with the Captain as I had, you might have better reasons than what I have typed here at midnight on a Friday.



Your point is understood. It might very well be the right decision in any given situation. Your decision would be based on your judgement of the situation given the information availible to you, which is about the best anyone can do.
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:18:56 PM EST
The cops were cowards, at least those in charge. I don't know if individual officers would have liked to go in. They waited until the shooters were confirmed dead until they went into the school. They covered up knowledge of the threat. Here is an example, I have read many articles. Some of the officers in this sheriffs’ department belong in jail themselves. Of course the media blamed the guns.

www.americandaily.com/article/2483
Link Posted: 10/29/2004 8:49:01 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:06:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:

In the aftermath of Columbine, the Columbia, Missouri Police Dept. changed its policy regarding an "active shooter" scenario. In the event of an active shooter in public, the first two police officers on the scene are to break out their long guns, advance to the scene, and terminate the threat or die trying. No waiting for the fancy pants communications center van to show up in the parking lot. No waiting for the SWAT team to gear up in their tac armor and drive half an hour in heavy traffic in their armored car. You grab your 870 and your slugs, or, if you happen to be off-duty SWAT (on call 24 hours a day) you grab your G36, and you enter the area as a mutually supporting pair. You protect and serve, and if you die than you die taking bullets that otherwise would have been aimed at soccer moms and grade school children. If you don't like it or you don't think its realistic, than go be a plumber or a mechanic or something, because you won't be a cop in Columbia.

This is what one department expects of its officers, and I see no reason for other departments to expect less of their people.



This was an SRO on his lunch break outside the school. He was armed with a sidearm only. He did in fact expend most of his ammunition engaging the suspects.
It is foolish to expect an officer to needlessly die; a dead officer acomplishes nothing. That agency is foolish if it expects its officers to put themselves in a situation where they sacrifice themselves.There is nothing wrong with an officer tactically retreating to await reinforcement, and I am sure that you totally do not understand that agencies policy on active shooters iof you think that any agency is going to advocate that its officers sacrifice themselves in the manner you describe.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:14:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
Most loonies shooting up a playground generally can't shoot for shit, whereas I train "for that day" on a monthly basis with a warrior mentality.


Meaning you go to the range once a month and pop off some rounds? Spare us your internet bravado about your imagined "warrior mentality" heroics.



If the guy is a Hollywood shootout wannabe and has a full auto AK and a drum mag under it, well that's a damn shame, I'd better take advantage of the element of surprise, and aim for the head. But I'm not going to live the rest of my life remembering how I had a gun in my car and I watched innocent children get murdered because I was afraid to shoot back. I couldn't live with myself.


Oh geez, how can ANY of you guys take this guy seriously? He is going to engage a FA long gun shooter from a distance with a handgun? Spare us, please! Lets get back to a realistic discussion and leave the armchair heroes out of it.


P.S., did you read the timeline? The 40 minutes that it took SWAT to enter the school was 40 minutes that those bastards roamed around the halls at will, shooting cowering children in the face at point blank range, shooting at propane bottles trying to detonate them, throwing pipe bombs into "locked down" classrooms, and eventually getting so bored with the whole thing that they literally killed each other before ever laying eyes on the aforementioned SWAT team. Dispatch advised that there were shots fired and explosions at 11:21. By 11:31 there are four officers on the scene, all are armed.

At 12:06, using a fire truck as a shield, Simmons' "Tac 6" ad-hoc SWAT team gain entry into the building. 40 minutes, just as you said. 40 minutes is WAY TOO LONG.



You obviously don't know what you are talking about. I was at a training seminar after Columbine where members of that team gave a presentation. They were engaging the shooters from the outside of the building before they gained entry.


Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:16:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By AlreadyThere:
They waited until the shooters were confirmed dead until they went into the school. They covered up knowledge of the threat. ]


BS. And I don't consider your "source" reliable.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:19:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
They were frigging cowards. I saw the vidio of the tough swat cops pointing thier machineguns at groups of running girls after it was all over.It was two punks with a few guns and some wanna bee molitof cocktails, there were plenty of kids reporting this on cell phones, it was not heavily armed rebels like the school in Russia.



They had no idea who was a suspect at that point. Would you, in their shoes? Remember, everything you know now is hindsight. All you know at the scene was that there was someone shooting.There were NOT reports saying that it was just two kids. The calls were saying that shooting was going on, not who and how many.



I suppose you think the cops at Waco are brave son's a bitches also. Fire Bombing children in a church.



We've already discussed that in other threads; the fault for that one lies with Koresh and the other adults, to continue to expose their children to that risk. They could have let those kids leave at any time during that stand-off.
Link Posted: 10/30/2004 5:19:30 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:

In the aftermath of Columbine, the Columbia, Missouri Police Dept. changed its policy regarding an "active shooter" scenario. In the event of an active shooter in public, the first two police officers on the scene are to break out their long guns, advance to the scene, and terminate the threat or die trying. No waiting for the fancy pants communications center van to show up in the parking lot. No waiting for the SWAT team to gear up in their tac armor and drive half an hour in heavy traffic in their armored car. You grab your 870 and your slugs, or, if you happen to be off-duty SWAT (on call 24 hours a day) you grab your G36, and you enter the area as a mutually supporting pair. You protect and serve, and if you die than you die taking bullets that otherwise would have been aimed at soccer moms and grade school children. If you don't like it or you don't think its realistic, than go be a plumber or a mechanic or something, because you won't be a cop in Columbia.

This is what one department expects of its officers, and I see no reason for other departments to expect less of their people.



This was an SRO on his lunch break outside the school. He was armed with a sidearm only. He did in fact expend most of his ammunition engaging the suspects.
It is foolish to expect an officer to needlessly die; a dead officer acomplishes nothing. That agency is foolish if it expects its officers to put themselves in a situation where they sacrifice themselves.There is nothing wrong with an officer tactically retreating to await reinforcement, and I am sure that you totally do not understand that agencies policy on active shooters iof you think that any agency is going to advocate that its officers sacrifice themselves in the manner you describe.



TCSD1236, Knowing you personally, I know you are a good man and an exemplrary LEO, my thoughts on the matter is this, better that the SRO took one of the bullets meant for the school kids, than have tha bullet kill one of those school kids.

200 responding officers rushing the school, hell yes, pell mell, the resistance they faced might have killed 20 or so before they were overwhelmed. Thats 20 dead LEO's, and the whole time none of the school kids were being executed. TO me, the calculus is a fair and reasonable one. And, in fact, I would gladly trade the 200 officers for the students who died, not out of any hatred for LEO's, but more a titanic mentality, women and children are saved first, period. Men are expendable.

I want all LEO's to go home safe at night, but sometimes that is just not to be.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:34:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
You expect him to successfully advance on a rifle shooter and engage armed only with a pistol? Be realistic.



Shotguns were used, sir, not rifles. And YES, I expected him to advance. Given his position as a peace officer & all those UNARMED folks in the school, he could have engaged closer & at the LEAST stalled them for time & back-up, IMO.

As a CCL holder, I would also assume a higher level of responsibility than a non-holder in the same circumstances. We're talking a SCHOOL here, for christ's sakes!!!!!!!! Please keep in mind, I'm not expecting the cop to walk down the driveway & do some sort of "High Noon" effort.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 4:38:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
They had no idea who was a suspect at that point. Would you, in their shoes?



Uh, like maybe the guys with the guns who were shooting?
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 2:32:23 PM EST

Originally Posted By BobCole:

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
They had no idea who was a suspect at that point. Would you, in their shoes?



Uh, like maybe the guys with the guns who were shooting?


They had no idea as to numbers of opponents; IIRC, they were worried that the shooters were going to try to blend back into the mass of students that were leaving the school. So to the responding officers, EVERYONR in the building was a potential hostile.
As bad as the death toll was, it was nothing compared to what the kids had planned after the propane bomb went off; they planned on leaving the school and indicriminately shooting until they were themselves shot. The SOP of containment that was in place at that time, while not addressing going in and engaging the shooters, at least kept them from executing that part of their plan. Who knows how many more would be dead if that had happened.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 2:36:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 2:37:51 PM EST by tcsd1236]

Originally Posted By BobCole:
Shotguns were used, sir, not rifles. And YES, I expected him to advance. Given his position as a peace officer & all those UNARMED folks in the school, he could have engaged closer & at the LEAST stalled them for time & back-up, IMO.

As a CCL holder, I would also assume a higher level of responsibility than a non-holder in the same circumstances. We're talking a SCHOOL here, for christ's sakes!!!!!!!! Please keep in mind, I'm not expecting the cop to walk down the driveway & do some sort of "High Noon" effort.



"Before the shootings, Harris and Klebold illegally acquired and draztikally modified a TEC-DC9 semi-automatic handgun, a rifle, two sawed-off shotguns, and built 99 improvised explosive devices of various designs and sizes"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Firearms

I distinctly recall that there was a rifle being used by the shooters because one of the SRO's handgun rounds struck the magazine of the weapon, disabling it.

Expecting an officer armed only with a handgun to engage someone armed with a long gun of any type is not tactically sound.

"Please keep in mind, I'm not expecting the cop to walk down the driveway & do some sort of "High Noon" effort"

It certainly sounds like you are.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 2:38:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
TNO, there is no way to prove this to you over the internet, but I'm not just blowing smoke about the Columbia PD's philosophy. After some discussion with the gentleman who wrote the policy, I have adopted it as my own.

If I see someone shooting up the playground across the street from where I work, I'm not going to sit there on the phone telling the 911 dispatch how the kids are getting shot in the back running away from this asshole. I'm going to my car, I'm deploying my car gun, which is a pistol, and I'm advancing and terminating the threat. The PD ballistics team can figure out who was the crazy and who stopped the crazy later on. Most loonies shooting up a playground generally can't shoot for shit, whereas I train "for that day" on a monthly basis with a warrior mentality. If the guy is a Hollywood shootout wannabe and has a full auto AK and a drum mag under it, well that's a damn shame, I'd better take advantage of the element of surprise, and aim for the head. But I'm not going to live the rest of my life remembering how I had a gun in my car and I watched innocent children get murdered because I was afraid to shoot back. I couldn't live with myself.

P.S., did you read the timeline? The 40 minutes that it took SWAT to enter the school was 40 minutes that those bastards roamed around the halls at will, shooting cowering children in the face at point blank range, shooting at propane bottles trying to detonate them, throwing pipe bombs into "locked down" classrooms, and eventually getting so bored with the whole thing that they literally killed each other before ever laying eyes on the aforementioned SWAT team. Dispatch advised that there were shots fired and explosions at 11:21. By 11:31 there are four officers on the scene, all are armed.

At 12:06, using a fire truck as a shield, Simmons' "Tac 6" ad-hoc SWAT team gain entry into the building. 40 minutes, just as you said. 40 minutes is WAY TOO LONG.

Now, if I took my FAL and my buddy Erik took his G3 clone and we went into my wife's middle school and we had free reign to murder helpless, stationary targets for 40 MINUTES while four police officers stood outside and formed a perimeter and "coordinated the situation" (whatever the fuck that means), do you think we could kill more than 13 people? How lucky were the students at Columbine that Harris and Klebold were more interested in going on an adolescent power trip than actually killing a large number of people?

Food for thought, friends.



If this is your policy why dont you get a rifle for the trunk of your car, a cheap SKS would be infinitly better than a pistol.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 5:18:56 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 5:21:36 PM EST by -Duke-Nukem-]

Originally Posted By WI_Rifleman:
If this is your policy why dont you get a rifle for the trunk of your car, a cheap SKS would be infinitly better than a pistol.



That's a good point. I keep the pistol because I want something that I can grab while still in the seat of the car. If you saw the video of the crackhead going nuts with a crowbar on that blue PT cruiser you'll understand why-- by the time you realize you are being attacked, going outside the vehicle and opening up the truck is suicide. Frankly I'm much more concerned with that kind of attack than having a front row seat at the next terror attack or the next Columbine. I'm far more likely to get robbed or carjacked by one of my own clients than anything else.

I have been thinking, for awhile, that something like a Saiga .308 in the trunk would be a good addition. Inexpensive, hard hitting, accurate, and reliable, what's not to like? Well, overpenetration is not to like. That's why I've also been thinking that a cheap old 870 shotgun and a fanny pack full of slugs would be a good option as well. Range of engagement is almost certainly going to be under 75 yards regardless, so a decent slug gun would do fine there. Right now my focus is on changing the gun I already have in the car; I just sold the Hi Power I kept under the seat and I'm going to replace it with something in .45acp, perhaps a Sig P220. For now my Beretta Elite II has been pressed into service as the car gun, but its not ideal, its more of a competition gun than a combat handgun. The long gun may have to wait for awhile.

Anyway, if I ever find myself under fire from some lunatic, I can rest assured knowing that officers like tcsd1236 are hiding behind their cars more than 100 yards away, waiting for the command van to show up and ensuring that all the other people fleeing for their lives are not terrorists or madmen.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 5:24:48 PM EST

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
Anyway, if I ever find myself under fire from some lunatic, I can rest assured knowing that officers like tcsd1236 are hiding behind their cars more than 100 yards away, waiting for the command van to show up and ensuring that all the other people fleeing for their lives are not terrorists or madmen.


I'm certain I'll be doing more than you, since I suspect that for all of your internet bravado, you'd be worthless when the threat became anything more than an internet speculation.
And we have no command van.
If those officers had allowed the shooters to escape in the rush of bodies, you'd be criticizing them for not being more diligent in checking. I suspect that nothing would satisfy you.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 5:30:32 PM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By -Duke-Nukem-:
Anyway, if I ever find myself under fire from some lunatic, I can rest assured knowing that officers like tcsd1236 are hiding behind their cars more than 100 yards away, waiting for the command van to show up and ensuring that all the other people fleeing for their lives are not terrorists or madmen.


I'm certain I'll be doing more than you, since I suspect that for all of your internet bravado, you'd be worthless when the threat became anything more than an internet speculation.
And we have no command van.
If those officers had allowed the shooters to escape in the rush of bodies, you'd be criticizing them for not being more diligent in checking. I suspect that nothing would satisfy you.



Choose your battles. If it is internet bravado, you won't convince him of it.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 5:34:05 PM EST

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
Choose your battles. If it is internet bravado, you won't convince him of it.


I am sure. I just love how he beats his chest telling us all what a brave little person he is.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 5:47:04 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/31/2004 7:03:15 PM EST by -Duke-Nukem-]

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:

Originally Posted By The_Neutral_Observer:
Choose your battles. If it is internet bravado, you won't convince him of it.


I am sure. I just love how he beats his chest telling us all what a brave little person he is.



Hey bud, I don't have to prove anything to you, I'm just another scumbag lawyer putting criminals back out onto the street. Maybe I am all talk and no walk, I can't prove otherwise now and I hope I never HAVE to prove otherwise. I'm not going to tell you that I'm some kind of badass, I'm 20 pounds overweight and I have athsma. On the other hand I practice with my firearms more than any LEO I've met save one, and I have no reason to believe I would hesitate at the moment of truth. Bravery doesn't come into it at all, in fact its quite beside the point.

But we have learned what at least one LEO thinks the proper response is to a situation like Columbine, and its been very informative. We'll let the other folks who read through this thread decide if yours is the correct response, and if I'm some kind of Rambo wannabe with delusions of grandeur. But I certainly don't think I've given that impression, except to a self-righteous cop who thinks my duty as a civilian is to cower defenseless as he calls for backup.
Link Posted: 10/31/2004 7:02:14 PM EST
Link Posted: 11/1/2004 1:57:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By tcsd1236:
Expecting an officer armed only with a handgun to engage someone armed with a long gun of any type is not tactically sound.

"Please keep in mind, I'm not expecting the cop to walk down the driveway & do some sort of "High Noon" effort"

It certainly sounds like you are.



Perhaps not "tactically sound", but we ARE speaking about a school full of kids, sir. But, hey, the cop went home ok, right? And that's what really counts, right?
Top Top