I looked at this timeline of the Orlando massacre and I have to admit to being puzzled. From the time that Asswipe began shooting to the time that the police revoked his O2 permit was three hours.
That sounds a little like Columbine. The lesson that the police experts learned from Columbine was that sitting around outside and containing the situation was not a good option. The killers got to shoot more people and people who could have lived bled out and died. The thinking seems to be that the first cops on the scene grab their go-bars (or "war-bags") and attack.
In Orlando, Asswipe had the time to go online and see what was being said on Facebook. He washed his hands and used the hand-dryer.
If the idea in response to an active shooter scenario is to go in fast and kill the shooter before more people are either shot or die from their wounds, then why was this not done in Orlando?
Sharing Is Caring — But Often A Pain
1 hour ago
3 comments:
I think we all know the reason. (I may be wrong, but cops would have to work very, very hard to make me change my mind about them, at this point.)
Had they known at the time that the killer was of darker skin, and of middle-eastern name, they'd have been torn between wanting to be heroes, and letting him continue his work.
You're absolutely right, comrade.
After the massacre at L'Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal (bet you can't guess the religion of the shooter or the gender of his victims), the Montreal police changed their policy. Instead of containing the situation, the police head to the sounds of gunfire. At L'Ecole Polytechnique, 14 people died, many while the police were establishing a perimeter, while at Dawson College where police immediately engaged the shooter only one died.
I think the concept of containing the situation is a legacy of the '70s when terrorists wanted hostages in order to negotiate rather than wanting to run up the body count.
Al_in_Ottawa
The official line, at this point, is the killer suggested he had explosives.
Post a Comment