# Stopping Active Shooters (mass murders that is)



## Deaf Smith (Apr 9, 2009)

Here is an excellent article on why if's necessary for the first responding officer or civilian to immediately engage any active shooter.

http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...ctive-killers/

A few high points:

 98% of active killers act alone. 

 80% have long guns, 75% have multiple weapons (about 3 per incident), and they sometimes bring hundreds of extra rounds of ammunition to the shooting site. 

 Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%. 

 They strike stunned, defenseless innocents via surprise ambush. On a level playing field, the typical active killer would be a no-contest against anyone reasonably capable of defending themselves. 

 They absolutely control life and death until they stop at their leisure or are stopped. They do not take hostages, do not negotiate. 

 They generally try to avoid police, do not hide or lie in wait for officers and typically fold quickly upon armed confrontation. 

 90% commit suicide on-site. Surrender or escape attempts are unlikely. 

Deaf


----------



## grydth (Apr 9, 2009)

I think you are right, but it is asking an incredible amount of courage from the LEOs. 

The officer who alone faced down the shooter at the Rest Home saved uncounted lives with his single shot to the maniac's chest..... the Binghamton area police - like the Columbine police -  are under severe criticism for waiting around outside for quite some time.

But not every nutty killer fits the mold, as 3 dead police officers in PA sadly shows. That killer was waiting in ambush for them, and then shot the back up responders as well.


----------



## Carol (Apr 9, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> &#8226; Despite such heavy armaments and an obsession with murder at close range, they have an average hit rate of less than 50%.



Meaning, they have an average kill rate of less than 50%.  Trouble with that is, not being killed doesn't mean everything is OK.  Could mean permanent injury, a lifetime of pain, years of rehab, and/or an inability to earn a living.

Tough call to make.   I really feel for the men and women that get faced with such a choice.


----------



## Thesemindz (Apr 9, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Meaning, they have an average kill rate of less than 50%. Trouble with that is, not being killed doesn't mean everything is OK. Could mean permanent injury, a lifetime of pain, years of rehab, and/or an inability to earn a living.


 
From my reading of the article, it doesn't mean kill rate. It means hit rate. Meaning that around half of the rounds fired don't hit people at all. 

This would be inconsistent with what I've read in regards to armed conflicts. According to the research I've done, _police_ have a hit ratio of roughly 34 percent. This would mean that mass murderers are actually much better shots than the police dispatched to deal with them.

Of course, that's an unfair comparison. The police officer is probably firing at someone who is firing back, and who is engaged in evasive maneuvers. The mass murderer is probably firing into packed crowds or at prone victims at extremely close range. And even under those circumstances, he can only hit his victims about half the time.

You're right, it is a tough situation. But when one takes up arms on the behalf of the state one takes up responsibilities as well.


-Rob


----------



## grydth (Apr 9, 2009)

The police officer is restricted by various laws and by consideration for innocents, The nutty mass killer, like his cockroach terrorist cousins, has no such worries.

The low hit rate didn't seem to mean much in Binghamton... he seemed to keep shooting until he killed people. By contrast, the PA gunman was deadly at close range, as the Oakland killer also was.


----------



## MA-Caver (Apr 9, 2009)

I haven't worked out any type of scenario where if someone at my job site (a public tourist attraction -- we netted over 2500 people just today and expect 3000 tomorrow  ) ... if someone just goes nuts and starts shooting... it largely depends where they're at, at the time and where I'm at at the time. 
If they're in the cave (it's a tourist cave) they can wreak a lot of havoc because it's a narrow canyon type passages with only one way in and one way out... a person could conceivably walk through the entire cave and shoot people who would not have anywhere else to go. 
And the probability of someone being a CWC would be very remote. 

I just don't know... 

Above ground well... basically throw things at them... anything, everything, chairs, books whatever... send a barrage of items fast enough that they're just too busy to fend off what's being tossed at them to shoot. 
Fighting back until the police arrives might help reduce the casualty rate.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 9, 2009)

Here in Texas you can use deadly force to protect an innocent third party, PC 9.33 (and I'm real sure these mass murders would qualify.) But, you are still open to civil lawsuits (wrongful death PC 9.06.) Plus in PC 9.05 below if you kill an innocent third party.

*Sec. 9.05.  RECKLESS INJURY OF INNOCENT THIRD PERSON.  Even though an actor is justified under this chapter in threatening or using force or deadly force against another, if in doing so he also recklessly injures or kills an innocent third person, the justification afforded by this chapter is unavailable in a prosecution for the reckless injury or killing of the innocent third person.*

Now what this means is, if say at the local high school which you are visiting to pick up your kids, and you hear gunfire and screaming, and you go in with your weapon, you are taking a big chance as you don't have the immunity the police have.

Now I'm not saying to run away, but just make sure you are skilled and realize the dangers. I hope and pray I have the guts to go in, and according to the study I posted you actually have a good chance if you keep your cool. But you and I can still wind up in a world of hurt.

Even if you succeed, it isn't over yet!

Now let's say you terminate the monster(s). The cops will be coming real soon (if they are not there now.) I strongly suggest you put the gun up and act like a terrorized teacher until things are sorted out. It would be real easy for the police to think YOU are the gunman and open fire.

This goes double if it's a workplace massicer since everyone is probably an adult and they will look real carefully as to if anyone is the shooter.

Deaf


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 10, 2009)

grydth said:


> I think you are right, but it is asking an incredible amount of courage from the LEOs.
> 
> The officer who alone faced down the shooter at the Rest Home saved uncounted lives with his single shot to the maniac's chest..... the Binghamton area police - like the Columbine police -  are under severe criticism for waiting around outside for quite some time.
> 
> But not every nutty killer fits the mold, as 3 dead police officers in PA sadly shows. That killer was waiting in ambush for them, and then shot the back up responders as well.



Well, the guy in PA wasn't actually a mass-murder, he was an ambush attacker of responding officers......so yes, he doesn't fit the mold......he's a different type of killer.

And where you are at a disadvantage with an ambusher is the fact that you don't know there's a real threat until you're in the kill zone.......undetected movement for total surprise on the enemy.

With an active shooter you know there's a threat, you have a good general idea where it is, you know it's armed, and you know that your response must include speed, surprise and violence of action.


And any officer who lacks the courage to enter a building to find and neutralize an active shooter trying to kill people should hang up their badge and do something else for a living......because at the end of the day, all of our multiple busy projects and programs and little jobs that society has given us, from crossing guard to DARE......are really just that, busy work.  Confronting bad men and running toward the sound of the guns is what our job REALLY is!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 10, 2009)

Carol Kaur said:


> Meaning, they have an average kill rate of less than 50%.  Trouble with that is, not being killed doesn't mean everything is OK.  Could mean permanent injury, a lifetime of pain, years of rehab, and/or an inability to earn a living.
> 
> Tough call to make.   I really feel for the men and women that get faced with such a choice.



What it actually means is that they hit what they are shooting at less than 50% of the time........but these men are cowards when confronted by active resistance, especially armed resistance.

In numerous incidents of mass shooters and would be mass shooters, when confronted by a tangible threat, many mass shooters have surrendered without a fight, despite statements that they wanted to die.

There is a common mindset among mass-shooters.......they are doing this based on a sense of empowerment.......by shooting people, they are, in essence, finding power that they feel lacking in their normal life.  Most of these folks had difficulty dealing with other people in their lives, and were mostly passive aggressive, and avoided confrontation.

That nature is still present in their personalities, and when confronted by AGGRESSIVE response, many of them fold under the pressure........they want prey, easy prey that runs, and hides and responds in a manner that they envision.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 10, 2009)

grydth said:


> The police officer is restricted by various laws and by consideration for innocents, The nutty mass killer, like his cockroach terrorist cousins, has no such worries.
> 
> The low hit rate didn't seem to mean much in Binghamton... he seemed to keep shooting until he killed people. By contrast, the PA gunman was deadly at close range, as the Oakland killer also was.



I hope it doesn't appear as though i'm splitting hairs here, but it's VERY important to point out, again, a fact that many folks don't understand.  You have two entirely separate and distinct types of murderers here......the media is lumping them together, but they are quite distinct.

The Binghampton shooter represents the classic mass murderer.......he picks a location where he can shoot as many people as possible, body count is his objective.  He's typically a loaner, with significant social problems, and the mass shooting is the carrying out of a fantasy of empowerment.  He likely has been in no trouble or only minor trouble with the law, is described by his neighbors and 'quiet' and unassuming.  He's probably not considered a violent person by those he knows.   He's recently suffered a stressor or series of stressors that have acted as a trigger.  This person will always pick easy targets, in large numbers.

The PA and Oakland gunmen represent an entirely different kind of killer.  They didn't plan out the initial contact with the police, but they had prepared for it.  People like this tend to have long standing problems with violence.  They know weapons, and how to use them.  They are often anti-social, may have a long criminal history, frequent run-in's with the police.  They dislike authority.  They may be paranoid or even mentally ill.  The encounter that triggered their violent outburst wasn't likely planned, it occurred by shear happenstance.....but they had prepared for it, and ambushed the police at a moment of their choosing.

Of the two types, the first is most dangerous to the public, but least dangerous to the police.  The second type is less dangerous to the public, and far more dangerous to the police.  

The first type will generally avoid the police, and will either kill themselves or surrender.  They generally won't try and force the police to shoot them.  They actually tend to fold when confronted by violence themselves, and will often kill themselves to avoid a violent confrontation.

The second type almost ALWAYS will attempt to engage the police if they can, and will kill any officer they can.  They will generally end up being shot to death by the police, and only occasionally will they surrender.  They actually relish the violent confrontation with the police, and tend to have a 'Blaze of Glory' mentality.


----------



## Carol (Apr 10, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> What it actually means is that they hit what they are shooting at less than 50% of the time........but these men are cowards when confronted by active resistance, especially armed resistance.
> 
> In numerous incidents of mass shooters and would be mass shooters, when confronted by a tangible threat, many mass shooters have surrendered without a fight, despite statements that they wanted to die.
> 
> ...



That makes a lot more sense now.

There is a shooting that happened recently that was eventually stopped by a lone officer, the shooting that occurred in the Carthage, NC nursing home.  Sadly 7 elderly residents and one nurse lost their lives before the shooter was apprehended by 25 y.o. Officer Justin Garner.  The gunman's estranged wife worked at the nursing home.   

Officer Garner had no backup because.....he was the only officer on duty that Sunday morning.  Thanks to him, the horrible events weren't worse than they were.  :asian:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hYM_TRnSNsV2T4VhX8qTgdczOoQwD97D2IQ00


----------



## chinto (Apr 10, 2009)

in my state you can use deadly force to protect another, but also you can still be sued.

however if caught in such a situation with a mass murderer hunting you, no way out.. what have you to loose. like with a Terrorist, go for broke, leave your scruples at home. use maximum force, go for the throat and finish it for keeps.  it will be your life of the attackers. so decide who will live and act on it.


----------



## Drac (Apr 10, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> And any officer who lacks the courage to enter a building to find and neutralize an active shooter trying to kill people should hang up their badge and do something else for a living......because at the end of the day, all of our multiple busy projects and programs and little jobs that society has given us, from crossing guard to DARE......are really just that, busy work. Confronting bad men and running toward the sound of the guns is what our job REALLY is!


 
*AMEN brother*..One of the police Chief up here is against a single officer entering a bldg alone...Me, I'm going in..


----------



## blindsage (Apr 10, 2009)

Deaf Smith said:


> Here is an excellent article on why if's necessary for the first responding officer or civilian to immediately engage any active shooter.


 
No where in this article does the author codone civilians engaging the active shooter.  Whether it's a good idea or not is a different question, but this article does not support or condone it, and it shouldn't be inferred that it does.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 10, 2009)

Here's the first part of the "Stopwatch of death" article by Ron Borsch that was mentioned in the article from the OP.
http://www.policeone.com/police-tec...onse/articles/1349058-The-Stopwatch-of-Death/

I've actually seen his full report but am having trouble finding it...


----------



## Guardian (Apr 10, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I hope it doesn't appear as though i'm splitting hairs here, but it's VERY important to point out, again, a fact that many folks don't understand. You have two entirely separate and distinct types of murderers here......the media is lumping them together, but they are quite distinct.
> 
> The Binghampton shooter represents the classic mass murderer.......he picks a location where he can shoot as many people as possible, body count is his objective. He's typically a loaner, with significant social problems, and the mass shooting is the carrying out of a fantasy of empowerment. He likely has been in no trouble or only minor trouble with the law, is described by his neighbors and 'quiet' and unassuming. He's probably not considered a violent person by those he knows. He's recently suffered a stressor or series of stressors that have acted as a trigger. This person will always pick easy targets, in large numbers.
> 
> ...


 
Thanks SgtMac, been along time since this training, good to see it again.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Drac said:


> *AMEN brother*..One of the police Chief up here is against a single officer entering a bldg alone...Me, I'm going in..



Going in to harms way so that others may live is what we signed up for.


----------



## seasoned (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Well, the guy in PA wasn't actually a mass-murder, he was an ambush attacker of responding officers......so yes, he doesn't fit the mold......he's a different type of killer.
> 
> And where you are at a disadvantage with an ambusher is the fact that you don't know there's a real threat until you're in the kill zone.......undetected movement for total surprise on the enemy.
> 
> ...



Aman to that SGT.


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> because at the end of the day, all of our multiple busy projects and programs and little jobs that society has given us, from crossing guard to DARE......are really just that, busy work. Confronting bad men and running toward the sound of the guns is what our job REALLY is!


 
As much as I wish this were the case, the Supreme Court disagrees...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> As much as I wish this were the case, the Supreme Court disagrees...


You're confusing the supreme court decision that said that an officer has no duty to any INDIVIDUAL with the fact that we don't have a sworn duty to the public at large.

Let me clarify....JUST because we can't be sued by a lawyer for not doing it, DOES NOT mean we don't have a moral and ethical commitment of HONOR to attempt to do so.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Guardian (Apr 11, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> You're confusing the supreme court decision that said that an officer has no duty to any INDIVIDUAL with the fact that we don't have a sworn duty to the public at large.
> 
> Let me clarify....JUST because we can't be sued by a lawyer for not doing it, DOES NOT mean we don't have a moral and ethical commitment of HONOR to attempt to do so.
> 
> Hope that helps.


 
To further illustrate this point, if you don't try for my city, you won't be working here long considering that is why you were hired by the city, as stated they might not be able to sue, but they sure as heck can release you from duty if your don't do yours.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 11, 2009)

Anyway..the SC made that decision so that every person who fell victim to crime couldn't claim that the police failed in their duty to protect them because they didnt get there fast enough...couldnt find them...etc. It wasnt to define the role of police which is to protect and serve the public...not any individual.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 11, 2009)

Guardian said:


> To further illustrate this point, if you don't try for my city, you won't be working here long considering that is why you were hired by the city, as stated they might not be able to sue, but they sure as heck can release you from duty if your don't do yours.



Exactly...and SHOULD be released.

Our policy manual refers to cowardice specifically, as i'm sure most do.


----------



## KenpoTex (Apr 12, 2009)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Our policy manual refers to cowardice specifically, as i'm sure most do.



Are you free to elaborate on that a little more?  I'm curious as to the type of language used?


----------



## Drac (Apr 12, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Are you free to elaborate on that a little more? I'm curious as to the type of language used?


 
Ohhhh, the stories I could tell..I hope this thread remain active for a few months..When I am offically retired I can tell a few...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 12, 2009)

KenpoTex said:


> Are you free to elaborate on that a little more?  I'm curious as to the type of language used?



Under our Standards of Conduct policy, one of the acts considered sufficient for suspension or discharge is 

'For cowardice or lack of energy which may be construed as either incompetence or neglect of duty.'

I'm sure that's pretty standard for most department policy manuals.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 12, 2009)

While people tend to focus on the big events like active shooters as examples of  "police courage"...they tend to take for granted the "everyday events" like going into burglarized buildings to look for bad guys, chasing armed robbery suspects through yards at "O dark thirty", stopping stolen cars not knowing if the occupant is armed, enter homes on domestic calls wondering if this one is going to be an ambush and countless other examples...Id like to know how often the "antis" who smirk and mock cops have to "suck it up" and go into situations like those on a regular basis?

Or even once.


----------



## Drac (Apr 12, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> While people tend to focus on the big events like active shooters as examples of "police courage"...they tend to take for granted the "everyday events" like going into burglarized buildings to look for bad guys, chasing armed robbery suspects through yards at "O dark thirty", stopping stolen cars not knowing if the occupant is armed, enter homes on domestic calls wondering if this one is going to be an ambush and countless other examples...Id like to know how often the "antis" who smirk and mock cops have to "suck it up" and go into situations like those on a regular basis?
> 
> Or even once.


 
They dont...That's why they make those asinine comments....


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 12, 2009)

I also wonder about the "well thats what we pay you guys for" types...the ones that always crop up at contract negotiation times to gripe about how "overpaid" we are. How much would they expect to be paid if they were asked to go into a house looking for a cop killer with an AK47? Not that we do it for the money, or that I expect to be paid more than is fair, but how much would a "joe on the street" ask for if they were expected to do some of these things?

The same can be said for our soldiers, who get paid a pittance to lay down their lives for our country...while athletes, entertainers and media "talking heads" rake in million dollar contracts.

Not to mention lawyers....


----------



## chinto (Apr 12, 2009)

Drac said:


> *AMEN brother*..One of the police Chief up here is against a single officer entering a bldg alone...Me, I'm going in..




Yep that is a cops job!  just as if its he shoots and an innocent will die, but if he does not shoot he will die, and only him.. then its his job to take the round.    cops = Peace Officer.   Not some kind of accountant.


----------



## Guardian (Apr 13, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> I also wonder about the "well thats what we pay you guys for" types...the ones that always crop up at contract negotiation times to gripe about how "overpaid" we are. How much would they expect to be paid if they were asked to go into a house looking for a cop killer with an AK47? Not that we do it for the money, or that I expect to be paid more than is fair, but how much would a "joe on the street" ask for if they were expected to do some of these things?
> 
> The same can be said for our soldiers, who get paid a pittance to lay down their lives for our country...while athletes, entertainers and media "talking heads" rake in million dollar contracts.
> 
> Not to mention lawyers....


 

I really dislike those statements also Archangel, they drive me crazy.  As a retired Military Cop, I didn't get into half as many stressful situations except for the War as a regular beat cop, so I'm a strong support of our Police Force, but at the same time, I'm a strong supporter of do your job and sure you can't protect everyone, but don't throw the SC ruling up as a defense, because the individual is the public and the public is the individual, they are one (not you archangel) just an example, to many times I have heard the SC ruling used to justify laziness and just downright being worthless.  It was a ruling to stop lawsuits pure and simple, there were no other words to use to put the emphasis on the ruling considering that's who it dealt with.  

I concur though as for 20 years and a war I did the Military duties.  This country definitely has it's values upside down in my view also.


----------



## Deaf Smith (Apr 13, 2009)

I am not expecting a policeman, or anyone, to do something suicidal like charge across a machinegun swept field. Nor am I expecting a policeman, by himself, to go against several heavily armed men at once.

But, in a active shooter situation, I think a cop, or civilian, if they use the right tactics, will have a CHANCE, a fair chance, of pulling it off.

There have been several cases where active shooters were confronted with a armed policeman or civilian.

One was the Texas Tower Shooting. Were Charles Whitman got some rifles and went on top of the UT tower and started shooting people.

The ones going up the stairs were not a SWAT team. But they banded together to go after the gunman who was still shooting. And they didn&#8217;t wait for SWAT!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman


Tacoma Mall shooting. Brandon (Dan) McKown tried to stop a shooter with his CZ CCW pistol. Unfortunately he first challenged him to drop his gun (bad mistake.) Maldonado (the mall shooter's) response was to fire on McKown, striking him once in the leg and four times in the torso, damaging McKown's spine and leaving him paralyzed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacoma_Mall_shooting

The Tyler Courthouse incident where a Tyler Police Detective, Two Smith County Sheriff's Deputies were injured and CCW holder Mark Wilson was killed by David Hernandez Arroyo, Sr. 

http://www.kltv.com/global/story.asp?S=2994393


And here is a personal account of an officer who shopped an active shooter.

http://www.thetacticalwire.com/feature.html?featureID=3593

Deaf


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 13, 2009)

chinto said:


> Yep that is a cops job!  just as if its he shoots and an innocent will die, but if he does not shoot he will die, and only him.. then its his job to take the round.    cops = Peace Officer.   Not some kind of accountant.



No -- it's not.  The cop's job is not to STUPIDLY and BLINDLY charge into danger.  Nothing in my job description reads "get shot" or "get hit."  But -- if I can, with reasonable regard to both my own safety and that of others, and a reasonable likelihood of reducing innocent deaths, make entry alone or with just one partner -- I'm doing it.  Getting shot, getting hit, and even just being involved in a crash is a risk of the job -- but it's not a job task.

And, while I'm at it, it's not a firefighter's job to go up in flames, either.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

chinto said:


> Yep that is a cops job!  just as if its he shoots and an innocent will die, but if he does not shoot he will die, and only him.. then its his job to take the round.    cops = Peace Officer.   Not some kind of accountant.



Actually I don't plan on taking a round for anyone.....my plan is to put rounds on target, and neutralize the threat with the right mix of speed, surprise and violence of action.  But the point is the same.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Apr 15, 2009)

jks9199 said:


> No -- it's not.  The cop's job is not to STUPIDLY and BLINDLY charge into danger.  Nothing in my job description reads "get shot" or "get hit."  But -- if I can, with reasonable regard to both my own safety and that of others, and a reasonable likelihood of reducing innocent deaths, make entry alone or with just one partner -- I'm doing it.  Getting shot, getting hit, and even just being involved in a crash is a risk of the job -- but it's not a job task.
> 
> And, while I'm at it, it's not a firefighter's job to go up in flames, either.


 I agree with the 'not to STUPIDLY' part......but it is a job risk, even if it's not written.  Just as a fireman will go in to a burning building after a screaming child (even if he's perfectly justified in not doing so) the same holds true for cops......the same thing that drives us to carry a gun for a living, compels us to run toward the sound of the guns.......it's still about honor!



> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]_"Honor                                     never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart                                     of age. It does so because honor is, finally,                                     about defending those noble and worthy things                                     that deserve defending, even if it comes                                     at a high cost. In our time, that may mean                                     social disapproval, public scorn, hardship,                                     persecution, or as always, even death itself.
> The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for?" -William Bennett _


_
_[/FONT]


----------



## MR. SERNA (Jun 29, 2022)

Deaf Smith said:


> Here is an excellent article on why if's necessary for the first responding officer or civilian to immediately engage any active shooter.
> 
> http://www.policeone.com/active-shoo...ctive-killers/
> 
> ...


Unfortunately these statistics speak volumes to the new generation of evil doers who commit these horrific crimes. 

One thing for sure there is good and evil in the world. One must be aware of this fact and be aware of your surroundings, and be prepared.

Mr. Serna


----------



## drop bear (Jun 29, 2022)

Old thread. But it seems like a huge jump to go from those statistics to that conclusion.


----------



## MR. SERNA (Jun 30, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Old thread. But it seems like a huge jump to go from those statistics to that conclusion.


Here in Seattle the criminals are battling every night shooting and killing each other and innocent bystanders, this was not the case 20 years ago.

I failed to state that as my experience. What is note worthy is the brazen acts of violence against both the police and civilians. Quite disturbing.

Mr. Serna


----------



## drop bear (Jun 30, 2022)

MR. SERNA said:


> Here in Seattle the criminals are battling every night shooting and killing each other and innocent bystanders, this was not the case 20 years ago.
> 
> I failed to state that as my experience. What is note worthy is the brazen acts of violence against both the police and civilians. Quite disturbing.
> 
> Mr. Serna



Sorry. That conclusion as in going in to a building to stop a shooter isn't really as risky as it sounds and is the best method. 

Yeah. Not arguing Seattle isn't a crap hole.


----------



## Steve (Jun 30, 2022)

MR. SERNA said:


> Unfortunately these statistics speak volumes to the new generation of evil doers who commit these horrific crimes.
> 
> One thing for sure there is good and evil in the world. One must be aware of this fact and be aware of your surroundings, and be prepared.
> 
> Mr. Serna


I guess it depends on where in Seattle you lived.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 30, 2022)

MR. SERNA said:


> Here in Seattle the criminals are battling every night shooting and killing each other and innocent bystanders, this was not the case 20 years ago.
> 
> I failed to state that as my experience. What is note worthy is the brazen acts of violence against both the police and civilians. Quite disturbing.
> 
> Mr. Serna


I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend. 




__





						Seattle WA Murder/Homicide Rate 1999-2018
					

Interactive chart of the Seattle, Washington murder rate (i.e. the number of homicides per 100,000 population) from 1999 to 2018.




					www.macrotrends.net
				



Violent crime and assault are pretty much where they were 20 years ago.


----------



## lklawson (Jun 30, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Violent crime in the U.S. over all has been trending downward for somewhere around the last 3 decades; murder, assault, everything.   "For some reason" it took a serious uptick in 2021.   

However, it looks like it's going to be going down again.  Probably not immediately below 2020 levels but it looks like it's trending back down from that blip.  We'll see what this summer holds, but I'm betting we don't see the same mass violence this summer that we did last.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jun 30, 2022)

Lies, dam lies and statistics.
People need to be really careful reading numbers and statistics and then drawing conclusions. Homicide rates are not the same as violent crime rates. Homicide rates have gone down over the years, that is true but this is predominantly due to improvements in medicine and hospital care. The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot. 
Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf (Jun 30, 2022)

hoshin1600 said:


> The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.
> Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.


Untrue, based on the link from above. Violent crime in the US was at 523 crimes per 100,000 people in the year 1999, with a fairly steady decrease, and reached 381 crimes per 100k people in 2018 (last year it takes). For just aggravated assault, those numbers went from 334 in 1999 with again a fairly steady decrease until it reached 247 crimes per 100k in 2018.

Admittedly, it does not mention specifically aggravated assault with a firearm, so I had to look elsewhere for that. I found two things, one chart going over the rate of nonfatal firearm victimization from 1993 to 2011, where it decreased from 7.3 per 1000 people in 93, to 1.8 per 1000 people in 2011. 
The second one was a flat number of in-patient hospital visits for firearms from 2000 to 2015, just to get a bit closer to us. The number there stayed pretty much the same, hovering between 30,000 and 35,000 people each year, which indicates that the percentage there also went down a tiny bit since the population had a 14% increase during that time. 

Sadly, I wasn't able to find anything more recent regarding nonfatal, violent gun crimes. Everything else was either talking about fatal crimes, comparing crime rates between the US and other countries, nonviolent gun crimes, or school shootings. Nothing else about the specific type of gun crime you referenced, by year within the US. If you had a source for where you found that those numbers have increased I'd be interested, as what I found does not align with that (unless they've really increased the last 7 years).


----------



## lklawson (Jul 1, 2022)

hoshin1600 said:


> Lies, dam lies and statistics.


That only matters if you actually look at the statistics instead of assuming them.



hoshin1600 said:


> People need to be really careful reading numbers and statistics and then drawing conclusions.


People need to be really careful to actually find numbers and statistics first.  You didn't.



hoshin1600 said:


> Homicide rates are not the same as violent crime rates. Homicide rates have gone down over the years, that is true but this is predominantly due to improvements in medicine and hospital care. The numbers you want to look at is actual shootings and violent crime with a firearm. These numbers have increased a lot.


I didn't write "homicides."  I wrote "violent crime."  And violent crime, over all, as a class, has been declining for 30 years.  Medical aid has nothing to do with it.













						Reported violent crime rate in the U.S. 2021 | Statista
					

In 2021, the violent crime rate in the United States was 395.7 cases per 100,000 of the population.




					www.statista.com
				












						Violent Crime Drops Again
					

Violent Crime Drops Again by Kirk Lawson    Violent Crime has dropped again, but you probably did not hear about it.  The FBI's Uniform Crime Report (UCR) shows that Violent Crime rates have fallen yet again. This time, they dropped 3.9% in 2018, continuing a downward slide. On the "10 year...




					www.hipointfirearmsforums.com
				






hoshin1600 said:


> Conclusion: more people being shot but less people dieing from those gun shots.


Sorry, but your conclusion is not based on actual data.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## mograph (Jul 1, 2022)

Here's what Pew has to say:

slightly over half of US gun deaths (54%) are suicides
a record number of Americans (an absolute number) died of gun-related injuries (murders + suicides) in 2020
the rate (absolute/population) has fallen (since the absolute number has risen, that means that the population has risen faster)
79% of murder involve a gun, 53% of suicides involved a gun
the US gun fatality rate (number/pop) is high among developed countries  (e.g. five times that of Canada), but not as high as in some Latin American countries
the number of "active shooting" (definition below) incidents in the the US has been increasing









						What the data says about gun deaths in the U.S.
					

In 2020, the U.S. experienced a record number of gun murders, as well as a near-record number of gun suicides.




					www.pewresearch.org


----------



## MR. SERNA (Jul 1, 2022)

Steve said:


> I guess it depends on where in Seattle you l





Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And it worse now. The current data reflects record numbers.

So sad, Seattle is such a beautiful place.

Mr. Serna


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 1, 2022)

lklawson said:


> People need to be really careful to actually find numbers and statistics first. You didn't.


Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
My point was...  people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.


----------



## MR. SERNA (Jul 1, 2022)

hoshin1600 said:


> Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
> My point was...  people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
> Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.


I agree.

Anytime you are dealing with data one needs to break it down and extrapolate the raw data into data you can use depending on your argument. (Argument means debate)
The data become real when you line up gang warfare,  accidental, legal self defense, terrorist, random and so on. You need to do this in order for your argument to have merit.

Otherwise you do not have a viable argument, and you are then parroting the news. Which is no longer news it is broadcasting because they do not clarify or retract. The news follows political diatribe and present it as facts and data.

Mr. Serna


----------



## hoshin1600 (Jul 2, 2022)

Moving back to the op and the article. While I do not agree mass shooting perpetrators are easy to handle, I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up.  We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors.  This would also take all levels of government and the public at large too. In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.


----------



## O'Malley (Jul 5, 2022)

Stumbled upon this video, I'll post it here since the thread on kids getting shot is closed. Can't comment on whether everything's correct as I don't practice US law. 

I remember reading here that the solution to school shootings is to tell police (including the SRO) to engage the armed murderer. However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene:


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2022)

O'Malley said:


> Stumbled upon this video, I'll post it here since the thread on kids getting shot is closed. Can't comment on whether everything's correct as I don't practice US law.
> 
> I remember reading here that the solution to school shootings is to tell police (including the SRO) to engage the armed murderer. However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene:



Do you guys have this whole right to a safe work environment thing?


----------



## O'Malley (Jul 5, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Do you guys have this whole right to a safe work environment thing?


Don't know. I'm in Europe and we have very different laws and traditions compared to the US. For example, it's taken for granted that the state can be sued for failing to protect individuals threatened by third parties. 

But from what I understand, it can't be done in the US, as confirmed by a 2020 ruling on one of the recent shootings.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 5, 2022)

hoshin1600 said:


> Maybe I didn't make my point clear. That is what i was doing, making a point with a comment. What I wasn't doing is debating your numbers. For stats, like yourself I like to use the FBI , UCR. Admittedly I haven't needed to look up stats in a few years maybe 10. Time goes by fast. But if I was debating numbers I would have presented some.
> My point was...  people need to know what they are looking at, when dealing with statistical data. Any anti 2A person could with Google can find data saying gun crime is on the rise. While a 2A advocate can find just the opposite.
> Number of gun shot victims is not the same as deaths. Number of gun related deaths often include suicide and victims shot by law enforcement while committing a crime. The number of mass shootings often include gang related crimes where multiple people are shot from both gangs. My point is and was that people need to know how the data was gathered and the breakdown on those numbers. Otherwise incorrect conclusions could be made.


Then perhaps I misunderstood what you were communicating.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jul 5, 2022)

hoshin1600 said:


> I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up.  We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors.


Well, yes.  The paradigm shifted with Columbine from a stand-off with hostages to something "new."  That was 23 years ago now and it seems that the message still hasn't reached some places.  




hoshin1600 said:


> In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.


This sentiment has been growing.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jul 5, 2022)

O'Malley said:


> However, police don't seem to have any legal obligation to intervene


SCOTUS has ruled, quite definitively, multiple times now, that the police have no legal requirement to protect any one in particular.  Their obligation is to the public in general. 

That said, the public seems to have zero tolerance for cops waiting around in this situation.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Buka (Jul 5, 2022)

hoshin1600 said:


> Moving back to the op and the article. While I do not agree mass shooting perpetrators are easy to handle, I do believe officers should be trained to engage without back up.  We should have learned this in the past but again in Uvalde an officer was present even before the the killer entered the school. Uvalde was a failure on every level. I believe single officers should be taught to engage for many reasons not the least of which is psychological. Officers need to be trained to make that decision for when it's "go time" and that should be when shots are fired. But its not just the single officer, department policy needed to be aligned as well as superiors.  This would also take all levels of government and the public at large too. In Uvalde the superiors in charge would not give the go ahead to engage. Administration will be held to account for mistakes regardless of the decisions made. The policy has to give officers the green light or Administration will be held accountable for not following policy.


All of the police officers in Uvalde who waited while children were slaughtered are members of a unique group. Devout cowards. May karma get them all.


----------



## drop bear (Jul 5, 2022)

lklawson said:


> SCOTUS has ruled, quite definitively, multiple times now, that the police have no legal requirement to protect any one in particular.  Their obligation is to the public in general.
> 
> That said, the public seems to have zero tolerance for cops waiting around in this situation.
> 
> ...



Do any first responders have this obligation?


----------



## lklawson (Jul 6, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Do any first responders have this obligation?


I don't recall any cases for Fire/EMS but I doubt it.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 6, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Do any first responders have this obligation?


No.


----------



## Buka (Jul 6, 2022)

drop bear said:


> Do any first responders have this obligation?


I've found there are differences in various departments, states, counties etc. It seems things have changed or morphed over the years. That being said, the way I came up, we were taught we are Peace Officers and that one of our main duties was to keep the peace. We took an oath, that we took seriously, to serve and protect, to help people.

I always felt I had an obligation to the public, to all of them, even the A-holes I ran into on a daily basis. (out here ninety five percent of them are from the same place. Sure as hell wouldn't want to be a cop there)

We were taught that we run in when everyone else runs out. Might be a romantic notion, but it's one I've gladly adopted.


----------



## Steve (Jul 6, 2022)

Monkey Turned Wolf said:


> I was curious, so I looked it up. Homicide rate in Seattle over the last 20 years has been on a generally downward trend.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, he's not wrong.  Crime in general, and violent crime in particular, is on the rise here.  Feels worse now than it has been since the 80s.  I remember when the gangs were all over White Center, Rainier Beach, and the Central District in Seattle... dudes were getting shot at the bus stop for a while, and they were chaining up our school doors at Garfield.  Downtown is more dangerous now than it has been in a while, though most folks who live in the fancy condos don't recall how seedy it used to be.

The difference now (I think) is that we have such a disparity between wealth and poverty, and very little in between.  You'll literally see a tent set up next to a Tesla, and the pandemic sure didn't help things.  The cost of living is so high that most folks can't afford to live in the city at all.  It's a complicated situation.

But overall crime was up by 10% in 2021 over 2020, and violent crime was up by 20%, at a 14 year high.  While we did end up with fewer homicides and rapes, there were significantly more robberies and aggravated assaults. 

Gun related incidents are way up.  "Shootings and shots fired" were up by 40% in 2021 over 2020, at a ten year high, and since 2012 the number of gun shots fired and shootings has doubled (increased by 100%).  "Shots fired" refers to a non-injury, firearm related incident.  "Shootings" resulted in injury or death.  The report excluded self inflicted and officer involved shootings.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 6, 2022)

Buka said:


> I've found there are differences in various departments, states, counties etc. It seems things have changed or morphed over the years. That being said, the way I came up, we were taught we are Peace Officers and that one of our main duties was to keep the peace. We took an oath, that we took seriously, to serve and protect, to help people.
> 
> I always felt I had an obligation to the public, to all of them, even the A-holes I ran into on a daily basis. (out here ninety five percent of them are from the same place. Sure as hell wouldn't want to be a cop there)
> 
> We were taught that we run in when everyone else runs out. Might be a romantic notion, but it's one I've gladly adopted.


It's a good theory, and I have enough cops in my immediate family to believe that most cops *WANT* to protect people. 

Just recently, at a steel plant near where we live, two men died. They were doing something on what amounts to a grain silo, but full of coal. It's used to feed tons of coal to the cookers. They walked out on the coal, for some reason. They're not supposed to, because air pockets in the coal can collapse, like a bubble. Naturally, that is what happened, and the two men were buried under about 20' of coal. 

Two of our kids are with the PD in that city. One of them was a few blocks away and responded. First on scene. He did the same thing that caused the problem in the first place. He walked out on the coal and started digging.

Flying with an Air Ambulance is not the safest job. Nor is doing search & rescue (which is a pretty common need in the mountains here). One of the first rules is "don't create more victims". That's a good rule for a lot of situations.


----------



## Tez3 (Jul 16, 2022)

Buka said:


> All of the police officers in Uvalde who waited while children were slaughtered are members of a unique group. Devout cowards. May karma get them all.


We've seen the video on all channels news here in UK. Speechless quite frankly. 
Here in the UK we had a terrorist killing people on a bridge in London, our unarmed, except for an extendable baton, rushed towards him. One off duty police officer unarmed, also ran to him. Civilians also went for him, though one was armed with a narwhal horn he'd taken off the wall of the building they were in. They ran towards the danger not away.


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 17, 2022)

Tez3 said:


> We've seen the video on all channels news here in UK. Speechless quite frankly.
> Here in the UK we had a terrorist killing people on a bridge in London, our unarmed, except for an extendable baton, rushed towards him. One off duty police officer unarmed, also ran to him. Civilians also went for him, though one was armed with a narwhal horn he'd taken off the wall of the building they were in. They ran towards the danger not away.


America has spent a couple generations teaching people how to be victims.


----------



## lklawson (Jul 18, 2022)

Dirty Dog said:


> America has spent a couple generations teach people how to be victims.


Or at least teaching them not to be personally-responsible.  We've spent a generation or two telling ourselves lies like "violence is never the answer."  Sometimes it is not only the answer, it's the best answer and should be tried first.

My friends in OPOTA tell me that the majority of recruits they get now have never even been in a fight; never been so much as punched in the face!

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Dirty Dog (Jul 18, 2022)

lklawson said:


> Or at least teaching them not to be personally-responsible.  We've spent a generation or two telling ourselves lies like "violence is never the answer."  Sometimes it is not only the answer, it's the best answer and should be tried first.


Sad but true.


lklawson said:


> My friends in OPOTA tell me that the majority of recruits they get now have never even been in a fight; never been so much as punched in the face!


It's quite common. New student joins, and the first time they get tagged sparring they just collapse on the floor, pretty much convinced they're going to die. 6-8 months later, they take the same shot and just keep going.


----------

