Washington Navy Yard shooting: Active shooter sought in D.C.

[policemedic]

Sorry but it's very hard not to be judgmental about this decision. Pulling out the one and only resource you had available that was geared specifically for a threat such as this?
Smacks of politics to me. I guess we'll find out for sure soon enough.




Which would make slightly more sense if it was USCP that pulled them back, not the watch commander.

For clarity, it was the USCP Watch Commander that made the decision.

I understand exactly how these guys feel. Given that at least one of the two MPD cops that were standing with the USCP ERT guys when they were recalled got shot to shit when they had to enter without them, I'd be livid if I was one of the ERT guys.

Granted, active shooters aren't a SWAT problem. But if SWAT is literally standing in the door, it's idiocy to pull them off the objective.

I know there were multiple agencies responding, but honestly I'd be more comfortable as the overall IC with uniformed folks rather than plain clothes G-men. Less chance of misidentification that way.

 

[pardus]

For clarity, it was the USCP Watch Commander that made the decision.

I understand exactly how these guys feel. Given that at least one of the two MPD cops that were standing with the USCP ERT guys when they were recalled got shot to shit when they had to enter without them, I'd be livid if I was one of the ERT guys.

Granted, active shooters aren't a SWAT problem. But if SWAT is literally standing in the door, it's idiocy to pull them off the objective.

I know there were multiple agencies responding, but honestly I'd be more comfortable as the overall IC with uniformed folks rather than plain clothes G-men. Less chance of misidentification that way.

Oh, I guess I totally misunderstood the reporters then. That makes more sense. Still leaves me shaking my head though.

Active shooter is not a SWAT problem?

 

[Kraut783]

Oh, I guess I totally misunderstood the reporters then. That makes more sense. Still leaves me shaking my head though.

Active shooter is not a SWAT problem?

Well...active shooters are usually first responder problems (patrol). Just meaning, when it happens it is very fluid, fast and over quickly, or becomes a standoff of somekind. SWAT needs a little bit more time to get together and get on scene*

The DC area probably has some kind of SWAT team in a QRF mode though......while most departments don't have that luxury.

*not counting individual tactical guys that responded in ones and twos, meaning a full team with load out, gear, vehicle...etc.

 

[Ranger Psych]

Oh, I guess I totally misunderstood the reporters then. That makes more sense. Still leaves me shaking my head though.

Active shooter is not a SWAT problem?

Getting there quickly and shooting a bad guy in the face isn't a SWAT problem. SWAT's the QRF. Whoever is THERE has to solve it to prevent more people from dying. Including Joe Shmoe Concealed Carry, Go.

 

[pardus]

Roger, I see what was meant now.

 

[Yoshi]

Some surveillance footage of Alexis entering the building. What a POS.

Embedded media from this media site is no longer available

 

[Blizzard]

^

The video almost raises more questions than it answers.

He looks to be hold a Remington 870, probably the most popular shotgun ever made (perhaps that is now open to ban discussion). I think it holds 6 or 7 shells. He's not carrying an ammo pouch/backpack, although it looks like he may be wearing cargo pants that could maybe have shells in the pockets. Regardless, the number of rounds available appears fairly limited. Sure, his potential shot coverage is greater but, all things considered given this footage, I'm a bit surprised he wasn't stopped much sooner.

I understand significant damage can be done in a short time and response times play a factor in that equation. Still, nearly every shot he took must've been fatal because I can't imagine him getting more that one, maybe 2, reloads in before being confronted by someone. I guess that's probably overly naive on my part...hindsight and all that...

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

^

The video almost raises more questions than it answers.

He looks to be hold a Remington 870, probably the most popular shotgun ever made (perhaps that is now open to ban discussion). I think it holds 6 or 7 shells. He's not carrying an ammo pouch/backpack, although it looks like he may be wearing cargo pants that could maybe have shells in the pockets. Regardless, the number of rounds available appears fairly limited. Sure, his potential shot coverage is greater but, all things considered given this footage, I'm a bit surprised he wasn't stopped much sooner.

I understand significant damage can be done in a short time and response times play a factor in that equation. Still, nearly every shot he took must've been fatal because I can't imagine him getting more that one, maybe 2, reloads in before being confronted by someone. I guess that's probably overly naive on my part...hindsight and all that...

Stopped by who, the unarmed personnel who are told to hide in their offices?

Although I would imagine anyone in uniform would attempt to stop a gunman armed or not (as happend at the FT Hood shooting) I think its ridiculous to expect that to happen, especially when DoD trains all personnel to hide and not confront an active shooter.

We can say it was a failure in security, a failure to identify this killer for the psychopath he was, and so on.

The reality is that people are dying in the situations b/c the leadership has failed to properly address the need for all personnel to maintain a personal protection posture at all times. You work for the 'armed' forces, you wear a uniform, you are a target...and you should be 'armed' and ready to defend yourself and your post at all times....period.

 

[Totentanz]

Stopped by who, the unarmed personnel who are told to hide in their offices?

Although I would imagine anyone in uniform would attempt to stop a gunman armed or not (as happend at the FT Hood shooting) I think its ridiculous to expect that to happen, especially when DoD trains all personnel to hide and not confront an active shooter.

We can say it was a failure in security, a failure to identify this killer for the psychopath he was, and so on.

The reality is that people are dying in the situations b/c the leadership has failed to properly address the need for all personnel to maintain a personal protection posture at all times. You work for the 'armed' forces, you wear a uniform, you are a target...and you should be 'armed' and ready to defend yourself and your post at all times....period.

Except that in their minds running, hiding, and waiting for someone else to take care of it IS a force pro measure...:wall:

 

[Blizzard]

Stopped by who, the unarmed personnel who are told to hide in their offices?....

No, I get all that and agree to a large extent. One of the troubles I have reconciling is that it reportedly was an hour before he was stopped. Video was available. He used only his shotgun until he shot a security guard and took his weapon (a 9mm pistol - did he have the presence of mind to take his additional ammo too or did he just have whatever was loaded in the weapon? - I don't know).

BTW, this really isn't an attempt to place blame in any way or Monday morning quarterback, rather, I guess it's frustration around how these things can happen. As I mentioned, I evidently have this naïve view of how events might progress in an active shooter situation.

 

[0699]

We can say it was a failure in security, a failure to identify this killer for the psychopath he was, and so on.

I disagree. I don't believe this was a failure on anyone's part. I think this was a the result of one person (who appears to have had some mental problems, like many Americans do) going off the deep end and killing a lot of people. I think this was 100% the fault of the shooter. I think there were appropriate and resonable security measures in place to prevent any expected or anticipated security problems. To sit here and try to lay blame will only result in more laws, regulations, and policies that will only further infringe on the 99.99% of the population that is GTG and cost tons of money without proving demonstrable results. Unless there's a way to prove that security detered an attack, and I think it's pretty impossible to prove a negative.

I see trying to "solve" this problem as similar to trying to solve the problem of the 100 year flood or hurricane. The expense involved will be astronomical, and it probably won't "fix the problem" anyway.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

@0699, I guess I should have worded that different. I was attempting to point out that question the security or safety apparatuses is pointless.

That the only way that reducing the amount of loss of life, is by individuals having the means and ability to defend themselves and their work area/duty post.

In that context, I do believe it to be a leadership failure that they have 1) not identified the need for service members to be armed while on duty, and 2) b/c they have not required it and 3) b/c they now require training for service members to hide.

The Armed Forces should be armed, especially when they are now under attack in recruiting stations, military installations and general places of duty.