From the JBTs to you..

Status
Not open for further replies.
WonderNine said:
"our"? Were on on the SWAT team? Don't you mean "their"?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I did mean their, that's why I said their, and never said our. You're so wrapped up in your dogma, that you're reading things into what I posted.[
Justin Moore said:
. . . contacts in the Jeffco DA's office, who thought SWAT screwed the pooch. . .
Click to expand...
I wonder why none of the prosecutors ever go with me or my co-workers to serve warrants, or make arrests? I am willing to bet it's the same way in Columbine, so yeah the DAs office can give lots of legal advice, but are not very good places to go for improving tactics. Yes, that is most definitely Monday morning quarterbacking.

Columbine was something new, and the LE guys did the best they could. All the criticisms ignore the realities of the threat, not just the threat to the officers, but to the other students. Things have changed since Columbine, but no one had anticipated that type of crime prior to the incident.
 
I wonder what our founding fathers, and later American heroes like Crockett, Boone, York etc. would think about that article.

I suspect :barf:

I think the most widespread trait among THR members is a willingness to take responsibility for our own survival. When a LEO threatens that ability, we respond in a very negative way. When a LEO dies righteously in the line of duty, we're as saddened as when we lose soldiers or firefighters.

TC
TFL Survivor
 
This the same Grossman who refers to video games as "murder simulators"?

Anyways, I don't buy his "thin blue shell" argument. The founders of this country set it up to the PEOPLE were the buffer between goverment and each other, not some privileged class with a shiny piece of tin.
 
This makes some sheep mad, and makes them distrust and fear sheepdogs, since they can't tell the good ones from the bad.
Click to expand...

What makes you think you're a sheep?

You are a sheepdog. Nothing changes what you are (and the article says as much) and nothing CAN change what you are.

You just don't have a collar. :D

Tamara, I wish more people carried their own fangs..as long as its legal.
Click to expand...

Picture is worth 1000 words...something Oleg has proved hundreds of times

originalcarry.jpg
 
I have read the AAR from Columbine and I can tell you for a fact that those SWAT guys had all the guts in the world. There were over 700 IEDs that were armed and set to fire, some at time intervals and some command detonated with pagers. The SWAT guys placed themselves in tremendous danger by working in that enviroment to evac the kids instead of pulling out and sending in the EOD tecs which they should have done by policy. SWAT cleared that building non stop for hours while hunting the gunmen and having to contend with over a hundread injured kids with everything from gunshot woulds to broken bones. The fought through that environment and did as well as anyone could have in that environment. I defy anyone to point out what they could have done better knowing what they knew going in... Heck, the officers even took fire on the approach (Hence the use of the fire truck as cover---NOT hiding).

Those that would call them cowards have no idea what happened that day.
 
Grossman
Interesting guy with whom I disagree on a few issues. He seems to be a happy statist and willing to blot out inconvenient parts of the Constitution. Just the kind of guy you don't want making policy.

Columbine
The first officers on the scene acted in accordance with their training, as far as I can tell. The SWAT-types maybe did as well, though their inaction (over a significant period of time) is less understandable.

I see two issues:

1. Inadequate Training. The training was inadequate WRT what occurred at Columbine (a criminal whose intent is killing the maximum number of people, not a killer/hostage-taker). Those in leadership are responsible for inadequate training. From what 4v50 Gary says, this is in the process of being addressed. From my perspective, I would certainly hope so, given Columbine, 9-11, etc. (Three patrol officers on the spot beats a horde of SWAT elsewhere.)

2. Inadequate Ability to Think on Feet. A much more difficult nut to crack. Those officers on the scene refused to think outside the box (of their inadequate training) and work the problem. This is a burearcrat's mindset. A buddy of mine got out of patrol because he got tired of taking crap from his unimaginative "superiors." He landed on his feet as a detective and does well there. It is a shame, because agencies desperately need guys on patrol who can think on their feet and use their head as something other than a hatrack.
 
FedDC, I read a detailed account of Colombine, and I thought it said that Harris and Klebold had 70 improvised explosive devices including booby trapping their car. I never saw the figure of 700.

The 70 IEDs had led the authorities to think the shooters had accomplice/s bringing the IEDs into the school. The original plan was to kill and maim as many as possible using the IEDs, not necessarily to use firearms only. The 70 IEDs included homemade hand grenades.

IIRC, Harris and Klebold initially got into a firefirght with some local LEOs, who did not pursue them into the school. Maybe if those LEOs had pursued Harris and Klebold, then much of casualties could have been avoided, IMO.
 
Yeah, it was 70, typo, sorry. Either way, 70 IEDs is a LOT when you take it into the context. Trying to clear a structure the size of a school with numerous victims, active shooters, and IEDs going off is a scene that is next to impossible.

Yes, the shooters at Columbine did intend to cause mass casualties with the IEDs. Started in the lunchroom and intended to herd the victims rushing from the lunchroom into a kill zone that was ringed with IEDs. Thank god that the shooters didn't make very good IEDs.

The thing to remember about columbine is that going in is a double edged sword. On the one hand, it may work where the officers kill the suspect and all is well...but in the vast majority of cases where an unprepared hostage rescue/active shooter response takes place, it ends up very very badly. Most times, the officers corner the suspect who then begins to execute all of his hostages. The goal is to end the standoff through negotiation and from a statistical standpoint, that technique results in far fewer casualties for the hostages. Active shooter doctrine is an entirely different world and there is a fine line between the hostage/active shooter situation. In that situation, there is no easy answer.
 
Yeah, I did mean their, that's why I said their, and never said our. You're so wrapped up in your dogma, that you're reading things into what I posted.
Click to expand...

I could have sworn it said something else last night. You sure you didn't edit that right when I decided to quote? :D
 
In defense of the SWAT guys who showed up to Columbine, I'd like to point out that they reacted as they'd been trained. To wait for backup.

Columbine was a watershed event that led to a complete and total revamping of tactics and has given rise to training for scenarios that involve engaging an active shooter.

In short, the cops reacted as they did because they had never been trained to deal with such a situation.
 
I could have sworn it said something else last night. You sure you didn't edit that right when I decided to quote?
Click to expand...
I'm quite sure, because my post was never edited, (feel free to check) and was posted at 11:02 PM. You made your remark an hour and 47 minutes later at 12:49 AM.

In fact the quote you put in your post, showed that I said "their," not "our."
 
In defense of the SWAT guys who showed up to Columbine, I'd like to point out that they reacted as they'd been trained. To wait for backup.

Columbine was a watershed event that led to a complete and total revamping of tactics and has given rise to training for scenarios that involve engaging an active shooter.

In short, the cops reacted as they did because they had never been trained to deal with such a situation.
Click to expand...
Not to go off topic and hijack this thread I have been critical of the events at Columbine from the point of a FF. I never once hesitated to enter a burning structure because I might get hurt, that thought simply does not enter my mind. From my perspective it looked like cowards hiding behind the trucks. There was clear evidence that shooting was going on inside the building and kids were being shot. I would like to read the after action report FedDC alluded to if for any reason to restore my faith in those officers. We go in harms way for many reasons, out of duty, honor, need to be of service any other reason I would call questionable.

Personally I would have gone in and talked as many as I could to go with me but that probably makes me unsuited for the job.
 
"The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the
wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is
that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep."


Unless the sheep is a "wanna- be sheep dog" and wants to protect himself or his own flock....even from other sheepdogs. Then a pack of unionized sheepdogs flock to the wanna-be sheepdog.....calls him a baaaaaad sheep and paints stripes on his wool, and puts him out to pasture.
Smells like the same ol sheepdog sh*t to me ......good thing we didn't step in it.
 
Last edited:
@Columbine:

It was a first for that type of situation, a "Furstenfeldbrück" for the law-enforcement community. One perils to think of what the reaction would have been had the students managed to neutralize one of the shooters and arm themselves, staying protected, then seek egress from the building.
 
Cracked Butt-

You hit the nail on the head buddy. God help the poor bastard that storms my castle. Day, Night, Sheep, Sheepdog, or Wolf. It won't matter a damn bit to me and mine.
 
Lillysdad, I like the original post. No JBT-stuff in there. I wish it really was like that. If the sheepdogs never bit the sheep, or were cast out every time for biting sheep, then we probably wouldn't have the sheep complaining as much.

We'd still gripe but it would be more "I was followed by a sheepdog" instead of "I was bit by a sheepdog."
 
Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed.
Click to expand...

Punished by a fully-paid administrative leave, maybe, but not by any criminal prosecution. Those sheepdogs sure stick together. Perhaps removed and relocated to another flock, at worst.

Is Lon Horiuchi a sheepdog? He sure was "punished and removed", huh?
 
Sendec?

So I take it by your comment that you approve of Mr. Horiuchi's actions? Nice to know where you stand.



I.C.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

2
  • Locked
ON SHEEP, WOLVES, AND SHEEPDOGS - Long but Good
Replies
19
Views
825
U.S.SFC_RET
U
R
  • Locked
On Yarddogs, Sheepdogs etc
Replies
5
Views
542
wingnutx
W
C
  • Locked
Sheep, Sheepdog or Wolf.......how about a Feral Hog?
2
Replies
26
Views
1K
tellner
T
D
  • Locked
The Wolf.........
Replies
7
Views
1K
Robert
Robert
E
  • Locked
On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs
Replies
2
Views
443
Justin
Justin
Back
Top