30 of 32 died after the cops arrived

[Oleg Volk]

2400x3200px printable

 

[AStone]

Sheer creative genius.

You must've gotten some sleep.

One of your best.

Nice work.

Nem

 

[Oleg Volk]

On the contrary...I spend the last four hours working on this idea, trying to make a balanced poster out of it. Now I can get sleep.

 

[stevetexas]

An ordinary Sgt of a squad in Iraq would be busted back to pvt E1 for acting like the Police in VA or Columbine did.

The old men and some of the students did better.

 

[vis-à-vis]

Good one!

 

[nwilliams]

Very nice work! You had me convinced with the first line about how many people died while the cops were on the scene. Very powerful statment there alone.

I think you could easily manipulate it to address many different issues, not just the right to carry.

 

[AStone]

Now I can get sleep.

Sleep well, my friend.

There's more to do tomorrow ...

 

[thedpp]

I was thinking the same thing why would they let him keep shooting...in the cell phone video you hear shots and cops are just sitting there behind their squad cars with their guns drawn.

 

[ingram]

eh, the first girl killed wasn't black that's the first thing that came to mind with me.... but yeah.... not really important, good message. I like it.

 

[dave_pro2a]

A good reminder that the police are not there to die for you, they are there to get themselves home alive. Whether or not a crime victim also makes it home alive is incidental.

Ultimately everyone is responsible for their own self-preservation (self defense).

 

[halfacop]

Cop Bashing - I knew it would only be a matter of time.

 

[Oleg Volk]

Where do you see cop bashing? Don't cops want to live just as the rest of us do?

 

[halfacop]

they are there to get themselves home alive. Whether or not a crime victim also makes it home alive is incidental.

How else should one take this comment and the over all purpose of this thread. Hell - just the title is a enough for me to form a opinion on what is inside.

Just call em like I see em.

 

[dave_pro2a]

If that elderly Jewish gentleman, Professor Liviu Librescu, had been carrying a firearm... then perhaps he could have taken the murderer's life, rather than giving up his own. Noble sacrifice indeed, of the highest order.

Would a police officer have done the same? (thrown themselve in front of a bullit to save a class room full of students) Perhaps, but they weren't exactly facing the gunman.

And the fact remains that Oleg's poster points out that the police are not paid to make that sort of sacrifice. They are paid to act according to departemental policy, which is designed to favor actions which preserve their own lifes.

That's the stark reality, as is this:
Each person is responsible for their own self defense. No one will fight harder for YOUR life, than YOU will (or at least as you should). To expect otherwise is, naive imho.

So yes, arm free citizens. I wish Liviu Librescu had been carrying. I wish other facuilty and student body had the ability to exercise their RKBA. You can ALWAYS count on police to show up after the fact, but you simply CANNOT rely upon them to show up before the fact (or even during).

Personally I don't see how that's 'cop bashing,' to me it just reflects reality -- and where the true burden of responsibility lays when it comes to self preservation / self defense / personal security / et cetera.

 

[halfacop]

They are paid to act according to departemental policy, which in designed to favor actions which preserve their own lifes.

Is rushing towards a area where a active shooter is - a action that favors their preservation? I think not.

Each person is responsible for their own self defense. No one will fight harder for YOUR life, than YOU will (or at least as you should). To expect otherwise is, naive imho.

I agree 100% that we must arm ourselves and be prepared to defend ourselve. I am also 100% in favor of allowing CPL owners to have opportunity to carry where they want when they want.

However - I am 100% against words being spoken against men and women who take an oath to serve and protect, men and women who go in harms way on a daily basis to bring justice onto those who would do us harm.

 

[Oleg Volk]

I don't think any disrespect was meant towards cops.

 

[dave_pro2a]

Quote: "Is rushing towards a area where a active shooter is - a action that favors their preservation? I think not."

Think it through.

They do it in a well organized, practiced manner. If the team isn't assembled, then typically in this sort of situation they don't go in (yes I'll assume that).

They have protocol to follow. They need to marshal resources, they need to organize and coordinate. et cetera.

Such protocol causes delays that are neccesary for officer safety. To me that's reasonable, and to be expected. But it still means that action can be anything but 'very swift,' or swift enough to deal with a dynamic rapidly changing situation.

To me, that means I can't count on them showing up when needed. That is especially true of an isolated incident in a desolate area. Or in a sudden incident (like the 'first' shooting at VT, that happened 2 hours before the main part of this mass murder).

So, 32 people end up dead before the shooter is stopped (in this case commits suicide). No need to blame the cops, heck, no need to blame gun laws either. The fault is on that murderer. But the fact remains that if free citizens COULD have been armed, then the likelyhood that there would be 31 victims would have been minimized.

 

[halfacop]

Fair enough - I apprecite your words. Perhaps when I looked at this comment .....

they are there to get themselves home alive. Whether or not a crime victim also makes it home alive is incidental.

I see a "shot" at the Law Enforcement Community. Obviously if they were only concerned about getting home - they would simply choose a job that allowed them to be. And the whole being "incidental" thing just strikes at the fact that cops in a whole are not capable of protecting the people in any situation.

If there was no disrespect meant- then fair enough.

To me, that means I can't count on them showing up when needed. That is especially true of an isolated incident in a desolate area.

I understand your thoughts and points. I also understand that you can not count on the cops to be there everytime you need them. However - on a dialy basis around this great nation - LEO's intercept "the bad guy" from bringing harm to others.

It just seemed like a blanket statement. After further listing your points I see better your thoughts on this subject and do not take them as offensive to the LEO community.

Even I would like to see a better response to such situations. I think everybody would, cops included. The average patrolmen should be equiped to respond to a situation such as this. Once he gets a back up officer they should be proactive in finding the shooter and eliminating him. The size of this area obviously hinders this somewhat - but with the correct training it can be done.

The final issue here though - is that if there had been a CPL holder there this might have been curtailed a whole lot faster and had a much better outcome.

 

[R127]

However - I am 100% against words being spoken against men and women who take an oath to serve and protect, men and women who go in harms way on a daily basis to bring justice onto those who would do us harm.

The problem here seems to be the expectations placed on the police. The oath is ridiculous, there is no possible way the police can protect individuals. There is no possible way they can protect society which is nothing more than a huge number of individuals they already can't protect. Serve? Serve who or what? This situation sucks equally for the citizen who isn't getting protected and the cop who's catching flak for not protecting the citizen. The entire concept of crime prevention as a role for the police is painfully wrongheaded, to prevent crime you would have to make arrests on individuals who haven't yet committed a crime, this leads nowhere but a surveilance society and setup operations. The primary duty of police should be what it always was, to yes respond to calls for help and defend the citizens if they're around but most importantly to enforce law, investigate crimes and track down fugitives. All this crime prevention and "to serve and protect" nonsense has done is breed a flury of horrible laws written from the perspective of police as unfalible defenders of the universe which the police can never hope to live up to and which burden the citizens in such a way that it places them in jeapordy of great harm or even death. Completely nuts! No wonder police and citizens often resent eachother even though they're really interdependent parts of the same society.

I used to resent cops a lot more than I do now. I understand why, most of the laws they are compelled to enforce suck and it is just impossible for them to live up to the current expectations placed on them. A cop guilty of enforcing an unconstitutional law is just as guilty as a citizen breaking a constitutional law but the bottom line is we're all getting played for fools by politicians who are either malicious, incompetent or both.

It's a lose/lose proposition but this is why we were warned not to try and trade freedom for safety.

 

[Mongo the Mutterer]

Thank you Oleg.

Halfacop, I don't feel that there is cop bashing intended.

I would tell any officer his or her first job is to return home after their shift.

The effort to contain the crime scene always seems too slow to Monday morning quarterbacks when an event like VT happens. The bottom line is that a LEO coming on the scene can't know what the situation is. One shooter, two?, three?, a hit squad? First responders can't know, and have to be cautious.

YMMV. I'm not a LEO, just a supporter.

 

[halfacop]

The problem here seems to be the expectations placed on the police. The oath is ridiculous, there is no possible way the police can protect individuals. There is no possible way they can protect society which is nothing more than a huge number of individuals they already can't protect. Serve? Serve who or what? This situation sucks equally for the citizen who isn't getting protected and the cop who's catching flak for not protecting the citizen. The entire concept of crime prevention as a role for the police is painfully wrongheaded, to prevent crime you would have to make arrests on individuals who haven't yet committed a crime, this leads nowhere but a surveilance society and setup operations. The primary duty of police should be what it always was, to yes respond to calls for help and defend the citizens if they're around but most importantly to enforce law, investigate crimes and track down fugitives. All this crime prevention and "to serve and protect" nonsense has done is breed a flury of horrible laws written from the perspective of police as unfalible defenders of the universe which the police can never hope to live up to and which burden the citizens in such a way that it places them in jeapordy of great harm or even death. Completely nuts! No wonder police and citizens often resent eachother even though they're really interdependent parts of the same society.

I used to resent cops a lot more than I do now. I understand why, most of the laws they are compelled to enforce suck and it is just impossible for them to live up to the current expectations placed on them. A cop guilty of enforcing an unconstitutional law is just as guilty as a citizen breaking a constitutional law but the bottom line is we're all getting played for fools by politicians who are either malicious, incompetent or both.

It's a lose/lose proposition but this is why we were warned not to try and trade freedom for safety.

Excellent points - however - I would have to disagree with the thought that LEO's can NOT PROTECT THE INDIVIDUAL. I would have it be said that when a LEO does a simple OWI arrest he has protected a number of individuals that may have been in harms way when this drunk was on the road.

Two very good friends of mine are Deputies and responded to a 911 hangup - upon arrival they saw a gunman inside holding a woman at gun point. They made entry into the rear of the house ended up exchanging lead with the man before he off'd himself. The woman was able to make it to safety during this event through the direction of one of the deputies.

I would consider this individual protected.

Other than that - I agree with your assesment on crime prevention and the like.

 

[MaterDei]

Well done, Oleg. The message you're sending needs hearing.

 

[Twitch]

Great job. Very powerful message. I don't there was any cop bashing either. Oleg was simply stating the facts.

 

[stevetexas]

ummmmm....well I will say this again....If an E6 SGT acted like that in Iraq....he would be busted, by me or some other Field Grade Officer.

 

[helpless]

My father and Brother are LEOs

I see no disrespect.

The fact is that 30 people died after the cops arrived.

SO,

You safety is ultimately in your own hands, you can not count on the police to arrive on time to safe you and others.\


(.) Period.

Good Job Oleg, do you mind us Posting this around?