Police Response to Latest VA Tech Murders, Improved!

[Liberty Sanders]

All very true. I only have one thing to add, and that is that the citizen to whom you refer MIGHT be a LEO, if he happens to be present when this happens, or s/he might not be. The point I'm addressing is that when it comes to situations where bad people do bad things, good people, no matter their work uniform, need to come together and work together to end the threat. In short, the relationship between LEAs and the non-LEO-citizens they are hired to protect does not have to be an adversarial one. There was a time when both groups considered themselves members of a single, larger group, "Peaceable Citizens". Granted, that was when LEOs were known as "Peace Officers".. The goal was to preserve the peace, not to enforce the law, which are wholly different goals.

Campus police are no different. The Campus Police could very easily look upon the students not as children they are hired to babysit, upon the staff not as peons they are tasked to defend, but rather look upon all who obey the law, who wish only the same thing the police claim to want: To go home safe every night, as being allies in the same fight. It is this attitude that the Powers-That-Be at the state universities and other locations need to inculcate into their thinking. An easy method to implement this would be to offer firearm safety and marksmanship training classes-a few hours on a weekend, for example, or on the occasional Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday night. Get the people out to come learn about things that they're uneducated regarding. Let them learn, "These are the Four Rules. These are the parts of the gun. This is how you unload it safely." Let more experienced students practice their marksmanship... hell, they could even block off a specific building once in a while and practice in a real setting, using simunitions. Let them learn how to act and react safely.

As for those CDOP plans... Would those be public documents? That is, if, say, Purdue or IU has one, could the citizens see them and determine if they were really "do-able", as you did?

Blessings,
Bill

Bill, that's a very interesting question.

I'm sure the attitude that any campus LEO agency is going to take is that the plan should be kept secret to prevent a potential suspect from learning its contents and trying to counter them. Were I still on the job that is certainly how I'd see it.

Are they legally public documents subject to disclosure? One of the legal types here will have to weigh in on that.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I edited my post to explain why it's BS. Basically, the timeframe used starts at the beginning of a traffic stop. So unless he was shot immediately after calling in the stop, the timeframe is off by a bit. It should also be noted that the guy that shot the officer wasnt the guy who had been stopped.

Let's go with your point, Kutnupe. Let's say it was only five minutes. Hell, let's say the perp decides to start shooting in the building next door to Campus Police HQ. It doesn't matter. The police in that situation are not going to go charging in within 10 seconds of the first shot, if they're even aware of it. If past pattern is to be believed, they will surround the building, set up a perimeter, get on all the tacticool gear, and begin gathering intel, all while people are dying. I don't blame them for wanting to protect themselves. I don't blame them for wanting good information... how many shooters? With what are they armed? How many hostages? Where are they? What does the shooter(s) want, if anything other than just to kill however many s/he can?

The goal is to stop the threat. All of those things work toward that goal, but none of them address it directly... and if the response to an "officer down" even takes only five minutes, I can dump a lot of ammo in that time, even with only the reduced-capacity ten-round mags, let alone with normal-capacity ones. Let's say it takes me five seconds a shot, that's 60 rounds fired. Any less time than that, and even an average shooter could double the original Va Tech's death toll.... unless an armed defender puts two in the shooter's chest and one in his brain-pan.

Kirk's point, as I see it, is to reiterate that police are a reactive force. That doesn't diminish the job, nor those who do it, it only recognizes that members of your profession, no matter how dedicated, cannot do the job the public has been led to believe you can do, as Liberty Sanders mentioned.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Please repeat after me:

THE POLICE CANNOT PROTECT YOU!!!!

Do not rely on police protection for yourself, your loved ones or anyone you even kinda like because they are NOT capable of responding in time! It isn't even their job to protect you! If it was then we could sue them when someone is injured by someone commiting a crime.

YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOURSELF AND YOUR OWN PROTECTION! I can't even protect my wife at all times because I am not always with her so therefore she carries her own protection wherever she goes.

Amen brother...Amen to that.

I can tell you that the most sickening feeling that a cop out on the street can have is to receive a call for some awful, life-threatening crime in progress and to know full well that you are simply not going to get there in time.

If a cop's entreaties to the Almighty could increase gun ownership, EVERYONE would own one by now.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Kirk's point, as I see it, is to reiterate that police are a reactive force.

The police are the historians. They write down what happened and gather evidence for the CLEO, the Prosecuting Attorney.

The notion of campus police chiefs to reinvent themselves as knights on white horses riding to save the day has just been blown out of the water and should not work in Indianapolis this winter.

The political argument of campus police has just been cut down like harvested wheat. "No need to carry guns, we will protect you, let us professionals do the work for you."

No, you cannot.

After Cho's rampage, the Virginia Tech PD was the police department best situated to deal with campus violence. They fell on their face, hard. This needs to be pointed out and with gusto in the General Assembly.

 

[TMU317]

To prevent violence on VT campus, correct.

Give us an Obama of money, stay unarmed and we promise that there will be no violence at Viriginia Tech and your children will skip to class among the unicorns and kittens.

What happened? A cop got shot on campus and VTPD arrived 15 minutes later and 22 minutes later VTPD managed to get a text message out to its disarmed student body. Oh, and don't forget how no one knew what was going on and it was initially reported that there was no shooting, then a mass shooting with an escaped gun man, and now this. Fear, panic and a supertanker full of money.

VTPD lied, people died.

Interesting. Where did you find this information? I was unaware that "armored vehicles" were purchased by campus police. I know armored vehicles are routinely used to respond to incidents such as this, but I was unaware that they were purchased to prevent such incidents. Does VTPD routinely patrol campus with these "armored vehicles" that they supposedly purchased, while also carrying rifles, all in order to prevent violence? The majority of the officers and vehicles in the video which you posted a link to were not campus police, as far as I could tell. I may have missed it, but I actually did not see anyone that was identified as a campus police officer. I saw "Sheriff" and "State Police" and such, but not "Campus Police". I could be wrong, but I thought this "gear" which can be seen in the video was purchased to respond to such incidents.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Interesting. Where did you find this information? I was unaware that "armored vehicles" were purchased by campus police. I know armored vehicles are routinely used to respond to incidents such as this, but I was unaware that they were purchased to prevent such incidents. Does VTPD routinely patrol campus with these "armored vehicles" that they supposedly purchased, while also carrying rifles, all in order to prevent violence? The majority of the officers and vehicles in the video which you posted a link to were not campus police, as far as I could tell. I may have missed it, but I actually did not see anyone that was identified as a campus police officer. I saw "Sheriff" and "State Police" and such, but not "Campus Police". I could be wrong, but I thought this "gear" which can be seen in the video was purchased to respond to such incidents.

Even worse, then. The Campus police were among the ones who advocated for disarmament, IIRC, and who, under the "government will protect you" paradigm, were responsible for ensuring that protection and/or response. They were the ones there on the campus, and STILL they weren't the ones to respond to the threat? Even with all that, they were not equipped to address the situation?

Understand, this is not demonizing the PD, but rather the administration that touts that PD as their deus ex machina, the unbeatable response to all threats.... and in light of that, they could not even protect themselves. (not because the officer was untrained; to the contrary, he was an instructor, from what I read, but he was alone, distracted, and in the end, defenseless against a surprise attack. Multiple defenders, such as an armed or potentially armed citizenry/student body, would be a defense against this.

The school administration needs to be awakened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg2_0SL6cUI

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Interesting. Where did you find this information?

Public sourced.

After April of 2007 Viriginia, acting on recommendations of a blue ribbon commission (the review panel they called it in Virginia), the state went on a spending binge in the name of "public safety". Guess what? The cops got a lot of toys and treats that they wanted, shocking I know.

But, Kirk, what about the notion that allowing students to exercise their right to arms on campus would make all this spending unnecessary? Well, the review panel shot that idea down real quick:

"Of course if numerous
people had been rushing around with handguns
outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16,
the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings
would have increased significantly. The
campus police said that the probability would
have been high that anyone emerging from a
classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would​

have been shot."

Page 74, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/prevail/docs/April16ReportRev20091204.pdf

I could be wrong, but I thought this "gear" which can be seen in the video was purchased to respond to such incidents.

Correct. The police around Blacksburg got tons of new toys in response to April of 2007. It didn't work and VTPD didn't show up for 15 minutes.

All the toys in the world do the police no good as yesterday manifests. Take their toys away, legalize campus carry, no more mass murders.

Understand, this is not demonizing the PD, but rather the administration that touts that PD as their deus ex machina, the unbeatable response to all threats.

Is God out a machine the right analogy, or is it "stalking horse"?

VT's invincible force just got its teeth handed to them. PUPD, IUPD, inter alia cannot be allowed the same Aegis.

 

[TMU317]

Even worse, then. The Campus police were among the ones who advocated for disarmament, IIRC, and who, under the "government will protect you" paradigm, were responsible for ensuring that protection and/or response. They were the ones there on the campus, and STILL they weren't the ones to respond to the threat? Even with all that, they were not equipped to address the situation?

Understand, this is not demonizing the PD, but rather the administration that touts that PD as their deus ex machina, the unbeatable response to all threats.... and in light of that, they could not even protect themselves. (not because the officer was untrained; to the contrary, he was an instructor, from what I read, but he was alone, distracted, and in the end, defenseless against a surprise attack. Multiple defenders, such as an armed or potentially armed citizenry/student body, would be a defense against this.

The school administration needs to be awakened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sg2_0SL6cUI

Blessings,
Bill

Campus police did respond, as well as multiple other LE agencies. I was pointing out that the officers with the "toys" such as armored vehicles in the video, did not appear to be campus police. I would be surprised if agencies, such as the state police, did not have such "toys" prior to the incident in 2007. The "toys" are used to aid in the response to such incidents, not prevent them. I do not disagree that students and employees should be allowed to carry weapons on campus, nor do I disagree that the administration is wrong.

 

[TMU317]

Public sourced.

After April of 2007 Viriginia, acting on recommendations of a blue ribbon commission (the review panel they called it in Virginia), the state went on a spending binge in the name of "public safety". Guess what? The cops got a lot of toys and treats that they wanted, shocking I know.

But, Kirk, what about the notion that allowing students to exercise their right to arms on campus would make all this spending unnecessary? Well, the review panel shot that idea down real quick:

"Of course if numerous
people had been rushing around with handguns
outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16,
the possibility of accidental or mistaken shootings
would have increased significantly. The
campus police said that the probability would
have been high that anyone emerging from a
classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would​

have been shot."

Page 74, http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/prevail/docs/April16ReportRev20091204.pdf



Correct. The police around Blacksburg got tons of new toys in response to April of 2007. It didn't work and VTPD didn't show up for 15 minutes.

All the toys in the world do the police no good as yesterday manifests. Take their toys away, legalize campus carry, no more mass murders.



Is God out a machine the right analogy, or is it "stalking horse"?

VT's invincible force just got its teeth handed to them. PUPD, IUPD, inter alia cannot be allowed the same Aegis.

I agree that the policy is wrong, and should be changed. Students and employees should not be forced to disarm. I also believe officers should be issued (or at least allowed to have) rifles and "toys" (within reason) which aid them in response to such incidents. If every officer drove an armored vehicle such as the ones seen in the video and every officer carried an automatic rifle, then I would have an issue. Not all police officers believe citizens should be disarmed. In fact, I know far more officers who believe the exact opposite. I understand your point, though, and I agree. Campus police should not be claiming they can protect every student and employee, because it is simply not possible with the resources they have.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I agree that the policy is wrong, and should be changed. Students and employees should not be forced to disarm. I also believe officers should be issued (or at least allowed to have) rifles and "toys" (within reason) which aid them in response to such incidents. If every officer drove an armored vehicle such as the ones seen in the video and every officer carried an automatic rifle, then I would have an issue. Not all police officers believe citizens should be disarmed. In fact, I know far more officers who believe the exact opposite. I understand your point, though, and I agree. Campus police should not be claiming they can protect every student and employee, because it is simply not possible with the resources they have.

And if campus police make that claim, it's either because they're toeing the party line to keep their jobs or because they've violated the first rule of politics: Never, ever believe your own .

I'm of the opinion that it's the former, but that's only opinion, not based on any verifiable data.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[TMU317]

And if campus police make that claim, it's either because they're toeing the party line to keep their jobs or because they've violated the first rule of politics: Never, ever believe your own .

I'm of the opinion that it's the former, but that's only opinion, not based on any verifiable data.

Blessings,
Bill

I strongly believe the former is the case, in most instances. It is hard for someone who wants to keep his/her job to speak out against their employer. If the chief disagrees with the person who picks the chief, there will soon be a new chief who will agree with that person. Just look at IMPD, perfect example of how that works. Don't agree with Straub, you will get the boot.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Not all police officers believe citizens should be disarmed.

Nor should anyone believe that they are. Some of the most ardent defenders of the right to arms work in law enforcement or are former law enforcement.

This is a political fight, TMU, so when you read "campus police" read the Chief of Campus Police. The police (i.e. the Chiefs of Campus Police) are involved because they injected themselves in this fight.

A political response to their aegis claim is appropriate and well within reason.

 

[lrahm]

Nor should anyone believe that they are. Some of the most ardent defenders of the right to arms work in law enforcement or are former law enforcement.

This is a political fight, TMU, so when you read "campus police" read the Chief of Campus Police. The police (i.e. the Chiefs of Campus Police) are involved because they injected themselves in this fight.

A political response to their aegis claim is appropriate and well within reason.

I agree, most people should have the right to bear arms. "Most people", means there are some that I wouldn't trust with a toothpick yet alone a weapon.

Note, there are a large number of campus departments that don't allow their officers to carry. They depend upon the local agencies to respond to their call for assistance. We have two in our area. Most of their officers are students working to pay for their education.

As far as some of the comments made about all of the toys that officers have. It is a myth that the departments suppy everything from tanks on down. We are the third largest city and the only thing I have that the department has supplied me is my gun (I retire with it), my vest (#4 for me), my hand held radio and 1999 Crown vic. I have purchased everythin else including my carbine. Now there are larger cities that have a hight threat of terrorist activity and possibly needs that tank (personnel carrier).

But the main part of this thread was the fact that a gunman entered th VT facility with intent to do harm. A police officer was killed. It is tragic that anyone gets killed while on the job or off. This officer was rushing into a situation knowing he could be hurt. Time wise, we have all learned from previous incidents and will learn more as people evolve to think of new ways of creating terror. It would be great to place an officer on each corner to prevent crime. Some would savor it, others would state that it is the creation of a "police state".

 

[lrahm]

Food for thought, the average police department has only 20 police officers.

 

[96firephoenix]

When you think about how much damage one man with a gun and several mags could do in 14 minutes to an unarmed and unaware group of people it makes you sick.

well considering what happened the last time someone had multiple magazines, an unarmed group of people and 14 minutes of free time at VT...

thoughts and prayers to the officer who died and his family though.

 

[beararms1776]

Very traggic. Fricken murderer!
They should let the students make the choice to carry. It's their school, their life.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Very traggic. Fricken murderer!
They should let the students make the choice to carry. It's their school, their life.

I believe he was married and a father of 5...

 

[Stschil]

But the main part of this thread was the fact that a gunman entered th VT facility with intent to do harm. A police officer was killed. It is tragic that anyone gets killed while on the job or off. This officer was rushing into a situation knowing he could be hurt. Time wise, we have all learned from previous incidents and will learn more as people evolve to think of new ways of creating terror. It would be great to place an officer on each corner to prevent crime. Some would savor it, others would state that it is the creation of a "police state".

In larger cities, it used to be common for Beat Cops to be on foot patrol in every neighborhood. They (the officers) were considered members of the community. They helped maintain the peace and order by their constant presence and intimate knowledge of the community that they worked in. People KNEW them and TRUSTED them. They werent faceless squad cars cruising through with windows up every once in a while. As strange as I may sound, if PD's would stop trying to amass all the "toys and treats", they could afford to hire more officers.

Being a tatically trained and equipped reactionary force does NOTHING to prevent crime and in turn does NOTHING but provide the criminal with a period of time with which he/she is able to carry out said crime. Allowing Citizens to excersise their rights and protect themselves will not only shorten that time, the knowledge that each and every person around the perp is potentiallly armed will in many cases prevent the need for any reactionary force in the first place.

Put more boots on the ground instead of equipment, involve the citizens, become members of the community and entire community will in turn help police itself.

 

[lrahm]

In larger cities, it used to be common for Beat Cops to be on foot patrol in every neighborhood. They (the officers) were considered members of the community. They helped maintain the peace and order by their constant presence and intimate knowledge of the community that they worked in. People KNEW them and TRUSTED them. They werent faceless squad cars cruising through with windows up every once in a while. As strange as I may sound, if PD's would stop trying to amass all the "toys and treats", they could afford to hire more officers.

Being a tatically trained and equipped reactionary force does NOTHING to prevent crime and in turn does NOTHING but provide the criminal with a period of time with which he/she is able to carry out said crime. Allowing Citizens to excersise their rights and protect themselves will not only shorten that time, the knowledge that each and every person around the perp is potentiallly armed will in many cases prevent the need for any reactionary force in the first place.

Put more boots on the ground instead of equipment, involve the citizens, become members of the community and entire community will in turn help police itself.

True on many aspects but the need for the "faceless" officer has been a product of our society itself. Sure we encourage our officers to get out and walk through high crime rate areas but calls for service prevents that. I worked last night and had 6 runs between 5 to 6 p.m.

I do belive in the rights to carry. You won't get an argument from me there. We do have citizen groups that get involved in their own neighborhoods.

We do get tactical training and try to keep up with the latest trends. Notice I didn't say technology. Even though we are the third largest city in the state we don't have the cute "toys and treats" that people are talking about. Maybe Indianapolis might have something but we have squad cars. Please tell me what type of toys you are talking about. Contrary to some beliefs we are not "swimming in money". Don't believe everything you hear. I do have an M4 carbine, I bought it. So has 90% of all those officers who have one. I also bought most everything else in my car except the radio, computer and car itself. We don't have a tank or a helicopter.

 

[Indy317]

If the guy called in a traffic stop at 12:15, he won't typically won't be S52'd until about 10 minutes later, so that starts the timeframe @ least @ 12:25. Officers aren't panicking at that point thinking the worse, because as I've said, this happens all the time (officer out of car w/dead radio, not paying attention, talking, ect). When notified @ 12:30 that an officer had been shot, that's when things "kick up." Within 30 minutes, the entire situation was resolved.

Here is a source with a vauge timeline:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...StsjfA?docId=632e886b54e845d196fb7eefc27a19fb

At about 12:15 p.m., the officer called in the traffic stop. After a few minutes passed without hearing from the officer, dispatch tried to get in touch with him, but didn't get a response. About 15 minutes later, police received the first call from a witness who said an officer had been shot at the Cassell Coliseum parking lot and the gunman had fled on foot.
Local, state and federal officials responded immediately. At 1 p.m., an officer saw a suspicious man in a parking lot known as The Cage. That's where the second shooting victim was found.

I'm still unclear about what exactly happened. So it is possible the officer was shot shortly after starting the stop, which would explain the no response a "few minutes" after 12:15PM? However it is 15 minutes afterwards that someone calls 911? Who called 911? Was it the person who had originally been stopped (who isn't the shooter?). What did that person do if the officer was shot immediately after the stop? Maybe a bad cell phone and they couldn't call? Or too scared to call?

Hopefully we get a much more detailed time frame report in the future. The exact moment of the stop, when the person stopped was released, what kind of contacting dispatch did with the officer (in-car computer message, text message on personal cell phones, radio, etc.), was anyone dispatched to check on the officer when he didn't respond back, when they think the person shot the officer, who called and did they witness the shooting or just come across a fallen officer, etc..

I know armored vehicles are routinely used to respond to incidents such as this, but I was unaware that they were purchased to prevent such incidents. I could be wrong, but I thought this "gear" which can be seen in the video was purchased to respond to such incidents.

I doubt VT police have an armored vehicle. However, I can tell you that most campus PDs have used campus and other mass shootings as reasons to buy this equipment. Part of the justification is that said equipment will save lives, prevent death and/or injury to innocent people. This is really a half truth. Such equipment can prevent future injury/death, but it can't prevent it 100%. This part of the truth is never discussed, never talked about. You can find many printed pages of minutes from meetings with various boards and councils. With regards to planning for mass shooter incidents, some LE reps speaking with these groups will tell the whole truth, others won't give that much info. For example, someone may ask if the department has rifles. The answer to that question could be "Yes." However, the truth could be that the department has just one rifle. Or the department secures the rifles in a safe on station and the patrol officers don't have quick access to them. It is devil in the details type stuff. "Have the officers had training in active shooter incidents?" "Yes." What isn't stated: The training was two years ago, the training only consisted of a slide show presentation, half the officers weigh 250+ and couldn't run up four flights of stairs to save their own life, etc..

Dave Grossman said it best in one of his seminars: We will eventually be like Israel. People have already woken up to the fact that the criminal justice system can't always be there to protect them. Thus more and more states have converted to allowing citizens to carry firearms upon their person in some fashion. Given this country's focus on self-reliance (at least in the past), focus on firearms, etc., I eventually see the college bans getting the boot. There is already a legal argument to be made the state has already done this with the new law. The question is, are the universities a "type of local governmental corporate entity." If they are, they are political subdivisions, and if they are political subdivisions, then IC 35-47-11.1 applies.

Note, there are a large number of campus departments that don't allow their officers to carry. They depend upon the local agencies to respond to their call for assistance. We have two in our area. Most of their officers are students working to pay for their education.

Are these sworn law enforcement officers, sworn "special deputies", or non-sworn security officers? Most non-sworn campus "security" officers are unarmed. However, most of the sworn campus "police" departments that I'm familiar with are armed.