Monday, June 20, 2016

Lessons From Orlando

There's a number of lessons that can be learned from the events in Orlando at the Pulse nightclub.

They are the some of the same lessons that can be learned from Columbine, 9/11, Virginia Tech, and the Petit family murders, among many others. Here's what I have gleaned from current events.

1. You are alone and totally responsible for yourself.

2. The police are 20 minutes away.

3. When the police arrive, they are going to establish a perimeter, set up a command post, assess the situation, and work to ensure that they all go home at the end of the shift.

4. Having an active shooter randomly killing people does not change #3.

5. If you're on an airplane, they will scramble fighters to shoot the plane down. There is no rescue.

6. You should behave as if you were already dead.

It's time to start training. If the police are going to leave you in the nightclub to be shot when the Islamist gets to you, you have nothing to lose by fighting back. It would be ideal if everyone fought back, but that is unrealistic. Fight back anyway.

Select your moment, when his back is turned, when he is reloading, when he's text messaging his wife about how his jihad is going, and then go. Hopefully you have found something to hit him with, stab him with, a fire extinguisher to spray in his face, or perhaps you are armed with a firearm, whatever the rules are in your area. Use the tools and skills, but bring as much force and violence to the engagement as you can.

If he shoots you, well, you were already dead. Maybe the next guy gets him.

Even if I found a good hiding place, I am unwilling to be the guy who survived by hiding while a shooter executes women and shouts praises to his god.

It is reasonable to expect more attacks. It is reasonable to develop a personal plan. It is reasonable to talk to others and develop a group plan.

“If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.” ― Dalai Lama XIV

8 comments:

Old NFO said...

Agreed! 100+ against one, he SHOULD have been beaten to death by the crowd, gun or no gun... sigh

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"Having an active shooter randomly killing people does not change #3."

I'm going to have to quibble with this. This approach changed after Columbine. The exact events in Orlando are still a bit hazy, but the reports I'm seeing are still saying it was believed to be a hostage situation by the time the police got there. The few claims I've seen that he was killing people the whole time did not strike me as credible.

It is certainly not what happened at Virginia Tech. The first officers went inside as soon as possible, and the only delay was because the scumbag had chained all the doors shut.

R.K. Brumbelow said...

While the advice is credible, I believe there are a few more things to add. I do not understand this to have been a terrorist act or hate crime. I firmly believe this was suicide by cop. I believe the stories that he was in fact gay/bi and he was acting out against himself and trying to justify his suicide.

Each individual is tesponsible for his own security. Having established your own security, I would hope you would be willing to be responsible for those around you as well, but that is the individuals choice.

Do not deliberately place yourself in a vulnerable position. Is the person walking down a dark alley in a seedy area of town deserving of being assaulted? No. Do they share some of the blame for going somewhere where they are much more likely to be assaulted? Yes.

Guns and booze do not mix. If you are going out drinking, do not go armed, if you are armed, do not drink. I am not talking about the pint at the local pub with the boys, you know what I mean. I had to take my ketamine a week ago past saturday, and so Isat out the 2nd day of my local Appleseed.

If you entrust your safety to others, make certain they can handle it.

Be situationally aware, make plans before hand, know your exits, know your ambushes, know yourself.

Train, train, train.

ASM826 said...

+1 for "Train, train, train"

Divemedic said...

@R.K. Brumbelow
I find your theory to be highly suspect. The wife was with him when he bought the guns and ammo, she admits to driving him to that bar, another bar, and to Disney, so they could scout out locations for the massacre.

He transferred ownership of his home to family members in the weeks prior, and also gave his wife access to the family bank accounts just before.

Then there is also the texts and phone calls where he pledged his allegiance to Allah, ISIS, and its leader. Are we to ignore all of that?

The only evidence we have that he was gay, was that he was seen on gay dating websites and in gay bars. Perhaps he was scouting the place out? Or, maybe he was gay. That doesn't mean that he wasn't a terrorist.

Richard said...

@Jake I basically agree with your quibble. The active shooter drill is a viable tactic in some situations and has been used repeatedly and successfully. Pulse is an anomaly in the post-Columbine world. I think you are correct as to why the police didn't go into active shooter mode after the initial attempt though there has been some commentary about potential explosives as well. However, I think the decision tree about using active shooter vs traditional barricaded suspect tactics needs to be revised. Specifically, if the barricaded suspect is a jihadi he will not surrender or negotiate. He came to kill and die. So the assault needs to be mounted ASAP consistent with acceptable tactics. As Patton said ""A good solution applied with vigor now is better than a perfect solution applied ten minutes later."

R.K. Brumbelow said...

@Divemedic, so you dismiss the comments his wife has made saying she was specifically told, by police and other government agencies, to not reveal her husband was gay? Both the liberal and conservative news outlets brought that forward early on.

No I do not dismiss his texts, phone calls pledges etc, because they reinforce the guy was doing exactly what I said, suicide.

My reasoning is thus: There is a phase in religious transition, that in Christian Reformed circles we call the 'cage stage'. The cage stage is when someone finally accepts the doctrines of grace, themselves, but then try and wield them like a machette on everyone around them, so we older folks want to lock them in a cage till they get past that point. Right before that stage, as an individual is fighting a transition in thought/belief is when they are in the Hill to Die on phase commonly. Whatever it is that is holding them back becomes internalized and the become extremely combative about the subject. So,in my case, transitioning from Baptist (ARBCA) to Prebyterian (OPC) the issue for me was infant baptism. I argued against infant baptism in every way possible at the end of seminary, it was my hill to die on. It was the one thing holding me back from moving from Baptist to Presby, I was at a Baptist Seminary, even my profs knew I was a Presby,i just could not admit it myself.

One morning I woke up and I had accepted infant Baptism, internally it was just like that.

I have seen it happen literally hundreds of times before and since, someone becomes exceedingly agressive about a particular subject to a degree that defies any sense of scale and rationality.

I believe that was exactly what happened to this guy. He had already become gay, internally, but his family, his religion, possibly his community sees sexuality through the eyes of dominance, to be, ahem... receptive, to homosexuality as a male puts one in a dominated position. To be a receptive homosexual in Islam is a terrible thing for an otherwise alpha type male, thus externally he was determined to prove he could dominate the very people he wanted to be dominated by. The two men kissing that angered him so angered him not because Islam requires homosexuals to die and he was some radicalized Muslim, but rather because he wanted to be one of those two males, the receptive one, and that does require death in Islam. So how does one prove that one really is a Muslim of Muslims, a man amongst men, a fighter amongst fighters during a jihad while eliminating his own issue of same sex attraction plus a desire to be dominated? By doing exactly what he did, go dominate the very people he desired to be dominated by, claim jihad, claim his virgins, show his fidelity to Islam, and die in the process so that he never has to face temptation again.

Thus, the exception you believe I have ignored, I believe actually reinforce my thought that this was not terrorism or a hate crime, I really do believe it was suicide.

waepnedmann said...

Rule #1:
"Just remember...we're in this alone." - Lily Tomlin