Orlando massacre

[TheDeamon]

There is apparently a huge divide between people willing to fight for a cause and those willing to kill for a cause.  Oddly this applies even when they don't go in expecting to survive.  The only way that makes sense to me is maximizing body count for the sensationalism of it.  I think a few incidents of these would be martyrs or hate crime perpetrators being put down by those they loath, and others seeing the defenders hailed as heroes, stopping disturbed / pathetic monsters would do wonders to curb additional attacks.  Waiting for the police who can be held off for hours by exploiting their policies just reinforces the attacker's targets as helpless victims just waiting for the next attacker.

Oh it goes one better, although I'm almost loathe to mention it. One other aspect of his target being an LGBT Bar comes to mind. The LGBT crowd isn't generally known for being anything close to aggressive. If anything, at least in popular portrayal, and my limited interactions with them as well, tends to be on the more passive side of things, and are overwhelmingly liberal, who also tend to be unarmed. (In retrospect, I'm kind of surprised nobody tried to mace or peper spray him or the room, yes it would incapacitate others as well, but it's going to make him hate life too; but this is coming to mind well after the fact(as I started to consider alternatives they might have had available) and not during a fight or flight response, so not surprising people would "forget" that option in the moment.)

As such THAT may have been a selection consideration that was in the mix as well. Because in a number of other clubs, chances are he could have encountered armed patrons, either with guns or knives(yeah yeah, bringing knife to a gun fight), if not both, and more than a few patrons of which at least one will get a chance to demonstrate just how macho they are before they get shot.

[Fenring]

I think it's still true in Western societies that there are no rational reasons to kill oneself.

Do you mean to say that this bias exists in these societies, or that it is a moral fact in these societies that doing so is irrational? As a Canadian I would expect you are aware that euthanasia is not seen as the boogeyman that it is in the U.S., and is soon going to become standard in certain cases (I didn't research how they'll adjudicate it). I agree that many people still seem to feel it's immoral to do so, which is quite different from irrational. I would suggest that those who claim it's irrational have little or no experience in the realm of cancers and other deadly degenerative ailments. We might like to make a distinction between physical ailments and psychological or psychiatric ailments, but then we get into the issue of "can we help these people", which is entirely different and in a way off-topic from whether suicide (by whatever means) is rational or not.

[Pete at Home]

Bringing pepper spray to a hookup bar is a straight girl thing.  Women aren't taught to fear each other physically as they do men, and that false expectation of safety probably why there ends up being actually *more* domestic violence between lesbians couples than straight couples.

[D.W.]

Not to sidetrack Pete, but more total, or more proportionately?

[Pete at Home]

Not to sidetrack Pete, but more total, or more proportionately?

More proportionately, of course.  It was a lesbian activist from law school that made me aware of this.  There's a serious problem with underenforcement of domestic violence issues with gays, also.

[Fenring]

If anything, at least in popular portrayal, and my limited interactions with them as well, tends to be on the more passive side of things, and are overwhelmingly liberal, who also tend to be unarmed.

One segment of the gay population in particular tends to be physically jacked to the max and quite 'alpha', and I would by no means qualify them as 'passive' in the sense you mean it. Other sub-groups in that 'community' can be more passive, as you suggest. I'm not at all versed in whether there's any difference in armament statistically between LGBT and anyone else. But your general point may be valid, that the target was chosen as one that would be least likely to defend itself. Then again if what we've been told about Mateen's history is accurate then it wasn't just a random place chosen but was rather a place with which he was intimately familiar already.

[NobleHunter]

That seems almost non compos mentis.  One of the highest principles of western society and western religions is to end suffering.  I can't understand why ending one's own suffering should be a crime or an indication of mental derangement.

Suicide is arguably the worst mortal sin in Christianity and many denominations prize enduring suffering over ending it.

I forgot to include an exception for terminal disease. While acknowledging that all deaths are a matter of timing, there comes a point when it becomes rational to expedite it.

[Pete at Home]

That seems almost non compos mentis.  One of the highest principles of western society and western religions is to end suffering.  I can't understand why ending one's own suffering should be a crime or an indication of mental derangement.

Suicide is arguably the worst mortal sin in Christianity and many denominations prize enduring suffering over ending it.

I forgot to include an exception for terminal disease. While acknowledging that all deaths are a matter of timing, there comes a point when it becomes rational to expedite it.

In Catholicism.  I don't recall anything in the New Testament saying that suicide was even as much of a sin as murder of another human being.  The gospels depict Judas' suicide as an act of contrition (although the book of Acts is a bit smug about it. )

[TheDeamon]

Bringing pepper spray to a hookup bar is a straight girl thing.  Women aren't taught to fear each other physically as they do men, and that false expectation of safety probably why there ends up being actually *more* domestic violence between lesbians couples than straight couples.

Well, that and I guess another blog post I encountered recently, from a lesbian to her straight counterparts, would tend to further that along a bit. Evidently the lesbians don't play "hard to get" (sexually) with each other like their straight counterparts do, obviously, not needing to worry about getting pregnant helps. As such, the concerns about sexual assault(bearing in mind, it is usually someone you know, if it happens to you) are probably much lower as they evidently don't wait very long before engaging in those activities. (After the first or second date is evidently very common, but I think her assertion is anecdotal in nature, I have no idea how representative her experience is among Lesbians)

[Pete at Home]

I've defended gay clients in domestic violence and battery cases, and I find the stereotype of passivity hilarious. 

[Pete at Home]

Bringing pepper spray to a hookup bar is a straight girl thing.  Women aren't taught to fear each other physically as they do men, and that false expectation of safety probably why there ends up being actually *more* domestic violence between lesbians couples than straight couples.

Well, that and I guess another blog post I encountered recently, from a lesbian to her straight counterparts, would tend to further that along a bit. Evidently the lesbians don't play "hard to get" (sexually) with each other like their straight counterparts do, obviously, not needing to worry about getting pregnant helps. As such, the concerns about sexual assault(bearing in mind, it is usually someone you know, if it happens to you) are probably much lower as they evidently don't wait very long before engaging in those activities. (After the first or second date is evidently very common, but I think her assertion is anecdotal in nature, I have no idea how representative her experience is among Lesbians)

Here's another shocker, albeit anecdotal.  Strippers roofie each other when they feel a newbie is taking away too much of their business.

[TheDeamon]

One segment of the gay population in particular tends to be physically jacked to the max and quite 'alpha', and I would by no means qualify them as 'passive' in the sense you mean it.

Oh, I'm aware of the "Butch" crowd, male and female alike. I'm just not sure what kind of presence they'd have in that club, I'm guessing it wouldn't be "their style" and had one more to their tastes elsewhere. But I could be wrong.

Other sub-groups in that 'community' can be more passive, as you suggest. I'm not at all versed in whether there's any difference in armament statistically between LGBT and anyone else. But your general point may be valid, that the target was chosen as one that would be least likely to defend itself. Then again if what we've been told about Mateen's history is accurate then it wasn't just a random place chosen but was rather a place with which he was intimately familiar already.

I'm not sure any real study has been done in regards to sexual orientation and firearms use/ownership. I am given to understand that there have been studies in regards to political views and firearms ownership. As well as studies in regards rural vs urban gun ownership.

Liberals tend to be disarmed, Conservatives are far more likely to be armed.

The LGBT crowd tends strongly towards being Liberal, which would suggest they'd also tend toward being disarmed.

Likewise, people in urban areas trend towards being disarmed(of course, that also tracks with people in urban areas trending towards being Liberal).

As the LGBT community tends to concentrate in Urban areas, it again follows, they'd tend to be disarmed.

[NobleHunter]

Depending on your definitions, half of every gay male couple could be considered passive (well, more passive if they switch) 

[TheDeamon]

Depending on your definitions, half of every gay male couple could be considered passive (well, more passive if they switch) 

Only if you're being CIS-normative about it.

[AI Wessex]

Wessex:  I have no problem with the abstract notion that a "designated carrier" could be present in a bar, but the practical difficulties would be immense.  It would seem far safer to me to have a higher police presence in the vicinity than some uncertified civilian who chooses to be the DC for an evening, but cities that don't already have that level of police presence probably can't afford it.

Pete: I'm taken aback by your position, Al.  I apologize for having so completely mis-ascertained where you stood on this.  Mea Culpa.

My only comment would be that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.  Nice idea, but almost impossible to implement.

[Pete at Home]

Depending on your definitions, half of every gay male couple could be considered passive (well, more passive if they switch) 

Bah.  Hitler's sexual submissiveness didn't map over his demeanor towards his political opponents.  Some think that masochism is some sort of universal compensation for boardroom bullies, explaining why high powered lawyers bankers, etc go for being tied up and humiliated.

[Pete at Home]

The LGBT crowd tends strongly towards being Liberal, which would suggest they'd also tend toward being disarmed.

Likewise, people in urban areas trend towards being disarmed(of course, that also tracks with people in urban areas trending towards being Liberal).

As the LGBT community tends to concentrate in Urban areas, it again follows, they'd tend to be disarmed.

,

Yes and no.  Go into any urban community and I bet you'll find that the gays are better armed on the whole than non-gays.  take a liberal group that's formed for a liberal cause that's not about guns, and set to the side those who are male gay, male bi, and female lesbian.  (Leave out female bi because they are not really threatened).  Bet you'll find that the gays and self-identified lesbians are more pro-gun than the rest of the liberal group.

At least that's how I've seen it in Vegas.

[Pete at Home]

Wessex:  I have no problem with the abstract notion that a "designated carrier" could be present in a bar, but the practical difficulties would be immense.  It would seem far safer to me to have a higher police presence in the vicinity than some uncertified civilian who chooses to be the DC for an evening, but cities that don't already have that level of police presence probably can't afford it.

Pete: I'm taken aback by your position, Al.  I apologize for having so completely mis-ascertained where you stood on this.  Mea Culpa.

My only comment would be that in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.  Nice idea, but almost impossible to implement.

But you actually thought about it rather than blowing it off with cut and paste ideological arguments.  I'd inferred from other things that you said that you were mindlessly ideologically anti-gun.  Hence my apology.

[Fenring]

For those who were uncertain about having civilians armed in a nightclub:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/32308903/deputies-police-investigating-nightclub-shooting

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting  into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

"His rounds struck three victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg," Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

From what I've heard SC does have a law permitting people to pack heat in alcohol-serving establishments, but they can't drink. This is the idea some people here had, which I guess is already a thing in some places. The term for such as person is apparently a "designated defender."

[Pete at Home]

For those who were uncertain about having civilians armed in a nightclub:

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/32308903/deputies-police-investigating-nightclub-shooting

Deputies said 32-year-old Jody Ray Thompson pulled out a gun after getting  into an argument with another man and fired several rounds toward a crowd that had gathered out in front of the club.

"His rounds struck three victims, and almost struck a fourth victim, who in self-defense, pulled his own weapon and fired, striking Thompson in the leg," Lt. Kevin Bobo said.

From what I've heard SC does have a law permitting people to pack heat in alcohol-serving establishments, but they can't drink. This is the idea some people here had, which I guess is already a thing in some places. The term for such as person is apparently a "designated defender."

Those that claim to believe that Black Lives Matter might consider the fact that Thompson being armed probably saved not only other club member lives, but also saved Jody.  A civilian with a gun is far more likely to take a nonlethal shot.  Cops are carefully trained to reflexively shoot to kill.  If Thompson hadn't had a gun, cops probably would have killed Jody when they arrived.

[scifibum]

Kinda off base to suggest that BLM is about saving the lives of active shooters, but I also believe we need to take the odds of collateral damage into account.  I'd need data to be convinced that "good guys with guns" tend to do more good than harm.  Is there good data on this?

[Pete at Home]

Kinda off base to suggest that BLM is about saving the lives of active shooters---

I wasn't singling out the BLM group, and I'm stunned you would say that.  Why would any decent human being not want to save the life of an active shooter, if it can be saved without harming others?

You really think that if we pulled a BLM spokesperson in here, and asked, if a black guy is shooting up a club, and a cop has a chance to take him down without killing him, should he do that or just kill him, that the BLM wouldn't care?  Hell, I care.  Don't you?

[Pete at Home]

Facts haven't come in.  As far as we know, maybe Jody has a spotless criminal record and ordered a virgin drink and someone spiked it with PCP.  The point of taking him down is to stop the killing spree.  If that requires killing him, them so be it, whether Jody's using a gun or a knife or a broken bottle, or even just lunging for a cop gun.  But if he can be taken down alive, that's the best outcome for everyone, isn't it?

[scifibum]

"Those that claim to believe that Black Lives Matter..."

Oh, goodness, forgive me for thinking you were singling out a group by naming them specifically.


Why mention them at all unless what you are saying has something to do with their agenda?  From what you've posted since then, it's pretty clear your point had nothing to do with BLM.  I was pointing out that bringing them up specifically didn't make sense. 

"Why would any decent human being not want to save the life of an active shooter, if it can be saved without harming others?"

Yep, but that's a big if.  Police shoot to kill on the theory that other strategies increase the chance of harm to others (including themselves). 

I do think non-lethal takedowns are preferable when they make sense, of course, but I am not sure that they make sense with an active shooter.  This one worked, but disabling shots are harder to land and might not stop the other shooter from shooting even if they stop him from walking.   

But if he can be taken down alive, that's the best outcome for everyone, isn't it?

Absolutely.  I'd like to see a lot of investment in better technology to make this a good option more often. 

[Pete at Home]

You are right and I misspoke.  I did " single them out" by using their name, but I meant to phrase it in a way that made it clear that I wasn't speaking exclusively about them.

Why mention them at all unless what you are saying has something to do with their agenda?

I doubt that you and I agree on what BLM's agenda is.  But I do agree with your earlier statement that BLM would not give a crap that someone took the trouble to take Jody out non-lethally.

"Police shoot to kill on the theory that other strategies increase the chance of harm to others (including themselves)."

Police shoot to kill because that's what the are trained to do.   Cops spend hours every week practicing shooting to the head or to the heart.  It's literally drilled into their spinal columns as an arc reflex.  There's no room in the spinal column for strategy or philosophy.

[Fenring]

I didn't post the link so much to advocate specifically on one side of the issue, but this case does fly in the face of the argument that armed civilians would necessarily lead to a flurry of friendly fire. This wasn't some freak coincidence like someone pulling a gun in a bar on Jack Bauer; it was an otherwise ordinary citizen packing heat.

[TheDeamon]

I didn't post the link so much to advocate specifically on one side of the issue, but this case does fly in the face of the argument that armed civilians would necessarily lead to a flurry of friendly fire. This wasn't some freak coincidence like someone pulling a gun in a bar on Jack Bauer; it was an otherwise ordinary citizen packing heat.

I was the one who brought up the "friendly fire cascade" scenario due to "fog of war." I don't think any advocacy group on either side has really brought it up. It's unlikely to occur, but being unlikely doesn't make it impossible.

The anti-gun crowd WILL assert that having more armed people means more people having the opportunity to "get stupid" while having access to a firearm. Which will likely result in more gun deaths as a result.

Kind of like commercial truck drivers are more likely to be involved in an automobile accident(yet also the least likely to be the cause of the accident when it happens), simply because they spend more time on the road than anyone else so their odds of eventually being in the right place at the wrong time eventually hits paydirt in a bad way. Even before getting into specifics of the vehicles they're operating or where they're operating them.

[D.W.]

Police shoot to kill because that's what the are trained to do. 

I'm not sure what the cops are trained for, but civilian courses teach to shoot "center mass" (the torso).  Also you are "shooting to stop" not "to kill".  It's partly for legal reasons and partly because it's sound strategy.  With a hand gun, making a head shot, taking out a leg or an arm or (hooray for Hollywood) a weapon, takes real skill with the adrenaline pumping and people moving.  It also increases the likelihood you will hit something beyond your target.

You don't aim for legs and arms, because that is dumb and reckless.  Not because you are "trained to kill" or something.  Now if they ARE being trained to shoot for the head however... (outside of police/swat snipers) then maybe you are correct.

[Pete at Home]

Police shoot to kill because that's what the are trained to do. 

I'm not sure what the cops are trained for, but civilian courses teach to shoot "center mass" (the torso).  Also you are "shooting to stop" not "to kill".  It's partly for legal reasons and partly because it's sound strategy.  With a hand gun, making a head shot, taking out a leg or an arm or (hooray for Hollywood) a weapon, takes real skill with the adrenaline pumping and people moving.  It also increases the likelihood you will hit something beyond your target.

You don't aim for legs and arms, because that is dumb and reckless.  Not because you are "trained to kill" or something.  Now if they ARE being trained to shoot for the head however... (outside of police/swat snipers) then maybe you are correct.

do you disagree that in this particular case, the fact that the shooter was taken out but not killed by a leg shot would have been less likely if a police officer had taken the shot?

[D.W.]

Absolutely I agree.  I'm just saying that, while it worked, the person who shot him in the leg, if they were indeed aiming at his leg, made a risky gamble.  A gamble a trained (even moderatly so) shooter, civilian or cop, are unlikely to make.  I'm glad the guy didn't die, and I'm glad the defensive shooter didn't miss and hit anyone else or have his round pass through and hit anyone else or the like.

I just wanted to point out that aiming center mass is safer for all those around, and improves the likelihood you will actually hit the target, and that the target will be stopped.  (yes, in many cases lethally so)  Police are not trained to "shoot to kill", to my knowledge, but they are trained to minimize risk to everyone besides their target. 

[Fenring]

Police are not trained to "shoot to kill", to my knowledge

I think they are, to be honest. One piece of evidence to support this is that after people are shot by cops and it's caught on cam, I have to date never seen the police subsequently rush over to the immobile body and offer lifesaving assistance to prevent them dying, nor do they rush to call 9-11 for an ambulance much of the time. We can't know what's in their minds when they shoot in terms of whether they 'desire' to kill the target or not, but after the target is immobilized it's pretty clear that the person living is not that relevant to them.

[D.W.]

I'm not in law enforcement so I don't know.  It seems more likely to me that we see these incidents because of what happens being sensational / appalling, not because they are so common.   

[Fenring]

I'm not in law enforcement so I don't know.  It seems more likely to me that we see these incidents because of what happens being sensational / appalling, not because they are so common.

I agree, but my issue isn't that they are so common, but that when they do happen the police seem to not try to keep the person alive after being shot. That seems to me to indicate that their intent was to kill, or at the very least, to not have as a serious priority avoiding using lethal force. Assuming your point is absolutely accurate, that targetting center of mass is safer and more reliable and therefore what they're trained to do, the motive in such a case would be to decrease the chance of missing rather than to increase the lethality of the encounter. Since the lethality would increase, however, you'd think that to make up for it someone who valued human life would first take the safe shot and then try to prevent death after they'd disarmed and cuffed the perp. But alas, no. What you end up with instead is 4-5 officers standing around the body doing nothing.

[D.W.]

What's the response time of an ambulance once called in?  Also, they wouldn't call it in until the scene is secure.

I'm not saying you're wrong; but one may get a distorted impression of "doing nothing".  That said, I have no idea on policy regarding first aid.  How disabled is disabled enough to lean over someone who could still attack your or go for your weapon and try to stabilize them?

I can easily see some rather chilling (appearing) behavior through the lens of officer safety and bystander safety once you get over the initial reaction to seeing a wounded / dying person go without aid.

[NobleHunter]

When one of the notable incidents involve a 12-year-old, I think it's suggestive that there was no attempt to administer first aid.

[Fenring]

I would also argue that on basic human principle there is no way to defend a policy where avoiding a one in a million chance of a cuffed person with gun wounds posing a threat to multiple officers present justifies letting the person die on scene. If they seriously feel unsafe around an unconscious person with multiple bullet wounds then I would suggest to you that they are either pathologically scared (i.e. unfit for duty) or else are fabricating the extent to which they actually feel threatened in order to justify not caring much whether the person lives or dies.

[LetterRip]

NobleHunter,

if you are referring to Tamir Rice - he was 5'7" and 195 lbs.  Physically he would have appear to be an adult.  The photos that have been published are not what he looked like (In the photos he appears to be 110-120 lbs or so - maybe 10 years old?).

[TheDeamon]

I would also argue that on basic human principle there is no way to defend a policy where avoiding a one in a million chance of a cuffed person with gun wounds posing a threat to multiple officers present justifies letting the person die on scene. If they seriously feel unsafe around an unconscious person with multiple bullet wounds then I would suggest to you that they are either pathologically scared (i.e. unfit for duty) or else are fabricating the extent to which they actually feel threatened in order to justify not caring much whether the person lives or dies.

I think this goes to multiple issues:

Any officers that approach the person they just shot would need to/want to completely disarm prior to approaching the person, just to ensure that in the (unlikely) event that the person is still able to do anything, they don't obtain a weapon in the process.

I'd also put pretty good odds that the (officer invovled) shooting was reported to dispatch immediately, and they don't need to discuss sending an ambulance as their location is already known by dispatch and medical response is in on its way already. Do you think the dispatchers are mentally handicapped and need to be told that a person who was just shot needs medical attention? This would thus mean getting on the radio to tell dispatch to send medical is both redundant(unnecessary), and insulting(to the dispatcher), for a larger department, it is also potentially dangerous as it ties up radio bandspace another officer or dispatcher may be in need of.

Further factors are: Police officers the were just involved in a lethal force event are probably actively proscribed against rendering assistance to the person(s) they just shot due to "liability concerns." You can probably thank the ambulance chasing lawyers for that one. There also may or may not be studies out there showing that the immediate response by the (lethal force using) officers involved "wasn't decisive" in the survival of the people involved, which then goes back to the ambulance chasing lawyers club.

[D.W.]

I suspect you are right about the liability issues.  As far as dispatch knowing someone was shot, I still go back to a site being secure (ready for an ambulance/paramedics) is different from knowing someone was shot.  AFAIK we don't ask paramedics to rush into an unsecured scene to preform combat triage potentially under fire. 

What I don't know is if they dispatch them and tell the ambulance to stay back X yards or whatever before getting the "all clear".

[Fenring]

That's a strong assertion, though, that officers on the scene are specifically forbidden from rendering first aid. If true it would be a very interesting thing to learn, but are you sure this is the case? Or is this just speculation? And even if the officer who did the shooting is forbidden, does that mean that other officers are forbidden as well? I've seen several videos of people shot by one officer and multiple other officers standing around their incapacitated body.

[TheDeamon]

That's a strong assertion, though, that officers on the scene are specifically forbidden from rendering first aid. If true it would be a very interesting thing to learn, but are you sure this is the case? Or is this just speculation? And even if the officer who did the shooting is forbidden, does that mean that other officers are forbidden as well? I've seen several videos of people shot by one officer and multiple other officers standing around their incapacitated body.

Entirely speculation, I might have to ask a family member who works with Law Enforcement to see the local departmental policy is on first aid to the "perp" in regards to an Officer Involved shooting. I imagine someone with the time/inclination to do some digging on google could probably find a guidebook belonging to one law enforcement agency or another (or consultancy) that would outline at least suggested practices. (Heck, one of the police fraternities or unions may have some information available as an "outreach" type thing)

Most of this stuff isn't exactly secret material, or particularly sensitive, so I imagine its out there on the internet somewhere.

[Fenring]

Most of this stuff isn't exactly secret material, or particularly sensitive, so I imagine its out there on the internet somewhere.

A quick Google search turned up this article about the NYPD:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/NYPD-advanced-first-aid-police-academy-training-akai-gurley-371306951.html

The NYPD has begun training all of its patrol officers in advanced first aid, a first for the department.
[...]
Questions about how much first aid NYPD officers are actually taught arose after the shooting of Akai Gurley. Convicted former NYPD officer Peter Liang and his partner Shaun Landau testified during the trial that they did not know how to do CPR, as Gurley lay dying in the stairwell of a Brooklyn project. It’s a claim that has been disputed by NYPD brass.
[...]
According to the NYPD, basic life support, such as CPR, has always been part of officer training at the police academy and all officers are required to take a refresher course every two years. But the skills they are now learning have never been taught.

So forget about what sort of aid officers are expected to render on scene (either to perps or victims), here we have a dispute about whether the NYPD received basic first aid training at all. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't, but if there's an internal dispute about whether they really do teach it then I'm sure they're not going to be that forthcoming about exactly what they tell the officers regarding how to deal with people they've shot. To be honest I doubt they'd ever tell the public the answer to this even if the officers are told something specific, any more than it's likely the public would be told what officers are instructed regarding the shooting of dogs. I read an article the other day about how many dogs are shot by the police each year...it's on the level of industrial slaughter. If, for instance, the police are told behind closed doors they have carte blanche to shoot any dog they see and say it was 'threatening' them, I doubt they would ever admit it, and likewise if they're told 'let 'em bleed' behind closed doors this would never come out either, barring some miraculous whistleblower. I don't know that this is what they're told, but I wouldn't be too sure that the answer, whatever it is, is freely available to the public.

[Pete at Home]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/dalailama.asp

 In May 2001 Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th and current Dalai Lama (the head monk of the Gelugpa lineage of Tibetan Buddhism), made a three-day visit to Portland, Oregon, during which he gave a talk to 7,600 area high school students in what was billed by organizers as the "Educating the Heart Summit."

As reported by the Seattle Times, during that talk the Dalai Lama responded to a question posed by a student about how to react to a potential school shooter by stating that it would "be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun," with the proviso that one should aim to wound and not to kill:
His message resonates in an era when schools must be on guard against violent acts by gun-toting students. Included in the audience were some 35 students from Thurston High School in Springfield, Ore., where Kip Kinkel went on a May 1998 rampage in which his parents and two students were killed and 24 other students were wounded.

Students, in a question-and-answer period, asked some hard questions.

One girl wanted to know how to react to a shooter who takes aim at a classmate.

The Dalai Lama said acts of violence should be remembered, and then forgiveness should be extended to the perpetrators.

But if someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, he said, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun. Not at the head, where a fatal wound might result. But at some other body part, such as a leg.

amazing how basic reasonableness evades so many of us.

[TheDeamon]

Kind of ironic, as mentioned recently elsewhere on these boards as I recall. People that are formally trained to shoot are taught to shoot for center of mass. The simple logic being it's the largest(and easiest) target to hit, and if they move or your aim is off, well, you might get a limb or other extremity instead.

But yeah, unless you're a (professional) trick shooter, or you're a sniper sitting hundreds of feet away with a rifle, you should never be going for a "head shot." You shouldn't be going for a limb shot either, in all reality, as once again, limbs make for small(and highly mobile) targets.

[TheDeamon]

So forget about what sort of aid officers are expected to render on scene (either to perps or victims), here we have a dispute about whether the NYPD received basic first aid training at all. I find it hard to believe they wouldn't, but if there's an internal dispute about whether they really do teach it then I'm sure they're not going to be that forthcoming about exactly what they tell the officers regarding how to deal with people they've shot.

Spoke to my police dispatcher relative on this. As soon as "shots fired" is reported an ambulance is being dispatched to a nearby "staging area" where they will then await being given an "all clear" indicating it is safe for them to enter the area before proceeding to the scene to treat any wounded. (Departmental policies may vary; at least for my local area, policy is to also stage ambulances in situations where they think shots are likely to be fired)

For the officers in the department I can speak of with some degree of certainty, the officers only have very basic first aid knowledge and would likely do more harm than good trying to assist a gun shot victim. Which they too, won't think about trying to do until the scene is determined to be "safe."

So those videos with cops standing around their squad cars are probably the ones not immediately involved in securing the scene.