All they did was establish a perimeter which I dont think is very important when youre dealing with a flash of action like a shooting rampage. Why didnt they have SWAT at the scene? Why didnt they shoot gas into the building? Or at the very least say something over a loudspeaker to the effect of "We know youre in there and youre in a lot of trouble"? Doesn't something seem better than nothing?
2007-04-18 22:14:22 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law Enforcement & Police
counterstrike that ************
2007-04-18 22:15:35 · update #1
That would be because the doors were chained shut when SWAT got there. (by the shooter) And because he'd already shot himself by the time they got inside.
Pretty much every law enforcement agency in the country has adopted a more aggressive "active shooter" policy since Columbine. But the whole thing was over before SWAT could get there in this case.
I don't really thing shooting a dead body would have helped anyone, yelling at it with a loudspeaker probably wouldn't have worked either.
2007-04-18 22:27:48 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
One answer to questions would be that we're dealing with a small agency in a very rural area. The VA Tech campus police have only 39 sworn officers if I remember correctly. That number includes admin, investigators, and any other specialized units they might have. Lets say that 30 of that 39 are patrolmen, which they probably are not. That would leave an estimated 7 or 8 officers per shift out patrolling the campus. Not many for 26,000 students. Next we have to take into account that the vast majority are already tied up working a double homicide so they were lucky if they had a person or two still on patrol. But they're not asked to just patrol on that day. They're asked to respond to the largest mass murder in history on a college campus. You do the math.
2007-04-19 03:43:48 · answer #2 · answered by Keith 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is possible more people would have gotten hurt had the police rushed the building. The general public believes the innocent people should not be harmed in any way. So if the police went into the building shooting at whatever moves, they would be in more trouble than for doing what they did.
2007-04-18 23:25:03 · answer #3 · answered by dxle 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
YES! We should have stormed the whole Campus with S.W.A.T., Para-Military, National Guard, ERT Snipers, The Knights of Columbus Chapter Commanders, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers (M.A.D.D.), Wal-Mart Greeters, American Hunting Club Members, the Local Affiliation of the Gangster Disciples, Gertrude Swanson's Quilt Making Club members, the local Jehovah's Witness congregation,............
......and STORMED the Campus with any and all means and killed EVERYONE! That way we could be assured that we not only got the killer, but, any collaborators, potential other future killers, and by using such matters of coverall attrition and do some real social cleansing of an infected and contaminated campus.
There, this should satisfy you and all you idiots that know NOTHING of tactical engagement when a shooter is on the loose. You all watch too many movies, and since my "other" answer didn't make sense,.....surely this will appease and satisfy the ignorant and shallow minds that understand little.
Yeah.............Duhhhhh, shoot into the building and kill others. Shoot gas into the building. What kind of gas?
You think shouting in a loud-speaker that "We know youre [sic] in there and youre [sic] in a lot of trouble" would have made a difference whom was already resigned to killing himself once the "heat" came on him would have helped?
Doing anything, something, is not an appropriate address to the problem.
Columbine showed "THEY" (the Cops) could have done more for them kids, and they truly failed in Littleton, CO. where as, VT was not as easy.
Surely I understand your frustration as many are but, the true answer to dealing with these events is in acting before such tragedies take place.
2007-04-18 22:20:27 · answer #4 · answered by The Sylvan Wizard 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋
they don't know his intentions or whats happening. sometimes you don't want to storm it cause they'll kill the hostages, they couldn't really know that he was reckless. SWAT takes time and this looks like a small town, take 1-3 hours to get SWAT from a larger city to get there.
The bulk probaly happened in under 5 min, went to two rooms or so and unloaded a few clips, by the time they know where he is, they can't even get there in time.
2007-04-18 22:24:51 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Obviously you have absolutely no knowledge as to what you're talking about. Do some research before you ask questions. Why don't you tell us about your Military, and Police background, and expertise.
2007-04-19 07:02:20 · answer #6 · answered by CGIV76 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Policemen were slow in reacting to the shooting rampage of gunman. They should have assaulted him after the initial shooting.
2007-04-18 22:21:17 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
All you arm chair quarterbacks, have no idea what so ever about law enforcement. so keep spouting you ignorant mindless opinions about what "I would have done" or "they should have done this"
2007-04-19 00:57:08 · answer #8 · answered by watchman_1900 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Our government should be trained by yahoo answers
l.o.l
common knoledge, who would have thought to actually use it?
Or do there job! instead of blaming.
thanks for pointing this out.
2007-04-18 22:22:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
they assumed he left the area and you know what that word means assof youand me
2007-04-18 22:25:21 · answer #10 · answered by jim m 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋