Mass killing in Orlando gay nightclub

[Berkut]

They did go in there.

Read the article.

First calls about the shooting came in just after 2am.

Several officers from different agencies entered the club at 2:08 a.m. That is like 5 minutes later. They clearly were not waiting.

They exchanged gunfire with Mateen, who then retreated into a bathroom and barricaded himself inside.

There was not anymore shooting for the next three hours, until they went in and killed him when they heard he was planning on blowing shit up.

I can't really fault much there - clearly the officers who initially responded went in with the "post-Columbine" thinking of immediate engagement with an active shooter, and probably saved a lot of lives by doing so.

No follow through. He already shot and killed folks and they let him barricade himself. Three hours, give me a fucking break. That time allowed the shooter breathing room, which if they had pressed him he wouldn't have had. This was not a TV bank robbery.

They fucked up and it should be looked into.

Who gives a shit about breathing room?

If he is no longer an active threat, the focus becomes on how to resolve the situation with as little loss of innocent life as possible. Going in with guns blazing doesn't achieve that, since they know he has hostages.

So they fall back on their standard hostage situation tactics, and those are pretty well understood.

I don't understand the complaint here - while he was an active shooter, they used active shooter response tactics. Ideally that would result in him being dead, but in this case he was able to retreat into a situation where he was no longer an active shooter (success for the good guys) but was now a hostage taker.

So at that point you switch to the appropriate tactics for THAT situation.

Using active shooter tactics in a hostage situation that doesn't call for it is just as dumb as using hostage tactics in an active shooter situation.

I think we want our responders to be smart enough and flexible enough to change tactics as the situation changes.

[11B4V]

They did go in there.

Read the article.

First calls about the shooting came in just after 2am.

Several officers from different agencies entered the club at 2:08 a.m. That is like 5 minutes later. They clearly were not waiting.

They exchanged gunfire with Mateen, who then retreated into a bathroom and barricaded himself inside.

There was not anymore shooting for the next three hours, until they went in and killed him when they heard he was planning on blowing shit up.

I can't really fault much there - clearly the officers who initially responded went in with the "post-Columbine" thinking of immediate engagement with an active shooter, and probably saved a lot of lives by doing so.

No follow through. He already shot and killed folks and they let him barricade himself. Three hours, give me a fucking break. That time allowed the shooter breathing room, which if they had pressed him he wouldn't have had. This was not a TV bank robbery.

They fucked up and it should be looked into.

Who gives a shit about breathing room?

If he is no longer an active threat, the focus becomes on how to resolve the situation with as little loss of innocent life as possible. Going in with guns blazing doesn't achieve that, since they know he has hostages.

So they fall back on their standard hostage situation tactics, and those are pretty well understood.

I don't understand the complaint here - while he was an active shooter, they used active shooter response tactics. Ideally that would result in him being dead, but in this case he was able to retreat into a situation where he was no longer an active shooter (success for the good guys) but was now a hostage taker.

So at that point you switch to the appropriate tactics for THAT situation.

Using active shooter tactics in a hostage situation that doesn't call for it is just as dumb as using hostage tactics in an active shooter situation.

I think we want our responders to be smart enough and flexible enough to change tactics as the situation changes.

They allowed the Hostage situation to happen and lost the initiative. The shooter already made his intent known.

Folks on here have no problems putting the microscope on the police, yet you give them a pass. That entire operation needs to be investigated.

But you know best don't you.

The first calls about a shooting came at 2:02 a.m., according to a timeline released by the F.B.I. The timeline did not say whether Mr. Mateen exchanged gunfire with an off-duty officer working security, as some officials have said.

At 2:04, more officers arrived, and at 2:08, officers from multiple agencies entered the club, and they and Mr. Mateen opened fire.

Excellent response

"That engagement and that initial entry caused him to stop shooting, retreat, and barricade himself into a bathroom," Chief Mina said.

As it should be. But did press the advantage and lost the initiative. Fuck up #1

Officials did not say how many officers fired in that gun battle, or how many rounds. The Orange County medical examiner, Dr. Joshua D. Stephany, said in an interview that autopsies of victims had not made any determination about who fired the fatal shots.

AS response is to neutralize the threat.

In an interview, the SWAT commander, Mark Canty, said he doubted any fatalities resulted from police bullets. Members of his team, he said, "are trained to kind of identify the targets."

Canned answer

But it is not clear whether any officers in that gunfight were from the SWAT team, and it is clear that some were not. The full team was not called to the scene until 2:18.

Not relevant

From the time Mr. Mateen retreated to the bathroom, Chief Mina said, "There was no shooting in that three-hour period until the commencement of the hostage-rescue operation."

Loss of the initiative the shooter had made his intent known.

Survivors who were in that bathroom have said Mr. Mateen had sprayed it with gunfire, killing and injuring several people, but their accounts did not make clear whether that happened before or after the firefight with the police. Former hostages agreed that a long period without shooting followed, though some have said Mr. Mateen shot a few more people at the end of the siege, after officers began to storm the building.

You are giving the cops a pass.

Officials here have insisted that the police followed protocol in not trying to force a showdown that could have claimed more lives. In fact, Mayor Buddy Dyer said the department's practices called for officers to retreat 1,000 feet once there was a threat of explosives, but they did not.

Upper management ass covering

Chief Mina said that throughout the standoff, officers went into the club, putting themselves in danger to rescue people. Some survivors have told stories to that effect; Angel Colon, tearfully told of being unable to walk after having been shot several times, and expressed gratitude to an officer who pulled him to safety.

But others who escaped with their lives have not been so complimentary. Norman Caisano said that after hiding and then making his way toward the club entrance, "I poked my head out, and the police actually shot at me."


"I started crying and yelling, 'I'm a victim, I'm a victim, please, I'm hurt, I'm injured, I've been shot twice,' " he said.

Jeannette McCoy, 37, who escaped early on, was furious at the caution of the police, yelling at them to end the matter. "I wanted this guy dead," she said, but "they gave him so much time."

Again you give them a pass.

At 4:21 a.m., officers pulled an air-conditioner out of a wall, creating an escape route for people hiding in one room of the club. Eight minutes later, according to the F.B.I. timeline, some people who been inside had told the police that the gunman had said he was going to put explosive vests on four hostages within 15 minutes.

That prompted the decision to storm the club, officials have said. While the gunman and his hostages were in one bathroom, officials decided to breach the building's outer wall at another bathroom nearby, to free people trapped there, and make a path in.

A team from the Orange County Sheriff's Office placed explosives on the wall. Those were detonated at 5:02 a.m., but did not break all the way through, so officers used an armored vehicle to punch through the wall. But officials have said their aim was off, and they had to try multiple times to find the right spot for a hole. At 5:14 a.m., there were gunshots, as officers traded fire with Mr. Mateen. At 5:15, word came across the radio: the suspect was down.

It's harder to regain the initiative after you have lost it.

[Berkut]

Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.

I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.

KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.

Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.

But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".

I like that your "evidence" includes a pissed off victim - like some victim wanting the shooter dead is *clearly* enough to make the tactical commander change his tactics. "Wait, someone is mad at the guy and wants him dead? Well fuck, why didn't someone say so? Send in the tanks!".

[Berkut]

Some survivors of the attack had spoken out shortly after the events unfolded, criticizing a three-hour standoff that followed the early burst of gunfire.

"Why couldn't we have taken care of this much earlier?" New York television station WNYW quoted attack survivor Jeannette McCoy as saying two days afterward. "There were people in there bleeding to death. A part of me puts a sense of blame on (police). I'm sorry, but I was there. They could have done something."

But Monday, Orlando police Chief John Mina reiterated earlier statements he had made that circumstances changed when the initial response of officers who ran to the gunshots and fired on Mateen drove him into a bathroom of the club with hostages.

Gee, that sounds familiar, like something someone in this very thread said...

At that moment, Mina said, what had been an active shooter situation requiring officers to engage the gunman turned into a hostage situation that demanded negotiation and planning.

"The timeline released based upon radio communications clearly shows our officers were within the club within minutes and engaged the suspect in gunfire," Mina said Monday. "And that's important because that the engagement and that initial entry caused him to retreat, stop shooting and barricade himself in the bathroom with hostages."

And, he said, police were in and out of the club rescuing victims throughout the three hours between when police gunfire drove Mateen into the bathroom and the final encounter with the gunman after a SWAT team blew a hole in the wall and stormed in.

At the same time, crisis negotiators were trying to talk to Mateen to end the situation without further bloodshed, and the SWAT team was setting up for its entry, Mina said.

There was no gunfire during that time, he said.

When Mateen threatened to put explosive vests on hostages -- vests authorities later found he did not have -- commanders gave the order to go in, Mina said.

"So I'm extremely proud of the heroic actions of our officers, and I am very confident they saved many, many, many lives that night," he said.

Again, I am sure there will be a rather thorough AAR done, but I see nothing here to fault. They had the shooter neutralized, but there was still a hostage situation. They were able to get in and get wounded people out.

The goal at this point is to end the situation without further innocent injury or death. They are police, not soldiers. Indeed, they had taken away the shooters initiative completely, and could control the situation as it were.

It seems clear that going after him was going to result in more people dying, and in fact when they did go after him because of the explosives threat, it is likely (although this is currently unclear) that he did in fact shoot some of the hostages. Trying to avoid that was a very reasonable goal.

[11B4V]

When Mateen threatened to put explosive vests on hostages -- vests authorities later found he did not have -- commanders gave the order to go in, Mina said.

Two hours after the initial entry. That is a deflection on their part. It's obvious we will not agree. Look at their actions that night with a critical eye and not just a pass. Make them answer and don't except a canned response.

At 4:21 a.m., officers pulled an air-conditioner out of a wall, creating an escape route for people hiding in one room of the club. Eight minutes later, according to the F.B.I. timeline, some people who been inside had told the police that the gunman had said he was going to put explosive vests on four hostages within 15 minutes.

"So I'm extremely proud of the heroic actions of our officers, and I am very confident they saved many, many, many lives that night," he said.

Typical upper management drivel.

[DGuller]

I guess the key question is:  how many critically wounded people was police unable to remove from the club during those three hours?  In a way, leaving the wounded victims bleeding is tantamount to letting the hostage taker slowly execute them.

[11B4V]

Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.

I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.

KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.

Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.

But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".

Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.

[11B4V]

I guess the key question is:  how many critically wounded people was police unable to remove from the club during those three hours?  In a way, leaving the wounded victims bleeding is tantamount to letting the hostage taker slowly execute them.

A good question.

[Berkut]

When Mateen threatened to put explosive vests on hostages -- vests authorities later found he did not have -- commanders gave the order to go in, Mina said.

Two hours after the initial entry. That is a deflection on their part. It's obvious we will not agree. Look at their actions that night with a critical eye and not just a pass. Make them answer and don't except a canned response.

I am not giving them a pass, I am withholding judgment, something you think you have enough information to go ahead with - there is nothing here so far that suggests that they made a mistake in letting the situation go for a couple hours while they try to come up with a way of resolving it that doesn't allow the shooter the chance to kill some more people. your position seems to be much more motivated by an emotional, ex-military viewpoint that demands action simply for the sake of action.

The evidence is that they were right to do so - since once they DID decide they had to go, he did in fact shoot some of his hostages.

[Berkut]

Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.

I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.

KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.

Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.

But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".

Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.

You are the one who is so quick to question the judgment and courage of the professionals, not me.

[garbon]

viewpoint that demands action simply for the sake of action.

That's a little unfair. I think his viewpoint would be best described as one that believe action would have resulted in saving more lives. He may or may not be right but not simply action for the sake of taking action.

[11B4V]

Clearly *you* are the one who knows best.

I am not giving them a pass, I am saying none of the information I have now suggests that *I* think I could have done any better had I been in charge, and it seems like they handled the situation aggressively when aggression was called for, and carefully when that was called for, and went right back to aggressive when THAT was called for again.

KICK ASS TAKE NAMES DONT LOSE INITIATIVE HOO RAH RAH RAH sounds awesome, and very typical ex-military.

Should there be an investigation? Of course. 50 people are dead, and another 50 wounded, and this is not going to be the last time something like this happens - hopefully they go over the entire thing in great detail and figure out how to revise tactics and do it better next time.

But I am not quite ready to start whining about how I could have done ever so much better from the comfort of my office chair because *I* never would have let him retreat into a bathroom and blockade himself into a clearly dominating, initiative laden position like "barricaded in a bathroom, surrounded by police".

Hyberbole much. Beings you have lost control of yourself, good day.

You are the one who is so quick to question the judgment and courage of the professionals, not me.

Good day

[Berkut]

I guess the key question is:  how many critically wounded people was police unable to remove from the club during those three hours?  In a way, leaving the wounded victims bleeding is tantamount to letting the hostage taker slowly execute them.

That is a fair assessment only if it is reasonable to know the particulars of the question (how many people injured that they cannot get to, compared to how many hostages he had) at the time the decisions had to be made.

It is pretty easy to sit here now and pick apart every choice made in hindsight and perfect safety. A lot harder to make those decisions at the time, and the reason I am willing to give them the presumption of operating in good faith to the best of their abilities and training.

It is rather cheap, IMO, to Monday morning quarterback an incredibly difficult situation none of us have ever had even a tiny bit of familiarity with. I don't doubt that once a thorough AAR is put together, there will be many examples of mistakes that were made that had they not been made perhaps more lives could have been saved, and people will pick at those as if the people who are tasked with dealing with situations like this are defined only by the things they didn't get exactly right, when in reality it is very likely that they made a few thousand decisions in those few hours, most of which were probably right.

In any case, it is to soon to say. I am not saying they didn't make any mistakes, I am saying there isn't enough information to conclude that they handled the situation poorly overall, and more importantly to our gung ho ex-military members, there isn't enough information that suggests that they should have immediately gone after him rather than back off, negotiate, and let SWAT prepare the scene once he was neutralized from being an active shooter.

[Berkut]

viewpoint that demands action simply for the sake of action.

That's a little unfair. I think his viewpoint would be best described as one that believe action would have resulted in saving more lives. He may or may not be right but not simply action for the sake of taking action.

But he has given us no reason to believe it would save lives, just demanded that they "don't lose the initiative". I get were he is coming from - it is straight out of Small Unit Infantry Tactics 101. Once you get the target retreating, don't stop, don't let up the pressure, don't give them time to adjust. It is great tactics when you are fighting a battle. But not so applicable to police, and in fact I think that applying military tactics to police work is a huge mistake.

I just don't think it applies, and there is no reason for us to think that the judgment of those on the scene was clearly wrong.

Honestly, I think this started with people not realizing that the three hour wait was AFTER the police had already aggressively responded to the active shooter, and now he is just married to that position and trying to justify it. I could be wrong about that though, of course.

[grumbler]

I think that there is a lot to be said for B4's position:  once the shooter has demonstrated that he is perfectly willing to kill the hostages (and he knows that he cannot negotiate a good outcome for himself, since he has already committed mass murder), you keep going until he is dead.  Throw a couple of flash-bangs and go into the bathroom.   I don't see what was to be gained by allowing him to reorient, reload, and take stock of his position.   I recognize that there is merit to Berkut's position that we should default to the position that the professionals on the scene know what we know, plus have experience and first-hand knowledge, but, as a position in a meaningless internet debate, I'll side with B4 pending more information.