Parkland and the Red Badge of Courage
Yesterday and today, on the comments thread to this post I put up last night, there was a great deal of discussion about the reactions of the security guard at Parkland who failed to engage the shooter or even enter the fray.
It’s my observation that people can think they will react in a certain way to danger, but don’t know for sure until they’ve actually experienced a live situation in which they either run away, freeze, or go towards danger to neutralize it. I am virtually certain that training increases the number of people who will be able to confront the danger or the dangerous person. But it guarantees nothing.
What’s more, untrained people often surprise themselves. Time and again I’ve noticed that civilians (non-police, non-military) who have acted heroically in an impromptu situation often say, when they are interviewed afterwards, that they acted without thinking in a way that they believe “anyone” would have done.
Maybe that’s their secret, thinking that anyone would have done what they did. But it’s not the case that all people act this way; not by a longshot.
People in fields such as the military and police are at least somewhat self-selected for the characteristic of running towards danger, and then they are trained to react in a certain way to protect both themselves and others. They are trained to kill when faced with certain situations. That is surprisingly hard, or maybe not so surprising. Some general reluctance has to be overcome, for most people. The military has spent a great deal of time studying this, because it’s important to them.
Over ten years ago I wrote this post on the subject. I’m assuming more has been learned since then, but the gist of it is that the military discovered that a great many men in WWII didn’t fire their weapons, and so the military developed techniques to develop soldiers’ reflexes and reduce their stress, making them more effective at killing and also at deciding in a split-second when it’s necessary to do so. You really have to read the entire post to get an idea of how the training works, but suffice to say that research shows it is effective.
The entire topic makes me think of Stephen Crane’s Civil War classic The Red Badge of Courage. I’ve never read the book, but I had the Classic Comic book as a child, and read it when I was about seven or eight years old.
It made a deep impression on me. I didn’t really understand its complexities, but I got the gist of it. It was about a young soldier’s moment (or really, moments, plural) of truth in battle, when he discovers what he was made of and has to live with the consequences. I recognized the questions it raised as timeless ones, even at that young age. I was drawn to it because even as a child I had my own small moments of truth in regard to courage, and I didn’t think I measured up to my idea of the person I wanted to be.
Now I would like to see the movie Clint Eastwood recently made about the heroes on the French train. It’s my understanding that the film deals with this very question: what was it in the background of these particular young men that made them run towards danger rather than away? Here’s a trailer:
Been there done all that
I know what i do…
so far i have stopped at least three rapes, saved one baby, halted a few robberies, lost a home because i stopped and saved a man on the highway (got in the papers for that – boss asked me not to get on the front page if he lets me leave early again)… and the list goes on….
i have always been a sheep dog
my son is now a navy officer
Sheep Dogs bite like wolves
but we are on the right side of the sheep
I had seen the 1951 version (John Huston directed) of the movie and thought about bringing it up in the earlier post. I watched it with a friend who had more or less lived it in Vietnam as a Green Beret. He didn’t have any words of wisdom other than it was all horrible. I almost(!) feel sorry for Scot Peterson.
“The entire topic makes me think of Stephen Crane’s Civil War classic The Red Badge of Courage. I’ve never read the book, but I had the Classic Comic book as a child, and read it when I was about seven or eight years old.”
* * *
We had a whole set of those — at the time we weren’t sophisticated enough to call the “graphic novels” instead of “comic books” — I wish they could be reissued somehow (Dover Books??)
I have read the book itself, probably in High School. I don’t really remember anything about it, except being glad I wasn’t ever in a war.
Of course, now we are all liable to being hit with those decision points, just by going to a concert or a mall.
Or school.
Sigh.
I think @David French has it just right:
The comments at Neo’s linked post from 2005 contain some interesting ideas, some of them slightly prescient.
For those worried about Obama or Trump or Clinton or ?? using the military as a partisan force:
http://neoneocon.com/2005/12/15/jane-fonda-and-those-killing-machines/#comment-7562
erasmus Says:
December 16th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
“This is what one of the world’s finest military historians had to say about the stressed out citizen-soldier in the US Amy:
“…the fact remains that the American GI did win World War II. He did so, moreover, without assaulting, raping, and otherwise molesting too many people. Wherever he came – even within Germany itself – he was received with relief, or at any rate without fear. To him, no greater tribute than this is conceivable.”
And we want to trade in the flaws and virtues of this defender of the American way for “efficient and yet principled killers?”
Holy Ike! But tell me, where will those “principles” come from? The kind of leader who secretly orders surveillance of citizens? A leader in the future, who may view some humans as expendable? We no longer want to take our chances on the weaknessses and strengths a mixed and representative bunch of Americans bring to the battlefield?
Our very own Waffen SS in waiting.
No thanks.”
* * *
The view of Hollywood and Elites:
http://neoneocon.com/2005/12/15/jane-fonda-and-those-killing-machines/#comment-7561
maryatexitzero Says:
December 16th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
“Jane is using this argument to disguise the fact that she doesn’t want our soldiers to kill anyone — because they’re Americans, and Americans should never defend ourselves, because we are such awful people. And killing is so icky and karmically bad and everything.
Sheryl Crow summed up Hollywood’s attitudes towards war perfectly when she said:
“I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies.”
Under the threat of terrorism, these high-profile stars have embraced pacifism with the same enthusiasm that they formerly had for scientology and kabbalah. Nobody wants to be the next Theo Van Gogh.
The pacifists are even afraid to admit that they are pacifists. The best way to spot them is to ask how they think the enemy should be killed — what specific methods should we use? They don’t approve of any military tactic because they don’t approve of the military. We should just not have enemies.“
Some people have questioned Marshall’s research, and thus the training it led to, including one commenter who linked to the following rebuttal.
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/1356
However, in the comments to that article, there is a counter-claim which I find convincing, but needs to be quoted in full.
Bill Befort – 2 years ago
“Marshall’s critics waited till 1989, more than a decade after his death, to attack him. They might have spent the time doing some research of their own. In fact, WWII GIs’ reluctance to engage the enemy with rifle fire was a matter of serious and increasing concern in the Army two years and more before Marshall addressed it in 1947 in “Men Against Fire.” This concern is documented in an article in the U.S. Army Infantry School’s monthly flagship publication Infantry Journal:
Moore, Lt. Col. R.E. 1945. Shoot, Soldier! Inf. Jour. 56(4):21
Appearing in April 1945, a month before the end of the war in Europe, “Shoot, Soldier!” begins —
“As early as the Tunisian campaign, reports began to trickle back that something was wrong, something we had not foreseen: ‘Our soldiers are not firing their rifles enough.’ This simple statement was so unexpected, it seemed almost ridiculous. Those soldiers all had weeks and months of progressive training from rifle marksmanship through field target firing . . . . Surely there must be some mistake! . . . .
“Then came Sicily, Italy, and finally France. The trickle of reports grew to a torrent. Always it was the same simple ‘Our soldiers aren’t firing their rifles enough.’ . . .
“A lot of officers in the 3rd Infantry Division asked this question way back in Sicily and during the early stages of the Italian campaign. They asked the soldiers themselves, often while under enemy small-arms fire. Usually they got one of three answers:
“1) I can’t see anything to shoot at.
2) I’m afraid I’ll give my position away.
3) My squad leader hasn’t given me any order to fire.”
Lt. Col. Moore goes on to explain at some length what’s wrong with these excuses, and what junior leaders can do in the way of “applying a little sound psychology” to encourage their men to shoot when “all they know about the business of battle is what we’ve taught them in our training centers.”
The article is well worth reading in full. Students of “Men Against Fire,” published two years later, will recognize in the brief excerpts above several themes Marshall would elaborate in that book: “combat isolation” on the empty modern battlefield, “fire as the cure” for inertia, “the multiples of information” that combine isolated individuals into a team. But principally they will recognize the ratio-of-fire issue implicit in the plea to “Shoot, Soldier!”
There it is, spelled out plainly enough for anyone: throughout the ETO war, a distressingly high percentage of GIs refused to engage the enemy with their rifles; this failure was increasingly remarked upon in combat reports, even from the redoubtable 3rd Infantry Division; the problem received explicit recognition in the official Infantry School publication near the close of the war; and new approaches to weapon training were seen as the remedy in the longer term. The article makes no reference to Marshall, nor he to it; it is independent evidence — and it would be hard to imagine a document more dispositive as to the existence of the problem.
So S.L.A. Marshall did not invent the ratio-of-fire issue. His thesis in in 1947, whether backed by formal statistical apparatus or not, was founded on what officers of the infantry divisions also observed and were reporting on with increasing frequency — amounting to a “torrent” of reports, according to Infantry Journal — during the war. Of all U.S. soldiers in Europe, Marshall was probably the one whose duties as combat analyst positioned him best to observe the prevalence of the problem across various fighting units. But he was far from alone in recognizing it.
His authority and experience should have been respected. There were no grounds for supposing he was trying to misinform his readers or mislead the Army. On the contrary, his other writings on contemporary military affairs uniformly evince a desire to improve the Army’s performance by constructive criticism. Yet he has been traduced on this question for 25 years, and his many other contributions to military knowledge posthumously discounted.”
First person account, which may not have the literary chops of “Red Badge” but covers the substance well.
http://neoneocon.com/2005/12/15/jane-fonda-and-those-killing-machines/#comment-7560
Goesh Says:
December 16th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
..
“It’s hard to talk about killing and part of me wants to just delete this post. I remember my first and last firefight the most vividly, the others are pretty much a violent blur. I quit counting the firefights I was in after #19 because I thought it would jinx me. We are all born to be able to kill and instincts take over in combat. Terror, rage and adrenaline rule in a firefight and always will, whether it’s with swords or rifles. I think we bring with us the ability to be proficient killers and training hones it but does not produce it. Some are born to be better than others at this terrible job. “
There’s no running away from danger on a train.
zat:
Sure there is.
Not completely running away (unless you jump off the moving train, which people have been known to do). But yes, you can run in the direction of away from the danger (especially if you are not close to the shooter to begin with, and not necessarily his natural target) and let people closer to the shooter bear the brunt of it and then hope someone else stops the shooter in time, or he runs out of ammunition.
The Paris train heroes were not right in front of the shooter. They had to run down the aisle towards the shooter and the weapon and approach him in order to take him down.
It’s not as though there was a whole trainload of people doing the same thing, either. Just as on Flight 93 (a different situation, of course), it was a certain self-selected group of people who chose to act.
“It was act or die. There wasn’t any time to think about anything, because if you didn’t do anything, you’d end up dead. We just kind of went for it. We all thought we were going to die anyway; we were on a moving train with nowhere to go.”
Alek Skarlatos
zat:
That’s what he thought. But that’s not what almost every other single person on the train thought.
Get it?
So, what was the difference? That’s the question.
It is very usual for people who do something heroic to think they did something ordinary—that is, that they did what any logical person would do under the same circumstances. But they are not doing something so ordinary, as is clear from the fact that all the inhabitants of the entire train weren’t rushing the shooter.
I guess you are reacting to the trailer which shows a situation similar to “High Noon” – everyone hiding out of sight, only the hero alone faces the threat.
The movie is supposed to be very realistic, afaik. But the trailer is always a different thing. And of course, they have to emphasize the minute in which it happened.
AFAIK everything happened in seconds. Others had tried to disarm the attacker before he entered the wagon. When he entered the wagon there were only seconds before alek said to his friend: “Get him!” They were about 5 or 6 seats away from him. There wasn’t time to run away or to hide for other people in the same wagon. Why did the 3 friends react? They recognized the danger and saw only one chance. Others probably didn’t recognize the danger or didn’t see a way to react. People who also tried to disarm the attacker were a banker, an English teacher, a business man. Of course, trained soldiers have the best chances to disarm a man. And they had huge luck that the attacker was untrained with his AKM assault rifle and messed up.
I don’t want to take anything away from these guys, they are definitly heroes. But this has not much to do with Parkland and people who had to decide whether to go in or whether to stay away.
zat:
No, I am not reacting to the trailer.
I am reacting to the situation, which I wrote quite a few posts about at the time it happened. I also wrote a post about Moogalian, one of the other defenders on the train (please see this).
ALL of these people were in the distinct minority on the train. I never said that the three who acted in the film were absolutely alone in engaging the attacker, but they were certainly nearly alone (I also mentioned the Brit in another post; he joined in after the 3 Americans rushed the terrorist and helped them hold him down).
The point, which I will repeat, is that very few people on that train came forward, but some did. What was different about the ones that did? That is the question. Some had military training, but not all, for example, None were armed, and the attacker was. Some were injured and almost killed for their pains, so they were lucky as well. But they all had a different mindset from the ordinary passengers on that train.
And a different mindset from the trained and armed officer who failed to go after the shooter in Parkland. No, of course the situation is different, but Scot Peterson actually had a greater duty than anyone on that train, even though his life was not in danger unless he confronted the shooter. He was a police officer, and he was armed.
On the train, for each individual (except the first guy who grappled with the attacker, who in fact had confronted him directly and by accident, because he was the person waiting for the bathroom when the attacker first emerged), there was a decision to be made. For each one except the first one, it was a choice. On the train, if they played the odds, they would probably survive, because a terrorist with a gun in a crowd rarely kills everyone or anywhere near everyone. That’s why most people lay low; they feel their chances of surviving are better.
Compare and contrast to what happened on the LIRR with Colin Ferguson. That’s the situation most like the Paris train. No one intervened.for quite some time, and then three men rushed the killer. Here’s how it went down:
By the way, the three guys on the LIRR train waited pretty much until the killer had shot a lot of people before they realized that in their case they were probably going to be shot, too, if they didn’t do something. That makes the French train heroes even more unusual; they hardly waited at all.
While we are debating what makes a hero (on a train or otherwise), I will point out the case of Bishnu Shrestha. This happened in September of 2010. Shrestha was a Gurkha who had just retired from the Indian Army at the age of 35. He was traveling home on a train through West Bengal. The train was attacked at night by bandits (variously reported to number from 15 to 40). Shrestha woke to find the bandits robbing the passengers. What prompted him to act however was the appeal of an 18 year old girl. The gang had sized her and were preparing to rape her in front of her family. She, knowing him to be a soldier, cried out for him to help her. At that, Shrestha stood up, drew his kurkhi and attacked. By the time the fight was over he had killed 3 bandits, wounded another 8 and was himself seriously wounded.
“When the intended rape victim’s family offered him a large cash reward, he refused it with the following comment: “Fighting the enemy in battle is my duty as a soldier. Taking on the thugs on the train was my duty as a human being.””
Why do Americans always default to movies whenever it comes to something strange or foreign to their experience. It is downright bizarre. Movies are illusions. They are not repositories of life skills or wisdom concerning life and death.
They may be useful at times for providing a visual representation of a concept that is difficult to impossible to communicate using words and numbers.
But this has not much to do with Parkland and people who had to decide whether to go in or whether to stay away.
By definition, men who have decided to charge and attack an armed person, with unarmed men, have totally devoted and prepared their mental intent. That meant, by decision, discarding all alternatives and what if scenarios. Even if there was an alternative, they could not consider it, because by choosing to act, they have discarded all other alternatives as invalid.
This is due to the lack of time for rational planning and analysis, as well as due to the lack of time to consider choices with logic.
And now it would seem that 4 (FOUR) Broward cops were at the scene and did not go in and engage the shooter.
As I think of Peterson outside the school, I think of Robert Vaughn in The Magnificent Seven.
I have some veteran friends who are withholding judgement on him however.
Nonetheless I think his resignation is telling.
http://neoneocon.com/2018/02/22/mass-murdering-man-of-mystery-part-iiib-revisiting-columbine-in-the-light-of-las-vegas-revisiting-las-vegas-in-the-light-of-columbine/#comment-2368504
Btw, we were just talking about the same topic as the OP, a few threads ago.
I have some veteran friends who are withholding judgement on him however.
No reason to jump the gun and react to Leftist provocations and propaganda.
It’s sorta like the straightforward honest people always falling to the provocation “are you chicken”.
If people want to make an independent assessment by interviewing and analyzing a person’s professionalism and character, that is one thing. But basing any judgments upon the MSM propaganda and the Deep State bullsh, is unwise and indeed sooner or later fatally dangerous.
Apologies in advance for the prolix nature of the following:
My father was an Infantry officer fighting in Europe. He thought Marshall was absolutely wrong.
Problem is in inferring that the reports meant soldiers were reluctant to line up a human being in their sights and pull the trigger and kill him.
But the reports didn’t say that. They said not firing their rifles enough, which is something else entirely.
By the time the Americans got onto the continent, the Germans were on the defensive, for which they’d had time to prepare. That meant they were, almost without exception, fighting from prepared, concealed positions. As my father said, you could fight for a week, flank a position and never see a live German. You fired into windows, down streets, into brush, presuming there were Germans there, or to deny them the use of the area. They pulled back, when necessary, by means of a preplanned route including cover or at least concealment. The opportunity to line up, with time to spare, and fail, as with Hemingway in The Killers, was extremely rare.
So why the complaints?
Apologies for detail:
The cartridge used, the 30.06, had been designed before ww I. It was said that one of the specs was that it could kill a cavalry horse at a thousand yards. You can’t see a cavalry horse at a thousand yards, much less a man who’s dressed mud colored uniform and trying not to be seen.
Point is, the requirement was to be able to have the kinetic energy-mass times velocity–left after traveling 1000 yards to do serious damage if it should happen to hit something you wanted damaged.
Why? Area fire. A platoon leader might, with his binoculars, see movement in a grove of trees or in and around a house at what he judged to be, say, 1000 yards. He has his guys go prone, prepare to fire from rest and fire five rounds–the 1903 Springfield had a five-round internal mag–at one round every two seconds. If he had thirty five guys, that’s seventy rounds in eight seconds and you can’t miss a house firing from rest. Anybody in or around the house is going to be hurt, killed, or have his business interrupted.
But you’re not shooting at people. Because with iron sights at 1000 yards you can’t see guys who are mud-collared and cautious about being on the side of the house closest to the presumed enemy.
The reports were about area fire.
Clearly, more was better than less. So commanders would want more and be vexed if they got less. But to presume it was a kind of buck fever is a step too far.
The example can expanded almost endlessly.
My father’s platoon had a sudden encounter at about twenty yards and everybody fired rapidly and all the Germans were dead.
Why be reluctant to fire area fire? The Americans didn’t have flashless powder. Even in daylight, they gave their positions away. If you were setting up a machine gun in a house, you might scrounge for a sheet to hang up behind it to reduce the contrast with the muzzle flash.
You didn’t want to use up ammo you might need.
And if you’re shooting at a place, what’s one more rifle, or less?
Since then, with improved commo, we can call indirect fires and area fire by riflemen is not needed, which is why most armies have gone to lighter, reduced power ammo like our 5.56mm in the M16 and associated weapons.
However, John Keegan, the Brit military historian, referred to the advantages pastoralists had in early warfare. They were used to killing (their livestock) by what were known as “hand strokes” and thus would not have been reluctant to strike their first blow with an edged weapon against another man. Interesting. Hard to say.
When I was in Infantry training, we had a course called ‘quickfire” which it was said used to be called “quick kill’ until the hippies got wind of it.
The weapons used were BB guns with extended stocks. We went through thick brush where a target would pop up at four yards and we were suppose to be able to shoot instantly and wingshoot, rather than bringing the weapon up to the shoulder as in marksmanship.
Then we put on masks and hunted each other in the woods.
The point, afaik, was not to normalize shooting at humans but at shooting without hesitation. From time to time ,one of the targets–half silhouettes–would have “US” on it and you weren’t supposed to shoot that one.
I recall, back in the day, that the number of loaded rifles picked up on civil war battlefields meant guys didn’t want to shoot. The left pushed that. But the reality was that as soon as you shot, you reload, and if you get shot before you fire the next time, there will be a loaded rifle to be picked up.
There’s an ideological reason to push this, imo.
I believe that a police officer, a fireman, or a professional military person must conduct an honest internal audit before the crisis and either come to grips with what may be required; or seek another line of work.
One might sympathize, just bit, with the Resource Officer if he were there alone. It can be hard to venture forth without the moral support of companionship. We saw it from time to time with pilots who transitioned from a crewed aircraft to a single-piloted one. But,now we learn that there were several officers on the scene; and they did not act. There is no redeeming explanation.
Now, as an advocate for armed self-protection, I suggest that this episode supports my point that it is foolish to proclaimn that a person should depend on armed officials to come to their aid in moments of crisis. Even if some should arrive in time, unlikely though it may be, you are dependent on their willingness to accept risk as part of a commitment to you. Obviously, that may be sufficient, or it may not be. It is dishonest for politicians, and celebrities who have armed protection to deny self-protection to individuals.
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
“Friday, February 23, 2018
Fullbore Friday
You’ve heard it here before; character isn’t built – it just waits for a moment in time to be demonstrated.
You have it or you don’t.
As three young JROTC members demonstrated recently, they had it.
Three cadets killed in the Parkland school shooting are being posthumously honored for their acts of heroism.
The Army is recognizing Peter Wang, 15, and Martin Duque and Alaina Petty, both 14, with the Medal of Heroism for the danger and extraordinary responsibility they took on during last week’s shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
Friends said the three always had a sense of duty and honor as members of the school’s junior ROTC.
Also Tuesday, the U.S. Military Academy at West Point posthumously admitted Peter to the prestigious academy on the day of his funeral. It’s where Peter dreamed of attending. He could have been in the Class of 2025.
Peter died in his JROTC uniform last Wednesday, holding the door open to allow others to escape, as gunman Nikolas Cruz shot and killed 17 at Marjory Stoneman, authorities and witnesses said.
“He saved people’s lives,” said Victoria Downing, one of Peter’s classmates, at the funeral service. “He deserves it.”
West Point conferred the letter of admission, along with honorarium tokens, to his family, local West Point alumnus Chad Maxey said.
Gov. Rick Scott also has directed the Florida National Guard to honor all three cadets. Alaina was honored at her funeral Monday, as Martin will be at his funeral Saturday.
That’s about all I will have to say about that.
Fullbore young men and lady. Fullbore.”
The post has photos of the three who died in service to their fellow students.
Let’s be fair, it is very hard for someone to leave the place of safety and enter the line of fire to save some unrelated strangers’ lives. It is very different than in a situation where yourselves is in the dangerous zone and is forced to act or face certain death. Most people would choose not to make a move until they realise taking action is the only option to survive.
Here is some more grist to throw into the mill.
Contrarian moves, left and right, forward and back.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/02/businesses-cut-nra-ties-as-
pressure-campaign-mounts.html
“Companies like Hertz don’t have that much power, of course, and this week’s measures are aimed only at the NRA, which, with its increasingly unhinged platform, is doing much to isolate itself from the mainstream. Still, it’s another sign that American public opinion on guns may be shifting, and that the usual corporate impulse to avoid riling up firearm enthusiasts may be fading.”
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2018/02/23/check-what-business-thinks/
“Last year, I introduced What Business Thinks, a database I created that has information about over 5,000 businesses and their stances on various hot topic issues, everything from pure politics, to guns, to LGBT stuff, to climate change, and more. With the Left escalating its insane attacks against the NRA, I’ve spent the morning updating the app with companies that are refusing to do business with the NRA (First National Bank of Omaha) or that are cutting out benefits once extended to NRA members (Hertz and Enterprise). It therefore think it’s time for people to bookmark the website on their computers or smart phones so that they can make sure they’re doing business with companies that don’t hate them and everything they stand for.”
* * *
Imagine for a moment that a business decided to ban Muslim car renters because some of their co-religionists were blowing up people around the country, or world.
Was Cruz even a member of the NRA?
* * *
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/02/23/stop-what-youre-doing-and-watch-this-coral-springs-pd-officer-talk-about-responding-to-the-stoneman-douglas-hs-attack/
“Sgt. Heinrich was off duty and unarmed at the time of the attack last week at Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., but he was on campus watering one of the school’s athletic fields in just shorts and a T-shirt. Sgt. Heinrich’s wife is an assistant athletic director at the school, his son is on the football team.
When he heard the shots – remember now, he’s unarmed – he dropped the hose and ran toward the sound of gunfire where he immediately helped a student who was wounded. Minutes later, he met up with a Coral Springs PD SWAT team member who gave him a vest and a backup weapon and the two of them then entered the school to help clear classrooms. …Sgt. Jeff Heinrich was off duty and working on the Stoneman Douglas field when shots rang out. He immediately helped the wounded even though he didn’t know whether his wife and son inside the school were safe. ”
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2018/02/23/sit-down-for-this-new-reporting-from-cnn-and-it-gets-worse-for-the-broward-sheriffs-office/
From CNN:
When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff’s Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff’s deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.”
* * *
Heroes and zeroes.
Another revelation that the FBI had been tipped to Cruz, in excruciating detail.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/02/the-authorities-parkland-failures-get-worse-and-worse.php
“The caller, who is only identified as a woman close to Cruz, also provided the FBI with Cruz’s various social media accounts so they could see for themselves what he was saying online. Obviously, this should have led the FBI to connect his YouTube account (username Nikolas Cruz) and the previous threat about becoming a school shooter.””
…
“There are plenty of lessons to be learned from the Nikolas Cruz disaster, but none of them have to do with gun control.”
Dave Says:
February 23rd, 2018 at 8:49 pm
Let’s be fair, it is very hard for someone to leave the place of safety and enter the line of fire to save some unrelated strangers’ lives. It is very different than in a situation where yourselves is in the dangerous zone and is forced to act or face certain death. Most people would choose not to make a move until they realise taking action is the only option to survive.
* * *
Most people are not employed as Law Enforcement Officers who are supposed to know this comes with the job.
om Says:
February 23rd, 2018 at 8:49 pm
https://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/
“Friday, February 23, 2018
Fullbore Friday
You’ve heard it here before; character isn’t built — it just waits for a moment in time to be demonstrated.
You have it or you don’t.
As three young JROTC members demonstrated recently, they had it.
* * *
A great loss to our military and country.
Salutes to them all, and to the others in their Corps who measured up when the time came.
Through a twisted chain of Web Wormholes, I came upon this piece (RTWT for a very interesting historical journey through bureaucratic Kafka-trapping), but this in particular seems to me to speak to the situation of the Broward deputies who waited outside the building instead of confronting the shooter, when viewed in the context of the well-established “don’t discipline criminal behavior here” position of the schools:
https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/42083.html
Attack of the Robot Bureaucrats
Posted by David Foster on March 9th, 2014
“And, of course, the human components of those bureaucracies—the individual bureaucrats—can usually feel confident that as long as they follow the rules, they will be personally protected from adverse consequences—no matter how much harm is perpetrated by the bureaucracy’s operations.”
Did the deputies fall into the sci-fi AI “paralysis trap” –where the now-dominant (after Columbine) LEO command to “confront shooters asap” conflicted with the local “ignore crime” command?
More data points for MSM obstruction and collusion.
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/02/23/another-fl-shooting-survivor-networks-dont-want-us-give-real-opinions/
“First it was just Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting survivor Colton Haab who claimed that CNN had put words in students’ mouths for its town hall on gun violence. Now another student has come forward with pretty much the same story. Her name is Ariana Klein, she is a junior at the school, and she backs up Haab’s assertion.”
https://libertyunyielding.com/2018/02/23/puzzling-info-emerges-parkland-shooting-security-video-delay-4-deputies-waited-enter/
“Nearly a half-hour after Nikolas Cruz dropped his rifle and fled Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, police thought they were seeing him live on security cameras, still in the building. They were actually seeing images tape-delayed.
The Broward School District’s security cameras did not show real-time video for police, complicating their efforts to track and pin down the shooter, the South Florida Sun Sentinel has learned.
Just so we’re clear:
The video images were “delayed 20 minutes and nobody told us that,” said Coral Springs Police Chief Tony Pustizzi.”
Sounds like we are dealing with Broward County policy rather than individual fearfulness.
It’s time for a proctology exam on this department.
Neo, I think there is one thing you missed in your exchanged with Zat.
Once you identify with 2 other people even if you were previously strangers on a train, if you built up a rapport with them, you’re more likely to respond to a suggestion, “Let’s go do something about this” type comment.
Lot’s of guys (and probably women) have experienced moments, where you can be chatting and something happens nearby, and one of you says essentially, let’s go do something to help and the other two follow right along. The inertia, or hesitation is broken.
I’m not saying it’s not heroic, but I understand that situation and how it comes about. Perhaps you can say there is always an initiating leader, and give that person the most credit for starting to do something.
Does anyone understand what I’m talking about?
Is it possible for those ROTC kids to get the Medal of Honor, or is that only for actual military member combat experience? I can’t think of any better way to discourage/shame potential ‘school shooters’ than for the nation to honor their opposite’s bravery and sacrifice.
I am going to have to look up what religion those 3 JROTC people were. It might have interesting connections…
AesopFan Says:
February 23rd, 2018 at 9:48 pm
Another revelation that the FBI had been tipped to Cruz, in excruciating detail.
Which goes in line with the Deep State interpretation I put forth before, that the FBI obtained the equivalent of a “Stand down, let them die” order.
If the FBI received such, it would not be too much for the local police forces to also obtain a cautionary that they should not act without direct order, authorization, approval. After all, this wouldn’t be the first time that police were ordered to stand down and let rioters and rapists loose in a city. They work for the State, not for you, thus the LEOs Obey the Law, and the Law is whatever their orders are: that is the law.
The military are cautioned not to obey illegal orders, but the rentacops aren’t exactly military yet.
The video images were “delayed 20 minutes and nobody told us that,” said Coral Springs Police Chief Tony Pustizzi.”
*Chuckles* Why would anyone in the Deep State seriously tell the useful cannonfodder useful intel? Even FDR didn’t tell the commanders at Pearl Harbor that they had cracked the Japanese diplomatic and military codes informing them of where and when the attack would occur.
I’m not saying it’s not heroic, but I understand that situation and how it comes about. Perhaps you can say there is always an initiating leader, and give that person the most credit for starting to do something.
I concur.
Richard Aubrey’s analysis is also plausible, in explaining the scenarios described. However, it doesn’t apply to the PTSD SS executioners suffer or the various other issues brought up by military officers such as ….
To backup Groundhog’s analysis, Flight 93 also had ring leaders. Humans discovered that in getting large amounts of people to do things, a chain of command was required. It’s why guerilla sniping or Revolutionary war sniping of British leaders, had such a great impact on the military’s discipline and effectiveness.
The social dynamics of this aren’t discussed or taught in public indoctrination Leftist camps for a good reason. If people understood how propaganda and discipline was used to motivate the masses, they would clearly see through the agent provocateurs, riots, and mass mobs that the Leftist alliance liked to use to foment chaos and Cloward Piven like strategies.
However, I noticed that Far Eastern schools did teach such basic concepts and principles.
Richard Aubrey Says:
February 23rd, 2018 at 8:28 pm
As for Area denial fire, if people didn’t want to kill they could have merely fired into the general area or the air knowing that they were doing something but not as much as a direct kill would affect their conscience. This would go on the same logic as the firing squad. It would not necessarily produce a reduction in the use of ammo.
However, I suspect that Marshall’s reports were merely one of numerous reports that got people suspicious.
This goes back to the ancient adage the Greeks and perhaps Spartans used. One man in 10 and one man in 100.
The Islamic Jihad use drugs for their fighters. This is partially not for the physical effect but for the mental effect of removing hesitation. Islam also utilizes blood cult rituals and violence desensitization training. They would sit around with their fellows and hit each other, to desensitize them to the violence Jihad required. Luckily for the USA, we have far more modern and effective methods of conditioning people to kill without hesitation.
Vietnam was one of the first conflicts where modern military conditioning was able to surpass the majority or supermajority mark. Before, the numbers were closer to 10% to 50% that were willing to shoot to kill on seen humans. It was easier in previous wars, like the CW, for half the unit to be reloading the rifles of the people that could actually shoot to kill. It wasn’t a matter of skill or courage. The public and the military confuses the issue. Humanity has been warned under Divine Law, not to take the blood of the innocent since almost nearly the very beginning. The ancestral DNA remembers even if our civilizations have forgotten. It’s also part of the social indoctrination children are taught: not to use violence against others. Other cultures have different standards.
Vietnam was also a war which returned a lot of psychologically broken veterans. Those two factors aren’t unrelated. As mentioned in my link, it wasn’t the primary cause but a supporting cause.
huxley Says:
February 24th, 2018 at 12:44 am
Sounds like we are dealing with Broward County policy rather than individual fearfulness.
It’s time for a proctology exam on this department.
One of the reasons why it is easy for me not to jump to all the gut reflex condemnations of various people on the field. There is no reason to be puppet mastered by the Leftist alliance’s propaganda. They aren’t even half as good or potent as the Deep State manipulations.
Most people are not employed as Law Enforcement Officers who are supposed to know this comes with the job.
Their job is determined by the police union and mayor and other Demoncrats.
LEOs enforce the Law correct? The police unions and mayors are the Rule of Law in the USA.
I know Americans like to believe that the people hold this power but people abdicated their power a long time ago with this “democracy” poison nonsense.
The people don’t get to determine police department policies, police academy standards, who trains whom, the salaries of officers, or what the mayor can or cannot do. The people only think they have a say.
When it comes to the people vs the police, the people are lucky that they survive after Obeying.
Nor does it matter all that much that some police departments want to come up with better PR and community relationships. The good cops don’t get to fire all the bad ones. They are powerless, in that sense. A good police officer that leaks evidence of corruption, is lucky that he doesn’t get himself killed. Being fired is a minimum penalty.
LEOs enforce the law. The Rule of Law is whatever the powers that be says the rule of law is. Or have you forgotten what happened with the Mormons Bundy clan vs BLM? If Reid hadn’t also been under the LDS hierarchy, it would have been ridiculously easy to cause the BLM to open fire at any cost.
I, for one, haven’t forgotten the War of Utah 1857, Waco 1, Waco 2, or Ruby Ridge. Even if the Rest of this country apparently has total amnesia.
I understand that law enforcement officers receive salary to protect people but let’s be realistic people don’t become courageous just because they receive a salary and no training can prepare you not to desert in the face of a real crisis unless you are truly living in a battle for years there is no way to ensure someone could jump in the middle of a mass shooting to carry out their duty. They are salarymen with high pension, they won’t take action without knowing the full situation, well planned and fully outnumbering the guy.
AesopFan Says:
February 23rd, 2018 at 4:11 pm
The comments at Neo’s linked post from 2005 contain some interesting ideas, some of them slightly prescient.
erasmus Says:
December 16th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
That’s not the only thing Erasmus predicted.
But all that said, have a happy time on this blog and smite all those Lefties endangering our republic.-Erasmus
Erasmus, as I commented in 2005, was taking counsel of his fears. Unfortunately, for many, he wasn’t afraid of the right things.
Leftist alliance endangering our republic (chuckles). Indeed, have we all not have had our share of “fun” in that by now?
5. You call the opposition to the current administration “disloyal.” But to whom or what should they be loyal?
6. What is so disappointing in the blogsphere is the stunning similarity of blogs on the right and left. Each side insists it has discovered the truth, the way. Here, the “left” (liberals, MSM, lefties) are the enemy, bent betraying the USA. On the left the right-wingers, MSM and corporations already have made America into a pre-fascist and decaying empire.-Erasmus
Back then, Americans didn’t even have a hint that the Left was betraying the US. Congress did, which is why they started the whole unAmerican line. Then they shut up, because they are in District of Columbia.
Erasmus was a tricky cookie to analyze. Some people back then thought he was a Bush Derangement victim. I disagreed and said Erasmus was a Jeffersonian with Hamiltonian leanings.
The time stamps at the comment section are all wrong, btw, since they were imported from the NeoNeo first gen blog at blogspot apparently.
Back before 2005, people could only be suspicious about Leftist treason. Even I didn’t figure out the hardcore reasons until well after 2007.
On the larger context—an either-or mentality prevails, alas.
If it’s in the NYT, it must be…
Not necessarily. Let’s look at it, paragraph by paragraph. Let’s see what the reporter(s) did, and how we can tell if they were accurate and honest.
Naw. It’s the MSM, so…-Erasmus
If it is the NYT, it is fake news, must be.
How glorious were the days when Americans could be blissful in their ignorance… let us waste all of our time figuring out if the MSM and Deep State propagandists are “accurate and honest”… *snorts*
After a few deep breaths and consideration I decided that the whole was incompatible with civil discourse and worst of all it would have been disrespectful of neo’s forum.
They also would have been wasted on you, so what would be the point?
We are a democratic republic. We teeter on the edge of totalitarianism every time we choose new leaders. The implication of your comment — clearly — was that there’s some identifiable progression under way toward a specific fascist reality, and (what set me off) that our military is somehow on the same rails.
I see a nation of free people, vibrant and successful, engaged in a twilight war that will determine the fate — the life or death fate — of literally billions of people. That determination may be made this year, or maybe decades from now.
Iran looms large as a nuclear threat, and they just installed (not elected, but consciously elevated) a whack who makes Howard Dean look like a statesman. China’s choice of democracy or regional empire will be made, or be forced upon them, within a generation.
Democratization takes a lot of time, money, and most scarce of all, moral courage. Our current polity hates to wait, we are immensely rich, and our political minority treats “moral” as an outdated concept.
Tough mix, ain’t it?
That same minority has refused to represent in good faith, and has voted poll trends where voting their conscience would have been the moral thing to do.
The fascist threat to this country is not the Bush administration, erasmus. It’s the people desperately attempting to abort democracy across the middle east.
That’s the terrorists. And our Democrats. The terrorists aim for a caliphate but will be content to just stagger forward slaughtering the weak or cowardly when they can. Our disloyal opposition aims for power, and if it means defeat on the battlefield today, that’s a price they’ve proven willing to pay once already.-This is TMJUtah responding to Erasmus
What year was that again? Sounds recent…
The fundamental cause of why the US military is splintering is from the Leftist alliance, not from military conditioning. It is why Hussein was purging the US military. People, some here, didn’t see too much of a concern with that data point. No reason for them to. I have other methods at my disposal and so did others online which gave the military purge a much higher priority.
Thus, the comments at that comment thread were not prescient. It just so happens that our current events bear a close resemblance to some reactions back then.
Those who were prescient, would never have made fun of the Leftist alliance in that context.
The people that are afraid of military conditioning are the worst people to take advice from, present past or future.
Why are blogs useful? Journalists, after all, told us that bloggers were just pajama wearing incompetents or clowns pretending to be reporters. Blogs are useful because they are a source of historical verification. Years and decades later, people will read the archives and think “so this is what the Deep State was doing to people back then, I never would have guessed given all the official records were wiped and corrupted”.
If it wasn’t for primary sources, the DS and LA could fabricate our entire history from beginning to end, and we would never know the difference.
Endless time after everyone here has been resurrected into a nearly immortal body, I will still be there pulling up internet archives and data banks telling everyone “see, this is what you guys wrote when you were still foolish mortals.”
Neo, I think you’re exactly right. You don’t really know until you’re in it. My father and grandfather were both military officers. My grandfather started out in WWII as a combat engineer. He was injured in Normandy, but rejoined the fighting as a machine gunner, after a brief hospital stay in England. He retired as an air force colonel after 30 year of service. He never discussed that war in any meaningful way, but he would sometimes say, “All the brave ones died.”
Thankfully, I never did see my grandfather under fire.
I have, however, seen my father put himself in harms way. When I was in university, he commanded a squadron at Nellis-in Las Vegas. We were at a casino–I think the Palm’s–in the food court, waiting for a movie. While waiting, a group of thugs surrounded this young woman and started beating her.
Before I quite knew what was happening, my father was on his feet, heading towards the scrum. I have to say, I was petrified. Thankfully, before he could come to any harm, security intervened.
That experience has left an indelible impression on me, and has made me think a lot about virtue ethics. Why? Because my father at that time was a walking “cripple”. 100% disabled due to a genetic disorder. He’d been off flight status for almost a decade, stuck flying a desk. Yet his training was so powerful he didn’t even stop to think about what a truly terrible decision he was making. I felt immensely proud of him.
Following up on Ymar Sakar Says:
February 24th, 2018 at 8:15 am
I am going to have to look up what religion those 3 JROTC people were. It might have interesting connections…
Alaina Petty surprised her family when she joined the JROTC at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School because she had not expressed much interest in it.
But she was a natural at it, just as she was at volunteering to help families in Everglades City dig out of Hurricane Irma.
On Monday morning, about 1,500 people attended the funeral of the girl described as caring, smart and confident. Gov. Rick Scott was there at the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in Coral Springs, offering condolences to the family.-Sun sentinel news site
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints… that would be the Mormons all right, the main lineage not the branch clans.
As I suspected… yahari ne.
How do I know these things? I have no idea. Holy Spirit probably, so thanks Spirit-san!
Now let’s see what the other 2’s background looks like…
https://www.christianpost.com/news/these-are-the-17-victims-of-nikolas-cruzs-massacre-at-marjory-stoneman-douglas-high-school-218201/page1.html
A detail they seem to be reporting.
He has since told investigators that it was the voices of “demons” that instructed him on how to exact the killings.
That makes sense.
Some serial killers said the same thing in various interviews. The modern world immediately thinks up a psychological “cure” or treatment. The spiritual world immediately thinks an exorcism or blessing is needed to prevent the spirit from gaining legal rights to the host.
Also, don’t worry martial brothers and sisters. Even if you die in this mortal coil, there’ll still be another chance to join the Final Battle in the Eternal War, after one passes through the veil.
However, losing a hand and limb right now, will still hurt, even if it is guaranteed to be restored later.
It is quite easy for me to bear zero negative sentiment towards the police at the school and even for the active shooter. I will know, sooner or later, just how much responsibility and power they held in the events, but no reason to jump to conclusions now. As Matthew once wrote, judge righteously, for in that fashion you will also be judged (at the Last Judgment). Since everything is being recorded by the divine scribe, there’s no getting out of it with excuses if one condemns a person to death based on flimsy evidence. It sticks with you, like a persistent law suit.
If it was just a few humans involved in the matter, then I would be motivated to blame humans and try to “solve things”. I know far more about what is really going on now than I did before. No reason to put too much blame on the “tools”. Blame should be placed on the power responsible.
While he was pinned, Ferguson said, “Oh God, what did I do? What did I do? I deserve whatever I get.” He also repeatedly pleaded with those holding him, “Don’t shoot me. I’m sorry, I’m sorry.”
When reading Neo’s post, I found that interesting.
It’s the same thing, isn’t it. Almost exactly, meaning for meaning. They act like they are possessed by a spirit or by Deep State mental programming alter persona style.
And not just that, we have an entire case history of sociopaths and serial killers to compare them to.
Maybe instead of drugs, we need exorcists…. not that I think exorcists know what they are doing of course.
While those who had not tackled him, but were holding him down, inquired as to the location of the gun, they were assured that it had been kicked away and that there had only been one gunman.
What a civilian and risky behavior. For a guerilla fighter, the weapons of the enemy is a good loot and upgrade. Besides, there’s no guarantee some other death squad won’t come in and start another fire fight, so up arming with the AK or whatever it was, would have been the decision of a warrior.
You think this gun is yours? Well, now it is mine.
It seems to me from all my military training (survival schools, combat flying, etc) that what the training does for you is give you the confidence to analyze situations quickly, determine a course of action and carry that action through without doubts and second-guessing yourself.
It’s exposure to risky situations that teaches you how to handle them. That’s why the military spends so much time training, especially survival and combat training. That way when you get into a situation it looks familiar and your feelings are familiar.
The Air Force learned long ago that if a young combat pilot makes it through his first 10 missions then his probability of surviving the whole tour goes up dramatically. That’s why they instituted the Red Flag exercises in Nevada and why the Navy does Top Gun.
They make these practice exercises as close to the real thing as can be done short of actual combat. When I went to Red Flag 2 years in a row in the late 70s we averaged losing at least one aircraft a week to accidents because of the reality of the training.
We also practices emergency procedures of various kinds on almost every flight.
Earned confidence in your ability to handle situations because you’ve seen them, or ones like them, is what makes the difference.
It’s merely a matter of how many hours a person is in crisis mode. The hours rack up, same for flight hours and simulator hours.
In martial arts, 1000 hours of effective training equals proficiency. 10,000 hours, for mastery.
For civilians, non combatants, or people not in a unit but operating solo, they have to rack up the hours on their own time and dime. Hence dry firing training, virtual visualization, and other methods. It is surprisingly not an issue.
The military has a time limit, so they spend money to improve the conditioning and training hours. But a civilian can accumulate the same experience using simulations on PC, war games, and other individual training exercises. Instead of crunching everything into a few war games per 4 years or a tour or two, the civilian can spread it out over 10 years, 20 years, 30+ years.
Whenever a person is waiting in line doing nothing, they can train. Whenever they are exercising, they can push their body with adrenaline and go into the mental focus zone.
Killing people or preventing being killed is a skill: a life one. There’s no retirement age, and there’s really no minimum age either. A six year old could kill me easily if he learns what I know.
1) Life sucks
2) There’s nowhere to hide
Training may guarantee nothing but it’s a pretty good indicator.
http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80612
Betcha didn’t know Petty Officer Mayo’s name.
Trump’s CoS knows these two.
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2010/12/lt-gen-kelly-on-the-two-that-stood-their-ground.html
I believe the term you are searching for is OODA. Observe, Orient, Decide, Act. What you want to do is get inside your enemies OODA loop. Do it better, faster. You can’t learn that in a Dojo. Although it helps. Just remember time and money is limited. On all sides. Your enemy isn’t ten feet tall or Bruce Lee. He didn’t have unlimited time or resources, either.
Bruce Lee had a brain fatality problem due to taking some kind of pain killer from his California or American friends, that interacted wrongly with the other medicine he was taking for his damaged spine.
So, no drugs, martial artists and warriors. Not even the super soldier drugs.
The Japanese had a saying about time spent in a dojo. 1 year on the battlefield or during a warrior’s pilgrimage, was equal to 10 years in a dojo. Miyamoto Musashi obtained much of his earlier experience in the Sekigahara battle and dueling wandering warrior pilgrims. Then he went to a high class inner city dojo to bash all of them in a duel (they called that a challenge, and the winner would take away the honor name plate of the dojo with them). People got seriously mad about and decided to trick Musashi into a duel and ambush him with a bunch of their martial brothers. Didn’t seem to work as Musashi seemed to be Sun Tzu’s knowledge reincarnated.
Your enemy isn’t ten feet tall
I’ve heard some rumors that parts of the military have been encountering giants from underground.
The idol they have on the US capitol altar temple to a goddess, is named Liberty. Aka, Ishtar, Mother of Harlots, Freedom, Victory, Diana, etc. Statue of Liberty is pretty close too.
To be free from slavery, victory is required in military affairs. Sexual liberation is a kind of liberty.
I bring this up because I find it regrettable that the US armed forces have to serve Congress and the Deep State. It’s better if people don’t know what is going on, as ignorance is bliss.
Some of my instructors in civilian H2H, mentioned the issue with firearm retention at CQB range (think hugging for those that aren’t familiar). The method transmitted to me was offensive in nature, using body evasions to snap down on the limb grabbing the holster, effectuating an evasion/dodge, while at the same time bolstering a kinetic strike on the other side of the body. Attack/Defense as one. Alternatively, while wrestling with a firearm that the enemy tries to capture with brute strength, just sit back on your butt and gravity/mass will align the gun towards the foe, then trigger spam for center mass termination of target.
When giving tips and pointers to other civilians or peers, I often mention H2H defense postures to be taken when they are up against a knife or what not. The normal reaction is “if they have a knife, I’ll just use my gun”.
The problem is… you need space and time to draw a gun in the classic “ironsight” mode, unless one has learned reflex hip shooting or virtual sights. I don’t think many people are aware of the disadvantages that CQB fights bring to a person with a “gun”. Steven’s Navy scenario points it out quite well. These are not “well trained master warriors” either. Having a sufficient CQB defensive posture and reflex at that range is critical to deploying the firearm on target, but doesn’t seem to be something many people want to focus on.
This lack of education can be annoying to lethal at times. It’s not a matter of superior training, it’s just a matter of people not knowing what they don’t know. A knife at 1 feet range is not significantly inferior to a gun at that range, it depends on how and when it is deployed.
An assassin that can kill unarmed in under 1 second is definitely NOT inferior to a person trying to point a desert eagle at hugging range. BOTH can kill each other in under 1 second depending on who engages first at what range and accuracy. The “gun” is not some totem pole of demonic swordmanship that fights for itself and protects the user. It’s just a tool. Warriors don’t need tools, they are the weapon. A naked warrior is a better weapon since air friction has less of an effect on the instantaneous charge speed and acceleration.
Richard Aubrey — that is extremely interesting.
Have you seen anything of Lars Andersen, supposedly the faster Archer in the world? It seems to me he does the archery version of what you are talking about. And it clearly makes an ENORMOUS difference with a bow and arrow.
I saw the Eastwood movie. Horrible. And I wanted to like it.
I just did 24 pushups. Just one more than two days ago.
No, I don’t mean for anyone to be impressed.
Still, it was more than it was two days ago.
I don’t know if you aimed this at me, but if you did, thank you.
neo ten feet tall
I see somebody linked to CDR Salamander. Fullbore Friday.
I’ll see you, and raise you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Rawalpindi
What said.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs6oSJsR3BM
Maybe not maybe…
Lee. Have not.
In the Infantry, if not in Basic, you learn to fire from rest, usually prone or from a position where the weapon rests on something, or your left arm does. So you line up and, when you fire, the weapon naturally resumes the initial position on its own because that’s the way you’ve lined it and your hold. So you have just a couple of mils to bring the sight back on to the target and you can do that in two seconds with a semi-auto and maybe three with a bolty. So it really is deliberate fire.
The GIs in WW II had Garands,semi-auto with eight rounds internal. Starting the clock with the first round, and giving it two seconds between shots, that’s eight rounds in fourteen seconds. With thirty guys, that’s 240 rounds on target. A pair of machine guns can’t fire that fast, and their beaten zone is larger. Which is to say, many of the rounds miss. And, as a friend of mine said, I’ll tell you where the next 240 rounds won’t come from (the MG).
With full-size ammo–30.06 or its equivalent–this is useful. And it can be useful even if the shooters don’t actually see a person.
But, if you don’t want to give away your position, or use up your ammo, or clean your weapon again, you can tell yourself you’re not costing the war effort anything by dogging it. After all, there’s no reason to think you’d hit anybody anyway, right?
The “not firing rifles enough” is not telling us about buck fever.
John F. MacMichael @ February 23rd, 2018 at 7:46 pm, the USN employs Gurkhas as security guards in Bahrain. Lots of countries employ retired Ghurkas to provide security.
It’s one reason I know what I would do if I was in former Deputy Peterson’s shoes. No question. I’m going into the building. It’s odd that we have a trailer for a movie about three unarmed Americans charging a well-armed terrorist, on the one hand, and we have to put up with idiots talking about how OF COURSE you can’t expect a police officer with a pistol to take on a teenager with an AR15.
Oh yes we can. An AR isn’t some magical mystery weapon that makes you invincible. It won’t keep you from getting shot. It won’t keep you from getting knifed. It won’t keep you from getting tackled.
http://articles.latimes.com/1994-10-30/news/mn-56685_1_white-house-grounds/2
No AR is going to keep you from getting your head caved in with a brick if the right person (or wrong person, depending on your POV) can get close enough.
This isn’t a hypothetical question for me. I know what I’m willing to do. I also couldn’t hold my head up in decent company. Or indecent company, depending on your opinion of Sailors and Marines and Gurkhas. As one of the Recon Marines I went through SERE with put it, he was a warrior and it didn’t matter if the only weapon he could put his hands on was a rock. Or no weapon at all, just bare hands. And elbows, knees, and feet.
I’ve never killed a human being. I have played Rugby. And I’ve been in more than a few fights, although now that I’m 55 I’ve managed to take it down a notch. I haven’t been in a fight since St. Paddy’s day in 2007 when some drunk drugged-out expletive came into my restaurant and TOLD ME he was going to park in my lot and I WOULD NOT have his car towed while he went to the bar across the street. I told him yes I am having that car towed. When he got back from the bar and his car was gone he charged in and demanded to know just what exactly I was thinking.
At that moment I’m thinking, this is a Sushi restaurant. We’ve got knives, tables, chairs, and only one door and if this guy knocks me out the waitresses have to get passed him to escape. So I invited the expletive outside, and told the ladies to lock the door and call the cops.
I was recovering from a broken leg, so I really couldn’t box with the guy. So I took him to ground Gracie Jiu Jitsu style (it was kind of gratifying to hear one of the ladies say, “Man, Steve’s got some moves”) and choked him out.
It was even more gratifying when the cops showed up and arrested the guy. I was giving one of the cops my version of events, and I got to the point where I took the guy down (I never would have done that if he had friends as I’m allergic to getting kicked and stomped) and choked him out. And the cop asked, “Is that when he s&&& himself?” I hadn’t noticed until that point, but sure enough there it was on the pavement. It was huge. I really don’t know how I missed it, but fortunately he didn’t get any on me.
It made me feel really good inside, just knowing he had to wait all weekend to see a judge in his soiled clothes. Unfortunately, the cop’s question about the guy crapping himself didn’t make it into the police report.
The think is, I’m not a bad@$$. I served with some bad@.$$es. I’m proud to say I got kicked out of the Kadena AFB officer’s club with two SEALs. Then we went back to the suite of rooms we wer sharing (I walk up to the front desk and I’m told there aren’t any rooms, then the SEAL walk up and all of a sudden the girl behind the counter gives the two lieutenants the 0-6 suite) to polish off a bottle of whisky and make rice, and one of the SEALs gives me a black eye. I didn’t respond because, do I look suicidal?
Steve57: Did you see 15:17 to Paris?
You’d appreciate it as I did. and the rest of the theater that clapped before and after the credits.
ymar has it right about self-defense.
We focus too much on Weaver stance when off-hand, hip-shoot and “just empty as you can” come more into play along with gaining room to draw.
You don’t get to do that at most ranges.