Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jebediah_Johnson t1_jedlpw5 wrote

I really appreciated that all of the ridiculous excuses about why they couldn't act at Uvalde also existed at Nashville but didn't slow them down at all. At Uvalde they said they only had 8 officers initially. They said they only had 2 rifles, they didn't have ballistic shields, the door was locked (it wasn't), and the shooter had a scary battle rifle, and they were concerned an officer might get shot.

At Nashville one officer shouts for 3 more officers to join him so he can make entry with only 4 guys. Only 1 has a rifle in his team. They obtain a master key, they come across some locked doors, but just keep moving around them, they don't wait for shields or more guys, they don't run away when they hear gunshots they run towards them. Some of them are visibly afraid, but they all decided to be brave and kept moving.

304

Girth_rulez t1_jedoy24 wrote

On YouTube, Donut Operator explained it something like this. "An imperfect plan executed quickly is better than a perfect plan executed at some undetermined time in the future."

216

Bagellord t1_jef1d3l wrote

Definitely. If those four had been killed or taken down by the shooter, that's still time for more backup to arrive, more people to get to safety, less ammo and will for the shooter.

25

mgt-kuradal t1_jef6913 wrote

Not to mention the chances of the shooter successfully taking out all 4 officers is practically 0. That’s like Hollywood movie shit.

33

Art-Zuron t1_jef7smj wrote

And even if they did, the cops were probably armored and would have only been injured, not killed.

10

washington_jefferson t1_jefoczy wrote

Didn’t you see the video? The had on normal vests that they wear throughout their normal shift. Not exactly armor. I bet an expert special forces/Navy seal could have taken the shooter down with no firearm. He’d need some cover fire, though.

−3

Art-Zuron t1_jefteyl wrote

I don't know what the weapon was that the shooter had, but I believe even the standard vests can resist at least some small arms fire. Like a 38-45.

That is if they're the kind meant to be somewhat bulletproof

2

CedarWolf t1_jefvnoi wrote

'Small arms fire' refers to most handguns, and one of the reasons armed officers wear them is not only because it helps protect them against incoming fire from an armed assailant, but it also gives them some minimum of protection from their own firearm in the event that someone knocks them over and takes it from them.

And they do resist hangun calibers. You'll probably break a rib or two and bruise a lung, and you'll be out of the fight, but you'll be alive instead of bleeding out on the sidewalk somewhere.

However, most body armor isn't rated for rifle calibers. A rifle round can punch right through Kevlar and can deform steel plates to the point where the steel itself can cause injury because it's pressing on the wound.

4

Art-Zuron t1_jefw7vi wrote

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. I believe this shooter had a rifle, but I don't know what kind. A 22 LR is way different than like 308 for sure

In any case, these officers did really well. They should be commended for it! Just as Uvalde's should be criticized harshly.

1

Jackal209 t1_jegq8xv wrote

Their primary weapon was the Keltec sub2k, a pistol caliber carbine that comes in either 9mm or .40 S&W

1

Art-Zuron t1_jegqfcx wrote

Though it's pistol caliber, I suppose the gunpowder behind it is the important part.

If it's got more kick, that'll make a difference in how effective armor is

2

Jackal209 t1_jeh06rl wrote

Ugh, I can't help it, I gotta get a bit technical *deep breath*

There are multiple factors that play a role, amount of gunpowder behind a round is one of them.

Others include barrel length, how fast or slow the powder burns, size of the round (mass, caliber, etc.), hardness of the round/penetrator, etc.

Soooo... our POS shooter was using a Keltec Sub2k which has a 16" barrel. Assuming they were using factory loaded 115 gr. 9mm ammo (the most commonly used 9mm ammo in the US), the muzzle velocity would have been around 1,295 fps. However, they're only gaining slightly less than 200 fps over shooting the same round from a full size handgun like the Glock 17 with a ~4.5" barrel has a muzzle velocity around 1,097 fps. Fast sure, but still slow compared to actual rifle rounds which often have muzzle velocities exceeding 2,000 fps, some exceeding 3,000 fps, and at least one exceeding 4,000 fps.

Without diving further down this rabbit hole, the short of it is that body armor rated to stop pistol calibers will still stop this round from a 16" barrel.

1

RightofUp t1_jef6d9y wrote

Field Marshall Montgomery just gasped from the after-life.

3

Astropical t1_jeehhi5 wrote

Nashville responded 100% by the book. Make entry with a team of 4 and sweep systematically each room, bypassing locked doors without keys. Keep pushing in this method until you find the suspect. If you start hearing gunshots, begin to rush past ALL rooms until you engage. Any injured or deceased should be noted on radio but otherwise passed over as your job is to eliminate the threat so EMS can get in to do their job.

These officers were brave and are the example of what our officers should look like every day across the country. Yes, there will always be fear. You don't get to not do your job because you are afraid though.

88

DelRMi05 t1_jeebcjm wrote

In college I worked for campus security as a dispatcher. Really cool job. This was around the time of the Virginia Tech shootings. At that point our department would send reps to this massive conferences where entities from the region would get educated on security measures and how to respond to these types of incidents. Every type of law enforcement goes to these things.

Anyways, we ran active shooter drills on campus one summer and while I didn’t take part, my director explained to me the protocol that all law enforcement follows; eliminate the threat as quickly as possible. Period.

Which is why everyone knew any excuse made in Uvalde was complete and utter bullshit. Even the general public knew. Such a heinous example of our kids being let down.

Even if there was one officer there with a potato gun they’re not waiting for backup.

The faster we get Millennials and Gen Z into public office, the faster we have a chance to address the root of the problem.

50

malphonso t1_jeee4hr wrote

The way my instructors explained it is that you, "stop the killing, so you can stop the dying. Get your ass in there and take them out."

31

DelRMi05 t1_jeehfkv wrote

Exactly. I can barely keep My composure when you saw the bloated out body of a child in a pink jacket on the body cam, but in that situation you are specifically instructed to ignore casualties and eliminate the threat. It makes sense, it man that's got to weigh on you mentally. The responding officers did their job. Although we really shouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

14

[deleted] t1_jeehjf2 wrote

>eliminate the anything that could possibly be perceived as a threat as quickly as possible. Period.

Hence "good guys with guns" being shot in the back by police while chasing active shooters.

12

RotalumisEht t1_jef03q4 wrote

'Shoot anyone who has a gun and isn't in uniform' generally works as a response to mass shootings in countries with fewer guns than people. Those countries also have fewer mass shootings, though I'm sure that's entirely coincidental /s.

8

NoLightOnMe t1_jeep19a wrote

> The faster we get Millennials and Gen Z into public office, the faster we have a chance to address the root of the problem.

So Millennials and Gen Z are going to work to enforce labor laws, worker rights, minimum wage laws so people can survive with dignity, force the insurance industry out as they implement single payer health care with the mental health support needed to prevent these shootings? Right? Or are you proposing more anti gun laws that go no where and won’t be enforced? Because that more of the same will only result in more dead kids at our schools.

−14

[deleted] t1_jeeh7j3 wrote

Also the not shooting any of the kids, or getting them shot asking them where they are, was an improvement over Uvalde, too.

38

Jebediah_Johnson t1_jefhyz4 wrote

The terrible thing is even if the Uvalde officers walked in shot a kid and then the shooter and saved literally anyone in that classroom it still would have been better than what they failed to do.

14