Response time at Binghamton NY killing

I have to assume that Zikuski doesn't want to suggest anything to encourage the liberalization of self-defense laws in New York ...

Of course Joe is right ... and Zikuski should have said:

"If some crazy lunatic decides to pick up a gun and go someplace and start shooting people, the best answer for that moment an armed individual, right there, who is able to stop the lunatic right then."

Post Columbine, Chief Zikuski's protocols are cowardly. He appears to value his officers more than those they have sworn to protect. I can't say what other States are doing but in North Carolina if you have an active shooter the first officers on the scene enter the building immediately in groups of four or less then find the shooter and stop him. A fine example of this was the officer in Carthage NC. These active shooter protocols started in California and have spread nationwide in various forms.

Oops. The previous post was mine.

I watched the news and noticed that there were dozens of cops with guns milling around outside, the gunman had his guns inside, and honest people were forced by law to cower and await their turn to die. Since the police department couldn’t afford to station police at every public place in town just in case something like this happens, it might be a good idea to allow the citizens to take measures to protect themselves.

It may be time for victims and their families to sue in court the jackasses that legislated their natural right of self protection away.

I agree that something's not right about police slow response. Chief was at scene himself within a few minutes, so he's responsible. There should be an outside investigation

I've commented on this here:

http://thepurplecenter.blogspot.com/

Given the Golden Hour rule of thumb for trauma treatment, I sometimes wonder if this sort of cowardice is designed to create the maximum number of deaths at these conveniently "Gun Free Zones".

The Chief, who is reported to have arrived at the scene within minutes, called the shooter a coward (for shooting himself as the police first arrived). He's obviously very familiar with the concept.

Great article here on active shooter training.

http://www.policeone.com/writers/columnists/Force-Science/articles/1695125-Ohio-trainer-makes-the-case-for-single-officer-entry-against-active-killers/

This happened within 75 miles of where I live.

Local news is reporting that police said: "... if shots were still being fired, police would have entered the building immediately." Then, "Officials say the 13 dead victims were too seriously wounded to survive no matter what."

http://www.wetmtv.com/news/local/story/New-Details-on-Gunman/mljISFAFzEyniL7BluRZ9A.cspx?rss=127

The report that Dave linked stated that "State police got tips suggesting that Wong may have been planning a bank robbery in 1999, possibly to support a crack-cocaine addiction, Zikuski said. But the robbery never happened."

I think the locals have switched to CYA mode.

The Milwaukee Police Department was on the air Saturday night CLEARLY differentiating its approach to 'active shooter' from that of Binghamton.

...which tells you that the B'hamton response is viewed as pretty damn crappy by other PD's around the country.

Police are trained to respond differently to an "active shooter" (shots being fired-- the first group of cops enter), and "barricaded shooter" (no shots being fired--- entering immediately risks hostages being killed). The Binghamton cops may have felt the situation was the latter.

That said, 90 minutes of silence seems excessive, given that people are bleeding to death. The training for "active shooter" changed after Columbine. My guess is that the training for "barricaded shooter" will change after Binghamton.

Any LEO will tell you up front: It's a brotherhood. They protect their own.
They are dedicated to going home at the end of the day, period, so if it comes down to you or them, believe me....it's you.

Several months ago, I awoke in the middle of the night to someone rattling my door and attempting to get into my house. I was terrified. My husband immediately took position in the most defensible position in the house, and I fled to the most defensible room to phone the police.

Next to the phone in that room is an unloaded pump shot gun, with cartridges next to the shot gun.

When I phoned the police, dispatcher asked, "Are you okay?" ... I said, "I'm okay now. I'm next to a shot gun." ... Dispatcher said, "Oh! Make sure that it's not loaded! We don't want any loaded guns there when our officers arrive."

I said, "It's not loaded." I had the sense not to add, "Husband is between me and any entry point, and he has a loaded .45."

Strange. What might have made more sense would have been if they'd known husband had a .45 and I had a pump shot gun, and the dispatcher had said, "So, I guess you can handle this. Is that right?"

He might not have gone elsewhere if he'd seen a uniform.

He might have just shot them first, like in Kirkwood, MO.

Regardless of the Binghamton situation how about Oakland and Pittsburgh where the police entered immediately and paid for it dearly, no cowardice inthose situations nor in many other places where our police lost their lives. Judge not, instead support.

@geraldfleming: So criticism is unpatriotic, eh?

If you want to compare anecdotes, why do police choose to wait for more information when dealing with events like Binghamton but rush right in when dealing with innocent people like Kathryn Johnston or Cheye Calvo? This kind of thing happens so often, CATO made quite a colorful map.

If you are truck driver or work in management, you are more likely to be killed on the job than if you are a police officer. Would you say that the life of an innocent person is more important than the life of a police officer who chose their profession, knowing the risks?

The 80's model (for lack of an all encompassing term) of response was based on the premise that shooter/hostage takers were common American criminals motivated by greed and/or ego who did not intend to die and would therefore do what was necessary to avoid death. With that base premise, it was assumed that time was on the side of the police and that the longer the shooter was in direct contact with his victim/hostages, the more he would see them as human beings and the less likely he would be to harm them. Therefore, the first officers on the scene were absolutely forbidden to act aggressively and would only establish a perimeter to prevent anyone getting out or in. Higher ranking officers would be called and would come to the scene to make a determination if more force was required. If it was, they would call out a SWAT team, and would establish a nearby command post from which they would command (and order refreshments). A hostage negotiator would try to contact and begin negotiations with the shooter. After a SWAT team arrived, reconnaissance would be conducted and plans formulated. Generally, until at least one hostage had been killed after the arrival of SWAT and the establishment of a command post, no aggressive action would be taken. All of this commonly took many hours.

After Columbine, where a teacher who likely could have been saved bled to death over many hours while the police worked through their procedures, many police agencies recognized the need for and implemented a more up to date protocol wherein in active shooter incidents (or incidents that likely were active shooters), the first officers arriving would immediately attack the shooter. Particularly in gun free zones, some police realize that they will be the only hope of the victims, who will continue to die in large numbers until the shooter decides to commit suicide or the police stop them.

Unfortunately, not every police agency realizes the necessity of this policy. It requires police executives to surrender substantial power to the lowest ranking members of their organizations, and requires training and courage on many levels. While I certainly don't know all of the facts available to the police chief in this situation, he would certainly seem to be far behind the best available practices.

Nice to know that these lazy, incompetent donut-munchers are qualified to decide who would have lived or died, considering their lack of even EXAMINING the patients for the first hour or so they were standing around.

No doubt important strategizing (like, who wants cream and who wants cream filled) had to occur.

Oakland and Pittsburgh where the police entered immediately and paid for it dearly

In Pittsburgh, the cops were INVITED in by the mother who wanted them to apprehend her son.

In Oakland, the cops did not "enter"--they stopped a guy for a traffic violation.

At least come up with examples which are parallel instead of bleating "support, support" like the sheeple.