TexasCHLforum.com

..what angered Mr D'Souza [the photographer] almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

"I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 086308.ece

One of the positive parts of having an armed society, and even gun crime, is that the police are better trained and used to using their guns when necessary.

Had this happened here, I have no doubt that the police would have shot back, no matter where it happened.

Besides which, what these police were experiencing was real, by golly, combat. They've been trained to take down an armed robber, issue tickets, investigate burglaries, riot control, etc. - not how to counter a significant number of motivated terrorists armed with automatic weapons who are willing to kill absolutely indiscriminately. If these poor guys had previous military training and combat experience, they might have behaved much differently. For better or for worse, a large number of American police have had military experience, and over the past 8 years have had actual combat experience before entering a police force.

Add to that the fact that we have a traditional gun culture and the Indians do not, and it is no wonder some police did not react well.

+1

This was a sad situation in India. I offer my prayers for those who past, their families and the survivors.

As many of you, I was amazed and saddened by this terrorist activity. Completely senseless. I was also amazed at how little training the police seemed to have as this area of the world is not new to terrorism and armed threats from neighboring Pakistan. I imagine the police will rethink their tactics.

TheArmedFarmer wrote:

..what angered Mr D'Souza [the photographer] almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

"I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/ ... 086308.ece

"There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," [/color]

The question is: "Armed" with what?

If they happened to be carrying only their service pistols (no long-arms)...and encountered multiples of heavily armed opponents, then I submit they did the right thing. To engage a determined force (in possesion of superior weaponry) is to invite a hail of gunfire that you will not survive. What good can come of that?

If the police had long-arms....were those longarms suitably equipped for the circumstance at hand? Were there civilians in the way? What was the distance? Did the circumstance beg for long-arms with optics?

The terrorists have the luxury of "spraying" bullets at anybody and everything they wish. The police (if they engage) are charged with shooting only the BG's. This is easily done on paper targets that don't shoot back...but becomes quite another matter in real life. This particular attack called for a response from highly trained individuals (and that ain't the Indian Police).

In several pictures I saw the police were armed with long rifles, possibly some CETME or G3 variant.
This is one of the primary reasons I carry. I have been concerned that since 9/11, it is only a matter of time before these cowards start attacking us in this fashion or like they do in Israel. By the way lots of Israelis carry, and I have read a few news stories about Israeli civilians dispatching would-be suicide bombers and gunmen.

That's not exactly true, unless you're in the west bank or Gaza strip.

If you're a veteran, you can get a carry/gun permit; and most people ARE veterans, as military service is compulsory, unless you're a member of a certain religious community.

In most cases, you only get to own one handgun.

Nitrogen is right...I was just reading a bunch of articles from the Israeli newspapers about the horrific regulation they have to deal with. They have started a NRA there, and are trying to get ownership/carry opened back up to most everyone. And being allowed to have only one gun? Makes me feel blessed to be a Texan!

Here's a link to a slide show with a bunch of photos (warning some are graphic) including several of the police. The Black Cats commandos are armed with MP5s, some of the army guys have AKs and PSLs, but the bona fide police some to be only armed with some handguns and some sort of bolt action rifles (image 9).


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... tacks.html

flynbenny wrote:Here's a link to a slide show with a bunch of photos (warning some are graphic) including several of the police. The Black Cats commandos are armed with MP5s, some of the army guys have AKs and PSLs, but the bona fide police some to be only armed with some handguns and some sort of bolt action rifles (image 9).


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picture ... tacks.html

Those bolt-action rifles look like good old-fashioned small-magazine Lee Enfields left over from the British occupation.

pedalman wrote:Those bolt-action rifles look like good old-fashioned small-magazine Lee Enfields left over from the British occupation.

That means they're more powerful and probably more accurate than the AK-47s the murderers were using.

flintknapper wrote: If they happened to be carrying only their service pistols (no long-arms)...and encountered multiples of heavily armed opponents, then I submit they did the right thing. To engage a determined force (in possesion of superior weaponry) is to invite a hail of gunfire that you will not survive. What good can come of that?

Wow... sit back and let fellow police officers and civilians get shot? You think that is the "right thing"? They may have been outgunned, but I don't see sitting by and waiting to get shot the right choice here. Ever.

CHLSteve wrote: Wow... sit back and let fellow police officers and civilians get shot? You think that is the "right thing"? .

Since we don't yet know all the details surrounding the event (at the station), I will reserve judgment as to whether or not the police did the "right thing" or not. My earlier statement (which I stand by) was intended to make the broad point that when /if you are sorely out-gunned, out-trained and out-numbered, then the best thing to do (tactically speaking) is to address and contain what you can while waiting on those better equipped to arrive.

This event from the onset was clearly one that would require a well skilled/armed counter force, I am sure the Indian police (not fitting the description above) were well aware of this. Actually, there is some news just breaking...suggesting that some of the police may have been complicit in the attack/plan.

They may have been outgunned, but I don't see sitting by and waiting to get shot the right choice here. Ever.

I am going to hazard a guess that you have never "ever" been in that position. I did not see any reports suggesting that the police were curled up in the fetal position, crying for their mommies...and "waiting to get shot".

I only saw what I consider to be a prudent response (which is assessment first) from a guarded position. Then....we have the emotion filled statement of the reporter...who seemed to be all Gung-Ho. Forgive me... if I don't give full credence to the opinion of the reporter.

I'm just saying there is much we don't know about this incident still. What happened next (at the hotels) is better documented...but not germane to this discussion (what happened at the station).

For those who think they would "lead the charge" with their trusty pistol against multiples with fully automatic weapons....I would only say: Come on down to my place, let me whiz a few bullets past your head...and then we'll sit down and talk. (Tactics that is).

flintknapper wrote: Since we don't yet know all the details surrounding the event (at the station), I will reserve judgment as to whether or not the police did the "right thing" or not.

So you recant your previous statement when you said exactly that? See quote below:

flintknapper wrote:I submit they did the right thing.

CHLSteve wrote:

flintknapper wrote: Since we don't yet know all the details surrounding the event (at the station), I will reserve judgment as to whether or not the police did the "right thing" or not.

So you recant your previous statement when you said exactly that? See quote below:

flintknapper wrote:I submit they did the right thing.

No, I do not recant.

Let me see if I can be more clear.

In your previous post you wrote:

Wow... sit back and let fellow police officers and civilians get shot? You think that is the "right thing"?

The context of this question seems to be in regard to the perceived inaction of the officers at the scene. It is clear that you think something else should have been done...or that some amount of cowardice on their part was costing others their lives.

My belief (based on initial reports) is that they "did the right thing" in a tactical sense. My later post expands on that some...and makes some concession that without benefit of all the facts...there is certainly room for me to be wrong.

My error... was in not answering your question in the context in which I think it was intended. To which I answer: No, if there were something reasonable that the police could do to spare lives (with conditions) then I think that inaction would be wrong.

OTOH, I do not expect them to run head long into certain death with no reasonable expectation that it will save any lives. That is the premise of my reservation, we simply don't know enough about the incident yet, but my gut feeling is that they did what they could with what they had...and didn't get killed in the process (it would serve no purpose in this quick paced event).

So, I don't know if that helps to explain my statements... or has confused you further. Please feel free to ask for more clarification (if you think you can stand it).