Hopefully Carry at Purdue in the Future?

[TMU317]

This was not a campus shooting.

I want one, just one, example of police arriving at the scene of an active shooter on a campus and being perplexed by who is the good guy and who is the bad guy.

Cops stood around at Virginia Tech and Columbine and NIU and lots of other places.



Chief Cox's cover story is that this is a concern for his officers and it falls apart like a cardboard suitcase in the rain on cross exam. He is in favor of denying people rights based on an absurd scenario.

It is akin to the silly "what if game" of every martial arts club gets from new students. "What if space aliens were shooting lasers at Alex Jones and but our officers couldn't get to the space aliens as they had to fight Godzilla and Godzilla knew Wing Chun and then . . ."

1. I want an example of this happening.

2. I want to know how PUPD or other police departments train for this scenario. If this is a concern of Chief Cox then obviously PUPD trains for it, right?

3. I want Chief Cox to explain why PUPD cannot simply do on campus for the scenario he describes off campus. If PUPD officers came across Cox's parade of horribles at the Tippecanoe Mall, or the courthouse, or Wabash 9 theatre, or the hookah bar, or wherever, how would they handle this scenario. Do that on campus then.

How does the location of an active shooter incident change the fact that officers on scene can (and have) confuse a GG for a BG? Whether they arrive on scene of an active shooter on a college campus, in a park, or in the streets it doesn't change the fact that during the heat of the moment confusion can lead to the injury/death of an innocent person who was simply trying to help.

Like I said before, I am not agreeing with Chief Cox on the issue of concealed carry on campus. I was just addressing his comment which was quoted in the article.


“When we get that 911 call and we send two to three uniformed officers and there are two or three guys shooting at each other, who’s the bad guy?” he said. “Our officers are trained to eliminate the threat. When there’s chaos, the officers aren’t going to know who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy."


"Unfortunately, what that means is it could end up in tragedy and I’d have to explain to someone’s parents we couldn’t tell who the good guys were and the bad guys were.”


This is a legitimate concern for all police department, regardless of the scenario that unfolds. I do not believe this is a valid reason to deny a student, or anyone else, the right to legally carry a firearm. I am only arguing that this is a real issue that LEOs face. This issue still exists whenever and wherever there is an active shooter incident. I have no idea how PUPD trains for such a scenario or if they do at all. I have never spoken to him, and I have never spoken to a PUPD officer. I do know IMPD trains for active shooter incidents. They also train their officers (at least the officers I have spoken too have received training on the issue) that if they find themselves in a situation where they are in plain clothes and responding to an active shooter/man with a gun/shots fired..etc to use extreme caution as a responding officer who has no idea who you are could see you as a threat. If you are in plain clothes and have been involved in a shooting, responding officers have no way of telling if you are a GG or a BG and thus when they encounter you, armed with a firearm, they will treat you as a threat until they are able to determine otherwise. The issue becomes more complex in an active shooter incident when the scene is chaotic and very much still an active situation.

 

[youngda9]

Hold your fire, Purdue - Purdue Exponent: Opinions Wow, just wow. Dirty harry.

Why can't I see any comments on this article? The author knows absolutely nothing about the real world. Thinks the police will save you and that a girl being attacked has the ability to run 100 yards to a security phone to call for help.

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.

 

[TMU317]

The security guard was exchanging fire with the suspects???

Not that I am aware of. The officers "stumbled" upon a man in plain clothes armed with a firearm during the search for the suspects. They perceived him as a threat and fired upon him. I was told by an officer that the man was crawling through a yard at the time of the incident, but I can't confirm this information. The officers made a mistake, and the man will (if he has not already) be compensated by the city for this error. I do not know all of the details of this particular incident, only what I have posted thus far.

 

[TMU317]

If the cops shot a bystander then it bolsters my call to disarm the police for everyone's safety.

Calling him a "bystander" is not an accurate evaluation of the situation. He was not a "spectator" in the event. He was not simply standing on the sidewalk minding his own business. He voluntarily involved himself in the incident by leaving his vehicle/home or wherever he came from and entering into the search for the suspect. He did not advise anyone he was doing this, or inform anyone he would be on scene in plain clothes and armed. This was not a smart move on his part. Officers routinely respond to incidents in plain clothes, however, they advise other officers who are responding or already on scene that they are doing so. They do this either by direct communication, or by calling communications and having a control operator or dispatcher advise responding officers and give them a description of the officer who is in plain clothes.

 

[Jeremiah]

Why can't I see any comments on this article? The author knows absolutely nothing about the real world. Thinks the police will save you and that a girl being attacked has the ability to run 100 yards to a security phone to call for help.

I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.

100-200 yard dash to a call box ( provided that she doesn't trip or isn't injured) then a 2 minute wait for the cops, if she is dumb enought to wait by the box for 2 minutes what could happen in that time?

 

[Jeremiah]

So Mr. Freeman,

I am going to need help with strategy.

I need to prove that it isn't a saftey risk ( Utah state, CSU, and other school swhere it is currently allow)

Prove that MACE, TAzers, or Martial arts, won't work, ( ANY LEO's in the area want to beat me after I taze them? :-) )

Convince the student senators that they are required to support the rights of the students, have a duty to make the campus more safe ( which a security patrol and rapw walk don't do), and need to help them make a case to administrators that not only will carry on campus not be a bad thing, that it may actually become monetarily benifical.

Find ways to aleviate fears, misnomers, emotions, and preference. ( learn to spell) then convince students that the need to accept the fact that their feelings towards the tools of self defence are irrelvent, and that this will make them at less of a risk then they currently are.

I also need to displee the myth that PUPD is trained to handle this situation.

I am will to buy sushi in exchange for aid, counsel, or advice. ( I also keep scotch handy if that helps)

 

[ralphb72]

if you don't work here, or go to school here, you aren't breaking anything. I wouldn't put it past Purdue to fire an employee that is caught carrying, however.

And I wouldn't put it past them to ban, Trespass, escort off the property and invite to never come back on pains of trespass, anyone who is not an employee or student who the find carrying somehow also.

 

[kludge]

“When we get that 911 call and we send two to three uniformed officers and there are two or three guys shooting at each other, who’s the bad guy?” he said. “Our officers are trained to eliminate the threat. When there’s chaos, the officers aren’t going to know who’s the good guy and who’s the bad guy.
“Unfortunately, what that means is it could end up in tragedy and I’d have to explain to someone’s parents we couldn’t tell who the good guys were and the bad guys were.”

Easy. The BG is the one who either runs, points his gun at a cop, or himself when the cops come in and yell, "Stop! Police!"

No worries though, 99% of the time it will be over before you get there. If not, the other 1% of the time you'll wait outside until the shooting stops.

The shooting will stop when one of two things happens. The BG is stopped by the GG or the BG shoots himself.

Either way you go home at the end of the day. Some students aren't so lucky.

 

[Typhon1390]

If you're on Facebook PSG just posted a poll regarding this topic. Get out the vote! So far we're down 6 to 20.

https://www.facebook.com/?sk=question&id=10150454699583417&post_id=10150454736573417&qa_ref=qd

 

[Jeremiah]

If you're on Facebook PSG just posted a poll regarding this topic. Get out the vote! So far we're down 6 to 20.

https://www.facebook.com/?sk=question&id=10150454699583417&post_id=10150454736573417&qa_ref=qd

done and spread.

 

[bartb]

Voted in the FB poll. I hope Purdue does the right thing and leads the way!!!

 

[Jeremiah]

65-81 Right now

 

[Hammerhead]

When there's an active shooter scenario where bullets are still flying, the police can easily discern between GG and BG by simply observing (this takes self control) the people who are throwing lead.

The guy/gal taking cover and only firing in one direction? GG. This person is probably going to disarm when ordered to by police, as they are a GG.

The guy/gal repeatedly firing at anything and everything moving? BG. This person will probably fire upon police when ordered to disarm.

This scenario isn't so complicated. Stop trying to make it complex. Active shooters are trying to kill anyone and everyone they can. Defenders are trying to end a threat.

 

[Bill of Rights]

When there's an active shooter scenario where bullets are still flying, the police can easily discern between GG and BG by simply observing (this takes self control) the people who are throwing lead.

The guy/gal taking cover and only firing in one direction? GG. This person is probably going to disarm when ordered to by police, as they are a GG.

The guy/gal repeatedly firing at anything and everything moving? BG. This person will probably fire upon police when ordered to disarm.

This scenario isn't so complicated. Stop trying to make it complex. Active shooters are trying to kill anyone and everyone they can. Defenders are trying to end a threat.

I support the idea of good people carrying wherever they may happen to lawfully be.

Your method of telling who is who is good, provided there is only one BG and one or more GGs. Given a "one armed GG and multiple BGs" situation, though, that falls apart. The one GG will be aiming in multiple directions, though yes, he will be taking cover. As will the BGs. The GG, as you said, however, won't be turning his gun on either LEOs or himself.

I like what you're trying to do. I encourage it. The response you gave just isn't a blanket, absolute answer that will work in every situation. Let's see if we can all put our heads together and find something that will address a majority of situations.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Taylorz71]

Thanks for the post! Sounds like folks up in West Lafayette are working hard.

This quote from the Purdue Police Chief got a big out of me:

So, let's restrict everyone's rights and leave the good guys (and gals) defenseless, so your job is easier? Good grief.

I don't like that response either no matter how real of a situation it could be. Truly trained LEO's will be able to differentiate between good guys and bad guys, but I don't really ever see that happening. Either way we need to get our rights back, and that isn't a valid argument to restrict us. Hopefully we can work together and get squared away on this.

 

[TMU317]

When there's an active shooter scenario where bullets are still flying, the police can easily discern between GG and BG by simply observing (this takes self control) the people who are throwing lead.

The guy/gal taking cover and only firing in one direction? GG. This person is probably going to disarm when ordered to by police, as they are a GG.

The guy/gal repeatedly firing at anything and everything moving? BG. This person will probably fire upon police when ordered to disarm.

This scenario isn't so complicated. Stop trying to make it complex. Active shooters are trying to kill anyone and everyone they can. Defenders are trying to end a threat.

You pointed out one possible scenario. How do you know that is how it is going to play out? In your scenario, why would the BG continue firing in all directions when someone is firing upon him? Is it not reasonable to assume he would turn his attention to the person trying to eliminate him?

"This person will probably fire upon police when ordered to disarm." Exactly. Officers don't like to give the BG a chance to shoot them first, before deciding they are a threat. There are many instances where officers use deadly force when the suspect never even fired a round. Who's to say a responding LEO, who comes around a corner and finds someone firing down a hallway, doesn't open fire on that individual? Are you going to wait and see if that person fires on you to determine if he/she is a GG or BG? Your scenario may not be so "complex" but what happens when it IS a complex scenario? An LEO has a split second to make a decision, and he may not have the luxury of knowing all the facts when he makes that decision.

 

[jgreiner]

Voted in the FB poll. I hope Purdue does the right thing and leads the way!!!

I voted as well.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Purdue police prepare for likely scenarios such as officers stumbling across a firefight on campus or Godzilla (Chinese martial arts optional):

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7gFlSGXt_k[/ame]

There is no evidence, not an iota, that Purdue police will have the complained of problem. It is a red herring and possibly the world's thinnest cover story. It needs to be laughed out the conference room.

Since police firearms training is so comprehensive, someone needs to ask Chief Cox what PUPD officers would do off campus if they encountered Godzilla, or a firefight.

 

[TMU317]

I don't like that response either no matter how real of a situation it could be. Truly trained LEO's will be able to differentiate between good guys and bad guys, but I don't really ever see that happening. Either way we need to get our rights back, and that isn't a valid argument to restrict us. Hopefully we can work together and get squared away on this.

What sort of training should these "highly trained LEO's" receive in order to somehow always know who the GG or the BG is in every single situation?

"that isn't a valid argument to restrict us."

You're exactly right. It isn't. But they have, and will continue to use this argument to defend their position on concealed carry on campus. You can't simply dismiss their argument as bogus, and hope they stop using it. Imagine the lawsuits and the outrage if a responding LEO shot and killed an innocent, law-abiding student who was simply trying to help. Especially when there are incidents when families sue, and collect, even when the LEO's did nothing wrong and were completely justified in using deadly force.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Campus cops kill unarmed students.

Might it be more in Chief Cox's interest to prevent such a tragedy at Purdue rather than fret about roving firefights and Godzilla attacks?