Huge Blast in Oslo

[DanteGabriel]

This thread doesn't have enough posts about idiots saying stupid shit:

Beck: Youth Camp Attacked In Norway "Sounds A Little Like The Hitler Youth"

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201107230001

Well I think we can all agree now that since it was a fundamentalist Christian who killed all those people, it would be tasteless to allow the construction of any Christian churches in Oslo.

[Ixodes]

The news crew just needs transport and a camera.

The police need equipment, transport capable of getting them and their equipment there and an assessment of the situation to know what they are getting in to.

This was police dogma until Columbine showed the time used to transport equipment and assess the situation is paid for with dead kids. Many law enforcement agencies have switched training to have first responders equipped to immediately engage the shooter. Brief link. In 2004 in Columbus, Ohio a deranged man started shooting up a club, killing the former guitarist for the band Pantera. The first officer to respond went in, engaged the shooter and killed him. This is significant because in the past it would have been standard to wait for SWAT to come in and handle the situation. But Columbus police standards changed (following Columbine) and this is credited with saving lives that night.

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 and all, but a copter was hired so a guy with a camera could film kids getting slaughtered. The same copter (or other similar transport) could have brought in a guy with a rifle, and that had potential to alter the outcome. Yeah, the cops would have taken a huge risk in being the first to arrive on scene with nothing but bullets and their wits. But in all honesty do you think there are many cops that wouldn't take that risk when kids are getting executed??

[Lord O' Bones]

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 and all, but a copter was hired so a guy with a camera could film kids getting slaughtered. The same copter (or other similar transport) could have brought in a guy with a rifle, and that had potential to alter the outcome. Yeah, the cops would have taken a huge risk in being the first to arrive on scene with nothing but bullets and their wits. But in all honesty do you think there are many cops that wouldn't take that risk when kids are getting executed??

I'm not a helicopter pilot, but FFS when I read that I immediately wondered why he didn't try to land on that asshole.

[Sturn]

I'm not a helicopter pilot, but FFS when I read that I immediately wondered why he didn't try to land on that asshole.

Slow-moving landing helicopter at close range vs. assault rifle = more casualties. Perhaps even more children casualties since a helicopter being shot down probably can't be very accurate on its landing spot.

Oh and shooting from a helicopter, even a hovering one (they still move around a bit) is very innacurate, the reason military craft carry fully automatic machinguns for this task (lots of bullets). That hovering helicopter is a large, noisy target also (see above paragraph). An average police officer with a rifle shooting from a helicopter (something he's never trained for) doesn't stand a chance and may end up hitting nearby civilians instead. Elite military units sure, but not your average police officer (unless you are lucky to find one with specialized prior military training).

[Lord O' Bones]

Slow-moving landing helicopter at close range vs. assault rifle = more casualties. Perhaps even more children casualties since a helicopter being shot down probably can't be very accurate on its landing spot.

I'll have to check with my uncle (who is a helicopter pilot) as to the feasibility of this, but I certainly wasn't thinking of drifting majestically down to alight upon his person as daintily as a butterfly and slowly squeeze the breath out of him.

Oh and shooting from a helicopter, even a hovering one (they still move around a bit) is very innacurate, the reason military craft carry fully automatic machinguns for this task (lots of bullets). That hovering helicopter is a large, noisy target also (see above paragraph). An average police officer with a rifle shooting from a helicopter (something he's never trained for) doesn't stand a chance and may end up hitting nearby civilians instead. Elite military units sure, but not your average police officer (unless you are lucky to find one with specialized prior military training).

First of all, nearly every sentence here contains a statement of 'fact.' Yet these statements are so generalized as to be completely unverifiable.

The accuracy advantage to the man on the ground would be marginal and he's wearing a police uniform, while the cop in the helicopter would be wearing a motherfucking helicopter.

[Horza]

I'll have to check with my uncle (who is a helicopter pilot) as to the feasibility of this, but I certainly wasn't thinking of drifting majestically down to alight upon his person as daintily as a butterfly and slowly squeeze the breath out of him.

That's

's job.

[Shryke]

This was police dogma until Columbine showed the time used to transport equipment and assess the situation is paid for with dead kids. Many law enforcement agencies have switched training to have first responders equipped to immediately engage the shooter. Brief link. In 2004 in Columbus, Ohio a deranged man started shooting up a club, killing the former guitarist for the band Pantera. The first officer to respond went in, engaged the shooter and killed him. This is significant because in the past it would have been standard to wait for SWAT to come in and handle the situation. But Columbus police standards changed (following Columbine) and this is credited with saving lives that night.

Yeah, hindsight is 20/20 and all, but a copter was hired so a guy with a camera could film kids getting slaughtered. The same copter (or other similar transport) could have brought in a guy with a rifle, and that had potential to alter the outcome. Yeah, the cops would have taken a huge risk in being the first to arrive on scene with nothing but bullets and their wits. But in all honesty do you think there are many cops that wouldn't take that risk when kids are getting executed??

Yes, hindsight is 20/20, but it only happens after the fact.

The problem with your whole argument here is the cops didn't know what was going on. It all looks easy because we now know there was only 1 shooter, no bombs, no hostages, etc, etc, etc. At the time, the cops knew almost nothing except "shooting going on at camp" and had to prepare for anything.

One cop with just "bullets and their wits" is a good way to get people pointless killed if there's multiple shooters or the like.

What Columbine changed was sorta like what 9/11 changed. In older situations with shooters in schools and the like, they expected hostages. That means you contain the situation, wait for SWAT and then go in and take them out. During Columbine, what they didn't expect was the kids to just go around executing people. So now the situation is to a) train more cops as "SWAT" team and B) go in and take the shooter(s) with overwhelming force out as soon as you've established what's going on.

Of course, a) has also led to a bunch of heavily armed idiots as cops shooting, say, retired marines after they bust down the wrong door in the middle of the afternoon.

[Galactus]

There's also the point that they might have been keepingthe helicopter ready in case something more went down. No one knew what was going on with the bombs after all.

[Shryke]

Yeah, the big thing to remember is that at the time, no one knew wtf was going on. How many attacks, how many bombs, etc, etc, etc.

Which was, of course, the point of the bomb.

[Lord O' Bones]

There's also the point that they might have been keepingthe helicopter ready in case something more went down. No one knew what was going on with the bombs after all.

Like... what? What did they need to possibly hold back a helicopter for?

Yeah, the big thing to remember is that at the time, no one knew wtf was going on. How many attacks, how many bombs, etc, etc, etc.

Which was, of course, the point of the bomb.

So you don't react to something you know is happening just in case? If only real people in real situations in real time could could retcon away poor decisions and save lives.

Look humans are just that. Mistakes will happen. There's no need to make out like everything was done right, but the situation improbably turned out to be less straightforward and nefarious than a Tom Clancy villain might have perpetrated.

[Ixodes]

What Columbine changed was sorta like what 9/11 changed. In older situations with shooters in schools and the like, they expected hostages. That means you contain the situation, wait for SWAT and then go in and take them out. During Columbine, what they didn't expect was the kids to just go around executing people. So now the situation is to a) train more cops as "SWAT" team and B) go in and take the shooter(s) with overwhelming force out as soon as you've established what's going on.

This is the opposite of how police departments are actually training officers to respond to mass shootings. In fact what you have written (waiting for "overwhelming force") is what fails in these situations.

They are training the first officers to arrive to go in ASAP, following the sound of gunfire, and engage the shooter immediately. Link 1, link 2, and link 3.

From link 2:

And the final practical lesson of Columbine is a revolution in police response tactics. Cops followed the old book at Columbine: surround the building, set up a perimeter, contain the damage. That approach has been replaced by the "active shooter protocol." Optimally, it calls for a four-person team to advance in a diamond-shaped wedge. (If there isn't time to gather four officers, a single officer should charge in alone.) They're trained to move toward the sound of gunfire and neutralize the shooter. Their goal is to stop him at all costs. They will walk past a dying child if they have to, just to prevent the shooter from killing more. The active protocol has proved successful at numerous shootings during the past decade. At Virginia Tech alone, it probably saved dozens of lives.

[Shryke]

Like... what? What did they need to possibly hold back a helicopter for?

So you don't react to something you know is happening just in case? If only real people in real situations in real time could could retcon away poor decisions and save lives.

Look humans are just that. Mistakes will happen. There's no need to make out like everything was done right, but the situation improbably turned out to be less straightforward and nefarious than a Tom Clancy villain might have perpetrated.

No, but you don't rush in 1 guy into an unknown situation.

[elmis]

Things could have been handled better, but they can ALWAYS be handled better.

I think the point some people are trying to make here is that there is just one guy to blame, and that is ABB. Not the police, not the media, not the videogames, not the muslims, not the Labour Party, just the terrorist.

I'm 100% certain that the police will review their performance, and make adjustments where they are feasible.

[Sariel]

The solution however will not be to arm the average police officer or increase the maximum sentence, both of which are choices the terrorist would seem to have been a supporter of.

[Arya The Assassin]

Are on-duty police in Norway armed? If so, are off-duty Norway police allowed to carry concealed as in the US?

No, on-duty regular Norwegian police isn't permanently armed, but the police have wanted to change this for many years, because of more dangerous and violent crimes. The massacre on Utøya and the fact that Delta had to deal with over 400 'sharp' incidents last year (a 200% increase in 10 years), may affect or change this policy. Many (most?) Norwegians believe that the police shouldn't carry weapons, though, but I don't agree with them.

I think off-duty police are allowed to carry concealed weapons, but it depends on the situation.

I would hope so too. The analogy to US law enforcement is the Columbine school shooting. Something like that had not occurred before on that scale. The responding routine patrol officers, from my understanding, did as they were supposed to and sealed off the school and waited for a special response team (aka SWAT). SWAT took forever to slowly enter the school safely and clear room by room while searching for concealed shooters and bombs.

Yes, I remember that the Columbine massacre lead to the popularization of IARD, and that this tactic probably saved a lot of lives at Virginia Tech. The first responders on Utøya were not armed and/or trained for this kind of tactic.

[Arya The Assassin]

Slow-moving landing helicopter at close range vs. assault rifle = more casualties.

They wouldn't try to land in close vicinity to the threat of course, and they would've had heavily armed personell and snipers onboard ready to provide cover/suppressive fire if necessary during landing.

An average police officer with a rifle shooting from a helicopter (something he's never trained for) doesn't stand a chance and may end up hitting nearby civilians instead. Elite military units sure, but not your average police officer (unless you are lucky to find one with specialized prior military training).

I'm not talking about 'average' police, but (as I've mentioned before in this thread) Delta, a heavily armed, specialized police/counter-terrorist unit. These units have snipers who are trained to shoot from helicopters and support ground troops. A helicopter could also (if unsuitable for transportation) have served as an observational platform for the police, to make it easier for them to locate the threats on the island.

EDIT: Fixed typo

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DG,

Well I think we can all agree now that since it was a fundamentalist Christian who killed all those people, it would be tasteless to allow the construction of any Christian churches in Oslo.

After all it would be hurtful to allow such construction and people "feelings" trump the free exercise of religious faith.

(for clarities sake I agree the Cordoba Center should be allowed to be built people opposing it's construction are really missing the point.)

[Sturn]

They wouldn't try to land in close vicinity to the threat of course, and they would've had heavily armed personell and snipers onboard ready to provide cover/suppressive fire if necessary during landing.

I was responding to the post about the helicopter actually landing on the suspect. :) So, yes that would require some close vicinity to the threat.

I agree if helicopters were available and used they wouldn't have landed right by the shooter unless obsolutely necessary and even then with large amounts of suppressive fire.

[Arya The Assassin]

I was responding to the post about the helicopter actually landing on the suspect. :)

Yeah, I noticed, I just wanted to respond to your statement about him shooting at the helicopter with an assault rifle :)

[Herr Fick]

Well I think we can all agree now that since it was a fundamentalist Christian who killed all those people, it would be tasteless to allow the construction of any Christian churches in Oslo.

Judging from 2083 - A European Declaration of Independence and his slideshow on youtube, Anders Behring Breivik clearly doesn't consider himself to be a fundamentalist Christian.

He writes about the crucial cultural role of Christianity regarding European (as opposed to both "marxist"/"multiculturalist" and "islamic") values, a very common attitude within Europe's anti-islamic, chauvinist/nationalist movements. Almost everyone who believes to be fighting "Islamisation" argues that while religiousness may be a private matter, Christian (or "Judeo-Christian") values are an integral part of what they call Western civilisation and must be defended against Islam's political as well as demographic "threat". But these values are derived neither from a fundamentalist reading of scripture, nor from contemporary teachings of the (Roman Catholic - most of them despise German and Scandinavian protestantism) church. Instead they link (post-enlightenment) Christianity historically as well as philosophically to democracy, civil liberties, and - most of all - universal human rights. All of these three they consider to be under attack from Muslim immigrants and what they call "Political Islam".

Arguments of this kind can be found on every major Anti-Islam publication in Europe, they are employed even by politicians of otherwise moderate to conservative affiliation.