Manchester blast

[DanaC]

The police response was incredibly fast. 8 minutes from the first 999 call to all three terrorists dead.

[monster]

"Fuck you I'm Millwall" is awesome. For the first time ever.

...and I love the magazine touch

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The police response was incredibly fast. 8 minutes from the first 999 call to all three terrorists dead.

Originally Posted by monster

"Fuck you I'm Millwall" is awesome. For the first time ever.

...and I love the magazine touch

Eight minutes! A lot can happen in eight minutes. Run or become a sliced and diced celebrity! Yeah, no. I'll take the Texas solution.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Gravdigr

Indeed.

"The Lion Of London Bridge"...That is awesome.

And fuck running. Away, I mean. Running away is right out.

If limpdicks like these three were torn to fucking pieces by the people they were trying to kill/terrorize and buried in a vat of bacon grease, this shit would calm down a bit.

Ok, lemme ask you, at what point do you run away? Four knives? Eleven? I'm not from Sparta. There probably is a number I think. Make them catch me.

Of course the circumstances matter. If I'm between the knives and my children, "Running away is right out."

[monster]

A Millwall fan with a gun would be scary

[Gravdigr]

Originally Posted by BigV

Ok, lemme ask you, at what point do you run away? Four knives? Eleven? I'm not from Sparta. There probably is a number I think. Make them catch me.

Of course the circumstances matter. If I'm between the knives and my children, "Running away is right out."

Well, you get to tell St. Peter it took three/four/eleven of them to get ya.

I'm not sure I could live with myself if I ran. Then again, I don't got that much to live for anyway. May be the ol' fight-or-flight acting up.

I didn't know how many it was gonna take to whoop mah ass...but I knew how many they were gonna use.

~Ron White

[DanaC]

Running away is probably a better option given the potential for an attacker to have explosives on them.

Running away allows the police more space to do their job. They can't open fire on a terrorist if they're surrounded by civilians.

[Gravdigr]

A little push back on the not running, I see.

Ya don't have to stand yer ground. You are perfectly free to be just another victim.

Myself, though, Ima die fighting back, thanks.

[DanaC]

I think the general idea is to minimise the number of casualties as much as possible.

There may be circumstances where running isn't an option - or where by not running you might be able to help someone else, or slow down the attackers - but in general I think most people getting out of the way so the police can do their thing is probably a good idea.

The people who did fight back probably saved some others' lives, and they clearly slowed their progress which was no doubt a good thing - but I think it's probably also a good thing that it wasn't more people fighting them - because at that point, what's needed is a clear shot.

[xoxoxoBruce]

I see no problem, "You brought a knife to a gun fight? Fuck you, I'm an American!"

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Running away is probably a better option given the potential for an attacker to have explosives on them.

Running away allows the police more space to do their job. They can't open fire on a terrorist if they're surrounded by civilians.

You can't outrun an explosion any more than you can outrun a bullet. If you had said run to immediate cover that would stop a bullet or shrapnel, I could buy it. Most people don't have the presence of mind to do that. They just panic and run even if that makes the situation worse.

Taking out terrorists imbedded in a crowd is exactly what antiterrorist operatives are trained to do. The inadequate level of proficiency the typical police officer has to do that is why we reserve the right to do it ourselves.

[BigV]

I would say that the inadequacy of proficiency of the typical police officer is dwarfed by the inadequacy of the typical member of "ourselves" .

I think you've slyly changed definitions of "ourselves" in your post there. First you suggest the people who run are thoughtlessly increasing the hazard by running. Then by the end you say we, ourselves can do better. Which is it?

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sexobon

You can't outrun an explosion any more than you can outrun a bullet. .

You can remove yourself from the immediate area (hopefully) and reduce the chances of being caught in the blast should that explosive belt go off.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by BigV

... First you suggest the people who run are thoughtlessly increasing the hazard by running. Then by the end you say we, ourselves can do better. Which is it?

Both. If you have time to run, you have time to counterattack. Running will be expected. Attackers can optimize their plans around it. Counterattack has the element of surprise. The best chance of minimizing casualties is with the latter . The exception is when facing overwhelming numbers. Then it's best to break contact by creating distance. That's a situation in which even a slim chance is better than none at all. When most people run: however, it's because they don't know how to do anything else. Most aren't inclined to learn either.

Originally Posted by DanaC

You can remove yourself from the immediate area (hopefully) and reduce the chances of being caught in the blast should that explosive belt go off.

Those planning on using explosives don't generally tip their hand to give people a chance to run. It would be counter productive. Should it happen, be sure to post it in monster's Idiot of The Day thread.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Both. If you have time to run, you have time to counterattack. Running will be expected. Attackers can optimize their plans around it. Counterattack has the element of surprise. The best chance of minimizing casualties is with the latter . The exception is when facing overwhelming numbers. Then it's best to break contact by creating distance. That's a situation in which even a slim chance is better than none at all. When most people run: however, it's because they don't know how to do anything else. Most aren't inclined to learn either.

That's a good point.

I would however point out that Londoners (and most major city dwellers) have been asked, and advised in the strongest terms, in the event of an incident: run, hide and tell. Get away from the centre of violence if you can. Take cover as best you can. Contact the emergency services asap.

If you watch the footage - much of that running away was not a panicked mob - some people were still carrying their drinks. Closer to where the violence was unfolding, there was more panic - but at that stage, what you have is a state of confusion of what the attack actually is - do they have guns, how many of them are there, is someone going to detonate explosives. So close to the Manchester bombing where a suicide bomber detonated his backpack in a crowd of people.

Those planning on using explosives don't generally tip their hand to give people a chance to run. It would be counter productive. Should it happen, be sure to post it in monster's Idiot of The Day thread.

Well, there was a van packed to the gills with molatov cocktails and other goodies to which they clearly intended to return - and the people on the ground at the time would have been able to clearly see that the attackers were wearing what looked like belts of explosive canisters.

A former soldier might have enough experience of battlefield thinking to make a quick determination of whether that belt is likely to be a bluff in a particular situation, but your average civilian really isn't going to be able to make that call.

Who the fuck knows what is going on in the mind of the person wearing that belt - if it's a bomb belt, are they waiting for a signal/? Are they waiting to coordinate attacks? are they waiting until they are about to be captured so they can detonate it rather than be taken alive?

There are all sorts of reasons an attacker might not immediately detonate a bomb.