Comments on: The Mumbai policemen who refused to shoot http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/ Thu, 09 Feb 2012 23:54:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3 By: Mike Stearman http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95898 Mike Stearman Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:35:22 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95898 We only have the testimony of the photographer, who was in one location, commenting about one small groups of policemen he talked to. Later video does show the .303 equipped police shooting back, and in point of fact, one of the two gunmen at the station was shot (by the police) at a roadblock. That being said, the .303 is an excellent combat firearm, one of the best ever made. Most police units anywhere in the world (including the LAPD or the NYPD) would be delighted to have it as general issue for mere transit policemen on duty watch at a commuter train station. They key issue here was training. Either through a lack of funds, lack of funds for training due to corruption, or administrative incompetence, the Mumbai police had little experience of firing their (very )capable weapons or being in a counter-terrorist situation. As noted elsewhere above, British Army and regular Indian Army soliders are expected to have 15 round/minute aimed fire accuracy with the .303 at 200 yards. Such a rate of fire from someone trained to do so accurately would certainly have put paid to one, or perhaps both of the terrorists at the train station itself. But then, there were at least 8 other terrorists at up to 7 other locations in the city... We only have the testimony of the photographer, who was in one location, commenting about one small groups of policemen he talked to. Later video does show the .303 equipped police shooting back, and in point of fact, one of the two gunmen at the station was shot (by the police) at a roadblock.

That being said, the .303 is an excellent combat firearm, one of the best ever made. Most police units anywhere in the world (including the LAPD or the NYPD) would be delighted to have it as general issue for mere transit policemen on duty watch at a commuter train station.

They key issue here was training. Either through a lack of funds, lack of funds for training due to corruption, or administrative incompetence, the Mumbai police had little experience of firing their (very )capable weapons or being in a counter-terrorist situation. As noted elsewhere above, British Army and regular Indian Army soliders are expected to have 15 round/minute aimed fire accuracy with the .303 at 200 yards. Such a rate of fire from someone trained to do so accurately would certainly have put paid to one, or perhaps both of the terrorists at the train station itself.

But then, there were at least 8 other terrorists at up to 7 other locations in the city…

]]> By: njcommuter http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95448 njcommuter Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:12:56 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95448 As far as the round penetrating the perp and going on to kill someone else: even if it does, the perp would have killed dozens. It's a good trade, at least until you have to defend it in court. And if I were the one who was going to be killed ... I hope I'd yell "take the shot!" And now some guesses by a fellow who knows little of ballistics: After penetrating one body, it seems likely to me that the round would be far less stable. It might be precessing or it might even be spinning flat. If it was precessing, that might increase as it travelled the yards of open space between the target at the unlucky victim. It would probably have lost half its energy at that point. If it did take a second person down, the odds against it being able to penetrate a third person deeply enough to kill are much reduced. Ironically, though, the precessing or flat-spinning bullet might do more damage to the second victim than to the intended target. As far as the round penetrating the perp and going on to kill someone else: even if it does, the perp would have killed dozens. It’s a good trade, at least until you have to defend it in court. And if I were the one who was going to be killed … I hope I’d yell “take the shot!”

And now some guesses by a fellow who knows little of ballistics:
After penetrating one body, it seems likely to me that the round would be far less stable. It might be precessing or it might even be spinning flat. If it was precessing, that might increase as it travelled the yards of open space between the target at the unlucky victim. It would probably have lost half its energy at that point. If it did take a second person down, the odds against it being able to penetrate a third person deeply enough to kill are much reduced. Ironically, though, the precessing or flat-spinning bullet might do more damage to the second victim than to the intended target.

]]> By: Richard Aubrey http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95304 Richard Aubrey Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:58:36 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95304 Various points: The meme that US Infantrymen did not fire their weapons as often as they should have came from Marshall's "Men Against Fire". It turns out that most Infantrymen of that war who were in contact disagree, and, oddly, of all his notes, none referring to that point can be found. Britain's pre-WW I regulars "The Contemptibles" had been trained to fire their Enfields, then with five-round mags, at an extremely high rate. Called "five rounds rapid", I've seen demonstrations which, iirc, show round one a second. Since, as an earlier poster noted, one .303 is enough, faster is not necessary. My father's platoon surprised some Germans in an urban setting. The exchange of fire was at under 100 yards. The Germans had automatic weapons, the Americans semi-auto Garands and carbines. None of the Americans were hit, all the Germans were killed. The puzzle was all the twigs and leaves which fell on the Americans. When you're scared and have an automatic weapon, the tendency is to hold down the trigger, the muzzle rises and the enemy is showered with twigs, leaves, or shingles. When you have a semi-auto or a boltie, you will, with a modicum of training, aim. You know you have to. The M16 was originally designed with a full auto and a semi-auto selector. The Army discovered that, in contact everybody went to full auto, the first three rounds might be on target, or not, but the next dozen or so might as well have been anti-aircraft fire. So the current sixteens now have semi-auto and "burst" limited to three rounds. Sort of like a shotgun. Besides, as the old timers say, the faster you can shoot, the faster you run out. The primary disadvantage of a full-size Infantry round like the .303 or the 30.06 in close quarters is the penetrating power. That sucker just keeps on going. Even if you hit the guy, you could hit somebody else, too, and misses will go through walls or come down a mile away, still deadly. The solution, of course, would be a modern version of a dum-dum, which is illegal under the laws of war. But so is shooting sillyvilians. There's a blog run by Clayton Cramer--who busted Michael Belleisle regarding "Arming America along with some other guys--and who follows such issues. He referenced a study which showed that mass shooters in the US (Columbine, V. Tech, etc) shot until confronted. Then, when confronted, they killed themselves immediately. So waiting for sufficient forces cost--estimated--three lives a minute. But, since one armed man is enough to cause these clowns to off themselves, the cops now have a doctrine of first on the scene charges in. And, as Cramer shows and we all know, these shootings take place in gun-free zones. (SHOOT HERE! ALL VICTIMS GUARANTEED TO BE DEFENSELESS). Were some of the staff armed, these would come out differently. Various points:
The meme that US Infantrymen did not fire their weapons as often as they should have came from Marshall’s “Men Against Fire”. It turns out that most Infantrymen of that war who were in contact disagree, and, oddly, of all his notes, none referring to that point can be found.
Britain’s pre-WW I regulars “The Contemptibles” had been trained to fire their Enfields, then with five-round mags, at an extremely high rate. Called “five rounds rapid”, I’ve seen demonstrations which, iirc, show round one a second. Since, as an earlier poster noted, one .303 is enough, faster is not necessary.
My father’s platoon surprised some Germans in an urban setting. The exchange of fire was at under 100 yards. The Germans had automatic weapons, the Americans semi-auto Garands and carbines. None of the Americans were hit, all the Germans were killed. The puzzle was all the twigs and leaves which fell on the Americans.
When you’re scared and have an automatic weapon, the tendency is to hold down the trigger, the muzzle rises and the enemy is showered with twigs, leaves, or shingles.
When you have a semi-auto or a boltie, you will, with a modicum of training, aim. You know you have to.
The M16 was originally designed with a full auto and a semi-auto selector. The Army discovered that, in contact everybody went to full auto, the first three rounds might be on target, or not, but the next dozen or so might as well have been anti-aircraft fire.
So the current sixteens now have semi-auto and “burst” limited to three rounds. Sort of like a shotgun.
Besides, as the old timers say, the faster you can shoot, the faster you run out.
The primary disadvantage of a full-size Infantry round like the .303 or the 30.06 in close quarters is the penetrating power. That sucker just keeps on going. Even if you hit the guy, you could hit somebody else, too, and misses will go through walls or come down a mile away, still deadly.
The solution, of course, would be a modern version of a dum-dum, which is illegal under the laws of war. But so is shooting sillyvilians.

There’s a blog run by Clayton Cramer–who busted Michael Belleisle regarding “Arming America along with some other guys–and who follows such issues.
He referenced a study which showed that mass shooters in the US (Columbine, V. Tech, etc) shot until confronted. Then, when confronted, they killed themselves immediately. So waiting for sufficient forces cost–estimated–three lives a minute. But, since one armed man is enough to cause these clowns to off themselves, the cops now have a doctrine of first on the scene charges in.
And, as Cramer shows and we all know, these shootings take place in gun-free zones. (SHOOT HERE! ALL VICTIMS GUARANTEED TO BE DEFENSELESS). Were some of the staff armed, these would come out differently.

]]> By: Nikhil Panikkar http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95028 Nikhil Panikkar Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:50:50 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95028 To Ymarkar and Scottie,I would like to elaborate on some of the comments I made. From the comments I made,perhaps you get the impression that I am against free ownership of guns. No.I have a gun license. What I was contesting was Ymarkar's viewpoint that in a crowded urban area having a deer rifle or a handgun is all one needs to stop an attack of The nature that happened in Mumbai. I have served in the Indian Army during the mid 90's in Kashmir and was part of the Para Commandos that was involved in CT operations-so I know what I am talking about. Responding to a terrorist attack in a crowded urban area requires more than a gun.First of all it requires presence of mind.Second - good manoeuvring. That is the reason why even most police and army units have special training programs in CTO and urban warfare. That kind of specialised training is required so as to minimise civilian casualities. So provided one is required to take a higher percentage of risk,as advocated by Ymarkar, does one need to have any training at all? Yes.One must atleast know the basics of manoeuvring.One must atleast have the basic weapons training that is given to an ordinary policeman in the U.S or UK.(I don't say India because the weapons training given to ordinary policemen here is pathetic.I know from my experience in Kashmir.Only the Armed Police or the SOG received that kind of training.) Is such training required in all sorts of circumstances? No.I am only talking about high risk places like the Mumbai CST or a New York subway station.Why? Let's take the example of the church that Scottie mentioned.In a church there is very little place to for a gunman to play a hide and seek game(I am talking about a trained assasin not a lunatic.) while the responder has enough room to manoeuvre in order to find a good shot.There are fewer people too. On the contrary in a railway station like the Mumbai CST or on the NYC transit,there are many places where the gunman can hide.(The attacker would most likely be firing from a vantage position and would have enough room to manoevre.)On the other hand a civilian in the crowd would have very little room to manoevre.And there would be lots of people. An person with no basic weapons and combat training would do more harm than good in such a situation.Again I k(know this from my experience in Kashmir - not with civilians but with policemen.) As for my comment regarding the out of work female, it was reference to my opinion that firearms should not be allowed in certain public places(not all). A church is okay, but a subway station is not. What is required to deal with attacks such as those at Mumbai CST is to provide policemen or security personnel who are guarding such installations with better weapons and combat training - and that was the real failure over there -and not weapon permissions to untrained people. To Ymarkar and Scottie,I would like to elaborate on some of the comments I made.

From the comments I made,perhaps you get the impression that I am against free ownership of guns.

No.I have a gun license.

What I was contesting was Ymarkar’s viewpoint that in a crowded urban area having a deer rifle or a handgun is all one needs to stop an attack of The nature that happened in Mumbai.

I have served in the Indian Army during the mid 90′s in Kashmir and was part of the Para Commandos that was involved in CT operations-so I know what I am talking about.

Responding to a terrorist attack in a crowded urban area requires more than a gun.First of all it requires presence of mind.Second – good manoeuvring.

That is the reason why even most police and army units have special training programs in CTO and urban warfare.

That kind of specialised training is required so as to minimise civilian casualities.

So provided one is required to take a higher percentage of risk,as advocated by Ymarkar, does one need to have any training at all?

Yes.One must atleast know the basics of manoeuvring.One must atleast have the basic weapons training that is given to an ordinary policeman in the U.S or UK.(I don’t say India because the weapons training given to ordinary policemen here is pathetic.I know from my experience in Kashmir.Only the Armed Police or the SOG received that kind of training.)

Is such training required in all sorts of circumstances?

No.I am only talking about high risk places like the Mumbai CST or a New York subway station.Why?

Let’s take the example of the church that Scottie mentioned.In a church there is very little place to for a gunman to play a hide and seek game(I am talking about a trained assasin not a lunatic.) while the responder has enough room to manoeuvre in order to find a good shot.There are fewer people too.

On the contrary in a railway station like the Mumbai CST or on the NYC transit,there are many places where the gunman can hide.(The attacker would most likely be firing from a vantage position and would have enough room to manoevre.)On the other hand a civilian in the crowd would have very little room to manoevre.And there would be lots of people.

An person with no basic weapons and combat training
would do more harm than good in such a situation.Again I k(know this from my experience in Kashmir – not with civilians but with policemen.)

As for my comment regarding the out of work female, it was reference to my opinion that firearms should not be allowed in certain public places(not all).
A church is okay, but a subway station is not.

What is required to deal with attacks such as those at Mumbai CST is to provide policemen or security personnel who are guarding such installations with better weapons and combat training – and that was the real failure over there -and not weapon permissions to untrained people.

]]> By: Nikhil Panikkar http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95019 Nikhil Panikkar Wed, 03 Dec 2008 14:48:07 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95019 To Ymarkar,Scottie and all others who are reading this. In my last post,I made a reference to September 11 and the 1993 WTC attacks.I apologise for that. I posted it out of anger.(That's no excuse of course.) I've also sent an email to neoneocon to delete the comment,since I can't go back and delete it. The real reason for my anger was not Ymarkar criticism of Indian police but those racist comments(Brahmins and untouchables),he made at the end. Anyway that's still not an excuse for trivialising September 11 or the 1993 WTc attack.I apologise. To Ymarkar,Scottie and all others who are reading this.

In my last post,I made a reference to September 11 and the 1993 WTC attacks.I apologise for that.

I posted it out of anger.(That’s no excuse of course.)

I’ve also sent an email to
neoneocon to delete the comment,since I can’t go back and delete it.

The real reason for my anger was not Ymarkar criticism of Indian police but those racist comments(Brahmins and untouchables),he made at the end.

Anyway that’s still not an excuse for trivialising September 11 or the 1993 WTc attack.I apologise.

]]> By: Nikhil Panikkar http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95009 Nikhil Panikkar Wed, 03 Dec 2008 12:26:07 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-95009 To Ymarkar, "All I hear are a bunch of excuses, “I can’t”, and “not doables” If India wants to stop being sheep led to the slaughter, they need to start an attitude re-adjustment and start saying “I can” and “we will get it done”." In the whole lot of rubbish you have written,there is not even one counterpoint to the issues I raised.Where is your "can"(or is it canned?) attitude Ymarkar? Some kinda Marine you are. "Sheep expect the sheepdogs to protect them, kill off the wolves, and what not. I know that. The problem is, you seem to spout the sheepology and think that’s a good thing." If you would rather be a sheep that depends upon others to protect you, that’s fine by me. Yes I would rather be a sheep because a sheep gets killed by a wolf,while sheep dogs die fighting among themselves. That's how 10,000 of you Americans die every year. Pathetic. "Cause it ain’t going to be my country the Islamics loot and sack given India’s “low hanging fruit” status." They don't have to.They did the sacking in 1993 and on September 11 and as for the looting,your own countrymen did it in Louisiana and in Mississipi when Katrina struck.(so much for your country's gun laws). "By the way, many Americans consider the “sheep” to be about what the Indian culture considers untouchables." Really?I thought "sheep following the shepherd" was something related to Christianity????? Tip 1:Read the Bible. "The Brahmin are the defenders of society in America, however". Ha! Ha!You picked the wrong person to fool this one with bro. You think you know something about Indian culture???? Well one of the most basic things you should know is that the first and the most important commandments that a Brahmin must adhere to is that of Ahimsa(non-violence).That's why they don't eat meat. Tip 2:Read some good general knowledge books.(Mein Kampf is not a book on Indian culture.) To Ymarkar,

“All I hear are a bunch of excuses, “I can’t”, and “not doables”

If India wants to stop being sheep led to the slaughter, they need to start an attitude re-adjustment and start saying “I can” and “we will get it done”.”

In the whole lot of rubbish you have written,there is not even one counterpoint to the issues I raised.Where is your “can”(or is it canned?) attitude
Ymarkar?

Some kinda Marine you are.

“Sheep expect the sheepdogs to protect them, kill off the wolves, and what not. I know that. The problem is, you seem to spout the sheepology and think that’s a good thing.”

If you would rather be a sheep that depends upon others to protect you, that’s fine by me.

Yes I would rather be a sheep because a sheep gets killed by a wolf,while sheep dogs die fighting among themselves.

That’s how 10,000 of you Americans die every year.
Pathetic.

“Cause it ain’t going to be my country the Islamics loot and sack given India’s “low hanging fruit” status.”

They don’t have to.They did the sacking in 1993 and on September 11 and as for the looting,your own countrymen did it in Louisiana and in Mississipi when Katrina struck.(so much for your country’s gun laws).

“By the way, many Americans consider the “sheep” to be about what the Indian culture considers untouchables.”

Really?I thought “sheep following the shepherd” was something related to Christianity?????

Tip 1:Read the Bible.

“The Brahmin are the defenders of society in America, however”.

Ha! Ha!You picked the wrong person to fool this one with bro.

You think you know something about Indian culture????

Well one of the most basic things you should know is that the first and the most important commandments that a Brahmin must adhere to is that of Ahimsa(non-violence).That’s why they don’t eat meat.

Tip 2:Read some good general knowledge books.(Mein Kampf is not a book on Indian culture.)

]]> By: theAmericanist http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94982 theAmericanist Wed, 03 Dec 2008 03:01:21 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94982 Ymarsakar insists that when I noted that folks who draw conclusions beyond the evidence in a massacre like Mumbai know little about the dynamics of actual violence, that's because I "defend British gun laws." Except, um, I didn't. Ymarsakar made that up, or confused me with somebody else. An impressive example of his knowledge and reasoning about how reliable folks are in extreme situations -- particularly when you remember he's had days to sort out who said what here, and he could have always have scrolled up to check: QED, as an argument for how helpful HE would be using deadly force in a chaotic situation. This knucklehead would have shot the tactical commander for the Indian police -- and bragged about what a hero he was. And folks posting here would applaud. Anybody who has ever interviewed an eyewitness, or been one who has had their recollections checked, learns that people are often wildly wrong about what they are ABSOLUTELY certain that they saw -- right there, plain as could be, sitting ducks. Sensible people know better. And how do you know who is sensible? I cited actual experience with extreme violence. Ymarsakar replying by referring to knowing what I'm talking about -- the death of members of my family from multiple gunshots -- as a "personal problem". So there you have Ymarsakar: mistaken, stooopid, ignorant -- and inhumane. He's all yours, Neoneo. Ymarsakar insists that when I noted that folks who draw conclusions beyond the evidence in a massacre like Mumbai know little about the dynamics of actual violence, that’s because I “defend British gun laws.”

Except, um, I didn’t.

Ymarsakar made that up, or confused me with somebody else. An impressive example of his knowledge and reasoning about how reliable folks are in extreme situations — particularly when you remember he’s had days to sort out who said what here, and he could have always have scrolled up to check: QED, as an argument for how helpful HE would be using deadly force in a chaotic situation. This knucklehead would have shot the tactical commander for the Indian police — and bragged about what a hero he was. And folks posting here would applaud.

Anybody who has ever interviewed an eyewitness, or been one who has had their recollections checked, learns that people are often wildly wrong about what they are ABSOLUTELY certain that they saw — right there, plain as could be, sitting ducks. Sensible people know better. And how do you know who is sensible?

I cited actual experience with extreme violence. Ymarsakar replying by referring to knowing what I’m talking about — the death of members of my family from multiple gunshots — as a “personal problem”.

So there you have Ymarsakar: mistaken, stooopid, ignorant — and inhumane.

He’s all yours, Neoneo.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94940 Ymarsakar Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:04:03 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94940 Forgive me, I forgot to mention some other problems India is having. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/freed-sailors-call-somali-pirates-animals I'm sure that will be solved by getting rid of guns from the possession of Indians and relying upon... well something. Forgive me, I forgot to mention some other problems India is having.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/freed-sailors-call-somali-pirates-animals

I’m sure that will be solved by getting rid of guns from the possession of Indians and relying upon… well something.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94934 Ymarsakar Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:33:45 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94934 And the SUnni tribes sure as FAE didn't kick out AQ and stop terrorism by relying upon the central Iraqi government. Iraq's central government had much the same problems as India's. Corruption, factionalism, no respect for the rule of law, lack of resources, lack of training, infiltration, etc. And the SUnni tribes sure as FAE didn’t kick out AQ and stop terrorism by relying upon the central Iraqi government. Iraq’s central government had much the same problems as India’s. Corruption, factionalism, no respect for the rule of law, lack of resources, lack of training, infiltration, etc.

]]> By: Ymarsakar http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94933 Ymarsakar Tue, 02 Dec 2008 21:32:51 +0000 http://neoneocon.com/2008/11/30/the-mumbai-policemen-who-refused-to-shoot/#comment-94933 If the damn Iraqis and Arabs with their "Inshallah" can ship the crack up, I don't see what excuses other nationalities have. If the damn Iraqis and Arabs with their “Inshallah” can ship the crack up, I don’t see what excuses other nationalities have.

]]>