June 14, 2016

"Orlando described moments of surreal quiet as the siege went on and the killer fiddled with his weapon and used the sink and the hand dryer."

"Mr. Mateen checked on the bodies around him, Orlando said. At one point, Orlando switched positions and played dead, and he felt something poking him. He believed it was the gunman, checking to see if he was dead.... Orlando said he never looked Mr. Mateen in the eye, but recalled his calm voice. At one point, after noticing that some of the hostages in the bathroom were texting, the gunman ordered them to surrender their phones. He spoke again, according to Orlando, asking the hostages, 'Are you guys black?'  He said, "I don’t have an issue with the blacks,"' Orlando said...."

From "Held Hostage in an Orlando Restroom, and Playing Dead to Stay Alive" in The NYT.

65 comments:

cubanbob said...

Black Lives Matter.

Fernandinande said...

"called 911 to calmly pledge his allegiance to the Islamic State"

Misuse of the 911 system is a crime.

Anywho, turns out my grillfiend's first guess was probably right - he was "gay", but not in the good sense.

coupe said...

I wish people wouldn't tell the press that they played dead to survive.

You have to know the next insane mass murderer won't fall for it, having been given the clue.

damikesc said...

I wish men, especially gay men, had been taught to not sit back and hope for the kindness of the attacker to not kill or maul them.

Had the 100 people he shot at rushed, some would've died. But far less than 50.

Fernandinande said...

damikesc said...
Had the 100 people he shot at rushed, some would've died. But far less than 50.


Most people are too selfish to do something like that without extensive training to the contrary.

LarsPorsena said...

The first thing potential victims do now is reach for their phone and start texting or taking pictures????

rhhardin said...

More entertainment. I give it five days.

Robert Cook said...

"damikesc said...
'Had the 100 people he shot at rushed, some would've died. But far less than 50.'

"Most people are too selfish to do something like that without extensive training to the contrary."


It's not selfishness, but fear and the desire to live. This is the primary instinct of every sentient creature.

damikesc said...

It's not selfishness, but fear and the desire to live. This is the primary instinct of every sentient creature.

When the guy is washing his hands, etc --- that's called an opportunity. Rush him. Just hitting him from behind will normally knock the gun out of his hand. Otherwise, they can jump on his hands easily.

Quaestor said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fernandinande said...

Robert Cook said...
It's not selfishness, but fear and the desire to live.


Better that other people should die than increase your own chances of dying, even slightly. If that's not a textbook example of selfishness, what is?

I was shot at one once - I ran at the guy and he took off in his (stereotypically evil) pickup truck. But that was completely selfish because there was nobody else around.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

I can't read the Times article at the moment, but just reading the paragraph, am I correct to determine that the shooting took place in Orlando, and they chose to interview a person named Orlando? Really?

Fernandinande said...

damikesc said...
When the guy is washing his hands, etc --- that's called an opportunity. Rush him.


Almost nobody does it because they're too selfish and cowardly.

"Would I lay down my life to save my brother? No, but I would to save two brothers or eight cousins." -- J.B.S. Haldane

There are good reasons behind the phrase "brothers in arms".

Quaestor said...

Milo Yiannopoulos has thrown down the gauntlet in terms virtually identical to those I stipulated last night on an earlier thread.

Quaestor said...

It's not selfishness, but fear and the desire to live. This is the primary instinct of every sentient creature.

Yet another distinction without a difference. Selfishness is the natural response. Humans are not social insects, our natural altruism only extends as far as our fear of personal harm. As a species we arose above nature when we decided to honor courage, something which in fashionable quarters has been considerably devalued. Our children are no longer taught to honor courage, consequently we get less selflessness.

MayBee said...

The night before, Christine Grimme's brother jumped on a gunman, saving perhaps dozens of people.

MayBee said...

Not that I would necessarily dare do it. It's why bravery is celebrated. It's because it's so hard.

hiawatha biscayne said...

"shelter in place" - what a disgusting, unamerican concept.

FullMoon said...

damikesc said... [hush]​[hide comment]

It's not selfishness, but fear and the desire to live. This is the primary instinct of every sentient creature.

When the guy is washing his hands, etc --- that's called an opportunity. Rush him. Just hitting him from behind will normally knock the gun out of his hand. Otherwise, they can jump on his hands easily.


Is that what you did, last time? Or is that what you will do, next time?

Robert Cook said...

How typical of so many who post here: calling the victims of a psychopathic killer "selfish" (and, unspoken, "cowards"), because they did not have the training, presence of mind in those chaotic moments, or the steely willingness to sacrifice their own lives.

"I was shot at one once - I ran at the guy and he took off in his (stereotypically evil) pickup truck."

Bravo for you. You're either Rambo or brainless. Most people are not Rambo and most people are not so rash as to charge at someone discharging firearms at them.

Fustigator said...

Blogger damikesc said...

I wish men, especially gay men, had been taught to not sit back and hope for the kindness of the attacker to not kill or maul them.

Had the 100 people he shot at rushed, some would've died. But far less than 50.

6/14/16, 9:49 AM

That is the paradox isnt it? Who wants to be first and face nearly a 100% chance of getting shot? And hope everyone else decides to rush right in behind you to help subdue the gun man?

Not sure what I would do in the company of strangers. If I am with my family, I have no pause to try to save them and hope any male family members also jump in to help. Same deal with lifelong friends as I know they think like me and would have my back.

Strangers and acquantances....not so sure what I would do. I guess if I was 100% positive that I was going to be killed anyway, then it would make logical sense to rush the gun man.

Miriam said...

"I wish men, especially gay men, had been taught to not sit back and hope for the kindness of the attacker to not kill or maul them.

Had the 100 people he shot at rushed, some would've died. But far less than 50."

Mark Bingham Flight 93 comes to mind. He was a gay man. Who taught him? Or is bravery simply an individual trait? Inferring cowardice onto 50 dead gay people, easy for armchair heroes.




Fernandinande said...

Robert Cook said...
(and, unspoken, "cowards"),

I wrote it.

Bravo for you. You're either Rambo or brainless.

Perhaps both - I was about 19 at the time.

"If you define cowardice as running away at the first sign of danger, screaming and tripping and begging for mercy, then yes, Mister Brave Man, I guess I am a coward." -- J. Handey

William said...

My Clint Eastwood gene is extremely recessive. My first impulse would be to look for an escape. If no escape were possible, I would hope to be part of the swarm rushing towards the gunman. It's the right strategy in such a situation.........People didn't use to swarm plane hijackers. Now they do. In the back of my mind, there's this thought that swarming is the best strategy. I don't know if I'd act on it, but that's the thought.

EMD said...

Self-defense via small arms is a much safer solution than wait for the police to show up.

Your objective is to disarm or kill one person, not everyone. There's an irrational fear from gun-control advocates that violence and lawlessness will rule the land if we allow law-abiding citizens to embrace their innate right to self-defense. But the numbers don't bear that out — at all. Most gun deaths are suicides (2/3rds) and most gun crime is the result of criminal activity due to bans on other things (drugs.)

Freedom actually leads to increased safety.


EMD said...

Mark Bingham Flight 93 comes to mind. He was a gay man. Who taught him? Or is bravery simply an individual trait?

I think Flight 93 is the result of ones knowing their fate. Death seemed an absolute certainty. Here, in this instance the possibility of safely hiding or escaping and surviving still existed.

Rusty said...

Mark Bingham Flight 93 comes to mind. He was a gay man. Who taught him? Or is bravery simply an individual trait?

Training. It's why military people are better at dealing with things like this. All your instincts are telling you to run away screaming. You have to tell yourself to calm down and assess the situation.

Michael said...

People who don't own guns, or more particularly those who abhor them, are not aware of the fact that once fired they do not always hit their target. Further, hitting a moving target is not easy. A gunman rushed by a dozen men would probably not be able to overcome them.

So many would have lived had there been resistance. Shocking that there wasn't any.

Owen said...

Great comments. If you are trained, that would help. If you are in a (relatively; imagined) "no win" situation like Flight 93, where you have nothing to lose by sitting quietly waiting to be immolated, that would help. In a hell-hole like Pulse with this fuck shooting whoever moves and then washing his hands or whatever, it is probably REALLY hard to summon the nerve and/or coordinate with others. I see it as interactive. If you show leadership, others will more readily rally to you, and that makes the move easier. And if someone else shows leadership, you can overcome the fear factor and become (pro tanto) a leader, and help build the momentum necessary for success.

But in fact? They all just lay on the floor and tweeted each other about the pain and fear.

How do you beat that? What App on your phone will teach you to run toward the guns?

Michael The Magnificent said...

Half the people he did manage to hit with a shot didn't die. At least not that I've seen.

And so far, I haven't seen how many rounds he discharged. He likely completely missed hitting anyone for quite a few of his shots.

As someone else pointed out, a moving target is much harder to hit. To make it even harder, don't run in a straight line, zig zag instead. If the shooter is right handed, first zig to his right, then zag right at him - opposite if left handed. The shooter may very well have overcompensated or under-compensated, not knowing what path you'll choose, and miss you entirely. Tackle, grasp, knee, punch, stab if you have a knife. If you cannot tackle, grasp the gunman's head and knee his midsection HARD a couple of times, then pull his head low and knee his face HARD.

Google "teacher tackles shooter" and you'll see how effective it is to physically confront a shooter.

An overwhelming number of times, these mass shootings occur in a gun free zone. And in an overwhelming number of times, the shooting continues until confronted with force. And in an overwhelming number of times, once confronted, the shooter commits suicide. The key is to confront the shooter as soon as possible, because the sooner that happens, the sooner the shooting stops.

damikesc said...

Is that what you did, last time? Or is that what you will do, next time?

I've had a gun pointed at my head twice in my life. Don't know how, but I didn't really freak out until hours later, when I had time to think about it.

Would I rush him? Yeah. I would. If I got shot, so be it. I went out by my choice. I've faced a gun twice and didn't even contemplate begging for my life. Or not staring at the shooter and letting him know what a pussy he was for going this route. I was probably an idiot to do it, but I wasn't going to let drugged out goons have me beg them for my life.

How typical of so many who post here: calling the victims of a psychopathic killer "selfish" (and, unspoken, "cowards"), because they did not have the training, presence of mind in those chaotic moments, or the steely willingness to sacrifice their own lives.

Who called them cowards? I don't even blame selfishness. People aren't taught to fight back very often. Those victims believed that the police could save them when, the vast majority of the time, your best shot at survival is you.

That is the paradox isnt it? Who wants to be first and face nearly a 100% chance of getting shot?

It's a real fear, but the odds of being shot would be less than 100%. Quite a bit less. Moving targets are tough shots and most wouldn't run head-on towards the gun. Add into that most shooters have plans to kill themselves if things begin to go South (how often do mass shootings end with the killer dead as well? Most). They don't plan on leaving the location and are utterly incapable of knowing what to do if ANYTHING goes wrong. He'd likely panic at any attempt to fight back.

Mark Bingham Flight 93 comes to mind. He was a gay man. Who taught him? Or is bravery simply an individual trait? Inferring cowardice onto 50 dead gay people, easy for armchair heroes.

Not sure where "cowardice" comes from. Certainly not me. You, on the other hand, have no problem using that.

Society has been taught, FOR DECADES, to not fight back. "Go tell the teacher if a bully is mean to you" and such nonsense. Never "A bully swings at you? Knock him the fuck out. Make him regret messing with you".

Progressives like you have chosen to side with Islamists over gays. So has much of the gay leadership, sadly. It is a tragedy.

damikesc said...

An overwhelming number of times, these mass shootings occur in a gun free zone.

96.2% of them, roughly.
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/

Perhaps we should look at outlawing gun free zones.

Achilles said...

An interesting facet of the story about to go mainstream is that the gun used in the shooting was a Sign Saur. Everything looks like an AR15 to a douche with an agenda.

William Chadwick said...

I like the question making the rounds on the pro-freedom blogosphere: "If the Orlando shooter doesn't represent all Muslims, then why does he represent all gun-owners?"

Miriam said...

"Progressives like you have chosen to side with Islamists over gays. So has much of the gay leadership, sadly. It is a tragedy."

The majority of progressives and gays won't demonize an entire group of people because there are a few who do horrendous things. How would it be if I demonized all gun owners because of the crimes of a few gun owners? See, anything can be turned on it's head.

oopsy daisy said...

How would it be if I demonized all gun owners because of the crimes of a few gun owners?

It would be as if you are acting as you always do. Paint with a wide brush and demonize all Christians, all gun owners, all Republicans etc etc etc.

Achilles said...

Miriam said...
"Progressives like you have chosen to side with Islamists over gays. So has much of the gay leadership, sadly. It is a tragedy."

"The majority of progressives and gays won't demonize an entire group of people because there are a few who do horrendous things. How would it be if I demonized all gun owners because of the crimes of a few gun owners? See, anything can be turned on it's head."

You are a disgusting person.

First when Muslims are in control it is the entire group. Been there and seen it. They sometimes bury them to their waste and throw rocks at the until they die. Other times they throw them off a roof. It is the families responsibility to throw them off a roof.

Second you people do demonize all gun owners. All of your proposals only affect law abiding gun owners. Not a single one of your proposed policies would have had any useful affect on the shooter.

The only way you can turn it on its head is by lying and ignoring reality.

mockturtle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mockturtle said...

It is amusing, yet unnerving, to see Left so defensive of a group of fanatics who oppose everything the Left stands for. It shows their collective brainlessness and gullibility.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Miriam said.... How would it be if I demonized all gun owners because of the crimes of a few gun owners?

That was my first good chuckle of the afternoon-thanks Miriam.

How WOULD it be? It would be exactly like reality. Read a paper, read the NYTimes, read Rolling Stone (sorry)--that's exactly what's happening. That's what always happens.

How would it be if the sun rose in the East tomorrow morning?

Miriam said...

Ooopsy Dust Bunny,

I'm a Christian. I don't paint Christians with a broad brush. I portray extrwmist Christians and Muslims with the same concern. Anyone who calls for the death of a certain group of people based on the Bible or the Koran are equally wrong. Believers who take their ancient texts literally are dangerous. Lots of violent passages in both the Bible and the Koran.

Miriam said...

Achilles, you are a strange angry sounding person in every single one of your comments. Therapy may help.

Miriam said...

As I said to you yesterday Achiiles, you don't know any American Muslims, do you? My two Muslim doctors, one a male, one a female, don't strike me as people who will go on a shooting spree anytime soon. Again, get help for your anger issues, or will we be reading about some nut calling himself Achilles on social media sites that committed some mass shooting....

Alex said...

96.2% of them, roughly.
http://crimeresearch.org/2014/09/more-misleading-information-from-bloombergs-everytown-for-gun-safety-on-guns-analysis-of-recent-mass-shootings/


Yeah but we need a CDC study to tell us that guns should be banned.

JAORE said...

How would it be if I demonized all gun owners because of the crimes of a few gun owners?

Hahahahahahahaha. Even a sock puppet/troll can't imagine THIS question would stand scrutiny.

damikesc said...

The majority of progressives and gays won't demonize an entire group of people because there are a few who do horrendous things.

Except Southerners.
Conservatives.
Gun owners.
Christians.

Outside of them, maybe.

Oh, white dudes in literature. Progs hate that shit.

How would it be if I demonized all gun owners because of the crimes of a few gun owners?

The norm.

bagoh20 said...

I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of those killed would still be alive if they were in a bar full of bikers, off-duty cops, gang members, veterans, Tea Partiers, Trumpers, or lesbians. I don't know about this Orlando establishment's clientele, but most of the gay men I know are the type who would have jumped him at the first opportunity. I don't understand trying to run away in that confined situation and allowing him to reload even. Your chances, as well as everyone else's, are greatly improved the sooner you interrupt his plan. We have examples of this very thing happening when someone there is armed, or even unarmed when people fight back en mass like with the Americans on that train in Europe a while back.

bagoh20 said...

This stuff will not happen on a plane anymore, because everyone knows they can't run away. If that was our cultural norm in other places, this kind of thing wouldn't be attempted so often.

bagoh20 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
bagoh20 said...

I would suggest a change to concealed carry. Have a new type of permit that allows it to be carried in all venues, even schools, etc, but have stringent background checks to get that permit. The idea is that assholes need to assume that some people with guns are always there.

damikesc said...

I'd say make places that ban guns liable for any deaths on their property caused by them disarming their patrons.

Thorley Winston said...

It is amusing, yet unnerving, to see Left so defensive of a group of fanatics who oppose everything the Left stands for. It shows their collective brainlessness and gullibility.

Or that they don’t really stand for the things that they pretend to stand for.

JAORE said...

In many states it is state law that bans guns from drinking establishments. Dunno about Florida.

But 300 people throwing their drinks at the gunman would have had a heck of a lot better chance to succeed than waiting 3 hours while he walked about shooting.

Bill Peschel said...

"People who don't own guns, or more particularly those who abhor them, are not aware of the fact that once fired they do not always hit their target. Further, hitting a moving target is not easy. A gunman rushed by a dozen men would probably not be able to overcome them."

Your comment, Michael, reminds me of seeing TV news footage of this guy who ambushed a lawyer outside the courthouse. He had a handgun, and he ended up (in the clip I saw) chasing the lawyer behind a tree.

There they were, the gunman on one side, the lawyer on the other. The gunman fired off a couple of shots at the lawyer peeking around the tree.

Missed every time.

[And, no, I would not presume to tell other people what they would or would not do when, in the middle of enjoying themselves, intoxicated to some degree, in what I presume was a loud nightclub, what they would do in the confusion and press of people dying and fleeing a gunman. I have never been in that situation, but I do know that unless you're trained in the military to remain calm while the lead is flying, you're more likely to flee or hide or do anything but act rationally.

It is presumptuous and insulting to imply that the clubgoers were any less than I would be, just as I would say the same thing about the people in Jim Jones' cult, or the Jews / gays / gypsies / undesirables marched off to be killed.

Michael said...

Bill Peschel

There is indeed an alarming tendency to mount the bus to Jonestown or the gas chambers without putting up a fight.

My generation was weaned on movies about WWII in which there was much heroism on display. There remains some of that instinct to fall on the grenade. There are no heroes of that sort in modern movies.

Hunter said...

Miriam said...

Anyone who calls for the death of a certain group of people based on the Bible or the Koran are equally wrong. Believers who take their ancient texts literally are dangerous. Lots of violent passages in both the Bible and the Koran.

I take my ancient text literally when it says to love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you. How about you?

Does the Koran have similar instructions? Or does it generally say to regard non-Muslims as lesser in status and rights than Muslims.

I have not read the Koran, so I take what I read about the Koran with a healthy dose of skepticism. All the same, I have not heard much of love and unity quoted from its pages. I've heard a lot of subjugation and conquest. True, the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) does contain a lot of that stuff too. But then we are not debating how Islam's stated morality compares to Judaism.

Ann Althouse said...

"I can't read the Times article at the moment, but just reading the paragraph, am I correct to determine that the shooting took place in Orlando, and they chose to interview a person named Orlando? Really?"

Yep.

HT said...

"It's not selfishness, but fear and the desire to live. This is the primary instinct of every sentient creature."

More and more, police are recommending either hiding or jumping the gunman, with an increasing focus on the latter. The account in the Washington Post, by Patience someone or other (Orlando?) is extremely difficult to understand. I say that, because the gunman was in the BR with them, so how they could be considered hiding is beyond me.

I don't really understand a lot of the (non) reactions either, but I will say most of the people were very very young.

mockturtle said...

There is indeed an alarming tendency to mount the bus to Jonestown or the gas chambers without putting up a fight.

Indeed. Have we become so passive, so tolerant that we won't stand up to a killer? I've always imagined that rushing at a gunman would be the most effective action. One or two people might get hit but that's better than 100. And, yes, I would like to think I would do this in a similar situation.

Beach Brutus said...

Too much of the public's perceptions of guns is based on fantastic Hollywood feats. E.g., Bruce Willis at the conclusion of Die Hard 3 when he pulls a snub nose .38 and shoots and severs a thick High tension transmission electric line about 100 feet away. Or when the camera is looking through a super duper 8x sniper scope at a target several hundred yards away and there is no "wiggle" at all; just put the cross hairs on the target and pull the trigger and the bullet will go right there every time!

Before anyone engages in a discussion of gun policy they need to know what a gun is capable of. I challenge anyone who has a strong opinion against guns to go to their local indoor range and try to hit a stationery paper target at 25 feet with a handgun. Then for fun, run the target out to about 35 feet (the likely maximum distance in which you might be charged by an intruder or street thug -- most encounters are within 15 feet -- a distance that does not allow much time for reflection), and try to hit that target while someone is reeling in in toward you. Even in a "game" situation as that, the adrenaline rush will so compromise your nerves it will be hard to score a single hit.

JAORE said...

Too much of the public's perceptions of guns is based on fantastic Hollywood feats..... Even in a "game" situation as that, the adrenaline rush will so compromise your nerves it will be hard to score a single hit.

Spot on. There is astonishment, and criticism, when reports show that 6 cops fired 48 rounds and only hit the suspect 5 times. Or worse, "Why didn't they shoot to wound?"

Our oldest is a LEO. He will not shoot to wound. If he shoots it is because one of the good guys, civilian or cop, is in imminent danger. In those cases the bad guy needs shot JUST AS HARD AS YOU CAN SHOOT HIM. Fortunately, for our - relative - peace of mind he's well trained and practices frequently. He's held many positions in his agency including undercover narcotics and being on a SWAT team for a while. He stays cool under pressure. He shoots straight. He shoots rapidly without rushing. Good man in a tight spot.

Michael K said...

"This is the primary instinct of every sentient creature."

Cookie is an expert on combat. In his dreams.

There is a rule, from I don't know where, to charge a gun and run from a knife. The knife has a short range.

Guns also jam. The guys on the French train were, according to Cookie, not "sentient beings."

Had the people in the club rushed him, there probably would have been far fewer deaths. I don't know what I would have done. They had been drinking and that may also have affected their judgement.

The cops certainly flunked the Columbine test. Three hours !

Paul said...

Ah, the value of 'Gun Free Zones'! Just makes it so easy. And it's just great how Muslims call for death to everyone, and their co-workers warnings fall on very DEAF EARS, and they still let 'em carry a badge and gun!

See folks, having a few Americans killed now and they helps the cause to take up all the guns. If the Orlando shooter had used pressure cooker bombs like the Boston Marathon killers (Muslims to) they still would have blamed guns SOMEHOW.

Meanwhile in France, Muslim terrorist knifed to death a French policeman and his wife. Wonder of they are gonna call for more gun control there.

Yea maybe Trump is right, "Look, we're led by a man that either is, is not tough, not smart, or he's got something else in mind."

Something else in mind indeed.

Gahrie said...

My two Muslim doctors, one a male, one a female, don't strike me as people who will go on a shooting spree anytime soon.

Yeah but would they turn in a Muslim who was? Because usually they don't.

Jason said...

Miriam my two Muslim doctors, one a male and one a female, don't strike me as people who would go on a shooting spree anytime soon.

The victims of the Fort Hood massacre, gunned down by a Muslim doctor, could not be reached for comment.