Posted on 10/02/2014 8:44:39 AM PDT by Kaslin
When a man jumped over the White House fence, ran across the lawn and entered the residence, the Secret Service failed and failed again. One of the most conspicuous and surprising failures was that though it had armed agents on the ground and snipers on the roof, no one fired a shot to stop him.
In fact, the agency bragged about not using their guns, saying that "the officers showed tremendous restraint and discipline in dealing with this subject." The agents didn't shoot Omar Gonzalez because they "apparently concluded that he was not armed and did not appear to be carrying anything that might contain explosives," reported The New York Times.
Lucky guess. As it turned out, he was carrying a folding knife with a 3 1/2-inch blade, which could have been put to deadly use. But agents were able to subdue him without bloodshed. A man reported to be mentally ill didn't hurt anyone and wasn't killed unnecessarily.
All's well that ends well? Hardly. The idea that security officers would let a running intruder pass, based on the instant and highly fallible judgment that he was unarmed, suggests an excess of caution. "Tremendous restraint is not what we're looking for," said Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah. "The message should be overwhelming force."
But that's not quite the right answer, either. Just this year, six people have scaled the fence -- and no one would commend the Secret Service if all six had been riddled immediately with bullets. Gonzalez might have been stopped by attack dogs, which for some reason were not unleashed. It would be unfortunate to kill someone whose mental illness drove him to do something terribly stupid.
The problem lies in the limited nature of the agency's options: shoot the trespasser or hold off in the hope that he is unarmed and can be captured alive. What the Secret Service needs is something every law enforcement agency needs: weapons that can incapacitate threatening suspects without inflicting deadly wounds.
The need arises all the time. A few days after the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., a 25-year-old St. Louis man named Kajieme Powell, carrying a knife in his hand, was approached by cops. He walked toward them, yelling, "Shoot me! Kill me now!" They did exactly that, to the outrage of some who saw the video.
Law enforcement officers in situations like these face a terrible dilemma: kill someone who may be harmless or risk being killed. Small wonder the cops shot Powell rather than wait to see whether he would actually try to stab them. Small wonder the Secret Service agents couldn't bring themselves to fire. In these cases, either decision can have fatal consequences, and it has to be made quickly.
That's why police need to make more use of nonlethal methods -- and, even more important, need additional nonlethal methods that defuse dangers. Right now, about the only reasonable option is a "conducted energy device" or stun gun, the best known being the Taser. These weapons, however, are less certain than guns to stop a potential attacker and have a shorter range.
Tasers have a mixed reputation. Some suspects have died after being hit. The devices are also sometimes abused. Chicago Police Commander Glenn Evans was recently indicted for, among other things, allegedly holding a Taser to a suspect's crotch.
But guns can also be abused: Evans is accused of shoving the barrel of his service weapon into the suspect's mouth and threatening to kill him. Research generally indicates that Tasers rarely cause death.
In practice, they are more likely to benefit those who get crosswise with cops. A 2007 study published in The American Journal of Emergency Medicine concluded that the devices were used in many situations where lethal force was warranted, saving some 1,100 lives over six years. A 2009 study in the American Journal of Public Health found injuries to both police and suspects decline when cops make greater use of Tasers.
The priority for government agencies is to push the development of safer, more reliable and more effective weapons that can spare law enforcement agents awful choices. Gonzalez was allowed to enter the White House, and Powell was shot to death. We need methods that would stop both and save both.
The president was not in the WH at the time - no need to fire a shot.
However, he should NOT have been able to access the bldg.
my two cents...
There are other people in the WH at all times. Shouldn’t they be protected?
Libs have long been wedded to the idea that it’s noble and humane to die at the hands of your attacker rather than defend yourself.
“...The agents didn’t shoot Omar Gonzalez...”
Because given his appearance, it would not have been PC.
I am sure of this
Of course. That he was able to gain access to the bldg was a failure.
Was lethal force required? This should be determined on a case by case basis...
There are procedures and policies for use of lethal force. I would imagine if someone doesn’t comply and starts to run through the building or comes at you with a weapon, they could be shot.
If one loon can get that far, imagine half a dozen jihadi psychos with grenades and automatic weapons. It would have been ugly to say the least.
Very little discussion of the female agent he overpowered inside the front door. Once again political correctness trumps common sense and lower standards for female agents do not translate into equal abilities to stop intruders.
A well prepared anti-personnel fence consists of three layers that need to incorporate three aspects.
Psychological separation; That is your side, stay on it. This is normally a barrier that provides a clear message to the vast majority of the law abiding public “not to cross”. This may not be a permanent or even “scary” separation. Just something to inform the average citizen will stop 80% of the unwanted traffic. Normally this is in front of the real fence.
Physical separation (and barrier): This is the actual fence. It comes in a large number of options everything from glass walls, to decorative wrought iron, to concertina wire and castle walls. Different fences are chosen for different cost, aesthetic and physical characteristics. I am of the opinion that simple changes can be made to the wrought iron fence that would make scaling the fence more difficult and easier to detect. Take a look at this design:
http://www.what-we-have-wrought.com/fences.html
Note how if a person attempted to scale that fence, they are likely to impale their foot. Making such a fence say 8 to 10 feet tall, would be a good start. Further, the “landing zone” behind the fence can be populated with a variety of plants that would make such an attempt even more painful. Plants such as hawthorn, Berberis X stenophylla, COLLETIA paradoxa, sea buckhorn, firethorn, etc.
Detection zone (this seems to be where the Secret Service is lacking). This is a zone, normally after the psychological separation where anyone child size and larger is detected. The zone normally has a distance, called depth that runs from the public facing side to the secure side about 8 feet after the last obstetrical. This often includes, sight, sound, pressure, motion and heat detectors. It can also include dogs and human patrols, observation posts, etc.
This failure had nothing to do with what kind of force to use, lethal or non lethal. He entered the WH because of incompetence.
We have an incompetent President guarded by incompetent security. That needs to be addressed first, then the level of force issue.
Agreed.
That the guy was able to even gain access to the bldg is inexcusable.
Or probing.
(more tin-foil hat stuff) How do we know he wasn't under the psychological control of some terrorist group?
/tinfoil
Rest assured had the intruder been a Caucasian male aged 20 y.o. to 50 y.o. he would have so many holes in him that he would look like a wheel of Swiss cheese. One could bet on it!
They need a motion sensing automated taser array with loud audio alarm. You cross, you move, you are tased and everyone is alerted.
That said, it is sad we have gotten to the point where the POTUS is one of the most hated men on the planet.
I would bet they’re under orders not to shoot if they don’t see a weapon, had this guy killed someone inside the WH with his 3 1/2” blade knife the SS guy who had him in his sights would have been crucified by those who ordered him not to shoot. These people make rules subject to “PC” and if things don’t turn out well it’s someone elses fault.
The looney could have been strapped with high explosives. What is wrong with those SS people?
No he should not. But the answer is not tasers or more dogs or shooting the nut balls.
Fix the stupid fence so you cant just vault over it.
Agreed.
I think taxcontrol has the answer:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3210351/posts?page=11#11
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.