Yountville CA active shooting and hostage situation happening now

a reply to: face23785

That's basically what I'm thinking, yea. CNN is saying it came in as a shots fired call, so one would presume there was at least one shot that generated the call, and then the exchange between the gunman and first officer on scene, but then I can't find anything about another round of gunfire. All they're saying is that negotiators spent hours trying to reach the guy both via his personal cell phone and landlines in the area they knew he was barricaded in, all without result. There's nothing about further gunfire being the reason SWAT breached, so that leads me to believe they didn't breach because of gunfire but rather because of the continued lack of contact.

a reply to: Shamrock6

from what i gathered the people that were allowed to get out called on cell as leaving the scene and when leo arrived was after he choose his victims he fired upon the leo's as they arrived and then he went into death room.


ETA
It is coming out that two of the victims may have been known to him through fox news.

Reports are that the two were featured on a special about the facility that aired on fox a couple months back.

originally posted by: Blue Shift
It's just a bunch of smelly old people being held hostage, not cute little kids. Nobody will care.

These folks were being held hostage way before any shooter(s) got there.. This is a V.A. for crying out loud.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Yes, that's why we're still arguing about something that's been the SOP for the better part of two decades, and four seconds spent on google would confirm it.

and how did that work out this time?

not worth a damn for the victims.

seems like cops lately are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I'm leaning towards the cops just didn't have the right information to make good decisions on this one. They thought he was still alive with hostages in danger, so they didn't go in immediately. That's the right call if he really is still in there with hostages. The information they had was just inaccurate.

a reply to: howtonhawky

No, if police would have had intel that the shooter had hostages, then the response would have been appropriate, but they didn't.

When someone is actively shooting and killing people, you go in and try to save them; when a shooter is at the point of taking hostages, at that point, the goal is to negotiate the release of the hostages to save their lives first, then deal directly with the shooter.

Of course, those are generalized statements, and each scenario can be and often is unique, but that doesn't excuse 'Officer Barbrady' in FL from his inactions AND orders for others to not enter and to stay 500 feet back from the building.

I hope that you can see the major difference by now and can move on from this line of discussion.

Sadly, though, this hostage situation took the worst turn possible, and most likely would have ended the same, regardless of whatever actions LE took.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

yes indeed do see the difference and mostly the situation will dictate a certain action. As in this case the shooter set the table so to speak.

I think my main point throughout all of this is that unless we are part of the situation or have a full report of events then we really should not judge these events to the point of trying to get people fired or charges filed cause the leo did not do what we think they should do. I am not saying we can't have our opinions in some cases we see the public go all out after leo's. I am seeing an unseen force of judgment that so often does not follow logic.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: SlapMonkey


I think my main point throughout all of this is that unless we are part of the situation or have a full report of events then we really should not judge these events to the point of trying to get people fired or charges filed cause the leo did not do what we think they should do.

I agree with the need for full information, for sure, but when the official story changes or people are misleading and giving half-truths to hide their lack of appropriate action, and in the end, people died with those tasked with protecting the innocent stood around, did nothing, and ordered others to do nothing, I will judge all day, every day, and would call them out in person as well.

I am not saying we can't have our opinions in some cases we see the public go all out after leo's. I am seeing an unseen force of judgment that so often does not follow logic.

If you keep seeing how I comment on things, you'll note that I'm a big fan of logic and I use it as often as possible--I don't always bash cops, and I don't always defend them if they're wrong or do questionable things.

In the end, though, the gunmen are really to blame for everything, but when it's someone's job to try and mitigate and limit the carnage someone can do, and they choose instead to do nothing and stop others from doing something, I will call them out ten times out of ten.

Best regards.

case in point
logic test

in the latest release of voice data at the school you can hear the officer call for a 500' perimeter. Was he telling them to keep the public away or to keep the cops away? I do have a thread on it if any are interested.


eta i find it kinda strange how we all focused on this event while at the same time there was another hostage situation in that state that lasted over 24 hrs.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Not to sound flippant, but there are hostage situations every day all over the country--there was one here in Cincinnati about two months ago that lasted 30 hours and the guy used a 10-year-old boy as a shield so that police wouldn't shoot him.

I doubt that you heard about that, and it didn't get much national attention, especially as it was happening.

My point is that we do not have to discuss or give attention to every hostage situation--the fact that there was another one in the giant state of California is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

And it was at 2:27pm that former Officer Peterson radioed for officers to "stay at least 500 feet away at this point," and then the dispatcher repeated the information, "Stay away from 12 and 1300 building."

That comes directly from the link in your other thread, and it's in my notes sitting right next to me that I was writing to make the timeline that I never had time to do. Then, after reading through the remaining odd comments in that thread, you write on the last page that Peterson's directions were to keep civilians out of the line of fire? Where did that change from your source, which says his direction to officers, to it being to officers for civilians?

I see no evidence for that. Do you have it? Because the dispatcher apparently repeated his command, and didn't specify that it was to keep civilians away from the buildings.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And it was at 2:27pm that former Officer Peterson radioed for officers to "stay at least 500 feet away at this point,"

context and details

check your facts

he said stay away 500 feet but did not say for officers to stay away 500 feet

he was setting up a perimeter to keep civilians from entering

at least that is how the lawyers will argue it and he will not be charged simply because the msm told you he was at fault

a reply to: howtonhawky

Check your own facts: Just because he didn't say, "First responders, stay at least 500 feet away at this point," doesn't mean that he wasn't talking to them. He said it over his communication device, and then dispatch, whose job it is to speak directly to officers and other first responders over their communication repeated the order, citing two specific buildings to stay away from.

Don't try to play these goofy semantic games with me--when a LEO communicates over his radio, he is talking directly either to dispatch and/or other officers first and foremost, without any expectation that non-first responders (like media and civilians) are listening. If Peterson was speaking to civilians and the press, he would have made it perfectly clear that he was directing LEOs to keep these people only at said distance.

But he did not. These are the facts, as I have seen them, unless you have factual evidence where he was speaking directly to them and them only, and it wasn't meant for officers. Because I haven't seen it nor heard it.

I have, however, heard his exchange with dispatch, and it goes like this:

REPORTER: According to the timeline, the audio you are about to hear is from [Peterson] moments before the shooting stopped, and seconds after the suspect left the building.

(recorded audio starts)

PETERSON: Make sure I have a unit over in front of the school; make sure nobody comes inside the school.

DISPATCHER: I need a unit to the front, advise.

PETERSON: Broward, do not approach this 12 or 1300 building, stay at least 500 feet away at this point.

DISPATCHER: Stay away from 12 and 1300 building.

So, if you notice in that exchange, he's talking directly to "Broward" (meaning the first responders) when he gives the order to not approach the building and to stay at least 500 feet away. Yes, he's setting up an initial perimeter, but was meant for civilians, it was meant for first responders at the time (especially considering that there was probably little-to-no media or civilian presence at the time).

The MSM isn't telling me anything about fault as it pertains to Peterson--in fact, I'd bet that I placed due culpability on his shoulders before the MSM even dabbled in that discussion. But the bottom line here is that you need not be lecturing me about what the 911-dispatch recordings state, because it's there for everyone to hear, and I've had too many years of my professional life that interacts directly and indirectly with military, federal prosecutors, LEOs, and federal investigators not to have a good working understanding of these situations and how communication goes.

As to whether or not he gets charged and convicted, that remains to be seen, and we'll just have to let Father Time reveal that as we wait...

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Well it looks like we have both stated what we perceive to be truth according to info available so now i will just leave it up to the investigation to conclude and release findings. If they do not find fault then you may want to think of what i have told you and vice versa.

a reply to: howtonhawky

Of course I'll change my understanding if evidence points to something else, but you have failed to support your claim that his instructions were not meant for LEOs and first responders arriving on-scene. It's unreasonable to assume that a LEO, communicating to dispatch and other LOEs/FRs on an emergency communications channel, would not be speaking to those people who are assumed to be listening.

In this case, Occam's Razor is an appropriate path to take until/if some other information comes out that counters his actual recorded comments at the time--and I see that to be highly unlikely.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

No i did not fail to provide proof at all but that statement shows your intent as to the subject and my belief.

The proof is the actual comms. recording.

It is subjective. A decision one has to make.

Now in the recordings it was never one mention of keeping first respondents away.

The only talk of keeping anyone or anything away was defined by the deputy as to a perimeter for civilians. He said we need to keep them out.

The comms were spliced and spread to the media to indicate that he was telling the first responders away.

It is not real life and unless one is being paid to hold a certain viewpoint then i personally would not want to fall down in the mental trap the msm is laying out for the sheeple.


Again there was never one single mention to keep first responders away.

He was advising for the creation of a perimeter by the police and was interrupted by gunfire then after reporting gunfire confirmation he began again to advise the perimeter creation for the safety of the civilians.

He never said keep the cops away
he never said keep the first responders away

However the series in which the events on the comms happened did lead others to get confused and act accordingly to their confusion.

I really can not state it any other way and am confident that this will be what any logical reasoning beyond seeking deterioration of our collective mind set and our freedoms will conclude.

In other words the msm story was designed to pass laws. Case in point the extremely quick response by the left wing agitators and the new law in place as a result of the powered outrage.