Introduction
The mass shooting threat has become an unfortunate reality of the 21st century worldwide, and law enforcement must react accordingly. Today’s police training emphasizes the importance of effective and coordinated response to active shooter situations. Timely actions allow for avoiding additional casualties and eliminating the threat, which is why such training is a matter of paramount importance. Mass shootings have occurred in many places worldwide, but the problem has become especially topical in the United States. The active-shooter situation in Orlando, Florida, has had one of the largest death tolls. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Orlando shooting in terms of response scape and law enforcement tactics.
Orlando Shooting Timeline
The incident in question occurred on June 12, 2016, at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. Around two o’clock in the morning, as the club was about to close, a gunman opened fire, killing dozens of visitors and taking the rest of them hostage (ABC News, 2016). Subsequently, panic ensued, as people were looking for a way to escape the area or hide in a safe place. Shots were heard by citizens and police officers around the scene, but the situation required a massive response due to the presence of an active shooter in a confined space with hundreds of hostages. Around ten minutes into the shooting, the police began to receive a message from some of the clubgoers trapped in the bathroom. As the situation progressed, the perpetrator dialed nine-one-one to inform the government of his affiliation with the ISIS terrorist organization.
When the police managed to collect enough information and evaluate the situation, they launched an operation aimed at eliminating the terrorist. As there was an immediate threat to the hostages’ lives, a decision was made not to engage until an opportunity is created. At two-thirty in the morning, hostage negotiators arrived at the scene and attempted to communicate with the shooter. Simultaneously, the Orlando Police Department S.W.A.T. team prepared to enter the nightclub through one of the walls. Around 5 a.m., the police partially detonated the wall using a controlled explosion, but it was not sufficient. As a result, law enforcement used an armored vehicle to breach the nightclub wall and enter the building.
At that time, the perpetrator, who was expecting a massive police response, barricaded himself in the bathroom with a hostage. Upon entering the building, the police officers dispersed around the nightclub in organized groups. This way, they were able to cover more areas of the scene at once. At the same time, the groups were large enough to outgun the shooter upon contact. Shortly afterward, the officers managed to escort people hiding in a different part of the nightclub to safety. Once there was a confirmation that the terrorist was hiding in one of the bathrooms, the police groups converged in this area. Alarmed by loud noises around the club, the shooter went out of the bathroom and engaged in a gunfight with the officers. As a result, the police shot the perpetrator, freeing the rest of the hostages.
Orlando Shooting Police Response
The response by the Orlando Police Department included a range of divisions that cooperated to eliminate the threat. First of all, once there was a confirmation that a hostage situation was occurring, a certified hostage negotiator arrived at the scene (ABC News, 2016). Such agents play a part of paramount importance, as their purpose is to establish contact with a likely unstable individual to determine their motives and intentions. Johnson et al. (2017) state that such specialists must possess specific job-related skills, such as empathy, active listening, and effective communication. In the Orlando shooting case, the perpetrator announced himself through the emergency phone line, which gave the police access to his contact information and allowed for his identification. The hostage negotiator used this information to call the terrorist and attempt to clarify his intentions. One of the primary objectives in this scenario was to find out whether the person was indeed the perpetrator inside the nightclub through a series of particular vaguely-phrased questions. Additionally, communication with the negotiator distracted the terrorist, which allowed the first-response officers to free some of the hostages.
While time is a matter of grave importance in mass shootings and hostage situations, the police officers usually spend some of it devising the correct plan of action. In the case of the Orlando shooting, the operation took over three hours due to the particular barriers. First-response officers managed to arrive at the scene quite early but, having appropriately assessed the situation, decided not to engage immediately for several reasons. First, the police had too little information regarding the events at the nightclub, except for reports of gunshots insides and alleged casualties. Therefore, it was necessary to acquire a more profound understanding of the situation through other divisions in order to act accordingly. Reckless attempts to storm the building without proper knowledge of what was occurring could potentially lead to many victims. Secondly, the officers decided to wait for further instructions because they would face a risk of being outgunned in an unfavorable position and getting injured or killed in the process. A thorough examination of the situation took several hours and provided law enforcement with enough information to locate the shooter.
Evidently, a response to terrorist attacks and hostage situations implies the participation of a S.W.A.T. team. In Orlando, this unit arrived at the scene at the decisive moment and carried out the crucial part of the plan, when the officers located the shooter and eliminated him. Additionally, the perpetrator claimed to have several explosive devices in his possession. While there was no confirmation that such devices were present at the scene, the police are obliged to consider the threat serious and dispatch a bomb squad. Besides, medical units must be present during such attacks in order to provide emergency care for the injured. Nevertheless, the Orlando shooting demonstrated a lack of ambulances and paramedics for an event of such magnitude. Generally, mass shootings and hostage situations require a high level of cooperation between both police units and different departments.
As a matter of fact, such events are often discussed in terms of police militarization. It is often said that police militarization serves to ensure police officers and local community members’ safety. Indeed, significant resources are required to combat global and domestic terrorism, as far as advanced training programs and state-of-the-art equipment are concerned. However, there is evidence that police militarization strategy has not yet brought satisfying results. According to Mummolo (2018), the research shows that militarized police unit engagement did not lead to lower crime rates. Furthermore, the study suggests that militarized police strategy also fails to enhance the officers’ safety (Mummolo, 2018). Overall, this sphere might require some adjustments to provide a more effective response to modern challenges.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the police response during the Orlando mass shooting in 2016 showed an adequate level of cooperation and organization. The officers took some time to gather and analyze the data before proceeding to storm the building. Combined efforts of the police headquarters, officers, S.W.A.T., and hostage negotiators allowed law enforcement to eliminate the terrorist and free many hostages. Nevertheless, the death toll was still substantial, and there was a shortage of medical units. Overall, militarized police divisions may be effective when dealing with such attacks, but they have not reached the desired public security level yet.
References
ABC News. (2016). Orlando nightclub massacre: A timeline of what happened [Video]. YouTube.
Johnson, K. E., Thompson, J., Hall, J. A., & Meyer, C. (2017). Crisis (hostage) negotiators weigh in: the skills, behaviors, and qualities that characterize an expert crisis negotiator. Police Practice and Research, 19(5), 472–489. Web.
Mummolo, J. (2018). Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm police reputation. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115(37), 9181–9186. Web.