In the Bataclan theatre massacre in November 2015 there were eight off-duty police, but none of them had their guns with them

2 Jun , 2016  

Screen Shot 2016-06-02 at Thursday, June 2, 7.58 PM

Interview with Eagles of Death Metal vocalist Jesse Hughes, who discussed the Bataclan attack in Paris that killed 89 of his fans.

We had eight police officers in our audience that night. They all had the same conversation with their wives, which was “Should I bring my gun or not?” All of them said no. When we went back and played Paris again they stood in the same places they stood at the original show and they opened their jackets and showed me their guns as if to say, “Not tonight, motherfucker.” It was beautiful. . . .

, , ,


11 Responses

  1. B.F. Caffrey says:

    Good for the gendarmes! It’s too bad they had to learn the lesson so brutally, but that’s often what it takes for some people to have an epiphany.

    The next conversation that needs to occur is what happens in the next crowded venue when terrorists come knocking? Not if, but when. If the scene is repeated with Kalashnikov-toting terrorists and during the melee a gendarme’s bullet kills a civilian what will be the fallout? Or just as bad, if a civilian picks up a fallen officer’s gun and misses to hit another patron.

    Here in the U.S., depending on the jurisdiction and the prosecutors, a good Samaritan might be charged with manslaughter and painted as stupidly reckless or wantonly negligent. And a nightmare of civil actions could make it worse. I suspect our European cousins may have a more pragmatic approach, however. If I’m wrong, it won’t be the first time.

  2. Chris Bennett says:

    The comparison between the Bataclan and St James Church Massacre (South Africa 1993) is well worth talking about.

    Both had about 4 attackers intent on killing as many as possible, targeting a confined space housing about 1000 people. But had very, very different outcomes because in St James a congregant fired back, saving dozens if not hundreds of lives (the terrorists had planed on firebombing the building and burning everyone inside).

    • Mike says:

      Very good point, self-defense seems lost on people these days. Every time there is a mass murder the authorities seem to try everything they can to make sure the victims in the next attack have even less access to self-defense. Seems crazy to me, but every attack breeds more anti-gun laws for the victims.

      • ER Doc California says:

        Well Said. Perfect example is CA. They are passing numerous bills to prevent a future San Bernandino and now a future UCLA. Makes absolutely no
        sense.
        But then we had Ex-Ca Senator Leland Yee who was one of the most anti-2nd senator and was just convicted federally of gun running! Yes, I cannot make this up.

  3. […] Please read the full article here- https://crimeresearch.org/2016/06/in-the-bataclan-theatre-massacre-in-november-2015-there-were-eight-… […]

  4. Greg Tag says:

    Laws against murder do not ( and have never been intended to) PREVENT murder. What they do accomplish is provide severe PUNISHMENT for those who commit it. It is the PUNISHMENT that reduces the occurrence of murder by DETERRING those who would commit the crime.
    If “passing a law” worked, we could all be perfectly protected . Imagine a sign outside of your kids school
    ” Shooting Children in this Area is STRICTLY PROHIBITED “.

    That would fix everything, wouldn’t it?

    Now leaving sarcasm and returning to the real world
    For a suicidal Jihadi ( or any other sociopath in a similar situation) willfully SEEKING his own death, there is no possible DETERRENT , ( and strongly worded signage is unlikely to help) so the only other possible successful outcome is produced by fighting back. To fight back successfully , people need the tools with which to fight back.

    The problem in much of Europe as well as in California and similar progressive places is that those in authority as well as the social elites fear arms in the hands of the general public MORE than they fear the possible criminal actors. Elites usually don’t bear arms themselves but they have access to paid security , police bodyguards, secret service and the like. An example- Michael Bloomberg, former New York, mayor and gun control advocate billionaire, advocates tirelessly to disarm non-official persons- the single mother coming home from work at 3AM in the Bronx CANNOT have a legal pistol to protect herself. Bloomberg smugly assures us (and her) that she doesn’t need it to be safe , and besides she might misuse it if she had one. This of course flows easily from the mouth of a man who lives in a gated community and has 9 body guards ( armed with pistols and long arms too) to protect him 24-7. Of course, he is important and she, quite frankly , is not . Morally superior elites are uncomfortable with having a mere waitress carry a gun for her own protection.

    Defensive arms are the tools and vigorous Use of those arms are the best way to reduce the damage inflicted by sociopathic or Jihadi mass murderers . Any other approach is merely posturing by politicians to impress the foolish.

    Regards
    GKT

  5. Nick Pascal says:

    It isn’t bad enough re unarmed off duty police but I seem to remember that the policeman who responded first was on a bicycle and unarmed.he paid for this social nicety by being executed seen on video the around the world.Ah but this was politically correct.Anyone know if this has changed anything as far as policy is concerned or are the police are to remain lambs waiting for slaughter with their fellow citizens

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *