Evacuated the museum

[jcr]

I've not seen this mentioned about the shooting in DC earlier this week.

Shortly after the shooting, they cleared the museum. Why?

They knew that nobody in the museum had a weapon -- that's why they were manning metal dectors and that's why the shooting happened at the entrance.

So they sent all the people from the safety of the museum and sent them out to the streets where they had no idea if the creep had cohorts waiting. Admittedly, by that time, there were police swarming all over the place by then so nothing much was going to happen out there.

But really, the museum was a safe haven. What was the need to evacuate?

 

[Becka]

My guess would be because it was a crime scene.

 

[vellnueve]

But really, the museum was a safe haven. What was the need to evacuate?

Crime scene, don't want people to see a dying guard and injured lunatic bleeding on the floor, whatever. Seems like a picky thing to criticize.

 

[terraformer]

Crime scene, don't want people to see a dying guard and injured lunatic bleeding on the floor, whatever. Seems like a picky thing to criticize.

There is a valid question here. Schools lock down and keep people in. Why did they do the opposite here? Which is better? There are pro's and con's to either.

 

[packingungal]

Having worked for the government, there is only one answer....it is something we have always done. We stand on tradition.

Of course, our present gov't subscribes to change, so I feel certain that this will be addressed in the very immediate future.

 

[Business]

There is a valid question here. Schools lock down and keep people in. Why did they do the opposite here?

schools lock down so kids don't get stolen

 

[Jose]

If a shooting goes down somewhere, I am unassing the premises with whomever is with me. I don't really care what the "authorities" want me to do or not do.

 

[jcr]

because it was a crime scene

Crime scene was at the entrance and just outside of it where the creep layed bleeding (reported by eye witnesses who never got into the building.

I'm sticking with their knowing that everyone inside was safe (if they didn't, why were they bothering with the security check). I don't know how big the place is, but I'll bet there were people inside who didn't even know what happened.

And when they were asked to leave, I bet they were told then either. Just ordered out.

unassing the premises

I don't know what that is, but I doubt you'd have much say, had you been in there.

something we have always done.

Probably my guess. Who pitiful is that reason, though. Had it been an coordinated attack (like Jonesboro[?] where the kids pulled the alarm and shot people on the way out), it'd take a couple more deaths for them to re-evaluate, and do something different.

Related..., how long until some crazy realizes that there are big crowds standing on lines to prove that they are unarmed so that they can get into these secure places? They are not being guarded, and I doubt the guards inside would come out to rescue you. Actually, I'd not be surprised to learn that the procedure would be to lock the doors and wait until the 911 call is made and local police show up.

 

[Rate_of_Twist]

Just curious, why would you want to stay? Sure, it is a very important place for a VERY important part of history..... but with gun fire and people dying down stairs why would you want to hang out in a crime scene? drb

 

[n1oty]

The advantage of keeping those who had already been screened and passed into the facility is that you have a better chance of ensuring their safety. There is no guarantee in a case like this that the gunmen does not have other accomplices outside and those potential accomplices could open fire on people evacuating the facility.

The protection of life always trumps crime scene preservation.

Just curious, why would you want to stay? Sure, it is a very important place for a VERY important part of history..... but with gun fire and people dying down stairs why would you want to hang out in a crime scene? drb

 

[terraformer]

The advantage of keeping those who had already been screened and passed into the facility is that you have a better chance of ensuring their safety.

This was a museum and one thing no one has brought up yet, but which prompted me to say earlier this was a valid question, is that they may have wanted people out to secure the things inside the museum. Ex: What happens if the shooting was a diversion? Anyway, food for thought. It was an interesting choice to clear the building and I don't see much reason for it other than preservation of the contents of the building.

 

[n1oty]

And the preservation of life always trumps the preservation of property, except in the realm of property (documents/material) deemed vital to the national security of the United States. I don't think this museum would have such material though.

This was a museum and one thing no one has brought up yet, but which prompted me to say earlier this was a valid question, is that they may have wanted people out to secure the things inside the museum. Ex: What happens if the shooting was a diversion? Anyway, food for thought. It was an interesting choice to clear the building and I don't see much reason for it other than preservation of the contents of the building.