(1) Dear. (2) Leader.

Skanderbeg,

I’ve been reading a lot of explanations for why the train station police might have held their fire. The “armchair debriefings” I’ve read have discussed various theories ranging from the plausible to the pathetic, but all of them have assumed the police were in fact carrying loaded weapons — until this one.

The explanations I’ve read are sometimes more, sometimes less charitable concerning the professionalism and readiness of the Indian police in Mumbai. One blogger has pointed out that recently there was a public outcry in Mumbai that may have created an apprehensive, overly cautious police presence afraid of “doing the wrong thing.”

But dang it, I have to admit I haven’t seen anyone yet ask (much less answer) if the policemen even had bullets in their guns, and it’s a fascinating question. I wish I’d thought of it ;). I’m scouring the earth for more information about that question, as well as the rules of engagement they were operating under. I’ve also read reports that once the terrorists reached the hotel, the Indian commandos had their work cut out for them: they were very worried about killing innocent civilians and unsure of how to distinguish the terrorists from the guests, but that’s a very different situation from the train station.

One place to take up the investigation might be the BBC: they have an article up right now featuring some statements from survivors, one of whom runs a restaurant at the train station and witnessed the carnage:

PAPPU MISHRA, RESTAURATEUR AT VICTORIA TERMINUS
I run one of the biggest eateries at Mumbai’s main railway station. On the evening of the attack, I was sitting upstairs tending to my customers when I first spotted two smart-looking young men saunter up to the waiting hall in front of my restaurant.
…
I saw the men walking up to the railway platform shooting indiscriminately, and people falling like ninepins. They were so calm, composed and brazen. They seemed to have the confidence of those who knew no fear and knew there would be no resistance.

Emphasis mine. Perhaps they knew there would be no resistance because they knew there were no bullets in the policemen’s guns. It would be interesting to contact the Beeb and attempt to ask Pappu Mishra whatever he knows about that. I wonder if anyone on the Indian police force would even admit it? But Mr. Mishra might know…

Alex,

This may sound like a REALLY stupid question…. but….

Can anyone confirm if they actually possessed any bullets?

Several years back, I was in Cairo (Egypt - not Illinois) on business, and there were armed guards EVERYWHERE. There were even armed guards at the doorway to the office building where the people I was working with were located. We were leaving the building one day and as we were driving away I commented to my Egyptian colleagues that the security even at their office building was tight.

They laughed, and said that it was all for show - that if there were any real trouble, those guys would run and hide. That was because they were carrying firearms, but they weren’t allowed to carry bullets. It was about giving an impression of security.

It just might have been the same thing in Mumbai. Having all these guys around with guns makes people feel secure, but they may not have been allowed to have bullets. They may never have fired a gun in their entire lives - which was the case in Cairo.

One of the astonishing things about the massacre in Mumbai is that the sole terrorist survivor (the baby-faced guy from the train station) should have been stopped a long time before he could be captured and made a consumer of the Indian health care and legal system.

However, the police in the train station didn’t shoot back at him. Instead they ran the other way and hid, leaving him to kill as many people as he wanted. In the pictures from Mumbai, you’ve seen the blood puddles on the floor that resulted.

Photographer Sebastian D’Souza, who was able to take a photo of one of the armed terrorists in the train station in Mumbai, also described the events he witnessed there. One puzzling—not to mention profoundly troubling—aspect of his report was the following [emphasis mine]:

But what angered Mr D’Souza almost as much [as the terrorists’ rampage] were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. “There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything,” he said. “At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, ‘Shoot them, they’re sitting ducks!’ but they just didn’t shoot back.”

…The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit…Mr D’Souza added: “I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera.”

Which brings me to the subject of my post today, the new Ruger LCP .380.

This is a personal protection firearm that weighs less than a pound and can be carried wihout unduly burdening yourself — male or female, large body or small, under your clothing and with excellent handling and reliability. Enjoy the video, and don’t be afraid to shoot back.

I like Hot Air’s choice so much that I’m going to duplicate it:

“I would like to be a person remembered as a person who, first and foremost, did not sell his soul in order to accommodate the political process. I came to Washington with a set of values, and I’m leaving with the same set of values. And I darn sure wasn’t going to sacrifice those values.”

Some of you have until January 20, 2009 to enjoy - if that’s the right word - your peculiarly maltheistic religion being indulged by the Democratic Party. Once your devil figure is out of office, you will be expected to drop the subject forthwith; but please don’t, just because I’m bringing it up. Increasing the speed by which you become irrelevant will only be a help.

Mark Halperin says that it got pretty bad and that it benefited Barack Obama tremendously. On balance, I think that Halperin got it right.

The Arena asks what decisions the Administration may undertake before its departure. The subject quickly got to pardons, which law professor Steven Calabresi prompted. My take can be found near the end of the thread (alas, a direct permalink does not work for weird technical reasons that have to do with the Arena’s end of matters).

§ 713. Use of likenesses of the great seal of the United States …

(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States,… or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.

I’m just sayin’.

Country music legend and Monday Night Football adrenaline raiser Hank Williams Jr. has announced he’s going to run for the Senate in 2012. He’ll be running in the primary against Bob Corker. Williams is fresh off the campaign trail, having been a regular warm-up act for Sarah Palin this year.

And if you ain’t into that, he don’t give a damn.

(H/T to Redstater TC Robinson)

Most of you will have to listen to the usual bores who have been babbling about how Iraq has been some sort of secular Armageddon. Anyway, gird your loins beforehand with this round-up from Jules Crittenden (via Glenn Reynolds) - and, free advice? A simple head-cocking and quizzical “So if you guys won, then why are you trying to spin away the next President’s Cabinet picks?” should pay dividends.

Alternatively, you can just indulgently murmur “Of course you did,” and take a second helping of pie. Progressives hate not being taken seriously, particularly when it’s by us.