patrick.net

Have y'all not realized, the police is only brave enough to shoot unarmed and innocent people. You expect police to get in a gunfight with a real mass murderer? That would be detrimental to officer safety, dontcha' know.

Sniper says

FortWayne says

Here's your typical government employee. Does minimum, avoids any work, waiting for their extravagant pension to kick in so they don't have to do any work even.

Yep, and they'll let this guy "retire" with his full pension, even though he allowed 17 kids to be slaughtered on his watch.

Welcome to Liberal America!

Have to agree with this. It can be a tough job but you signed up for it with all its perks and responsibilities, and the union protects this guy? Also it changes the lamestream media's story quite dramatically yet they are ignoring it again. KD rages here:

https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=233034

justme says

Have y'all not realized, the police is only brave enough to shoot unarmed and innocent people. You expect police to get in a gunfight with a real mass murderer? That would be detrimental to officer safety, dontcha' know.

But what about all the brave keyboard warriors

If they were there with their toy guns none of this would have happened

Lololol lmao

anon_47967 says

Only problem with that is that we are at record low unemployment.

We are also at record low EMPLOYMENT.

He oughta be able to plink 20 kids at 100 feet without dropping his coffee or the donut in his mouth.

A little collateral damage is understandable.

mell says

Have to agree with this. It can be a tough job but you signed up for it with all its perks and responsibilities, and the union protects this guy? Also it changes the lamestream media's story quite dramatically yet they are ignoring it again. KD rages here:

I see both sides, one that he was cowardly but two, when there have been multiple LEOs responding (UVa, Columbine), they've often lollygagged outside the building(s) for much longer than 4 minutes during an active shooting, even when multiple officers were already on scene and in contact with each other.

I don't want the Sheriff to throw this guy under the bus and get himself and his department off scot free, and there's a reason not to charge into a building with an active shooter and you don't know where he is or even what he looks like, on the other hand this was a time-critical situation.

There is this kind of selfish attitude we're starting to see with Cop Unions/Policy where it's like they'd rather shoot a PTSD veteran than talk him down, or wait even when there are multiple officers to stop a shooter, I hate to say it, but the $75k/year salary is compensation for danger. If they're going to be this cautious then the salary has be adjusted downwards. Cops also have incredibly generous disability and life insurance to cover injury or death on the job that would take care of their families very, very well.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

mell says

Have to agree with this. It can be a tough job but you signed up for it with all its perks and responsibilities, and the union protects this guy? Also it changes the lamestream media's story quite dramatically yet they are ignoring it again. KD rages here:

I see both sides, one that he was cowardly but two, when there have been multiple LEOs responding (UVa, Columbine), they've often lollygagged outside the building(s) for much longer than 4 minutes during an active shooting.

I don't want the Sheriff to throw this guy under the bus and get himself and his department off scot free, and there's a reason not to charge into a building with an active shooter and you don't know where he is or even what he looks like, on the other hand this was a time-critical situation.

Agreed, but that's why they're right now protecting him so that he can not turn on them. Wrt active situation, after he made the appropriate calls for backup he should have gone in, being the only one armed, no matter whether it had already come to an end or not.

mell says

Also it changes the lamestream media's story quite dramatically yet they are ignoring it again. KD rages here:

KD was spot on, but I doubt you'll hear that discussed on CNN or MSNBC today.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

I don't want the Sheriff to throw this guy under the bus and get himself and his department off scot free, and there's a reason not to charge into a building with an active shooter and you don't know where he is or even what he looks like, on the other hand this was a time-critical situation.

In the wake of these shootings the last few years, the situation has changed along with rules of engagement. Seconds count.

A LEO shouldn't be put in the position to protect these kids if he's incapable of instantly responding and living up to the slogan "Protect and Serve".

If a LEO agrees to go on duty in a school today, he should know specifically what he needs to do, hanging back for multiple minutes "assessing" the situation isn't the plan.

If a cop is looking to ride out time waiting for retirement, a school isn't the place for him. Send him out writing parking tickets.

Sniper says

If a cop is looking to ride out time waiting for retirement, a school isn't the place for him. Send him out writing parking tickets.

Read the LastRefuge tweetthread I posted. It talks about SROs.

Do you really want a guy whose main job is intimidating children with his pot belly flinging lead around a combat zone full of children, especially with a hand gun? Not to mention the sheer confusion of the situation.

I spend time in an area where firecracker assholes are common. The firecrackers sound like gunfire, and you can reliably seldom tell where they are coming from. If they were live rounds, and you went by sound, you probably would wind up in the wrong spot and the damage would have been done somewhere else, anyway.

Unless this guy had a clear line of sight at an obvious shooter by accident, it was probably better for everybody that he just stay out of the way and let the rest of the goons handle it.

Ceffer says

Do you really want a guy whose main job is intimidating children with his pot belly flinging lead around a combat zone full of children, especially with a hand gun? Not to mention the sheer confusion of the situation.

I spend time in an area where firecracker assholes are common. The firecrackers sound like gunfire, and you can reliably seldom tell where they are coming from. If they were live rounds, and you went by sound, you probably would wind up in the wrong spot and the damage would have been done somewhere else, anyway.

Unless this guy had a clear line of sight at an obvious shooter by accident, it was probably better for everybody that he just stay out of the way and let the rest of the goons handle it.

Yeah but then he wasn't fit for the job and shouldn't have been in this job in the first place. Get a thoroughly trained guy without potbelly, pay a little extra - it's worth it.

What percentage of trained and Glock armed police/security would have engaged the shooter and his AR15 in that halfway? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

Ceffer says

Unless this guy had a clear line of sight at an obvious shooter by accident, it was probably better for everybody that he just stay out of the way and let the rest of the goons handle it.

Ok, but how can you get a line of sight and determine what's going on if you refuse to investigate?

mell says

Yeah but then he wasn't fit for the job and shouldn't have been in this job in the first place. Get a thoroughly trained guy without potbelly, pay a little extra - it's worth it.

Most of the guys don't have a potbelly when they're hired....

BayArea says

What percentage of trained and Glock armed police/security would have engaged the shooter and his AR15 in that halfway? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

It's a more common situation than you think. A regularly practicing individual with a Pistol, at close ranges, does surprisingly well against a thug or two with a semiautomatic rifle and only a few trips to the range.

Didn't save the article, but a Texas Cop defeated two thugs with both body armor and rifles with his pistol.

BayArea says

What percentage of trained and Glock armed police/security would have engaged the shooter and his AR15 in that halfway? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

75%+, maybe more, (that is if they're there to take the job seriously).

You think a security guy with tactical training won't take on a snot nosed random kid with a AR?

TwoScoopsPlissken says

Didn't save the article, but a Texas Cop defeated two thugs with both body armor and rifles with his pistol.

Perhaps this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Culwell_Center_attack

TwoScoopsPlissken says

It's a more common situation than you think. A regularly practicing individual with a Pistol, at close ranges, does surprisingly well against a thug or two with a semiautomatic rifle and only a few trips to the range.

There you go.

People want to be Monday morning armchair quarterbacks without actual experience and knowledge of a subject.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

but a Texas Cop defeated two thugs with both body armor and rifles with his pistol.

Most cops have pretty good training, and if they had military experience before, react and perform even better in those situations. They don't have to "think", it becomes instinct.

"Why anyone would want to carry a heavy gun when we have police to protect us all?"

BayArea says

What percentage of trained and Glock armed police/security would have engaged the shooter and his AR15 in that halfway? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

At "hallway distances" the rifle loses almost all of it advantages. So nothing wrong with engaging the rifle wielding fuck using a glock (and proper tactics like using cover and such).

It is what you get a pension for-or is it for grandma with cancer on munchies?

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

"Why anyone would want to carry a heavy gun when we have police to protect us all?"

When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

BayArea says

What percentage of trained and Glock armed police/security would have engaged the shooter and his AR15 in that halfway? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

At "hallway distances" the rifle loses almost all of it advantages. So nothing wrong with engaging the rifle wielding fuck using a glock (and proper tactics like using cover and such).

Exactly. A Glock 19 in the hands of a trained LEO is a lot better than a half-assed kid with a AR in that situation.

Satoshi_Nakamoto says

"Why anyone would want to carry a heavy gun when we have police to protect us all?"

"Give up your guns and depend on the racist, corrupt cops to save you."

Every job classification has it's chargers and slackers. Cop jobs are no different.
why is anyone surprised that a slacker happened to be in this position this time?
When everybody gets a trophy, whether they performed or not, this is what you wind up with.
People schooled from birth that performance means nothing...so why take on risk?

Sniper says

BayArea says

What percentage of trained and Glock armed police/security would have engaged the shooter and his AR15 in that halfway? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%?

75%+, maybe more, (that is if they're there to take the job seriously).

You think a security guy with tactical training won't take on a snot nosed random kid with a AR?

Ya, if they have a shot, they take it. Do they step into a hallway with a kid firing an AR? No, most won’t. I could be wrong but that’s my guess.

BayArea says

Ya, if they have a shot, they take it. Do they step into a hallway with a kid firing an AR? No, most won’t. I could be wrong but that’s my guess.

With all the screaming and running of the kids in the hall, do you really think the shooter would even see the cop in that mayhem? In that situation, the cop would definitely have the advantage.

That freedom/liberty argument is bs. You can have all these measures and still have a free society. You don't need to go to the nightclub or airport or school if you don't like metal detectors and armed guards. Just stay on your ranch and homeschool your kids with or without guns, up to you. Nobody has the right to go to a nightclub or school/university and at the same time be as free as they want to be. I'd rather see free speech and metal detectors / security guards on Universities than no security and free speech restrictions. Batshit crazy leftoid world today where snowflakes have to be protected from "offensive speech" but a shooter can just go in and take out a whole gun-free zone because leftism.

Feux Follets says

If this gun thing for your own safety is such a rip roaring good thing for school children etc. - then why are there 5 Places Hypocritical Republicans Ban Guns for Their Own Personal Safety ?

1. The White House

Along with making Mexico pay billions for a wall it opposed and never taking a golfing vacation, Trump promised on the campaign trail to legislate a future in which guns could legally be brought into every kindergarten classroom and nursery. “My first day, it gets signed, okay? My first day,” Trump told supporters in Vermont in 2016. “There’s no more gun-free zones.”

While it’s true no president could unilaterally scrap federal law, it’s also true that Trump’s complicit Republican Congress would probably greenlight any pro-gun horrorshow he could dream up. Yet, in the year since he took office, Trump has not spoken out once—even via his digital bullhorn at Twitter—against the anti-freedom gun ban at the White House. What better way for this president to sign...

Again, you can ban guns for the visitors except for armed guards. Yes, it restricts freedom for the visitors, but you don't need to visit the WH or Mar-a-lago if you don't like it. Done, Next.

Feux Follets says

mell says

Done, Next.

Not done - if this country has been reduced to having armed security at every venue, private and public school, university, church, shopping center, what have you - and the public accepts it because "nothing can be done about the problem" - we are no better than any Third World Nation in addition to slowly and surely losing just a bit more freedom each and every day "because nothing can be done about the problem" instead of demanding that heads roll in the streets (literally if necessary) to get something done about the problem.

As long as you don't address the root causes of those problems, or accept to live with the casualties and more freedom (which is viable as well) these are your only choices. To pretend that gun control will change these numbers significantly is disingenuous and robbing people of freedoms on their personal properties, far worse than a control at the airport or nightclub. Next.

The root cause is the moral panic that destroyed the huge Mental Health Network we used to have to house and care for the Mentally Ill.

That there are people today who haven't figured out that most homeless are seriously mentally ill and cannot be relied upon to dose themselves, even if we give them free meds, except with alcoholic and drugs. And mere drugs aren't the end all of treatment, and that whatever cocktail of drugs initially prescribed is seldom the correct one. "Stay a few weeks and Release" is not the answer. Nor are slumlord half-way homes.

Lobotomies are no longer done, Schizophrenia mostly has Genetic Origin, and Nurse Ratched is a fictional character. Re-Open Kings Park and repeal the Lanterman-Petris-Short
in California and other State Laws Modelled on that terrible mistake.

Schizophrenia isn't "Bad social dynamics in the Family" it's genetic, aggravated by certain situations such as severe infant fevers. That idea is from a book that came out before the DNA revolution in the 70s, before Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Band in the age of the Dinosaurs.

Society isn't Crazy, Crazy Homeless People are Crazy.

Protect the Crazy People, and occasionally, Society from Crazies. Had we those "Evil" pre 60s/70s mental health laws, Cruz and ALL his victims would be alive today. Cruz might even be a functional person rather than a tortured soul to boot.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

The root cause is the moral panic that destroyed the huge Mental Health Network we used to have to house and care for the Mentally Ill.

That there are people today who haven't figured out that most homeless are seriously mentally ill and cannot be relied upon to dose themselves, even if we give them free meds, except with alcoholic and drugs. And mere drugs aren't the end all of treatment, and that whatever cocktail of drugs initially prescribed is seldom the correct one. "Stay a few weeks and Release" is not the answer. Nor are slumlord half-way homes.

Lobotomies are no longer done, Schizophrenia mostly has Genetic Origin, and Nurse Ratched is a fictional character. Re-Open Kings Park and repeal the Lanterman-Petris-Short
in California and other State Laws Modelled on that terrible mistake.

Schizophrenia isn't "Bad social dynamics in the Family" it's genetic, aggravated by certain situations such as severe infant fevers. That idea is from a book that came ...

Right into the bulls eye. Plus kids are treated like snowflakes without rough fatherly influence, everybody is a winner - until the day comes where nobody protects them from assholes, bosses, gold-diggers etc. Then they are on their own and every setback is of course society's fault in their eyes. Time go on SSRIs and then take revenge when those don't work anymore. We don't have any crazy people anymore by decree, Autism (esp. severe) is celebrated! YAY autism, because having no empathy for others and being an emotionless psychopath is AWESOM-O. Look how great it worked with Marissa Mayer as a boss taking away WFH parental care options while building herself a gigantic crib at work! It's a feature, not a bug! Everyone is great and doesn't need judgemental assholes.. until they go on a rampage, then it's the weapon of choice's fault! Good job.

Yes, sir.

But too many still say, James Holmes isn't crazy, society is crazy.



Imagine a Sheriff or School Nurse or Public Official not committing this guy in 1955.

"Don't commit crazy people who make psychotic violent threats and shoot people's animals while posting about becoming Pro School Shooters! It's inhumane! Muh Civil Liberties! Nurse Ratched is Real!"

Seriously, we actually have to have a debate as to whether an ancient civil liberty expressly placed into the Bill of Rights should be repealed, or whether we should reopen mental health facilities and create a pathway for forced hospitalization that lasts long enough to effect some kind of solution (ie not 72 hours and a 14-day supply of Clonezapam).

I think 39 visits by LEOs plus multiple school outbursts bad enough to result in expulsion to an 'at-risk' school, on top of reporting of threats by multiple peers, neighbors, and total strangers seeing his bizarre violent posts on the internet was kind of an little bit of an indicator that maybe kinda sorta we need to take a little bit of action here.

Feux Follets says

mell says

I'd rather see free speech and metal detectors / security guards on Universities than no security and free speech restrictions

“I prefer someone who burns the flag and then wraps themselves up in the Constitution over someone who burns the Constitution and then wraps themselves up in the flag.”

Me too. How is guarding public venues more unconstitutional than taking away the basic rights to own guns? It isn't.

Feux Follets says

mell says

How is guarding public venues more unconstitutional than taking away the basic rights to own guns?

Your right to bear arms may interfere with my right to live in a country free from armed security at every turn of the corner, but please - do so answer the question.

"Accept the casualties, live in a police state with armed guards at every turn and have more freedom" ?

I'm pressed for time right now but I can check back later. Hopping from foot to foot in anticipation of this one.

Clearly taking away guns from people everywhere is the bigger intrusion. It is not at every turn of the corner, just at mass gatherings which unfortunately are targets. I don't mind walking through security in public buildings, why do you mind? As long as I can have privacy in my home and remote nature it's all good.

Feux Follets says

mell says

without rough fatherly influence

How does that work then when someone turns into a looney tunes and shoots up everything insight and we find out he had one of those hero type rough fathers who used to put the fear of god and every other known entity in the kid ?

Great.

Please point out which one of the past mass murders had a father like that in his life at the time of the shooting.

We'll be waiting.

mell says

Clearly taking away guns from people everywhere is the bigger intrusion.

I have lived in or visited for prolonged periods of time (months) many countries - Canada, EU (both west and east), Japan. Among all these countries, the US is the least safe and people have the least personal freedoms. Taking away your guns is your least problem.