Are we still defending Scott Peterson for chickening out on this board? Or is the commentary of every single LEO asked about this in the media wrong that he should have engaged the shooter as it’s his primary duty? I know CP knows everything more than anyone, especially on a topic like this, so I just wanna hear it again how he ‘did the right thing’ by hiding behind a building while children were getting slaughtered.
What sickens me the most are the accounts of unarmed teachers running in trying to shield these kids, and this guy stood on the sidelines.
Oh. I forgot. He’s an underpaid rent-a-cop too. A rent-a-cop with 30 years years service making 75k/yr and in line for a full pension.
Last edited by pylon; 02-26-2018 at 01:38 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
I'm not going to defend him, I'm not going to persecute him yet either. I need to know more.
When the shooter in Parliament Hill entered the building the RCMP didn't blindly go after him. They congregated and executed a plan. A plan they executed to a tee.
I wouldn't hold the school security guard to the same standard as the RCMP officers at Parliament Hill.
I'd want to know
1. What did the training protocol dictate?
2. What was the time frame? When did he know about the shooter to when did action take place?
Note, I don't know the answer to those questions. I can't look them up right now.
I will say this, if an armed guard isn't a deterrent why the frack would an armed pre-cal teacher be?
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Maritime Q-Scout For This Useful Post:
I'm not going to defend him, I'm not going to persecute him yet either. I need to know more.
When the shooter in Parliament Hill entered the building the RCMP didn't blindly go after him. They congregated and executed a plan. A plan they executed to a tee.
I wouldn't hold the school security guard to the same standard as the RCMP officers at Parliament Hill.
I'd want to know
1. What did the training protocol dictate?
2. What was the time frame? When did he know about the shooter to when did action take place?
Note, I don't know the answer to those questions. I can't look them up right now.
I will say this, if an armed guard isn't a deterrent why the frack would an armed pre-cal teacher be?
Why do you refer to him as a security guard, when he was a full time police officer in uniform employed by the sheriff department?
I'm also very curious about the sheriff dept policy on Active Shooters as well. If it requires them to run into an unknown or mostly unknown situation where they are outgunned and hold all the disadvantages just to keep up appearances for the dept/public...well, that's a sh**ty policy. It becomes more and more evident why sheriff depts have such trouble hiring/retaining sheriffs that aren't voted in.
But then, considering that sheriff depts and police depts are actually pretty different things, especially when a city has a police dept and a sheriff dept, maybe their policy is to sacrifice their officers stupidly.
The Following User Says Thank You to WhiteTiger For This Useful Post:
Why do you refer to him as a security guard, when he was a full time police officer in uniform employed by the sheriff department?
Because, in the States, a Sheriff('s Deputy) and a Police Officer are two very different job descriptions...and where you have a Police Department in a city, the Sheriff Dept of that city (if there is one) basically IS a glorified security guard detachment.
Because, in the States, a Sheriff('s Deputy) and a Police Officer are two very different job descriptions...and where you have a Police Department in a city, the Sheriff Dept of that city (if there is one) basically IS a glorified security guard detachment.
Source?
Outside of a few very large metro areas where cities encompass all of the county, sheriffs are responsible for the rural areas. In every area I have lived there have been fully functional sheriff's with expansive budgets, officers that are equal to any city force, and anything else you would expect.
I have lived in 3 totally different geographical areas (Illinois, South Carolina, and Oklahoma) in cities of varying sizes. (from 30k up to 1m) So I am going to need some examples of these glorified sheriffs departments you speak of.
The Following User Says Thank You to dobbles For This Useful Post:
Because, in the States, a Sheriff('s Deputy) and a Police Officer are two very different job descriptions...and where you have a Police Department in a city, the Sheriff Dept of that city (if there is one) basically IS a glorified security guard detachment.
The Broward county sheriff department provides full time law enforcement in many areas of the county. They are trained as police officers, have arrest authority and are country employees. That's very different than a security guard in my eyes.
Of all the things that could have somehow energized young millennials and brand new Gen Z voters into action, it turns out to be guns. Those great kids are currently dismantling the nra piece by corporate partner piece. They are fearless, articulate and prepared. The nra has become a punchline overnight. The Parkland group are currently putting the full court press on Amazon.com to drop nra tv. Energized youth. This boomer loves it.
The thing is though, that all of these young urban people that vote for gun regulations is great, but do their votes outnumber the young rural rednecks that have the complete opposite feelings?
Why do you refer to him as a security guard, when he was a full time police officer in uniform employed by the sheriff department?
I thought he was a security guard. Again, as I have previously stated, I don't have enough information on this particular issue.
I'm currently out for lunch so I can't start researching. However, if you'd like to find these answers rather than attack semantics I think that'd be helpful to the discussion.
That said, wouldn't an armed police officer be MORE of a deterrent than an armed gaurd?
__________________ "Calgary Flames is the best team in all the land" - My Brainwashed Son
Last edited by Maritime Q-Scout; 02-26-2018 at 08:46 AM.
The thing is though, that all of these young urban people that vote for gun regulations is great, but do their votes outnumber the young rural rednecks that have the complete opposite feelings?
With an approval rating of 22%, trump gets annihilated in the 27 and under demographic. Normally that wouldn't concern trump because most young people don't vote, unless they get motivated by a dramatic event or a new political movement, which has clearly happened. I'll be waiting for that groundswell of young rednecks now.
With an approval rating of 22%, trump gets annihilated in the 27 and under demographic. Normally that wouldn't concern trump because most young people don't vote, unless they get motivated by a dramatic event or a new political movement, which has clearly happened. I'll be waiting for that groundswell of young rednecks now.
I guess my point is, in regards to gerrymandering and electoral college.
guns has probably become one of those urban vs. rural things. Rural people truly believe they need guns, and they might to some extent, compared to the urban population.
Do small districts in Florida outweigh large districts in Kentucky?
I guess my point is, in regards to gerrymandering and electoral college.
guns has probably become one of those urban vs. rural things. Rural people truly believe they need guns, and they might to some extent, compared to the urban population.
Do small districts in Florida outweigh large districts in Kentucky?
The gerrymander has already been taken out in Pennsylvania. Other than that, an overwhelming turnout will be required to defeat the GOP strategy of voter suppression and Russian interference. Meanwhile, the kids from Parkland are going to do their thing, and every gop/nra smear against them will be remembered and used as motivation to get out the vote. And yes, I do believe that the gop is now counting on Russian help to stay in power.
Trump says he would have run in to the school even if he didn't have a gun, loooool, sure Mr Bonespurs who watched a guy dying at Mara-lago and joked about it.
Are we still defending Scott Peterson for chickening out on this board? Or is the commentary of every single LEO asked about this in the media wrong that he should have engaged the shooter as it’s his primary duty? I know CP knows everything more than anyone, especially on a topic like this, so I just wanna hear it again how he ‘did the right thing’ by hiding behind a building while children were getting slaughtered.
What sickens me the most are the accounts of unarmed teachers running in trying to shield these kids, and this guy stood on the sidelines.
Oh. I forgot. He’s an underpaid rent-a-cop too. A rent-a-cop with 30 years years service making 75k/yr and in line for a full pension.
Whilst I would have liked the cop to enter the building as the outcome probably couldn't have been any worse the truth is you can not expect anyone to be prepared to sacrifice their lives, its nice if they do but its absurd to expect it, he had no back up, no vest and a woefully underpowered sidearm.
He did what almost everyone would do on their own in a deadly but confusing situation, he froze, he also followed what has been police training in the US since the late 1960's, police have been taught for decades that they need to stay alive first and all else is secondary to that, its a philosophy I disagree with but its the way the US police operate, they are taught basically to use overwhelming and deadly force to be safe, its the theory behind the advent of SWAT teams and came out of the Watts riots in the 60's. It is why the cops down there shoot first and ask questions after.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Whilst I would have liked the cop to enter the building as the outcome probably couldn't have been any worse the truth is you can not expect anyone to be prepared to sacrifice their lives, its nice if they do but its absurd to expect it, he had no back up, no vest and a woefully underpowered sidearm.
He did what almost everyone would do on their own in a deadly but confusing situation, he froze, he also followed what has been police training in the US since the late 1960's, police have been taught for decades that they need to stay alive first and all else is secondary to that, its a philosophy I disagree with but its the way the US police operate, they are taught basically to use overwhelming and deadly force to be safe, its the theory behind the advent of SWAT teams and came out of the Watts riots in the 60's. It is why the cops down there shoot first and ask questions after.
The part that saddens me is that with the passive strategy, kids have literally no hope of help until a swat team arrives. That's why I was moderately critical of the officers response. Not because I want teachers armed or more guns around, but I was apparently mistakenly naive to think that having armed police in schools could help keep them safe.
In my high school (95-99, ~1500 kids) we had an armed officer. In our case he was a regular city police officer that got h.s. duty as his assignment. He helped with truancy and all sorts of other things, but I had always assumed if an attack happened he would be our first line of defense.
I think that this is silly, especially if you look at how sh$$ty the whole tactical situation is. I mean I know people wanted him to heroically dive in and save these people.
However
He was alone.
He was in a pistol versus basically a assault rifle situation, he was far out ranged and out accuracied (not a word, but I don't care). A pistols effective range is pretty short, unless your a movie character where you can hit a guy a football field away in a windy story while yelling a clever catchphrase.
He didn't have the location of the shooter down and didn't have any idea what the geographic situation down (Map, location, trouble spots)
Realistically the first guy on the spot needs to gather intelligence where he can, and contain the situation if possible and wait for help.
Now I don't know if he did any of that, but him loudly charging into the building while yelling a war cry, would have accomplished nothing, he had every single dis-advantage in that situation, and I doubt that his actions would have saved any lives.
If the Sheriff is saying different, or the NRA or Trump, they're lying or don't know what the hell they're talking about.
He wouldn't have saved any lives, gosh darn it, he would have died futilely dag nab it, but good god he would have been a hero, they could have drapped a flag over his casket and the NRA and Trump and others would have said. What an amazing hero he was and a testament to having guns.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
The part that saddens me is that with the passive strategy, kids have literally no hope of help until a swat team arrives. That's why I was moderately critical of the officers response. Not because I want teachers armed or more guns around, but I was apparently mistakenly naive to think that having armed police in schools could help keep them safe.
In my high school (95-99, ~1500 kids) we had an armed officer. In our case he was a regular city police officer that got h.s. duty as his assignment. He helped with truancy and all sorts of other things, but I had always assumed if an attack happened he would be our first line of defense.
As I said I am not opposed to the cop running in and getting himself killed, which is what would happen assuming he could find the shooter, but to assume anyone would do that as part of their job description is foolish, you cannot make people heroic, if you put people in a group and train that group to move into danger you have a good chance they will go along, that's how we train soldiers, but on our own the basic instinct to survive will almost always overwhelm any training.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
