Comments

1. On February 24, 2018 at 9:25 am, I R A Darth Aggie said:

   So that they can cuddle with their rifles as they run outside and hide behind cars until the shooting is over.

   I laughed at this. Does that make me a bad person?

2. On February 24, 2018 at 11:50 am, revjen45 said:

   Yup – better armed cowards. That’s the answer.

3. On February 24, 2018 at 12:27 pm, Yuri said:

   Yeah, a week ago I commented that I wouldn’t comment on the shooting or related matters. But, “related” is a relative term and this also seems related to a longer-running theme here at Herchel’s Place.

   The linked article says this:

   “Not one but four sheriff’s deputies hid behind cars instead of storming Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS in Parkland, Fla., during Wednesday’s school shooting,”

   I know that my response may provoke calls for me to be permanently locked safely away from “normal” people; but, anyway, here goes:

   In regard to demanding that police “storm” the highschool, …..
   Is it too much to ask that people be careful what they wish for?

4. On February 24, 2018 at 12:46 pm, moe mensale said:

   @Yuri,

   “Storming” the high school was the writer’s terminology and totally inappropriate. I think we all know that. When the first Coral Springs cops arrived, they entered and searched out the shooter, which is what the BSO deputies should have been doing. Time is life in an active shooter scenario.

5. On February 24, 2018 at 3:00 pm, dad29 said:

   Maybe Israel read the MSNBC (?) item which tells us that AR slugs travel 3X the speed of 9mm slugs, so that way his deputies can hide for a while, THEN shoot, and still pre-kill the goblin.

   Or something like that.

6. On February 24, 2018 at 3:18 pm, Ned said:

   When seconds count, police are hiding right around the corner.

7. On February 24, 2018 at 4:28 pm, Yuri said:

   “When the first Coral Springs cops arrived, they entered and searched out the shooter, which is what the BSO deputies should have been doing.”

   That is correct, and I agree that that is what they should have been doing.

   The problem I have is the presumption that that is what they would have done had they “stormed”, or merely cautiously entered, the school. That is, the presumption of good judgment.

   Here is a partial list of article titles on this site in just the past three months:

   — Officer Fired After He Refused To Shoot A Distraught Man Wins $175,000 Settlement From Weirton Police Department(11)
   — Father Saves His Wife, Daughter And 30 People From Armed Gunman, And Then The Cops Shoot Him(17)
   — FBI Shoots Kidnapping Victim In Houston(3)
   — Ogden, Utah, SWAT Team Conducts Yet Another Wrong-Home SWAT Raid(6)
   — Police Accountability(8)
   — Montgomery Police Officer Uses His Gun To Smash Car Window Shooting The Unarmed Driver Inside(10)
   — More Wichita Police Shootings Of Innocent People(14)
   — Video Of Wichita Police Department Home Invasion And Murder(6)
   — Grand Rapids Police Department Point Weapons At 11-Year Old(21)
   — Crawford County Cops Order Man To Decapitate His Dog Or Go To Jail(6)
   *** — Philip Brailsford: Killer Cop(23)

   This, of course, is not a comprehensive list of all events across the nation that could be related to “bad judgment” by police.

   And, the problem I have is not so much the presumption of good judgment.

   I only take issue with that presumption being made by individuals who either presume bad judgment in other cases, or who are at least aware that a presumption of good judgment is a BAD presumtion.

   The problem I have is best summed by the image at the top of this post at WRSA:
   https://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/2018/02/24/what-would-we-mundanes-do-without-our-heroes-in-blue/

   My problem is with the imbecile who created that image, and imbeciles agreeing with it’s message. The message being that police want it both ways (“I shot because I feared for my life” AND “I didn’t shoot because I feared for my life”) having not the slightest care that CRITIZIZING both is just as surely “wanting it both ways”.

   Now, to criticize these Broward cops for INACTION representing bad judgment and cowardice is fair enough. UNLESS, the critic is also aware of the fact that police often guilty of bad judgment reflected by ACTION.

   The assumption that, if they’d have gone in, fewer innocents would have been killed, and Cruz would have been correctly identified and stopped, is a bad assumption.

   The assumption that, if they had gone in, no other students or faculty could have been (not necessarily would have been) mis-identified and shot, is a WORSE assumption.

   So, as I said, folks should be careful what they wish for.

   =====

   This could be a separate comment, but I’ll put it here, as it relates to being careful what one wishes for.

   This is in reference to this article at ZeroHedge:
   https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-24/white-house-considering-confiscating-guns-people-considered-dangerous

   I have noted many individuals ostensibly claiming to be “conservative”, “libertarian”, or otherwise devoted to the protection of individual right, making the argument (after every mass shooting) that we, as a society, need to lock up all the “dangerous” people.

   As the ZeroHedge article highlights, those wishing that result may soon get their wish.

   Of course, as the article also mentions, this policy leaves the identification of “dangerousness” up to the government, and those arbiters of goodthink, the (mostly-Left-leaning) psychiatric community.

   I hope I do not need to scour the internet for “official” references to the “danger” posed by “right-wing” “extremists”, or to the definitions used to identify such “extremists”.

   If this policy — advocated far & wide across the intertubes — becomes law, I could conceivably be subject to it, … who knows. But, I am comforted somewhat by the fact that some of those advocating this policy/law will get what they wished for ….. and get it good, … and hard, …. and for the remainder of their lives.

8. On February 24, 2018 at 4:29 pm, Yuri said:

   See now, I just overturned my own policy. I shoulda kept my mouth shut.

9. On February 24, 2018 at 6:50 pm, Jeffersonian said:

   Let’s not forget the same kind of well-documented behavior at Columbine, and more recently at Orlando:
   http://knuckledraggin.com/2017/12/doj-report-whitewashes-pulse-nightclub-police-response/
   And of course, Carol Bowne didn’t need a gun because the police were there to protect her:
   https://www.ammoland.com/2017/10/gun-control-activists-say-her-name-carol-bowne/

10. On February 26, 2018 at 6:25 pm, Tommy said:

    Here is a summary of the difference between the military and civilian law enforcement. A civilian law enforcement officer gets to resign, seek employment elsewhere and protect his pension. In the military – UCMJ Article 99 Misbehavior Before the Enemy:

    Any person subject to this chapter who before or in the presence of the enemy–

    (1) runs away;

    (2) shamefully abandons, surrenders, or delivers up any command, unit, place, or military property which it is his duty to defend;

    (3) through disobedience, neglect, or intentional misconduct endangers the safety of any such command, unit, place, or military property;

    (4) casts away his arms or ammunition;

    (5) is guilty of cowardly conduct;

    (6) quits his place of duty to plunder or pillage;

    (7) causes false alarms in any command, unit, or place under control of the armed forces;

    (8) willfully fails to do his utmost to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy any enemy troops, combatants, vessels, aircraft, or any other thing, which it is his duty so to encounter, engage, capture, or destroy; or

    (9) does not afford all practicable relief and assistance to any troops, combatants, vessels, or aircraft of the armed forces belonging to the United States or their allies when engaged in battle;

    shall be punished by death or such punishment as a court-martial may direct.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment