It's like modern day gold panning. BEEP BEEP BEEP "I'll take that, so I can pawn it later." Why would someone panning for gold need to be armed?
Printable View
It's like modern day gold panning. BEEP BEEP BEEP "I'll take that, so I can pawn it later." Why would someone panning for gold need to be armed?
I'm all for arming staff and having some additional security measures as long as they are practical. Maybe even recruiting armed volunteers from the parent pool of the schools. But bullet proof doors? On all doors on all schools? I hope you're planning on paying for that. And what happens when, after we bankrupt ourselves installing all this hardened security, the next nut-job down the line decides to wait til the kids come outside and get on busses? Or he decides to shoot up the playground? Or he decides to do whatever, outside the school, because the doors are bullet proof?
And I'm adamantly against age restrictions being more strict than what they are now. Age restrictions are not going to stop someone from killing. And BTW...there isn't anything remotely resembling "common sense" when it comes to more gun control. I can't think of a single instance where a law stopped anyone from shooting up a school.
Seriously? If this is what passes for common sense, we're fucked. Just what we need. A pro gun-conTroll person on the forum.
ETA: That's not even counting the number of bullet proof or resistant windows and walls that would need to be added. I'd venture to say that if someone shot into a full classroom, even through a wall so he couldn't see inside, plenty of people inside would probably be hit.
ABC news is reporting that the armed school resource officer took up a "defensive position" outside and never entered the building. Spent over 4 minutes hanging out in safety while kids got murdered.
Why does that sound familiar?Quote:
Originally Posted by hollohas
Columbine. But you knew that.Quote:
Originally Posted by .455_Hunter
ETA:
School cop who 'never went in' after shooting has resigned
Quote:
MIAMI — Broward Sheriff Scott Israel said Thursday the school resource officer stationed at Marjory Stoneman Douglas was suspended without pay after he learned the deputy never went into the building when the shooting began.
Scot Peterson chose to resign and retire Thursday morning Israel said.
“I am devastated,” Israel said. “Sick to my stomach. He never went in.”
In addition, the department released records that show that multiple agencies had warning signs that Nikolas Cruz was troubled.
Israel said two other deputies, Edward Eason and Guntis Treijs are also under investigation and have been put on “restrictive duty.”
According to Israel, Peterson remained outside Building 12 for about four minutes. The shooting lasted about six minutes, he said. When the shooting began the deputy was inside the school handling a matter with a female student.
A review of surveillance video showed that the deputy was in position and armed but never entered the building. He remained stationed outside the building while the shooting went on.
Israel said Peterson should have “Went in. Addressed the killer. Killed the killer.”
He said the video was part of the investigation and Israel said it may never be released.
On Feb. 14, deputies say Cruz, 19 walked into his former school and opened fire with an AR-15 killing 14 students and three teachers.
and similarly in Orlando- Security guard traded shots with the perp outside the club, but did not pursue the gunman inside to continue the engagement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Well that is disgusting. I thought it was pretty clear knowledge that these killers give up or end it themselves at the first sign of resistance.
Way to go deputy!
I have a feeling a lot of other crap is about to come crashing down on Sheriff Israel's department here soon. He knows it too and that is why he is trying to gain as much support as he can with this gun control push down there. He thinks that is a political winner and has hitched his wagon.
effing coward. He had a DUTY to go in. they need to take his badge and he can go find another line of work. He violated his oath. [emoji35]Quote:
Originally Posted by Gman
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
LE has no duty to protect.Quote:
Originally Posted by CoGirl303
Been messaged, ruled, and demonstrated many times. I am not being critical of LE by pointing this out. There are thousands of LEOs who would have gone in and made the ultimate sacrifice to save lives, no doubt.
This is why we own guns and why the fallacy of disarmament = safety has to be confronted.
This will, unfortunately, poke a big hole in the "only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun." argument. Of course you can try to do damage control and argue that the deputy wasn't that good of a good guy, or that he was protecting those in his immediate area, but that won't fly and the damage has been done.