School shooting Florida

[Grizzly Adams]

Meanwhile, I'm still interested in discovering what Officer Scapegoat was instructed and trained to do in a active shooter scenario.

Why? Whether he was doing what he was trained to do or not, the fact remains he did nothing to stop the carnage. People were forced to rely on the government to save them, and the government stood by and did nothing.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Why? Whether he was doing what he was trained to do or not, the fact remains he did nothing to stop the carnage. People were forced to rely on the government to save them, and the government stood by and did nothing.

Because people who don't know what the real problem is apply stupid fixes.

 

[Ranb]

http://deadline.com/2016/08/anton-y...ek-beyond-fiat-chrysler-paramount-1201797492/

Viktor and Irina Yelchin claim in a lawsuit filed today that Fiat Chrysler and others caused the “wrongful death” of their son Anton Yelchin on June 19 by not dealing earlier with a defective gearshift in his 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Some people claim that the gun industry has blanket immunity when their products are involved in injuries or deaths. This is not true. A gun maker is not protected against defects in design.

The above link refers to a wrongful death caused by a car that they claim was not made properly, not that a person used the vehicle to run over Yelchin and cause his death. So when has Ford or any other car maker been sued because a driver or other user used an automobile to kill someone?

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Because people who don't know what the real problem is apply stupid fixes.

Problem 1: Deputy instructed not to charge into shooting. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Problem 2: Deputy refused to engage shooter despite being advised to do so. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Seems the fix is the same, regardless of what the deputy was told to do.

 

[jimbob]

Yep.

Like I said last night, instead of complaining about how the guy(s) didn't do their job, why not acknowledge that it shows how even people trained to handle weapons can't handle this type of a situation?

Indeed, maybe if the cop had a handgun with a magic bullet that only hit bad people and didn't need aiming, it would be a different question. Instead he is expected to enter a building where he is outgunned, identify the shooter and kill him as opposed to any of the other kids in there - or maybe I am thinking too much.

Maybe a certain number of innocent people shot by the cop would be a regrettable but worthwhile price to pay for shooting the shooter (who, seemingly wasn't aiming for suicide by cop, and stopped shooting of his own volition).

This starts to sound like the script to "Paths of Glory" Kubrick, 1957, in which WW1 soldiers are Court martialed because they refused to get mowed down by German machine guns.

It does seem a bit like that.

The cops are too aggressive. The cops aren't aggressive enough.
Everyone's a critic and no one's ever happy.

I am generally a critic of a lot of US cops who have used excessive force, negligently shoot innocent people or people who were never a threat, nor seemed a threat.


However given that in far more favourable circumstance, cops tend to only have less than 50% of shootings hitting the intended target (not a reflection on cops, but on the capabilities of pistols in real life situations). I don't think that a single cop rushing into the building would have been likely to achieve much.

Given the political pressure to fire the sheriff it now looks as though cops don't have a duty to put themselves into harm's way unless it's unlikely to work and they have a significant risk of harm. Which seems somewhat perverse to me.

 

[Cain]

I can't imagine anything more tragic than young men and women losing their sacred right to own multiple AR-15s. Where do I send my thoughts & prayers?

 

[Jack by the hedge]

Seems like you only concluded what the fix isn't, not what it is. <d'oh! Reply to Grizzly Adams, of course.>

 

[Ranb]

You know what? I don't know of one.

Seems like you did before.

But I do know that carmakers, power tool makers, builders etc. didn't need a unique federal law to shield them from such suits.

Probably because the victims of deadly car accidents blame the driver and not the car maker?

Why should gunmakers alone benefit from a special prohibition that prevents anyone from even filing suit under existing statutes and case law and making their argument to a judge and jury?

Bolding mine. Which statutes do you refer to now? We need a link here, not vague claims.

And if prosecutors can make the case that the actions of the gun industry, collectively, endanger the community, they should be able to make that case, too, just as they did against the tobacco companies. It just seems odd that anti-government right-wingers should be so insistent that the federal government should block juries of ordinary citizens from even hearing the arguments.

Just because a prosecutor can make a case, doesn't mean it's legal or moral.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Seems like you only concluded what the fix isn't, not what it is. <d'oh! Reply to Grizzly Adams, of course.>

Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.

 

[Craig B]

Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.

In that scenario there is no function for the police at all, is there? In fact there is no function for any "entity" except the armed individual.

 

[Andy_Ross]

This wasn't a "good guy" scenario.

A good guy with a gun would've rushed in defense of the children and faculty with no regard for his personal safety. Then end result ideally being 0 to minimal casualties and the threat neutralized.

Deputy Peterson, for whatever reason, is not a good guy with a gun. Apparently he was only masquerading as one.

Hell of a way to have the mask come off though.

You on the other hand would have rushed in like a hero and taken down the perp of course?

Have you been under fire?

 

[Andy_Ross]

The good guy wasn't good enough. It's the only possible explanation since the mantra is obviously flawless.

Meanwhile, I'm still interested in discovering what Officer Scapegoat was instructed and trained to do in a active shooter scenario.

Not just him but his colleagues as well it seems.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Problem 1: Deputy instructed not to charge into shooting. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Problem 2: Deputy refused to engage shooter despite being advised to do so. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Seems the fix is the same, regardless of what the deputy was told to do.

Yes, stop people having guns.

 

[jimbob]

Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.

I take responsibility for my own personal safety. However, because I live in the UK, I don't worry about being shot.

Taking your approach to its illogical conclusion, it would be worse than the dark ages, when warriors had to take elaborate precautions to ensure they weren't jumped if they came across someone new. At least in those times, one only had to worry about someone within a few feet not line of sight.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.

So give all the students guns?

 

[Reheat]

You on the other hand would have rushed in like a hero and taken down the perp of course?

Have you been under fire?

Are you really trying to make this issue about AJM8125 as opposed to a coward with a gun and a badge?

 

[332nd]

Problem 1: Deputy instructed not to charge into shooting. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Problem 2: Deputy refused to engage shooter despite being advised to do so. Outcome: Many dead people. Fix: Do not rely on the government for your own protection.

Seems the fix is the same, regardless of what the deputy was told to do.

Problem 3: Teachers are "the government" Fix: Arm highschool students?

 

[Lurch]

So give all the students guns?

For the more fanatical guns' rights proponents, the unavoidable convergent point in their worldview is the arming of every citizen. Gun on the hip in the day, and under the pillow at night. And because not everyone is equally balanced, at times inevitable resort to gunfire will erupt to settle disputes. The wild west--worse, actually--all over again.

 

[Reheat]

I take responsibility for my own personal safety. However, because I live in the UK, I don't worry about being shot.

That's right, you only have to worry about knives and acid attacks. I guess your defense is to run fast, huh?

 

[arthwollipot]

But that's true everywhere else. So we have a disdain for fictional life. That's not a very convincing argument. In fact, it has nothing to do with the discussion.

No, I wasn't referring to fictional life. I was referring to the ease at which American society as a whole accepts the death of human beings.

And I didn't mean to offend anyone. I was referring to the fact that I've spoken to American gun owners on this forum and elsewhere, and most ETA some of them have stated openly that they would kill a person if they felt they had to. Most have said that they believe that they have a right to kill people. One even said that he would kill a person, unilaterally, on his own authority, if he felt that it was necessary, and sleep well that night. Such a statement is profoundly disturbing to me, and it has stuck with me for a long time. The person who said it is currently posting in this thread, by the way, though I think he might have me on ignore.

I apologise for generalising. That was hasty and ill-considered. Let me temper my statement by saying that I believe that there would be a higher proportion of Americans who would express such disdain for human life than there would be of Australians, or Britons, or Danish, or Germans, or for that matter nationals of any other developed nation. This forum has a very liberal bias, so I believe the proportion of Americans on this forum who would express such views is smaller than the proportion of Americans in general.

If you think I shouldn't be referring to you - if you, like me, believe that the preservation of human life is the most important of virtues, then no, I'm not referring to you, and I apologise for not choosing how to express myself more carefully. Sometimes it's easier to make a pithy generalisation than it is to carefully craft four whole paragraphs.