NFOA MEMBERS FORUM

General Categories => Newsworthy => Topic started by: Les on February 24, 2018, 07:15:29 PM

Title: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Les on February 24, 2018, 07:15:29 PM
Take the initiative.  http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/off-duty-police-should-be-allowed-to-carry-guns-at/article_18e20c08-b420-590b-998c-24db780a5670.html 
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: GreggL on February 24, 2018, 11:43:11 PM

Off duty police officers being able to carry on school grounds is a step in the right direction. I'ld like to see teachers who have their concealed carry permit also be able to defend themselves and their students.
 
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 25, 2018, 08:40:28 AM
Hopefully any police officer protecting school kids will not be like the coward who failed to do his duty in the Florida shooting.  Because that possibility always exists, more than one guard is probably a good idea.

I'd like to see some committee, maybe at the federal or state level, come up with a training course and tests, and of course screening criteria, that citizens could take, probably given by the sheriff's department, and once they pass the tests and are screened they are considered qualified to be armed guards in the schools.  The course would have training and tests that are more or less specific to that task.  I like and respect the police, but I do not think there is something magical about being a police officer that makes them the only ones capable of defending schools from a mass killer.

I think there are many men who could do it and have enough spare time to be in the schools as armed guards, and they would probably not even need to be paid, or maybe paid some small amount.  I'd think parents and grandparents of the school kids especially would be more than willing to pay for the course and guard the schools. 

Teachers and other adults working at schools could take the same course and then be qualified to carry.  I think it makes sense to have a dedicated guard whose only job is being a guard, but teachers, principals, coaches, and others like them would be very valuable as a backup to the guard (or guards). 

This kind of thing is workable and would do much to alleviate this plague of mass school shootings we are experiencing.  And for that reason liberal bigots will be strongly against it.  But those who care about the safety of our kids should support the idea.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Kendahl on February 25, 2018, 09:14:53 PM
It's absurd that cops aren't allowed to carry on school property at any time. Although their shift may have ended, they are never 100% "off duty". About a year ago, an FBI agent dropped his kid off at the kid's school in one of Omaha's bedroom suburbs. Someone noticed that he was armed and complained. A sensible reaction would have been, "An FBI agent? Wonderful! Couldn't you have persuaded him to stay all day?"

In my opinion, the educational establishment's antipathy toward firearms is secondary. Their primary objection is to fighting back against violent criminals. Tell an anti-gunner that you don't need a gun as long as you can crack a home invader's skull with your baseball bat. Their reaction will show you their real motivation.

Our governor has also annoyed Democrats by inviting the NRA to hold its convention here if Dallas pulls in the welcome mat. It would be nice if they came to Omaha. I would like to attend once out of curiosity but don't want to make a major trip out of it with hundreds of dollars spent on travel, hotel and meals.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 25, 2018, 09:25:57 PM
Quote from: depserv on February 25, 2018, 08:40:28 AM
Hopefully any police officer protecting school kids will not be like the coward who failed to do his duty in the Florida shooting.  Because that possibility always exists, more than one guard is probably a good idea.


We weren't there. Was he supposed to run in blind and get killed like a hero? Would that have been prudent with a handgun against a rifle and possible armor? Does the SWAT team jump out and run in unprepared when they arrive or do they assess the situation?

I am not ready to call him a coward as I am sure I don't know the whole story. I do know that if I was at a mall as an armed civilian and a shooting incident happened, my number one job is to go home to my family, not be a hero.

Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 26, 2018, 09:24:32 AM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 25, 2018, 09:25:57 PM
We weren't there. Was he supposed to run in blind and get killed like a hero? Would that have been prudent with a handgun against a rifle and possible armor? Does the SWAT team jump out and run in unprepared when they arrive or do they assess the situation?

I am not ready to call him a coward as I am sure I don't know the whole story. I do know that if I was at a mall as an armed civilian and a shooting incident happened, my number one job is to go home to my family, not be a hero.

His job was to protect the kids; it's why he was there.  If going home to his family was more important than that he shouldn't have been there. 

We are told that civilians are not competent to defend ourselves but police are, and because we have police to protect us we don't need to bear arms.  But when the time came for this one to do his duty in protecting the kids, he decided to stay out of it.  So all he did was provide a false sense of security, and that false sense of security is used as one of the reasons given that civilians should not be allowed to bear arms in certain places.  And because of that, the death toll was much higher than it otherwise might have been.

What really makes me mad about the whole thing is that his boss blamed the NRA for this mass murder, when his own deputy failed to do his duty, choosing to stand outside while the kids he was there to protect were killed.  His department failed, and because of that failure kids died, and he has the gaul to blame those of us who are trying to allow civilians to hold onto our right to keep and bear arms.  His department's failure showed just how important it is that civilians bear arms, but he tried to pass the blame for his failure onto us.  That piece of trash is one sorry excuse for a human being, and he is the face of gun control, coming after our right to bear arms like some heroic crusader, when his own hands are soaked with the blood of the victims of this crime.

Remember awhile back when a liberal bigot attacked a group of senators on a baseball field with an SKS?  Two police officers armed with handguns advanced on him, across an open field, and took him down.  Other mass killers have been stopped by people with handguns.  Inside a school it is likely that an encounter would take place within pistol range; the rifle is better but the pistol is good enough. 

But if you can so easily say that a pistol isn't good enough, why was the guy who was there for the purpose of protecting the kids not armed with a rifle?  This is not the first time one of these mass shootings has happened.

Think about the coach who gave his life using his body as a human shield to protect kids.  I've been told that he had a concealed carry permit.  Do you think things might have turned out differently if he had been allowed to bear arms?  I do.  But we are told he was not competent to do so because he was not a "trained police officer," and he didn't need to anyway, because our big brother in government had assigned a trained police officer to protect the school.  [For those who like to nitpick, I'm using the term "police officer" in a broad sense here, to refer to any LEO; I know the guy was a sheriff's deputy, not technically a policeman.]

Most of these mass shootings end when the police or someone else with a gun arrive; either they kill the shooter or he sees an armed response coming and he kills himself.  It is almost always an armed response that stops the bad guy.  And this officer was there to provide that armed response.  But somehow this case was different?  The guy there to provide an armed response was not supposed to do it?  Going home to his family was more important than the kids he was there to protect going home to their families?

It should be noted that the first coward was joined by two or three more cowards (I've seen both numbers), and all of them waited outside, cowering in fear as they listened to kids inside being killed.  And all part of the same department run by a hard core anti-gun bigot.  Maybe it was department policy to put the lives of department members above the lives of those they pretend to be there to protect.  But let's all turn in our guns, and wait for them to come and protect us. 

If you are at a mall and there is an active shooter, protecting your own family and yourself might be your first priority; that's your choice.  I might do the same thing, who knows; I might even end up curled up on the ground sucking my thumb, paralyzed in fear.  But you and I are not assigned to be the protectors of the people in the mall.  And no one is being told that they have no reason to bear arms because you and I are there to protect them.

This deputy was paid over $75,000 a year to be there to protect the kids (probably more like $100,000 or more if you include benefits).  He did other things too but being there in the case of an active shooter was his main job.  The people in that community had been led to believe that they were paying for someone to protect their kids.  And they had every right to expect that man to do the job he was there to do.

President Trump called that deputy a coward, and I think he was fully justified in doing so.  The man has no honor, and should be treated accordingly.  All those who are paid to be our protectors should see how they will be treated if they fail to do their duty out of cowardice.  If they think going home to their family is more important than doing their duty then someone else should be in their place, and they should be cooking hamburgers or something.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Dan W on February 26, 2018, 09:45:10 AM
Post Columbine active shooter protocol requires first on scene to enter immediately to isolate and distract the shooter and stop the killing as quckly as possible.

A quick search will provide one with all the details of active shooter response training
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 10:08:10 AM
Quote from: Dan W on February 26, 2018, 09:45:10 AM
Post Columbine active shooter protocol requires first on scene to enter immediately to isolate and distract the shooter and stop the killing as quckly as possible.

A quick search will provide one with all the details of active shooter response training

You assume he had the training. He definitely should but that doesn’t mean he did. Sounds to me like the first officer to arrive didn’t run right in either.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 10:18:21 AM
Quote from: depserv on February 26, 2018, 09:24:32 AM
His job was to protect the kids; it's why he was there.  If going home to his family was more important than that he shouldn't have been there

This deputy was paid over $75,000 a year to be there to protect the kids.

I shouldn’t have confused you with what I would need to do and what he needed to do. Like I said, we weren’t there and don’t know to what extent he participated. I think it is probably fair to let the truth come out before condemning a man that has to be feeling about as awful as one can. I would extend the same courtesy to you.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 10:25:30 AM
As for Trump calling him a coward, his signature move is to speak before thinking. I am a bit more thoughtful before shooting my mouth off, no pun intended.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Dan W on February 26, 2018, 11:46:22 AM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 10:08:10 AM
You assume he had the training. He definitely should but that doesn’t mean he did. Sounds to me like the first officer to arrive didn’t run right in either.
Are you assuming an accredited police officer has not received active shooter training in the last 19 years?
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 12:05:53 PM
Quote from: Dan W on February 26, 2018, 11:46:22 AM
Are you assuming an accredited police officer has not received active shooter training in the last 19 years?

I’m saying that I don’t know and nobody has shown either way.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 26, 2018, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 10:18:21 AM
I shouldn’t have confused you with what I would need to do and what he needed to do. Like I said, we weren’t there and don’t know to what extent he participated. I think it is probably fair to let the truth come out before condemning a man that has to be feeling about as awful as one can. I would extend the same courtesy to you.

You didn't confuse me my friend.  I exposed the confusion in your statement.

We know enough about what he didn't do to form the opinion I formed.

He should feel awful.  And he should be publicly condemned, as a warning to others who might find themselves in the same situation and might want to do what he did.

It wouldn't be so bad if we were not being told that we are not competent to bear arms but policemen are, and we don't need to anyway, because the government has hired people to protect us.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 12:26:52 PM
Well I don’t think you know as much as you assume. His version of what happened differs from your assumptions and judgement in haste is reckless.

His version according to his lawyer:

DiRuzzo claims Sheriff Israel omitted facts.

He wrote:

Peterson initially “received a call of firecrackers — and not gunfire — in the area of the 1200 Building.”
In response to the firecracker call Mr. Peterson along “with Security Specialist Kelvin Greenleaf exited the 100 Building and ran north the couple of hundred yards to the 1200 Building.”
Upon arriving at 1200 Building Mr. Peterson “heard gunshots but believed that those gunshots were originating from outside of any of the buildings on the school campus.”
BSO trains its officers that in the event of outdoor gunfire one is to seek cover and assess the situation in order to communicate what one observes to other law enforcement.
Consistent with his training, Mr. Peterson “took up a tactical position between the 700-800 buildings corridor/corner.”
Peterson was the first BSO officer to advise BSO dispatch that he heard shots fired.
Peterson “initiated a ‘Code Red’ lockdown of the entire school campus.”
“The first police officer that arrived on-scene was from the Coral Springs Police Department.” Mr. Peterson informed this Coral Springs Police Officer that he “thought that the shots were coming from outside.” This Coral Springs Police Officer took up a tactical position (approximately twenty yards away from Mr. Peterson) behind a tree with his rifle.
“Radio transmissions indicated that there was a gunshot victim in the area of the football field,” which served to confirm Mr. Peterson’s belief “that the shooter, or shooters, were outside.”
Peterson had the presence of mind to have the school administrators go to the school’s video room to review the closed-circuit cameras to locate the shooter and obtain a description for law enforcement.
Peterson provided his keys to the Coral Springs SWAT team so that they could enter the 1200 Building.
Peterson “provided BSO SWAT Command with handwritten diagrams of the entire Stoneman Douglas campus for student evacuation.”

 I would give you the same benefit of doubt that I am asking you to have. All Monday quarterbacks are all stars.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Dan W on February 26, 2018, 12:43:37 PM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 12:05:53 PM
I’m saying that I don’t know and nobody has shown either way.
the man's boss says he should have gone in and "killed the killer" on the record
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 12:59:02 PM
Quote from: Dan W on February 26, 2018, 12:43:37 PM
the man's boss says he should have gone in and "killed the killer" on the record

My boss says a lot of s#, too.  I refer you to my post above and thank God that he made me with the ability to reason logically and not emotionally. At the end of the day, you weren’t there and the real story isn’t known yet.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 01:22:46 PM
It’s possible that you two have been hooked by the neurolinguistic programming being used and now he can only be seen as a coward. What would be wrong about having an open mind? What is the threat to you?  I know you both are aware of biased media reporting, why are you so convinced that you clearly know the circumstances?
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 26, 2018, 01:34:09 PM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 01:22:46 PM
It’s possible that you two have been hooked by the neurolinguistic programming being used and now he can only be seen as a coward. What would be wrong about having an open mind? What is the threat to you?  I know you both are aware of biased media reporting, why are you so convinced that you clearly know the circumstances?
He was there to protect the kids and he didn't.  Of course he's going to come up with a story to make himself look good. But nothing he claims changes the sad truth that he was the one placed there for the protection of those kids and he stayed outside and did nothing while the kids were being killed inside.  I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if any doubt existed, but none does.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 01:46:58 PM
Quote from: depserv on February 26, 2018, 01:34:09 PM
He was there to protect the kids and he didn't.  Of course he's going to come up with a story to make himself look good. But nothing he claims changes the sad truth that he was the one placed there for the protection of those kids and he stayed outside and did nothing while the kids were being killed inside.  I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if any doubt existed, but none does.

Yeah,  because you were there, smh. So sad that you have such a closed mind.

Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 01:51:00 PM
https://youtu.be/vVTnEAvfylc
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: shooter on February 26, 2018, 02:26:03 PM
 I don't care how he feels. I don't care how he was trained. Peterson is a COWARD.  to hear those shots and not try to help is nothing but actions of a pure coward.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: shooter on February 26, 2018, 02:26:03 PM
I don't care how he feels. I don't care how he was trained. Peterson is a COWARD.  to hear those shots and not try to help is nothing but actions of a pure coward.

That would be cowardly. How do you know that’s what happened? You don’t. That’s the narrative you have been told.

For the record, I am not saying that he is in no way a coward, simply that the fact is FAR from definite.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 26, 2018, 04:12:09 PM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 01:46:58 PM
Yeah,  because you were there, smh. So sad that you have such a closed mind.
If I had been there he would still be a coward.  If I said he is not a coward he would still be a coward (I would simply be wrong).  If I had been there and ended up laying on the ground cowering in fear crying for my  mommy, and didn't do anything myself to stop the killing even though I was armed, he would still be a coward.  There is no getting around it: he was there to protect the kids, he knew they were being killed, and he stayed out of the fight.  He was the thin blue line, and that line broke, and kids died because of it.  That's why cowards are universally looked down on.

A mind can be so far open there is nothing in it my friend.  You are on the wrong side of this.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 04:44:07 PM
Judging by your last post, you clearly don’t know what he did and didn’t do. Not one report says he did nothing.

If having an open mind makes me on the wrong side, there is no right side.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 05:11:22 PM
It’s really simple. This did not take place in a vacuum. There are many people that were communicating during the event. The true facts will come out but they have not yet. Peterson claims he followed protocol. He was there but you simply say he is lying. You weren’t there, but you claim the version of the story that you have is above reproach. All the while you know the media is biased and the boss probably would prefer a scapegoat.

The position you are taking is the same as those crying that Mike Brown was murdered in Furgeson. It’s not very Christian of you. Waiting for the truth is always worth it.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 26, 2018, 05:15:56 PM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 04:44:07 PM
Judging by your last post, you clearly don’t know what he did and didn’t do. Not one report says he did nothing.

If having an open mind makes me on the wrong side, there is no right side.
I didn't say he did nothing; the word nothing is not in my post.  Cowering in fear is something.  Your argument is a straw man.

But you have a right to your opinion. 

So, how 'bout that sheriff?  Pretty good guy huh?  Really showed that damn NRA what's up.  He's no coward; he stood up to the real bad guys.  Do you have an open mind about him? 

Edit: I should add that I'm kind of having fun with this discussion now.  And I probably shouldn't be, since it's a serious subject.  I respect your opinion; I just think you're flat out wrong.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: depserv on February 26, 2018, 04:12:09 PM
If I had been there and ended up laying on the ground cowering in fear crying for my  mommy, and didn't do anything myself to stop the killing even though I was armed, he would still be a coward.  There is no getting around it: he was there to protect the kids, he knew they were being killed, and he stayed out of the fight.

Maybe splitting hairs, but still. Yeah, im just having fun as well. Pointing out that everyone should have an opportunity for for fair judgement and not being lynched  and then having you argue against it is comical to me. I can not make you think, only you can.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 06:13:28 PM
Every post that I have made on the forum follows the same principles.

You kinda like to shoot from the hip at times. That’s ok. There’s still room to learn that way.  ;)
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 26, 2018, 06:59:38 PM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 05:55:48 PM
Maybe splitting hairs, but still. Yeah, im just having fun as well. Pointing out that everyone should have an opportunity for for fair judgement and not being lynched  and then having you argue against it is comical to me. I can not make you think, only you can.

The part of my quote you put in bold was not made in reference to the coward deputy, it was made in reference to a hypothetical thing I might have done, in order to make a point; it was not even implied that it was in reference to the coward, and that should have been clear (except to those looking for an excuse to distort my words).  So you were not splitting hairs, you pretended a hair existed where none did.  That's called a straw man argument.  I expect that from liberals, but not from a fellow patriot.  You should be better than that.  And if you do want to stoop to sleazy debate tactics like that, at least try to do a better job of it.

We know enough to know what he did, and didn't do.  If there was some doubt I would give him the benefit of that doubt, as I said earlier.  But no such doubt exists.  Unless maybe some alien spacecraft beamed a paralysis beam down on him or something. 
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 07:14:01 PM
No, it implies you doing nothing as well the way I read it and my reading comprehension is very high.

I am not arguing a straw man. I am clearly saying that your position on this is exactly the same as those crying that Mike Brown was murdered with his hands up. You don’t know the facts, you just assume you do. Pretty sad that a liberty minded patriot feels that publicity lynching someone is the “right” side and someone saying that he deserves due process is wrong.

I don’t know what actually happened. You don’t either. In the meantime let’s publicly condemn him!

Not my bag, Baby...
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 07:51:03 PM
Quote from: depserv on February 26, 2018, 01:34:09 PM
He was there to protect the kids and he didn't.  Of course he's going to come up with a story to make himself look good. But nothing he claims changes the sad truth that he was the one placed there for the protection of those kids and he stayed outside and did nothing while the kids were being killed inside.  I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt if any doubt existed, but none does.

See, you did say “did nothing.”  ;D
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 26, 2018, 10:30:27 PM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 26, 2018, 07:51:03 PM
See, you did say “did nothing.”  ;D
Once again you have distorted our discussion.  You clearly said "Judging by your last post..."  And that was what both you and I were referring to.  You went back and got that quote from an earlier post of mine.

At this point though, that part of the discussion does qualify as splitting hairs.  But you did say that it was my "last post" that that led to your conclusion that I "clearly don’t know what he did and didn’t do." So while it is splitting hairs, it is relevant.  And you were wrong.  100%, totally, unequivocally wrong.  But it's not really a big deal.

The big deal is your idea that not enough is known about this case to form an opinion.  I say there is, a few more of us on this forum say there is, President Trump says there is, I heard Tucker Carlson tonight say there is, and quite a few more good men say there is.  You say there isn't.  So who knows, maybe we're all not liberty-minded and you are.  But I don't think so.

You say further that we are comparable to those who falsely claimed that Mike Brown was murdered, which is laughable in its absurdity.  I was open minded on that case, as I am on most.  But enough is known about this case for an opinion to be formed with a good degree of certainty.  That's the difference.  So your analogy is false.

I don't know if there will be any "due process" on this case as you suggest, since I don't know if cowardice is a crime in a case like this.  I'm sure there are quite a few people who think it should be, but I'm not expecting this to go to court.  Maybe civil court I guess.  But I hope we don't have to wait until they go through that process before we can have your permission to call him a coward. 

If I see someone rob a bank I will call him a bank robber even before he has been given due process.  I am not a court of law.  I have no power to lynch him.  Liberty includes me being able to give my opinion that this man was a coward.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Lmbass14 on February 27, 2018, 08:34:50 AM
Quote from: Mntnman on February 25, 2018, 09:25:57 PM
We weren't there. Was he supposed to run in blind and get killed like a hero? Would that have been prudent with a handgun against a rifle and possible armor? Does the SWAT team jump out and run in unprepared when they arrive or do they assess the situation?

I am not ready to call him a coward as I am sure I don't know the whole story. I do know that if I was at a mall as an armed civilian and a shooting incident happened, my number one job is to go home to my family, not be a hero.



MntnMan, No we weren't there and can only speculate on what we would do in that situation and God forbid nobody should experience that situation, but I would have gone in and tried to neutralize the threat.  On your mall example, I would have tried to maneuver and try to neutralize the threat by whatever means.  Saving innocent lives is the right thing to do, not run and think only of yourself.  Just think if the football coach had your philosophy who saved those kids because he was blocking the bullets.  Those poor children would be dead.  Another example are those 3 military people in Paris that stopped the threat on the train.  And the list could go on.  It's not that they want to be hero's, but to save lives, I'm willing to bet.



Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Waltherfan on February 27, 2018, 09:00:16 AM
I would probably curl into a ball and wet myself.
But then I'm not being paid to defend others.
During my not-so-brief stint in the military, going in harms way was what I was trained for and what I was expected to do. Fortunately, to the best of my knowledge, I was never shot at.
Who knows how one would really respond to an active shooter event. If at a mall, my responsibility is to get me and mine to safety. Should I encounter the shooter on the way I would hope I would engage but getting loved ones out is first priority.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 27, 2018, 09:39:34 AM
Depserv, since you know what happened, give me a minute by minute account.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Admin on February 27, 2018, 09:45:58 AM
This thread has run it's course
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Dan W on February 28, 2018, 10:01:46 AM
If we can keep it civil, this discussion continues...
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: depserv on February 28, 2018, 10:24:28 AM
I got bored and was ready to move on anyway
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Mntnman on February 28, 2018, 11:10:49 AM
I’m going to make this post then I am done with this discussion for good.

The majority of the public still believes that Darren Wilson murdered Mike Brown who had his hands up. Witnesses there claimed that it happened that way. The media and other left wingers beat that drum to death. People’s emotions were high and once their brains accepted it as truth , no amount of true facts could penetrate their hardened reality. This is why the left never lets a tragedy go to waste. The tactic of using people’s emotions against them is their most effective MO.

That’s why Scot Pererson will forever be a coward. No matter what actually happened, he has already been publicly tried, convicted, and lynched. His version of what happened is irrelevant because he is just lying, trying to save his bacon. The story from everyone else that wasn’t actually there must be believed because children died and we have to assign blame right now before we have time to think.

One day Scot was a well liked, decorated school resource officer, the next, he’s just as responsible for the deaths of 17 people as the evil POS that decided to kill them. Even if, and I can only say if because we may not ever know the facts, he tried his best but just didn’t have the right information to get there in time, it does not matter. Three minutes is about the amount of time the shooting happened. He had to process whatever he was told, go there, and try to figure out exactly what and where was actually occurring. Possibly the POS saw Scot outside and that is when he tried to flee. We don’t know right now. The radio just said this morning that he was trying to shoot outside but couldn’t break the windows.

Scot’s life is over. He will never be able to do anything about that. You have the luxury of time before you judge him. To refuse yourself that, only hurts you. Hopefully you will only ever be judged by your maker and he doesn’t have to remind you about Scot Peterson.

My mind is at ease. I’ve spoken my peace and will no longer participate in this thread so don’t waste your effort if it is something you wish for me to see. Good day.





Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: shooter on February 28, 2018, 11:29:56 AM
I just don't understand how he could set there,  even if he was ordered to stay outside. Im praying that I would go ahead and run inside.  I wouldn't be able to live with myself, If I knew I might have even a chance of one kid not being injured I hope I would act.

     My daughter works in a school. and my grandkids go there. ive told her to call me if anything can happen, they are about 3 minutes from me, I don't think there is a much stronger feeling  than the one a parent or grandparent feels for there kids,
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Les on February 28, 2018, 05:06:14 PM
I'd say, if you're here chances are you're passionate about the 2nd and hopefully the rest of the Constitution as well.  We need to keep a vigorous and respectful dialog going, we won't always agree but it's vital we continue to work together for our common good.  This part of our existence depends on it.  i.e. We don't need to "Eat our own" as we have an annoying tendency to do. 
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: Hardwood83 on March 02, 2018, 03:17:08 PM
Back to the OP, I have contacted Gov Ricketts to commend him for his comments and stance on this whole issue since Parkland. It's shocking how rare a logical, reasonable response has been from any public figure. I genuinely appreciate it and told him so- and suggest more of us do the same.

On a related note, I also called Ben Sasse's office today to thank him for his response to Trump's repulsive and despicable comments over the last couple of days. I won't go off on a rant about that here, but suffice it to state my feelings with "FDJT".
If the Govt doesn't have to follow the law & due process then neither do the citizens. Starts us down a scary path.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: sidearm1 on March 02, 2018, 04:11:06 PM
I see where the news media is now saying the radio log shows that a shift captain told responding deputies to form a perimeter instead of going in.  Numerous freedom of information request to try and see what the actual response was supposed to be like.  The saga continues.
Title: Re: Nice to see our Gov
Post by: 402.308 on March 03, 2018, 08:03:44 PM
Quote from: depserv on February 25, 2018, 08:40:28 AM
Hopefully any police officer protecting school kids will not be like the coward who failed to do his duty in the Florida shooting.  Because that possibility always exists, more than one guard is probably a good idea.

I agree completely. Consider that Broward County did not arrest this kid when they had a chance thanks to this ingenious policy to "stop the school-to-prison pipeline" by just simply NOT making arrests. Regardless of whether that guy was told to stand down or not, it's hard to make a judgment without all the facts. Either way, I think there needs to be an investigation into that department, for sure.

https://www.publicsource.org/these-districts-fought-the-school-to-prison-pipeline-can-pittsburgh-learn-their-lessons/

“I wish we could talk about this three years from now,” said Chief George Brown, who heads the district’s safety department. “You’ll see in a good way that it’s starting to be reduced.”

Six months after this story was published, we can see that we don't need to wait that long to talk about it and, no, the results were not good.

Quote from: depserv on February 25, 2018, 08:40:28 AM
Teachers and other adults working at schools could take the same course and then be qualified to carry.  I think it makes sense to have a dedicated guard whose only job is being a guard, but teachers, principals, coaches, and others like them would be very valuable as a backup to the guard (or guards). 

Many Texas schools are already doing this, and have been for years:

www.caller.com/story/news/education/2018/02/22/texas-172-school-districts-allow-teachers-staff-armed/364677002/

http://www.fox4news.com/news/south-florida-shooting-reinforces-why-argyle-isd-has-armed-staff-faculty

I'm not a teacher, but I can empathize. If it were me, I'd definitely volunteer to protect my students. Plus, what is better than knowing that you can conceal carry everyday when you go to work instead of being unarmed 8+ hours of the day simply because you want to be an educator?