ChrisWeigant.com

From The Archives -- No Silver Bullet

[ Posted Thursday, February 22nd, 2018 – 17:08 PST ]

The article below was written a few weeks after the Sandy Hook massacre of innocents in Newtown, Connecticut. I'm running it again today both because nothing much has changed since then, but also because I think it is a fairly realistic examination of what gun control laws can be expected to do, and what they cannot.

The only real update which is necessary to address current arguments being made is that now some people are actually calling for a ban on semiautomatic rifles, or even all semiautomatic guns. To define terms: a fully-automatic or "machine" gun is one that will repeatedly shoot with one trigger pull, until the magazine is empty. A semiautomatic gun requires an individual trigger pull for each shot, but does not require any other action by the shooter. I don't think a ban on semiautomatic guns -- or even just semiautomatic rifles -- is realistically going to happen, however. There are semiautomatic hunting rifles, without the oversized magazines, which can reasonably be classified as non-assault rifles, and there are a vast number of handguns sold today which are semiautomatic, probably for the reason that they are a lot easier to reload than a revolver. So a ban on all semiautomatic weapons is likely not going to happen.

One other point is worth making, as a supplement to the article below. The argument (which many pro-gun folks are falling back on once again) that "a good guy with a gun" is necessary to stop these shootings has already been proven wrong, or at least very short-sighted and overly optimistic. As the article notes, there was an armed police officer who actually exchanged gunfire with the shooters at Columbine. Neither side hit anybody in this shootout. In other words, it didn't work the way the pro-gun people are trying to sell it now. A handgun versus an assault rifle is an unbalanced equation, to state the obvious, at least outside of Hollywood movies.

I should also mention that, late last year, I wrote a much more pessimistic article titled "A Sad New Normal," which essentially threw in the towel on the entire gun control debate. I am slightly more optimistic now, seeing the reaction of the Florida students themselves and the movement they have instantaneously created. Something feels different this time. Maybe it'll only result in baby steps, but that's more than the Sandy Hook shooting reaction accomplished. In any case, I include this link to show my own progression from abject pessimism to a very cautious optimism now.

 

Originally published January 16, 2013

There is no silver bullet.
--Vice President Joe Biden

In a little-noticed remark just days before President Obama announced sweeping plans for gun control action and legislation, Joe Biden summed up the problem his task force was charged with tackling by using (depending on your reaction) either an incredibly appropriate phrase, or a wildly inappropriate phrase. After all, the subject is guns, so perhaps it isn't the time for bullet metaphors.

Then again, it's hard to argue with how perfectly the phrase "there is no silver bullet" fits the task Biden was assigned: to come up with suggestions for possible government action on the availability of guns in America. A "silver bullet" is a magical answer to a fantastical problem. In the classic myth, silver bullets were used to slay werewolves, and (depending on the fantasy realm you explore) at times, vampires and other things that go "bump" in the night. When faced with a big and unfathomable problem, a magical bullet can be forged which will slay the demonic foe. This is not to say that you can't literally make a bullet out of silver in the real world, but that the "silver bullet" idea itself is nothing more than a fantastical plot device. And such things rarely exist in reality. Biden reminded us all of this by his choice of words.

The big problem with gun control legislation is that a lot of it boils down to nothing more than liberal "feel-good-ism." Or, perhaps, "do-something-ism." Gun control legislation has, historically, almost always been purely reactionary in nature. Some terrible slaughter happens, the public demands the government "do something," and laws are passed which sometimes do have a positive effect and sometimes do not. The first major federal gun control law was passed in part due to the Saint Valentine's Day massacre in 1929, and Chicago gangsters' fondness for "Tommy guns."

Here's a quick quiz: is it legal today for a private individual to own a working Thompson submachine gun? Many believe private ownership of fully-automatic weapons has been banned, but this is actually not correct. Fly into Las Vegas and you'll see ads on the majority of taxis from gun ranges offering you the chance to fire a machine gun (do a web search on "Las Vegas" and "machine gun" if you don't believe me). If you happen to live in a state which allows such ownership, you can even buy a Tommy gun of your own.

To do so, you've got to jump through a lot of hoops, though. You've got to pay the feds a licensing fee ($200, although had it kept up with inflation, this 1934 figure should really have risen to over $3,400 by now). You've got to register the gun (actually, you have to register the transfer of the gun, as it will already be registered). You have to submit to an extensive background check, complete with submitting your fingerprints to the feds. You've got to get your local sheriff or police chief to sign off on the transfer. And you can be turned down.

Still, owning or even buying a Tommy gun is not illegal for an individual. If you want the pre-1930s classic "Chicago Organ Grinder" Thompson, though, you're going to have to pay anywhere from (according to Wikipedia) $25,000 to $45,000 for it.

What you can't do, however, is buy a brand-new fully-automatic rifle (or "machine gun"). That has been prohibited since 1986. Only older models are allowed to be owned or sold by private individuals. This puts a premium on the price, even for less-glamorous models than the classic Tommy gun. A transferable M16 rifle -- manufactured before May 19, 1986 -- costs (again, from Wikipedia) anywhere from $11,000 to $18,000, while the military buys new ones for $600 to $1,000. That's a pretty steep premium.

Gun control legislation should be measured by how effective it is at achieving the goals it sets out to attain. The story of the Tommy gun (and other full-auto guns) shows the way "grandfather" clauses work. Instead of outright bans on ownership (or, even more drastic, confiscation of a certain type of weapon), almost every gun control law proposed in America aims to reduce, over time, the availability of a certain type or class of weapon. It's not a silver bullet, it is instead a long and slow process.

What this means is that nothing will be solved overnight, even if Congress passed everything Obama is currently asking for today. The most-contentious proposal Obama made today is the renewal (and, assumably, permanency) of the lapsed "assault weapons" ban. By some estimates, however, there are upwards of a million of these weapons already in circulation in America. And that was before the frenzy of people buying them in the past month is even taken into consideration. If you think the panic buying is bad now, just wait until a deadline emerges from Congress -- thousands upon thousands of assault rifles will be purchased right up to the deadline. They'll be flying off the shelves. All of which adds up to an enormous number of these guns already legally-owned the day any such ban takes effect. All of which will be "grandfathered" in. Ditto for extended ammunition magazines, most likely.

Over time, this will have a gradual effect, though. By placing a premium on such weapons, their prices will eventually go through the roof. Owning a Tommy gun is legal, but you don't hear of them being used in crime much these days. Who would risk the loss of such a valuable weapon, when they cost five figures to buy? They are working museum pieces, not a public safety problem. But then, they've been under severe restriction for over 75 years. The process takes decades, not months or even years.

Judging how effective any particular gun control measure will be (or even can be) is tough, especially since virtually all restrictions will come with such grandfather clauses. President Obama announced possible improvements in tangential issues such as mental health and the pervasiveness of violence in popular culture, both of which may be laudable goals but also will be almost impossible to link definitively with any future stats on gun violence.

Obama (and Biden) had to face a few very hard realities before even proposing any remedies. Politically and socially, it would be virtually impossible (even in the post-Newtown environment) to pass any law which confiscated any gun from anyone. Likewise, banning (for instance) all handguns or semi-automatic weapons would just not be realistic politically, and would indeed open up constitutional questions. Ask even the gun control advocates, and they'll likely agree that any such legislation doesn't stand a chance of being passed.

To put it bluntly, any proposed new gun laws are only going to improve things on the margins of the scope of the problem. Which is why any and all of these proposals will be fought as liberal "feel-good" laws which will not solve the problem immediately. The classic example of this was the original assault rifle ban, back in the 1990s. The legislators proposing the ban quickly ran up against the problem of: "What, exactly, is an 'assault rifle'?" What they decided was (in essence) that semi-automatic rifles which "looked" like what they considered "assault weapons" were to be banned, but other semi-automatic rifles which looked only slightly less "assault weapon-ey" would not be banned. Functionality wasn't a consideration -- you could still buy just as powerful a weapon, as long as Dianne Feinstein didn't disapprove of how the weapon "looked." This led to a flurry of weapons manufacturers redesigning rifles so that they just barely fell outside the ban's language. Which made the whole ban somewhat of a joke.

Obama also made several proposals to increase the "cops in schools" programs, which already put armed police officers known as "School Resource Officers" ("S.R.O.s") in many schools across the country. Even the National Rifle Association seems to approve of this sort of thing, which means this proposal is a lot more likely to survive in Congress than, say, an assault weapons ban. But, once again, having cops in schools is no silver bullet. Putting federal money into the program (as Obama has previously tried to do) might make a whole lot of folks feel better (because the government "did something"), but doing so can have unintended consequences beyond the subject of guns, as Tracy Velázquez, of the Justice Policy Institute explained yesterday. Even putting this aside, having an armed cop at your kid's school is still no silver bullet.

There was indeed an S.R.O. on campus the day of the Columbine massacre. He exchanged fire with the two shooters on at least two separate occasions (one of which took place five minutes after the shooting started), without anybody hitting anything. Part of the problem of Hollywood violence is the widely-held notion that a cop with a handgun can "take down" any shooter at any range, just because he's a "good guy." In reality, handguns aren't that accurate, although you'll likely never see this in the movies. Just having one cop on campus in Columbine didn't have any real effect on the outcome of the slaughter -- the two shooters didn't commit suicide until a S.W.A.T. team entered the building -- over half an hour after the S.R.O. had fired at the shooters. And no one (that I'm aware of) is suggesting permanently stationing S.W.A.T. teams at schools, even now.

The pro-gun side of the debate would take this argument even further. They'll be pointing out that very few of the proposals Obama just made would have changed anything in Newtown, Connecticut. Laws restricting weapons sales weren't an issue, the shooter's mother had legally bought the weapons, not the shooter. Having guns to protect yourself wasn't very effective either (knocking down one of the pro-gun side's favorite arguments), since the mother was shot with her own weapons. Just about the only thing proposed today which might have changed the outcome in any way would be the restriction of large ammo clips. The thinking here is that forcing a gunman to reload limits his lethality and gives the good guys a better chance of taking him down. But the difference between having 30-round clips and 10-round clips would only really have meant the shooter would have had to carry more clips in his pockets in Newtown. The outcome would likely have been exactly the same.

Gun laws are almost always passed in reactionary fashion, but that doesn't mean they should be held to the standard of "preventing all future mass gun violence forever." That -- given the fact that no gun confiscations are ever going to happen in America -- is simply too high a standard. The depressing thing for gun control advocates, however, is that even changing things for the better -- or preventing some future lone-wolf gun attacks -- is one of those things that takes so long to manifest that it can lead to defeatism. Since nothing that could pass Congress would have had any real effect on Newtown, why even bother?

This is too pessimistic a stance, however. Gun laws are always going to change incrementally, at best, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth the effort of passing. Gun crimes with fully-automatic weapons are (mostly) a thing of the past, and that can directly be traced to laws passed in 1934 and 1986. There are fewer of them out there, no new ones can be bought, and the value of the guns themselves has grown so high that they're seen now (mostly) as collector pieces. Perhaps one day -- decades from now -- "assault rifles" will likewise be too valuable to contemplate using in criminal activity. But for the time being (even if a ban passes) there are over a million of them out there. That is not going to change overnight, even if Obama got everything he wanted from Congress. In fact, the only change that will likely happen is a bonanza for the manufacturers of such weapons, as people scramble to buy them before laws are passed. Who knows, maybe the number will top two million before Obama signs any such law? Even one of the best ideas in Obama's proposal -- closing all the loopholes to avoid background checks -- isn't going to change the total of guns that are already out there one bit.

There is, as Vice President Biden pointed out, no silver bullet legislation that will fix the problem quickly and permanently. The pro-gun folks can rest assured that not a single gun will be confiscated as a result of any of these laws. The pro-gun-control folks need to realize that no matter what gains they make, tragic gun violence is not going to magically disappear like the morning dew. Those are the real margins of this debate. Both sides should enter into the debate with reasonable expectations of the outcome, even though they probably won't. New gun control laws will almost assuredly have only a limited effect in the real world. Perhaps over time, things will get better, but it's going to take a while to even see this positive effect. Perhaps a powerful weapon will be kept out of the hands of a sociopath in the future, which is indeed a worthy goal to attempt.

Biden is right. There is no silver bullet. But both Biden and Obama are also right to make the attempt at chipping away at the problem of mass gun violence. "The problem is too big" should no longer been seen as an excuse to do even the marginal things which Obama is now proposing. Marginal gains are better than no gains, magic bullets aside.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

143 Comments on “From The Archives -- No Silver Bullet”

  1. [1] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Turns out there WAS a "good guy with a gun" at the FL high school shooting last week, in the form of a Sheriff's Department deputy, but not good enough. Apparently he was too scared to go into the building when he heard the shooting!

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What motivates your contributions here, CRS?

  3. [3] 
    neilm wrote:

    The "good guy with a gun" argument doesn't have to actually be a realistic position - it is just a way extremists use to let themselves off the hook when they know they are morally responsible for the deaths of kids at schools and thousands of other Americas every year.

    Plus it lets them play a little fantasy in their heads about how they will be that good guy one day.

  4. [4] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Liz M [2]

    Not sure myself - Ennui probably. Why do you ask?

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Just wondering ...

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    It's the perfect time for bullet metaphors and, the more the better.

    Never underestimate Biden's pulse on the nation.

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    The "good guy with a gun" argument doesn't have to actually be a realistic position - it is just a way extremists use to let themselves off the hook when they know they are morally responsible for the deaths of kids at schools and thousands of other Americas every year.

    Plus it lets them play a little fantasy in their heads about how they will be that good guy one day.

    I have already proven you wrong about that with FACTS..

    But of course, FACTS are not important here anymore..

  8. [8] 
    Michale wrote:

    Turns out there WAS a "good guy with a gun" at the FL high school shooting last week, in the form of a Sheriff's Department deputy, but not good enough. Apparently he was too scared to go into the building when he heard the shooting!

    Assumes facts not in evidence..

    If you are not aware of proper police procedures and ROEs, it's best not to comment. :D

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:
  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all talk about "reasonable" restrictions...

    Unfortunately for ya'all, what ya'all call "reasonable" restrictions is suspending a kid from school because he bit a pop tart into the shape of a pistol..

    THAT is what you hysterical Anti-Gun fanatic Lefties call "reasonable" restrictions..

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    There was indeed an S.R.O. on campus the day of the Columbine massacre. He exchanged fire with the two shooters on at least two separate occasions (one of which took place five minutes after the shooting started), without anybody hitting anything. Part of the problem of Hollywood violence is the widely-held notion that a cop with a handgun can "take down" any shooter at any range, just because he's a "good guy."

    Hollywood???

    Well, you have your partisan based anti-gun stance...

    Holding the reins of two horses with one hand, Austin Police Sgt. Adam Johnson raised his service pistol and fired a bullseye into the target some 312 feet away.

    Down went Larry McQuilliams, and so ended his rampage through the streets of the Texas capital, where he’d fired more than 100 rounds from his AK-47 and .22-caliber rifles at buildings. The shot, from Johnson’s Smith & Wesson M&P .40 pistol, hit McQuilliams square in the chest and made the 15-year-veteran the toast of gun enthusiasts around the country.

    And I have reality and facts...

    And nary the two shall meet.. :^/

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    FL Shooting Survivor Colton Haab: CNN Told Me I Needed To "Stick To The Script"; Entire Town Hall Scripted
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2018/02/22/fl_school_shooting_survivor_cnn_told_me_i_needed_to_stick_to_the_script_they_scripted_entire_town_hall.html

    So, tell me... WHO is making this a partisan issue???

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    On a somewhat related note:

    President Trump is considering pulling ICE out of California and let California's so-called "leaders" take care of the MS-13 and illegal immigrant scumbag problem themselves...

    Personally, I would LOVE to see that!!

    Let California greet MS-13 scumbags with love and tolerance..

    After a few hundred beheadings at the hands of MS-13, California will be BEGGING Trump to send in ICE...

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Interesting to note:

    Chinese paper says U.S. should learn from China, restrict guns, protect rights

    SHANGHAI (Reuters) - The United States should learn from China and “genuinely” protect human rights by restricting gun ownership, an editorial in a widely read state-run Chinese newspaper said on Friday.

    The editorial in the Global Times newspaper was published after a massacre at a high school in Florida last week, in which 17 students and staff were killed, reignited a long-running debate about gun control in the United States.
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-usa-guns/chinese-paper-says-u-s-should-learn-from-china-restrict-guns-protect-rights-idUSKCN1G703W

    Ya'all have China in your corner for banning guns.. I am sure Russia supports the hysterical Dumbocrats attempts to take guns away from law-abiding citizens...

    Of course our enemies want Americans to be disarmed..

    And, of course Democrats will work their asses off with our enemies to make sure that Americans ARE disarmed..

    There is an unsubstantiated quote from Admiral Yamamoto....

    “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”

    While the quote is likely bogus, it IS a valid sentiment...

    History is replete with examples of well-armed, well-trained and well-organized insurgents fighting off the best a country's military can throw at it...

    The question is.. Why would you people want to help our enemies and disarm Americans???

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    CW,

    I know you usually don't go back and follow up on comments..

    You mentioned yesterday that you have the link from the NY Grime that advocated repealing the 2nd...

    Do you have that link???

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Turns out there WAS a "good guy with a gun" at the FL high school shooting last week, in the form of a Sheriff's Department deputy, but not good enough. Apparently he was too scared to go into the building when he heard the shooting!

    Maybe the deputy read on a Left Wing blog that a good guy with a gun is only something from Hollywood...

    Or maybe the deputy read JM's "fact" that there is no such thing as a "good guy with a gun".. That it was a "myth"....

  17. [17] 
    John M wrote:

    [7] Michale

    "I have already proven you wrong about that with FACTS..

    But of course, FACTS are not important here anymore.."

    You have NOT proven anyone wrong with ANY facts.

    Apparently facts don't mean anything to YOU.

    [8] Michale

    "Turns out there WAS a "good guy with a gun" at the FL high school shooting last week, in the form of a Sheriff's Department deputy, but not good enough. Apparently he was too scared to go into the building when he heard the shooting!

    Assumes facts not in evidence.."

    NOT TRUE.

    The armed deputy assigned to the campus of a Florida high school during a deadly shooting last week stayed outside the building during the attack and failed to engage the shooter, the county sheriff said on Thursday.

    "He was armed, he was in uniform. After seeing video, witness statements, and Scott Peterson's very own statement, I decided this morning to suspend Scott Peterson without pay pending an internal investigation. As a consequence, Scott Peterson, on duty as the school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, resigned from the department, said Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel.

    When asked what Peterson should have done, Israel did not mince his words during the press conference on Thursday.

    “Went in,” Israel said. “Address the killer. Kill the killer.”

    Instead, Israel said, Peterson is seen on video doing nothing.

    "Never went in," Israel said. “What I saw was a deputy arrive at the West side of building 12, take up a position and he never went in.”

    "Devastated, sick to my stomach, there are no words." Israel said of his feelings after learning Peterson did not enter the building.

    REMEMBER, Israel is the County Sheriff and Peterson's BOSS, saying this.

    So much, for YOUR comment about proper police procedures Michale.

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    JM,

    The armed deputy assigned to the campus of a Florida high school during a deadly shooting last week stayed outside the building during the attack and failed to engage the shooter, the county sheriff said on Thursday.

    Yes, as per procedure...

    CRS claimed that the deputy was scared..

    I said assumes facts not in evidence.

    You dispute that..

    Fine.. Show me the FACTS that prove the deputy was scared..

    You can't because none exists..

    REMEMBER, Israel is the County Sheriff and Peterson's BOSS, saying this.

    So much, for YOUR comment about proper police procedures Michale.

    Do YOU know the proper police procedures for that situation, JM?? No, you do not..

    You yourself said that a good guy with a gun is a "myth".. That it NEVER HAPPENS...

    NOW you are claiming the exact opposite..

    Why are you talking out both sides of your ass, JM??

    ANSWER: because you are a Party slave and will say ANYTHING to further your hysterical Party agenda...

  19. [19] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  20. [20] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Who says there is no proof the deputy was scared? I contacted his wife and she emailed me a photo of the guys shorts she found in the laundry hamper that nite - major indication of fear!!! My computer screen still smells from the residue!

  21. [21] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    Correction - That last word should read resi-doodoo!

  22. [22] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    While I try to stay out of the usual arguments after incidents like this, I do have to point out how the "good guy with a gun" argument sounds eerily similar to Democrats saying we have to take Big Money because the Republicans do.

  23. [23] 
    Michale wrote:

    Who says there is no proof the deputy was scared?

    Exactly..

    There are no facts to support that the deputy was scared.. Yet you made the claim that he was...

    I contacted his wife and she emailed me a photo of the guys shorts she found in the laundry hamper that nite - major indication of fear!!! My computer screen still smells from the residue!

    Cute.. :D

    The simple fact is that it is common police procedure not to enter into such a situation alone. ROE and SOP is to wait for back-up..

    Having said that, I would have said "FRAK THAT!!!" to ROE and SOP and gone in myself..

    Despite the claims of CW and JM, the "good guy with a gun" is NOT Hollywood and is NOT a myth...

    I DO fault the deputy for not chucking the rules and doing the right thing..

    But such faulting is tempered by my personal knowledge and experience of similar incidents...

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    Correction - That last word should read resi-doodoo!

    Double cute... :D

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    While I try to stay out of the usual arguments after incidents like this, I do have to point out how the "good guy with a gun" argument sounds eerily similar to Democrats saying we have to take Big Money because the Republicans do.

    I admire the way you can make connections, DH.. I mean that sincerely.. :D

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    24 Injured In Stabbing At Franklin Regional High School
    http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/04/09/multiple-students-reported-stabbed-at-franklin-regional-high-school/

    BAN KNIVES!!!! BAN ALL POINTY OBJECTS!!!!

    Once again, it's NOT the tool that is relevant..

    It's the psychotic scumbag that is relevant...

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:

    TRUMP HITS 50% APPROVAL
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb23

    Higher than Odumbo's was at this point in Odumbo's presidency.. :D

    Ya just GOTTA love the irony...

    And it's a poll, so ya'all *HAVE* to accept it!!!! :D

  28. [28] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    michael

    "Pointy objects" includes most all writing instruments, with the possible exception of crayons. Should make for more colorful lessons in school than I ever had.

  29. [29] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale - Oops, didn't mean to screw-up your name.

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    michael

    "Pointy objects" includes most all writing instruments, with the possible exception of crayons. Should make for more colorful lessons in school than I ever had.

    Exactly....

    ANYTHING can be a deadly weapon..

    So, if we want to protect lives, we have to BAN everything that can be used as a weapon...

    OR....

    We can address the PERSON rather than the tool they employ..

    But Democrats don't want to do that...

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michale - Oops, didn't mean to screw-up your name.

    I have been called worse.. :D

    I appreciate your courtesy though...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Thousands of kids cut classes to protest school violence..

    Then they went home and played video games like this....

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1513f95c6f2d12c4d728684be7ecba8e3303cec042f0ffe72c387ed86e399f80.jpg

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ya'all can whine and cry and complain all you want..

    But the FACT you can't get around is the FACT that owning a gun is a Constitutional right..

    So, until such time as ya'all have a plan to get rid or circumvent the 2nd Amendment and the entire Bill Of Rights???

    Ya'all are just screaming at the sky....

  34. [34] 
    Kick wrote:

    THE PARKLAND "GOOD GUY WITH A GUN"

    When it came time to get in there and do something, he didn't have the courage or something happened, but he certainly did a poor job. There's no question about that.

    But that's a case where somebody was outside, they're trained, they didn't react properly under pressure or they were coward.

  35. [35] 
    Kick wrote:

    Richard Gates set to enter a guilty plea today and cooperate with Special Counsel.

    source: Richard Gates

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wealthy North Texas suburb to build police substation on school campus
    https://www.dallasnews.com/news/education/2018/02/22/wealthy-texas-suburb-build-police-substation-school-campus

    I have to admit that I am torn on this issue..

    On the one hand, it will virtually guarantee that there will never be a school shooting here. Or, if there is, it will not result in many casualties..

    On the other hand, in times of civil unrest, police buildings and substations WILL be targets...

    So I am not completely sold on the idea...

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    But that's a case where somebody was outside, they're trained, they didn't react properly under pressure or they were coward.

    Actually, the deputy DID react properly according to SOP and ROE....

    Regardless, it's been well established that there is no such thing as a "good guy with a gun"...

    ANYONE who owns a gun is a terrorist. According to the hysterical anti-gun Dumbocrats...

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    Any cop that goes into an Active Shooter situation alone would likely be fired... If they survived the shooting...

    Sad but true...

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    Every gun carrier is a mass murderer who just hasnt snapped...today.
    -Typical Left Winger

  40. [40] 
    John M wrote:

    [18] Michale

    "The armed deputy assigned to the campus of a Florida high school during a deadly shooting last week stayed outside the building during the attack and failed to engage the shooter, the county sheriff said on Thursday.

    Yes, as per procedure..."

    Do YOU know the proper police procedures for that situation, JM?? No, you do not.."

    BULLSHIT Michale

    IF he was following proper procedure:

    1) Why did the Sheriff suspend him?

    2) Why did he resign after being suspended?

    3) Why did the Sheriff, HIS BOSS, personally ream him a new one on live TV?

    4) Why are criminal charges being considered against the office pending the outcome of an investigation?

    5) What good is having ONLY ONE armed officer on campus IF that office has to wait for additional back-up????

    6) Isn't it, from ALL we have been told, supposed to be procedure now, that the police NOT wait or try to negotiate when there is an active shooter involved, but engage the shooter right away???

    6) Do you personally know SPECIFICALLY for SURE what Broward County law enforcement procedure is, or are you ONLY GUESSING???

    7) If ONE trained office with a gun can't act, how is a CIVILIAN armed teacher, no matter how well trained, supposed to do ANY BETTER???

    CAN you ADDRESSS ANY of that Michale???

  41. [41] 
    John M wrote:

    [18] Michale

    "CRS claimed that the deputy was scared..

    I said assumes facts not in evidence.

    You dispute that.."

    NO, I DO NOT. It was never MY contention that the deputy was scared. That's what CRS said. It IS NOT I SAID.

    "You yourself said that a good guy with a gun is a "myth".. That it NEVER HAPPENS...

    NOW you are claiming the exact opposite.."

    NO I AM NOT. The incident PROVES I AM RIGHT. ONE officer with a gun COULD NOT STOP HIM. Just like the officer at COLUMBINE COULD NOT STOP that shooter either!

  42. [42] 
    John M wrote:

    YOU are the one to say ANYTHING that will further your agenda Michale, NOT ME.

    At least I have FACTS to back up what I said. Including direct quotes from the people involved.

    YOU have ONLY YOUR OPINION.

  43. [43] 
    John M wrote:

    [23] Michale

    "Having said that, I would have said "FRAK THAT!!!" to ROE and SOP and gone in myself.."

    For THAT, at least Michale, I would commend you and call you a HERO.

    BUT AGAIN, that does not change the FACT that an armed officer who was present at BOTH COLUMBINE AND PARKLAND, still COULD NOT STOP the shooter.

  44. [44] 
    John M wrote:

    NEITHER schools, in FACT, were gun free zones, since an officer with a gun WAS present on both campuses, and they were STILL TARGETED ANYWAY. In FACT, since CRUZ was a FORMER student, he had to KNOW BEFOREHAND that OFFICER PETERSON would be there and potentially TRY to STOP him, and he still went ahead with his attack ANYWAY.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    CAN you ADDRESSS ANY of that Michale???

    Absolutely...

    And, once I do, you will run away and hide like you usually do...

    1) Why did the Sheriff suspend him?

    Political correctness...

    2) Why did he resign after being suspended?

    He was probably embarrassed that he didn't ignore proper procedure and orders...

    3) Why did the Sheriff, HIS BOSS, personally ream him a new one on live TV?

    Political correctness

    4) Why are criminal charges being considered against the office pending the outcome of an investigation?

    Because you are full of shit and this is totally false..

    5) What good is having ONLY ONE armed officer on campus IF that office has to wait for additional back-up????

    Because of budgetary constraints...

    6) Isn't it, from ALL we have been told, supposed to be procedure now, that the police NOT wait or try to negotiate when there is an active shooter involved, but engage the shooter right away???

    Not alone...

    6) Do you personally know SPECIFICALLY for SURE what Broward County law enforcement procedure is, or are you ONLY GUESSING???

    I know standard LEO procedures that a single officer is not supposed to engage any armed subject unless there is no other choice.. IE an ambush...

    7) If ONE trained office with a gun can't act, how is a CIVILIAN armed teacher, no matter how well trained, supposed to do ANY BETTER???

    Each situation is unique. You are trying to employ a cookie cutter response which simply shows your ignorance..

    Now, my turn.. (Here's the part where you run away)

    What experience, training, education and/or expertise do you have to second guess the deputy?

    I'll answer for you because I know you are too much of a coward to..

    NONE.. ZERO... ZILCH... NADA

    Your response is SOLELY based on your Party slavery...

  46. [46] 
    Michale wrote:

    NEITHER schools, in FACT, were gun free zones,

    Once again, you display your ignorance...

    ALL schools in the state of Florida are gun free zones...

    Just like a court house is a gun free zone, even if there are armed deputies within the building..

    Get your facts straight or just shut up...

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    For THAT, at least Michale, I would commend you and call you a HERO.

    Thank you.. Now I feel like an asshole for being such a prick.. :D

    BUT AGAIN, that does not change the FACT that an armed officer who was present at BOTH COLUMBINE AND PARKLAND, still COULD NOT STOP the shooter.

    But that doesn't mean the plan is not a good plan...

    Gun laws don't stop mass shootings or ANY violent gun crimes..

    Yet, you still want to pile more and more laws on the problem...

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Seriously, John... My apologies for being such a prick...

    It's a touchy subject because I am with you that the deputy SHOULD have gone in...

    But the procedures ARE in place that specifically forbid that exact occurrence..

    A point I think that the deputy's union lawyer will make perfectly clear...

  49. [49] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    If it really is SOP for the on-site deputy to wait for backup in an emergency, what's the use in him being there? In fact, I'd say the 'S' in 'SOP' in that case must stand for 'STUPID', because two deputies can get there in exactly the same amount of time as can one.

  50. [50] 
    Michale wrote:

    If it really is SOP for the on-site deputy to wait for backup in an emergency, what's the use in him being there?

    Mostly deterrence.. And to handle the petty stuff..

    In fact, I'd say the 'S' in 'SOP' in that case must stand for 'STUPID', because two deputies can get there in exactly the same amount of time as can one.

    And ONE deputy there is an easier target than two...

    Regardless of whether or not you see the logic of the SOP and the ROE, the fact is that it exists..

  51. [51] 
    John M wrote:

    There are at least TWO ISSUES that need to be addressed IF you are going to start arming teachers in schools:

    1) In September 2014 at Idaho State University, a teacher accidentally shot himself in the foot when his concealed handgun discharged. Students in the chemistry class watched.

    Later that month at a Utah elementary school, a teacher carrying a concealed weapon accidentally shot herself in the leg as she used the restroom.

    In 2016, a group of elementary school students in Pennsylvania found a loaded gun in the bathroom after a teacher accidentally left it behind.

    2) Mo Canady, the executive director of the National Association for School Resource Officers ? the group that trains and represents school cops ? warned that law enforcement officers responding to an incident might mistake a teacher with a firearm for an assailant.

  52. [52] 
    Michale wrote:

    1) In September 2014 at Idaho State University, a teacher accidentally shot himself in the foot when his concealed handgun discharged. Students in the chemistry class watched.

    Later that month at a Utah elementary school, a teacher carrying a concealed weapon accidentally shot herself in the leg as she used the restroom.

    In 2016, a group of elementary school students in Pennsylvania found a loaded gun in the bathroom after a teacher accidentally left it behind.

    Accidental discharges happen...

    Not arming teachers because they can happen is akin to not arming cops or military because they can happen..

    2) Mo Canady, the executive director of the National Association for School Resource Officers ? the group that trains and represents school cops ? warned that law enforcement officers responding to an incident might mistake a teacher with a firearm for an assailant.

    This is readily addressed by give the armed teachers a distinctive article of clothing or cap to wear during the response.. Most large departments will designate a "Color Of The Day" that is spread throughout area LEOs so that undercovers can be readily recognized by uniformed LEOs..

    I got into a debate with a group over the advisability of carrying CCW shields... Most ignorant people are against them, but they are a near fool-proof way of identifying one's self to responding LEOs...

    Sure, there are going to be issues that crop up...

    But, in the HUNDREDS of cases where an armed civilian has gotten involved in an incident, there has *NEVER* been a case of responding LEOs shooting the wrong person...

  53. [53] 
    John M wrote:

    [45] Michale

    "CAN you ADDRESSS ANY of that Michale???

    Absolutely...

    And, once I do, you will run away and hide like you usually do...

    Political correctness..."

    Just conveniently ascribing the reason for everything to the totally meaningless catch all phrase of political correctness is NOT an answer.

    "Because of budgetary constraints..."

    So, like you accused ME of doing PREVIOUSLY, you are now putting MONETARY considerations ahead of children's lives???

    "Now, my turn.. (Here's the part where you run away)

    What experience, training, education and/or expertise do you have to second guess the deputy?

    I'll answer for you because I know you are too much of a coward to.."

    I freely admit I don't have ANY. But that does NOT negate:

    1) That I am a tax paying citizen of the community

    2) The police SERVE US, and have to ANSWER to CIVILIAN authority just like the military.

  54. [54] 
    John M wrote:

    [46] Michale

    "NEITHER schools, in FACT, were gun free zones,

    Once again, you display your ignorance...

    ALL schools in the state of Florida are gun free zones...

    Just like a court house is a gun free zone, even if there are armed deputies within the building.."

    NON SEQUITER.

    If trained armed law enforcement personnel are NOT a deterrent, how are armed civilians supposed to be?

  55. [55] 
    John M wrote:

    [48] Michale wrote:

    "Seriously, John... My apologies for being such a prick..."

    Apology accepted. I try not to take it too personally. I know it is such a hot button topic. That we are having a conversation about it at all is good.

  56. [56] 
    John M wrote:

    [52] Michale

    "Accidental discharges happen...

    Not arming teachers because they can happen is akin to not arming cops or military because they can happen.."

    But cops and the military are not around children 8 hours a day five days a week. The more teachers with guns the more accidental shootings of children that there are going to be. More guns only increases the number of children getting shot on a REGULAR basis.

  57. [57] 
    Michale wrote:

    Apology accepted. I try not to take it too personally. I know it is such a hot button topic. That we are having a conversation about it at all is good.

    Thank you.. As I mentioned before, I was one of the first responding deputies to the San Ysidro McDonalds on 18 Jul 1984.. This is a very emotional subject for me and it usually gets the best of me, even more so than most topics..

    If trained armed law enforcement personnel are NOT a deterrent, how are armed civilians supposed to be?

    School shootings are of a different nature than regular Crowd Based Mass Shootings, so different parameters apply...

    The idea of arming teachers is a good one, especially if it is kept confidential as to which teachers/staff are armed and which aren't...

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    But that's a case where somebody was outside, they're trained, they didn't react properly under pressure or they were coward. ~ Donald Trump

    Michale: Actually, the deputy DID react properly according to SOP and ROE....

    So Trump is an idiot. I agree.

    A point I think that the deputy's union lawyer will make perfectly clear...

    I read he was not part of the union.

    “He believed he did a good job calling in the location, setting up the perimeter and calling in the description (of Cruz),” said the union official, Jim Bell.

    The union head said he didn’t want to second-guess Peterson — but strongly suggested that failing to take on Cruz was a mistake.

    “We have to act, even if that means risking our lives to save many, many more lives. I would demand that from our union members,” said Bell, still a working deputy.

    In an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid behind a concrete column from Cruz when he started shooting.

  59. [59] 
    Michale wrote:

    In an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid behind a concrete column from Cruz when he started shooting.

    You mean, a trained peace officer took cover during a shooting!???

    "OH MY GOD, WHAT A FUCKING NIGHTMARE!!"
    -Marisa Tomeii, MY COUSIN VINNY

    You're so ignorant it's almost laughable if it was so pathetically Party slavery bias...

  60. [60] 
    Michale wrote:

    ANY LEO who went up against or went after an Active Shooter alone and survived would likely be fired...

  61. [61] 
    Michale wrote:

    ANY LEO who went up against or went after an Active Shooter alone and survived would likely be fired...

    Except in the cases where an LEO was ambushed and had no choice...

  62. [62] 
    Michale wrote:

    Statistically speaking, in Crowd Based Mass Shootings where no one in the crowd is armed, the average casualty rate is 11...

    In Crowd Based Mass Shootings where one or more of the crowd is armed, the average casualty rate is 4...

    Given these facts, why ANYONE would be against having armed and trained people in the crowds, why ANYONE would be against saving lives....

    Well, that just stretches credulity to the breaking point...

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    59

    You mean, a trained peace officer took cover during a shooting!???

    You're so ignorant it's almost laughable if it was so pathetically Party slavery bias...

    I don't belong to a party and never will, and I was simply posting what I had read without judgment as an example as to why the officer may have chosen to resign and retire:

    A. He wasn't a union member, and the union president wasn't exactly taking his side, and
    B. Other officers weren't painting a flattering picture of his actions.

    I never blamed the FBI nor the local law enforcement for their actions regarding this issue. I blamed the asshole that did it. I already know you're a "prick" and would assume I was taking a side when I wasn't. :)

  64. [64] 
    Michale wrote:
  65. [65] 
    Michale wrote:

    A. He wasn't a union member, and the union president wasn't exactly taking his side, and

    No facts to support that.. It's just your opinion...

    B. Other officers weren't painting a flattering picture of his actions.

    So what?? THat doesn't mean that the deputy didn't follow proper SOP and ROE..

    Like I said, *I* don't agree with the deputies actions..

    But you vilifying him SOLELY based on your Party slavery and total ignorance??

    That just rubs me the wrong way...

  66. [66] 
    Kick wrote:

    I did not vilify him, snowflake... Trump did. :)

  67. [67] 
    Michale wrote:

    In an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid behind a concrete column from Cruz when he started shooting.

    That sounds like vilification to me...

  68. [68] 
    Paula wrote:

    I think emphasis on the man-who-didn't-go-in-to-die is misplaced.

    In point of fact it proves "the good guy with a gun" notion is stupid. In addition to the manifest unfairness of expecting people to sacrifice themselves it's unrealistic to pin your strategy on people's willingness or ability to sacrifice themselves.

    The emphasis should be on stopping people from being able to engage in mass slaughter NOT on condemning people who fail to live up to unrealistic standards. Maybe this guy "could have" stopped the shooter, but deaths had already occurred. Maybe this guy would have joined the dead or wounded. We don't know. Either way, slaughter had already occurred.

    The goal needs to be stopping mass shootings - as they have successfully done in Australia - not reducing the carnage.

    The scapegoating of the security guard is an attempted redirect.

  69. [69] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    That sounds like vilification to me...

    Yes, snowflake, but I am not Officer Tim Burton of Coral Springs who made the statement nor am I Donald Trump who did vilify him.

    I understand why Peterson would resign versus the "union lawyer" route you had speculated. According to the union president, Peterson wasn't a member of the association, and I can understand why he'd retire based on the comments of Sheriff Israel, union president Jim Bell, and Officer Burton who was on the scene. :)

  70. [70] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    68

    I think emphasis on the man-who-didn't-go-in-to-die is misplaced.

    Me too, and I can certainly see why he'd choose to resign when he's getting piled on by everyone from the other officer on the scene, his boss the County Sheriff, the union president, and the President of the US. :)

  71. [71] 
    Michale wrote:

    The scapegoating of the security guard is an attempted redirect.

    And once again, your fact-less diatribes are laid bare...

    The goal needs to be stopping mass shootings - as they have successfully done in Australia - not reducing the carnage.

    In the 20 years since Australia enacted their gun ban, 79 people have been killed in mass-murder incidents..

    In the 20 years PRIOR to the Port Arthur shooting (which prompted the gun ban) there were 75 deaths in mass murder incidents..

    So, a ban on guns had NO EFFECT on the death rate...

    Irregardless of all THAT, the simple fact is that the 2nd Amendment guarantees Americans have the right to own guns...

    So, even IF a gun ban was effective (which it isn't.. See Chicago) you can't have one here...

  72. [72] 
    Kick wrote:

    Scapegoating of local law enforcement or the FBI is rather ignorant... my opinion. :)

  73. [73] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes, snowflake, but I am not Officer Tim Burton of Coral Springs who made the statement

    No, Officer Burton DID NOT make that statement..

    "Deputy Peterson was seeking cover behind a concrete column leading to a stairwell.”
    -Officer Tim Burton

    *THAT* is the statement Officer Burton made, which is logical and reasonable actions for an LEO to take.

    *YOU* changed the entire meaning of Officer Burton's statement in a LAME and vain attempt to vilify Deputy Peterson...

    According to the union president, Peterson wasn't a member of the association,

    Yet, you have NO FACTS to support that claim...

  74. [74] 
    Michale wrote:

    Scapegoating of local law enforcement or the FBI is rather ignorant... my opinion. :)/I>

    Which is EXACTLY what you did when you LIED about Officer Burton's statement..

  75. [75] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    71

    In the 20 years since Australia enacted their gun ban, 79 people have been killed in mass-murder incidents..

    In the 20 years PRIOR to the Port Arthur shooting (which prompted the gun ban) there were 75 deaths in mass murder incidents..

    Assuming your figures are correct, in your attempt at false equivalency, you've conveniently omitted the 35 people killed in the Port Arthur massacre.

    So, a ban on guns had NO EFFECT on the death rate...

    If the population of Australia hadn't grown exponentially and had remained exactly the same during those 20-year periods, you'd have a point, but it didn't so you don't [plus the 35 omitted murders at Port Arthur you're not counting]. :)

  76. [76] 
    Michale wrote:

    Assuming your figures are correct, in your attempt at false equivalency, you've conveniently omitted the 35 people killed in the Port Arthur massacre.

    I posted the stats PRE-SHOOTING and POST-SHOOTING...

    If the population of Australia hadn't grown exponentially and had remained exactly the same during those 20-year periods, you'd have a point,

    You are REALLY going to factor in POPULATION growth in a MASS MURDER INCIDENT stat!!!????

    BBBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    What does THAT have to do with the number of deaths/mass murder incidents pre and post gun ban???

    Absolutely NOTHING....

    Population growth is ONLY a factor if there are percentages involved...

    These are straight number of deaths in Mass Murder incidents which has absolutely NOTHING to do with population....

    The population could have grown by 10 million and there STILL would have been 79 killed in Mass Murder incidents post gun ban...

    The population could have shrunk by 10 million and there STILL would have been 79 killed in Mass Murder incidents post gun ban...

    You are severely whacked if you think that pop growth has ANY bearing..

    MY guess is yer still smarting and dizzy from the bitch-slap I gave you over your vilifying of Deputy Peterson by lying about Officer Burton's statement...

  77. [77] 
    Michale wrote:

    https://static.pjmedia.com/parenting/user-content/48/files/2018/02/SquareRootSign.sized-770x415xc.png

    Students at the Oberlin High School in Oberlin, La., caused an uproar when they spread rumors about a boy who had joked about a square root symbol looking like a gun. A joke quickly became a tall tale that claimed this boy had planned to attack the school with guns and bombs. The Allen Parish Sheriff's office responded to a call from KPLC, saying they had received an anonymous tip claiming there was going to be a major shooting involving the jokester. The Lexington Herald-Leader spread the panic further, reporting that a student's house was searched over a math problem.
    pjmedia.com/parenting/student-faces-expulsion-saying-math-symbol-looks-like-gun/

    Yea.. The hysterical anti-gun crowd is rational and reasonable about guns... :^/

  78. [78] 
    Paula wrote:

    If 79 people have been killed in Australia in "mass-murder" incidents -- as opposed to mass-shooting incidents? -- OVER 20 YEARS all I can say is I'll take it over the record in this country.

    In Australia they were appalled by one horrific event and they acted. Here we've had forces trying to normalize horrific events so that we'd just let them continue to happen. To hell with that.

  79. [79] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now, if you DO want to discuss percentages and per capita...

    Sorry, Despite Gun-Control Advocates' Claims, U.S. Isn't The Worst Country For Mass Shootings
    https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/sorry-despite-gun-control-advocates-claims-u-s-isnt-the-worst-country-for-mass-shootings/

    In recent years and adjusting for population size, Norway has the highest mass shooting death rate in the developed world with 1.888 per million. No. 2 is Serbia, at just 0.381, followed by France at 0.347, Macedonia at 0.337, and Albania at 0.206. Slovakia, Finland, Belgium, and Czech Republic all follow. Then comes the U.S., at No. 11, with a death rate of 0.089.

    Once again.. FACTS vs HYSTERIA

    Facts will win every time..

  80. [80] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    If I can be permitted to go off-topic for a minute, I just watched today's episode of Amy Goodman's "Democracy Now" TV show for today Feb 23, on my local PBS station. She did an extensive interview with some journalist name of Masha Geeson, on the subject of Russian meddling in our 2016 election.

    Those of you guys who've got your hearts set on somehow delegitimizing and thereby bringing down the Trump administration over Russian meddling, collusion, conspiracy, or whatever, will most likely find your hearts broken and your dreams shattered. In fact, it'll require a serious effort on your part to keep from slashing your wrists.

    Check it out @ democracynow.org, but first lock up all the knives and razors in the house.

    Michale's gonna have the last laugh here after all.

  81. [81] 
    Michale wrote:

    If 79 people have been killed in Australia in "mass-murder" incidents -- as opposed to mass-shooting incidents? -- OVER 20 YEARS all I can say is I'll take it over the record in this country.

    Unless you happen to be one of those 79, eh??

    The point is that banning guns did NOT do anything to reduce the mass murder rate..

    People STILL found a way to kill multiple people..

    Now imagine if Australia went after the PERSON and NOT the tool..

    That 79 might have been 39... or 19... or ZERO..

    If your goal is to save lives, then the ONLY logical option is to go to the source, not the tool..

    But Democrats won't do that because their agenda is the tool... NOT saving lives..

    In Australia they were appalled by one horrific event and they acted. Here we've had forces trying to normalize horrific events so that we'd just let them continue to happen. To hell with that.

    Fine.. Repeal the 2nd...

    THEN you can have your ban....

  82. [82] 
    Michale wrote:

    Those of you guys who've got your hearts set on somehow delegitimizing and thereby bringing down the Trump administration over Russian meddling, collusion, conspiracy, or whatever, will most likely find your hearts broken and your dreams shattered. In fact, it'll require a serious effort on your part to keep from slashing your wrists.

    Check it out @ democracynow.org, but first lock up all the knives and razors in the house.

    Better ban all the pointy and cutty things.. :D

    "Hay GUy... It didn't step in your trappy thing.."
    -Eep, THE CROODS

    :D

    Michale's gonna have the last laugh here after all.

    "Oh..... YEA......"
    -Rocket Raccoon, GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY

    :D

  83. [83] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    73

    No, Officer Burton DID NOT make that statement..

    "Deputy Peterson was seeking cover behind a concrete column leading to a stairwell.”
    -Officer Tim Burton

    *THAT* is the statement Officer Burton made, which is logical and reasonable actions for an LEO to take.

    I didn't quote him, did I, snowflake? It looks to me like you are simply taking issue with the word "hid" versus "take cover" because you think one is disparaging while the other isn't... semantics... but I simply wrote what I had read. I have no issue whatsoever with the word choice as I've spent many decades "hiding/taking cover" myself and training others how to do so. :)

    *YOU* changed the entire meaning of Officer Burton's statement in a LAME and vain attempt to vilify Deputy Peterson...

    No, I didn't. I posted what I had read. If I had wanted to "vilify Deputy Peterson," I can assure you that I am obviously quite capable of doing exactly that in words that would make Donald Trump's vilification of Peterson look like child's play.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424549/Schools-armed-officer-never-went-shooting.html

  84. [84] 
    Michale wrote:

    I didn't quote him, did I, snowflake?

    Exactly my point. You said he said something he didn't say..

    It looks to me like you are simply taking issue with the word "hid" versus "take cover" because you think one is disparaging while the other isn't... semantics...

    It looks to me like you are weasling out of being caught in a lie..

    You change the wording of the statement to insinuate cowardice...

    No, I didn't. I posted what I had read.

    Fine.. Post the link where you "read" that and let's see if it matches what you claim it said..

  85. [85] 
    Kick wrote:

    I thought I had already posted it in my blockquote, for Pete's sake, but it ain't there. I posted it at [83].

  86. [86] 
    Michale wrote:

    I thought I had already posted it in my blockquote, for Pete's sake, but it ain't there. I posted it at [83].

    Of course it ain't there because it wasn't how you "read" it..

    The New York Times reported on Wednesday that an officer from the Coral Springs Police Department who responded to the shooting had seen Deputy Peterson in a Stoneman Douglas High parking lot. The deputy “was seeking cover behind a concrete column leading to a stairwell,” Officer Tim Burton ...

    THAT is the quote from the New York Times...

    You changed "seeking cover" to "hid" so as to vilify the Deputy...

    Own up to your mistake, for christ's sake...

  87. [87] 
    Michale wrote:

    Comment #58 is the comment you are looking for...

    YOU said "hid"... Every other article says that Officer Burton said "took cover"....

    There is a HUGE difference as you well know..

  88. [88] 
    Paula wrote:

    This is a very good post: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/2/23/1744206/-240-seconds-or-If-I-had-been-there-I-would-have

    Starts: 4 minutes. 240 seconds. In that time, 140 large caliber shells exploded, tearing through flesh, bone, Brick walls, doors, desks. 17 people died.14 more were injured. Holes big enough to put your fist through. 240 seconds.

    Enter a security guard. One man. Armed with a small caliber handgun. 6, 8, 9 shots available. Ad PTSD from war experiences as a "child" himself.

    240 seconds. The time we spend starting up our computers, starting our cars, ordering breakfast at McDonalds. The time it takes to make toast, warm a cup of coffee in a microwave. The time it took to gargle or put deodorant on. The time it takes to say grace at dinner or before you go to bed. The time it takes to buy a Coke in a machine or smoke HALF a cigarette...

    ...Was he a coward? Did he react different than Rambo or the Road Warrior or Death Wish? I don’t know. Was he different than Warcraft players and World of Tank players? Yes. BUT the "movies and games" don’t fire back, your friends don’t die. You won’t die, if 150 shots are fired. You turn them off and go to bed and wake up tomorrow to try again. The students and teachers won’t. They won’t gain new health. They won’t come back to life.

    So before we condemn a man’s life for not taking actions "you" would have, "if" you had been there, think...

    The whole thing is good.

  89. [89] 
    Paula wrote:

    Oops. Forgot the closing italic tag after "think..."

    The whole piece is good.

  90. [90] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, hell. wrong link.

    I don't think saying he "hid" vilifies him, snowflake. What is your hangup with the verbiage? Obviously, I can tear him a new asshole in some really choice words had I chosen to "vilify" him, which I did not.

    I found the link. :)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5426695/H-S-cop-hid-gunman-believed-did-good-job.html

  91. [91] 
    Michale wrote:

    I don't think saying he "hid" vilifies him, snowflake.

    Of course you don't.. But yer just covering your ass..

    I found the link. :)

    Nope, no cigar...

    In an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid behind a concrete column from Cruz when he started shooting.

    Nothing in that article says what you posted...

    You took the HID part and tried to make it look like Officer Burton said "hid".... He did not..

    Now yer just desperate to cover your ass..

    You simply CAN'T admit you lied and got caught...

    That's fine.. I know you won't admit it...

    But you and I both know the facts...

  92. [92] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    87

    Comment #58 is the comment you are looking for...

    Okay, and do you see in Comment #58 where I use the words "I read"?

    YOU said "hid"... Every other article says that Officer Burton said "took cover"....

    The article "I read" said hid and took cover, which to me are the same thing and not disparaging in any way so what's your problem. Taking cover is hiding... so what?

    There is a HUGE difference as you well know..

    Not really. :)

  93. [93] 
    Michale wrote:

    Regardless of all ya'all's bullshit posted, the deputy followed proper procedure...

    Of course, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, people want to condemn him and, by extension, condemn all cops..

    But the simple fact is, the deputy did what he was supposed to do...

    I can't fault him for that, even though I would have disregarded SOP and gone in...

    There are very logical and rational reasons for NOT going in..

    But there are very pressing reasons TO go in...

    Deputy Peterson made his call and his was the correct call to make...

    Many other LEOs would make a different call.. And that is correct as well..

  94. [94] 
    Michale wrote:

    The article "I read" said hid and took cover, which to me are the same thing and not disparaging in any way so what's your problem. Taking cover is hiding... so what?

    If you wanted to characterize Peterson's actions has "hid" that's fine and I wouldn't have said squat..

    But were wrong when you said a fellow LEO had said that Peterson "hid" and THAT was simply outright bullshit..

    Admit your mistake and move on...

    Jeeezus, you people simply CAN'T admit when ya'all were wrong...

  95. [95] 
    Michale wrote:

    Another Shooting, Another Gun Debate. Will the Outcome Be the Same?
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/politics/school-shooting-gun-debate.html

    As usual, it's the Democrats who are using the tragedy to push an unpopular agenda...

    "We MUST politicize these tragedies"

    "NEVER let a good crisis go to waste"

    Sadly, this is Democrats, politicizing the tragedy and never letting a good tragedy go to waste....

  96. [96] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    91

    Nothing in that article says what you posted...

    Now who is lying? Or are you just blind?

    You took the HID part and tried to make it look like Officer Burton said "hid".... He did not..

    I did not quote him. I posted what I read. It's at the link you insist it's not.

    Now yer just desperate to cover your ass..

    You're a liar or you're blind.

    And in an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid from Cruz when the teenager started shooting.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5426695/H-S-cop-hid-gunman-believed-did-good-job.html

    ^^^ Notice that the even the link says "H-S-cop-hid"

    But you and I both know the facts...

    The facts are: I posted what I read, and you're blind and not seeing it. :)

  97. [97] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Paula Your [88]

    It isn't actually very important to the subject under discussion, and nobody knows better than I that most women don't understand firearms and ballistics, but when you talk about the killer firing hundreds of rounds of "large-caliber" shells, and the poor deputy being armed with only a "small caliber" handgun, your way out of your depth.

    'Caliber' is a unit of length equal to one 1/100th of an inch. The vast majority of M-14 rifles fire bullets measuring .22/100ths of an inch in diameter, but typical handguns such as are normally used by law enforcement, fire bullets measuring around 40/100th of an inch in dia., meaning the cops bullets are almost twice as large as the killer's.

    That doesn't change the fact that the officer in this case actually was "outgunned", but it wasn't because his gun was "small caliber", it was because he had only a handgun and the killer had a rifle..

  98. [98] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Oops, make that [97] read "you're way out of your league" rather than "your way out . . ."

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale

    Found it in two places!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5426695/H-S-cop-hid-gunman-believed-did-good-job.html

    It's in the text and also below the picture of Fox News' coverage of the shooting which is above the big picture of the perp in court; you can't miss it. :)

    You lose. :p

  100. [100] 
    Michale wrote:

    It's in the text and also below the picture of Fox News' coverage of the shooting which is above the big picture of the perp in court; you can't miss it. :)

    You can play CYA all you want..

    But the FACT is, YOU claimed that Officer Burton said something he didn't say..

    And NONE of those articles you quote have Burton saying what YOU claimed Burton said..

    You were wrong and you can't admit it..

    So typical...

  101. [101] 
    Michale wrote:

    It isn't actually very important to the subject under discussion, and nobody knows better than I that most women don't understand firearms and ballistics, but when you talk about the killer firing hundreds of rounds of "large-caliber" shells, and the poor deputy being armed with only a "small caliber" handgun, your way out of your depth.

    Word....

  102. [102] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    100

    And NONE of those articles you quote have Burton saying what YOU claimed Burton said..

    I posted what I read, snowflake. Get your eyes checked and/or stop lying. :)

  103. [103] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    In an active school shooter scenario, officers are to immediately proceed and engage the shooter; they are not to act as first responders as they would in most other scenarios! This is how the vast majority of police depts. now respond to an active school shooter. The officer at the school chose not to seek out and engage the shooter until backup arrived.

  104. [104] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    As usual, it's the Democrats who are using the tragedy to push an unpopular agenda...

    Says the excrement that used the deaths of 17 people to try to discredit the FBI’s investigation of Trump!

  105. [105] 
    Michale wrote:

    I posted what I read, snowflake. Get your eyes checked and/or stop lying. :)

    And yet you CAN'T post the link where you read that Officer Burton said something that he did not say..

    You are the one lying and you got caught..

    Move on...

  106. [106] 
    Paula wrote:

    [97] Stuck: I'm quoting the article itself - it's not my language.

    The point, as you noted, is that the security guy was "outgunned".

  107. [107] 
    Michale wrote:

    In an active school shooter scenario, officers are to immediately proceed and engage the shooter;

    Yes.. Officer(S)... There was only ONE officer and SOP and ROE requires the SINGLE officer to not engage but rather feed intel until back up arrives..

    Says the excrement that used the deaths of 17 people to try to discredit the FBI’s investigation of Trump!

    That investigation has already been discredited..

    But it's a FACT that the FBI dropped the ball..

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c4001473396452f05eaa69085cd1292c99208381067e336ed28d7fb9e4007f71.jpg

  108. [108] 
    Michale wrote:

    The point, as you noted, is that the security guy was "outgunned".

    No, the point is your facts are non-existent...

  109. [109] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    That doesn't change the fact that the officer in this case actually was "outgunned", but it wasn't because his gun was "small caliber", it was because he had only a handgun and the killer had a rifle..

    In CQB, the handgun is more effective than the rifle...

    Especially when the handgun is in the hands of a trained LEO and the rifle is in the hands of a psychotic amateur..

    Had the deputy chose to engage, it's entirely likely he would have prevailed and saved many MANY lives...

  110. [110] 
    Michale wrote:

    Russ,

    Further, the incompetence of the FBI is at the supervisory level and, at that level, agents are lawyers and not cops..

    If you want to defend lawyers, that's fine...

  111. [111] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    105

    And yet you CAN'T post the link where you read that Officer Burton said something that he did not say..

    I posted it multiple times now so AGAIN, you're lying.

    Move on...

    Get an eye exam. :)

  112. [112] 
    Michale wrote:

    I posted it multiple times now so AGAIN, you're lying.

    You have posted NO LINK that has Officer Burton saying what you claimed he said..

    You are continuing to lie...

    As is your norm...

  113. [113] 
    Kick wrote:

    Gates admits he lied in his proffer session.

  114. [114] 
    Paula wrote:
  115. [115] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Michale

    I totally agree, the deputy should have intervened to the extent of his ability. As to the relative effectiveness of the guns involved, my feeling would be that the only time a handgun would be more effective than a compact rifle such as the M-14 in CQB would be when you're actually talking about AGDCQB - (Awful GAWDAM CLOSE Quarters Battle!!

  116. [116] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    112

    You have posted NO LINK that has Officer Burton saying what you claimed he said..

    I did not claim he said it, moron, I posted what "I read." It's right there at the link. Reading is fundamental. :)

  117. [117] 
    Michale wrote:

    I did not claim he said it, moron,

    yes, you did..

    In an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid behind a concrete column from Cruz when he started shooting.

    Office Burton "revealed" IE said no such thing..

    You were wrong.. You continue to lie and claim those links say something they don't say...

    Admit it and move on...

  118. [118] 
    Kick wrote:

    Paula
    114

    Another Manafort indictment unsealed

    Another precious. Want to read it?

    https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4386538/2-16-18-Manafort-Superseding-Indictment.pdf

  119. [119] 
    Michale wrote:

    As to the relative effectiveness of the guns involved, my feeling would be that the only time a handgun would be more effective than a compact rifle such as the M-14 in CQB would be when you're actually talking about AGDCQB - (Awful GAWDAM CLOSE Quarters Battle!!

    Which, given the circumstances, would likely be the scenario in this incident..

  120. [120] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    117

    Office Burton "revealed" IE said no such thing..

    I posted what the article said. It's in the damn article between the Fox News picture and the picture of the perp. Get an eye test or pull your head out of your ass, whichever applies. :)

  121. [121] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Regardless, it's all just speculation.. Peterson didn't find it in himself to do what had to be done...

    Can't fault him... much.. It takes a special kind of person to run TOWARDS danger while everyone else is running away...

  122. [122] 
    Michale wrote:

    I posted what the article said.

    No you did not.. You continue to lie...

    You posted YOUR interpretation of what the article said, making sure YOUR interpretation made the cop out to be a coward..

  123. [123] 
    Kick wrote:

    Gates plead guilty to: Conspiracy Against the United States.

    That's a big deal. :)

  124. [124] 
    Kick wrote:

    No you did not.. You continue to lie...

    You posted YOUR interpretation of what the article said, making sure YOUR interpretation made the cop out to be a coward..

    If I had wanted to call him a coward, I could have easily done so in no uncertain terms... like your Orange Worship did. :p

  125. [125] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Paula [114]: Another Manafort indictment unsealed

    And the noose tightens another notch. It's been a bad day for Manafort, what with Gates, who was his partner-in-crime and confidant for better than a decade (even in Ukraine) now providing evidence to Mueller against him.

    The new indictments also accomplish something else, I notice. They let Manafort know that Mueller knows where his offshore accounts are, and how Manafort is using them.

    Manafort, after all, has no known means of support right now, and is likely living off loans from friends. And he likes to live well, or did...

    And this latest indictment, about bribing European politicians on behalf of the Ukraine, will have a lot of legs in the EU. He could be indicted THERE.

    Well, there goes another route of escape.

    Manafort has an extremely tough choice to make: flip on Trump, or spend the rest of his life in jail. By making a deal with Mueller, he could also forestall legal jeopardy in places like Virginia and New York. But he'll never see Moscow again.

    His one chance, the string he clings to, is the possibility of a pardon from Trump. But Gates' plea deal almost renders that moot, now: Gate may actually know more than Manafort does about Trump shenanigans, having stayed with the Trump team all the way to the White House, leaving finally, I think, when the FBI actually laughed out loud at his application for a security clearance.

    And that raises one more issue that got seriously bumped when the shooting took over the news:

    Where is the Republican outrage right now over the extreeeemly lax attitude this White House has take with classified information? We already know about two top aides, Porter and Kushner, who we know to have had continued access to the highest security classifications despite the two men generating more red flags than a soccer brawl.

    But those two are just the tip of the iceburg: as of last November, at least 85 political appointees in the White House, vice president's office and National Security Council were working without permanent clearances. And about 50 were working for offices tied to the West Wing, including the National Economic Council and the Office of Management and Budget. Among those who worked all last year in the White House without clearances were Ivanka, KellyAnne Conway, and Omarosa.

    So where is the GOP outrage over mishandling of classified information that led to years of investigations of Hillary's private server - investigations that finally led to a whopping three small marks in obscure attachments found after combing through 30,000 emails.

    Compared to the Trump White House's record of showing highly classified information to anyone standing next to Trump, that's now a sick joke, don't you think?

  126. [126] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthasar
    125

    Everything Balthy said!

    Who knew? *LOL*

    Compared to the Trump White House's record of showing highly classified information to anyone standing next to Trump, that's now a sick joke, don't you think?

    Tip of the iceberg, Balthy. Seriously. :)

  127. [127] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthy

    Hey, Balthy. Gates lied during his QFAD proffer. He thought he could outsmart Bobby Three Sticks during his proffer session. :)

  128. [128] 
    Paula wrote:

    Kick and Balthasar: I'm reading that the new indictment includes stuff about Mueller seizing Manafort's assets. Another analysis I read surmises Manafort may no longer have anything to offer now that Gates has flipped and now Manafort may be used primarily as an-example-of-what-happens-if-you-don't-cooperate.

    There's also the ongoing Blotus-can-only-pardon-federal-crimes angle; state prosecutions continue. And I'm wondering if Blotus DID issue a pardon, does that enable Manafort to get seized assets back? Or is he really, REALLY up the creek at this point even if he DOES flip?

  129. [129] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    One thing the new indictment in conjunction with the IRA indictment does, is bring some interesting dots to the fore while not quite connecting them.

    Here is a great read on the IRA from pre-tump times.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/magazine/the-agency.html

    I find some of the overlapping dates most fascinating.

  130. [130] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Gates lied during his QFAD proffer.

    This may be why, I notice, Mueller is deliberately NOT relying on witness statements to indict Manafort, preferring instead to go after him using verifiable records and traceable transactions. He doesn't want Manafort to be able to turn Gates' past lies into a way to discredit the allegations against him. Gates, however, can be Mueller's 'deep throat', helping him to find the right rocks to turn over.

    Paula [128]: I think that Trump is stuck between a rock and a hard place: if he pardons Manafort, then Mueller is free to compel testimony from Manafort about Trump, reasoning that Manafort won't be able to claim 5th Amendment protection, nor would want to re-incriminate himself by lying to investigators. And there's the State angle you mention that could render the whole 'pardon' thing moot. A pardon, in otherwords, might not solve anything for Trump, and it's not like the far right is asking Trump to do that anyway.

    Mueller and Rosenstein are still on thin ice, however. Mueller has somewhat protected himself by sharing his findings with US Attorneys in key districts, and with the NY Atty General, so that if he is fired, the investigation can continue.

    But imagine this scenario:

    Christmas, 2018: Mueller is closing in, having indicted Kushner already, and lain the foundation to indict Ivana as an accessory. The House and Senate are set to be in Democratic hands, and half of them are promising to ramp up pre-impeachment hearings as soon as they hit town in January.

    Who's to say that Trump, with the excuse that "crazy democrats" could endanger national security by hamstringing the administration in congressional inquiry, wouldn't right then try to pull a rabbit out of a hat and pardon both himself and his and his entire administration from any wrongdoing, and THEN fire Mueller, claiming that his investigation was, as a result of the pardon, moot?

    Democrats would howl, Trumpers would cheer, and never Trumpers would frown assidiously. House and Senate Republicans would throw up a wall of resistance to impeachment, claiming that Trump's pardons give Democrats no basis for it. It would surely be taken to Court, but could take a long time to make it to the Supreme Court, by which time Trump would be shouting "Take it to the Voters!" to eagerly enthusiastic crowds. Thus would begin a surreal 2020 Presidential campaign.

    It could happen.

  131. [131] 
    goode trickle wrote:

    Bathy-

    or here is another what if for you to ponder.

    https://tinyurl.com/yaaubjfo

    Interesting piece from Tim Snyder i came across today on Salon...If you want to enjoy what if?

  132. [132] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Michale,

    Yes.. Officer(S)... There was only ONE officer and SOP and ROE requires the SINGLE officer to not engage but rather feed intel until back up arrives..

    Nope. Since Columbine, police have recognized that waiting for a SWAT team, or even back up, results in loss of innocent life. The goal is to start moving towards the shooter within one minute of arriving on scene (many shooters turn their guns on themselves at the sight of police to make sure they won’t be caught).

  133. [133] 
    Kick wrote:

    Balthy
    130

    This may be why, I notice, Mueller is deliberately NOT relying on witness statements to indict Manafort, preferring instead to go after him using verifiable records and traceable transactions. He doesn't want Manafort to be able to turn Gates' past lies into a way to discredit the allegations against him. Gates, however, can be Mueller's 'deep throat', helping him to find the right rocks to turn over.

    I like your way of thinking, but consider this: The rocks are already turned over. :)

  134. [134] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    goode trickle [131]: Snyder and I agree on this point: Trump has no moral center, and is capable of attempting a con job of epic proportions, because hubris.

    And I think he planned to be flamboyantly self-serving from the time he took office. When Comey got too close, and refused to 'play ball', Trump thought that he would simply fire him, get him off his back. He said as much to the Russians afterward (and as if to demonstrate his hubris, he did so in the oval office).

    But I think that Trump was taken aback by the speed with which the firing of Comey turned into the hiring of Mueller, and how boxed-in he has been politically to doing anything about it. That's made him more cautious, and stimulated his sense of self-preservation. He's often threatened to fire Sessions, and Rosenstein, and Mueller, but has held back, probably due to advice that doing so could make things worse.

    But the people around Trump have no such qualms. I could imagine a plot to 'frame' the Democrats for irregularities in the voting tabulation process, possibly using Russian hackers, who proved in 2016 that they could breach State level voter databases. You don't have to break into each and every voting machine - you only have to affect the tabulation of those votes at the State level, preferably in real time. And you don't have to even be successful: you need only leave a big enough footprint to be caught. And then make sure that the footprint looks like the other guy's foot. That would throw the election results into doubt nationwide and accomplish the same thing that Snyder suggests, but without Trump's fingerprints being anywhere near it. He could do as he's been doing: denying any prior knowledge of it.

    But we would know the truth, because Roger Stone would tweet just beforehand: Expect problems with election results. Dems will go down!

    Gawd, I've depressed myself tonight. Gotta have a smoke to get my head back to cheerful!

  135. [135] 
    C. R. Stucki wrote:

    Sounds like the Looney Tunes folks have arrived.

  136. [136] 
    Michale wrote:

    Gates plead guilty to: Conspiracy Against the United States.

    That's a big deal. :)

    Only to a hysterical NeverTrumper...

    If I had wanted to call him a coward, I could have easily done so in no uncertain terms...

    And you did...

    These are the facts...

  137. [137] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nope. Since Columbine, police have recognized that waiting for a SWAT team, or even back up, results in loss of innocent life. The goal is to start moving towards the shooter within one minute of arriving on scene (many shooters turn their guns on themselves at the sight of police to make sure they won’t be caught).

    Everything you said is factually accurate..

    Which doesn't conflict with what I said. A SINGLE officer is not to engage an active shooter..

    This is according to SOP and ROE...

  138. [138] 
    Michale wrote:

    CRS,

    Sounds like the Looney Tunes folks have arrived.

    Yer implying that they have left at some point. :D

  139. [139] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    136

    Only to a hysterical NeverTrumper...

    Pleading guilty to "Conspiracy Against the United States" is a big damn deal no matter who who are, and any so-called "LEO" who claimed otherwise would simply be showing everyone exactly the type of "LEO" he was, but then you're the so-called "LEO" who insisted that a ban on guns in Australia quote: "had no NO EFFECT on the death rate," demonstrating yet again your well-known ignorance.

    What exactly is it that you think "death rate" means? Here let me help you:

    death rate
    ?deTH ??r?t/
    noun

    the ratio of deaths to the population of a particular area during a particular period of time, usually calculated as the number of deaths per one thousand people per year.

    And you did...

    Nowhere did I call him a coward. Donald Trump called him a "coward," and I agreed that Trump was an idiot.

    But that's a case where somebody was outside, they're trained, they didn't react properly under pressure or they were coward. ~ Donald Trump

    Michale: Actually, the deputy DID react properly according to SOP and ROE....

    So Trump is an idiot. I agree.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2018/02/22/from-the-archives-no-silver-bullet/#comment-116459

    Those are the facts.

  140. [140] 
    Michale wrote:

    Nowhere did I call him a coward.

    You claimed that another officer said that Peterson "hid".. That officer said no such thing...

    and I agreed that Trump was an idiot.

    YOu said Trump was an idiot and then agreed with yourself...

    Big whoop....

    To sum up..

    You lied and claimed Officer Burton said something he didn't say..

    When confronted with the FACTS of your lie, you lied again and said you read it in a link...

    There are no facts to support ANY of your claims..

    That is the beginning and end of the discussion...

  141. [141] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    140

    You claimed that another officer said that Peterson "hid".. That officer said no such thing...

    Wrong. I posted verbiage I read and supplied the link, and you continue to lie and say it's not at the link when it is... in three places... and you continue to whine like a toddler over the term "hid" versus "took cover." At this point, you're a candidate for the blind hall of fame, the liar hall of fame, as well as the snowflake hall of fame... and in Trumpian fashion, "I won't even mention" the ignorant so-called LEO hall of fame for dumb officers who don't know that "death rate" statistics are based on population and who keep insisting that an officer followed SOP and ROE when his own boss, Sheriff Israel, said he should have gone in and when the protocol for school shootings changed approximately 19 years ago after Columbine like Russ correctly informed you already. Clue in.

    Peterson, who was armed with a handgun, didn't follow police procedure and immediately confront Cruz when he started his rampage with an AR-15 assault rifle, according to the Broward County Sheriff's department.

    [same link as blockquote below]

    YOu said Trump was an idiot and then agreed with yourself...

    I was calling him an idiot for what he said about the officer, which included the word "coward" which I also didn't say... which Your Orange Worship did say, along with much more disparagement later on at CPAC.

    You lied and claimed Officer Burton said something he didn't say..

    Wrong again. I posted what I read which is at the link I posted... multiple times. I did not quote the officer; I posted what I read. It's there in three places in the article:

    * Once under a Fox News screen shot of the scene: And in an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Burton revealed Peterson hid from Cruz when the teenager started shooting....

    * Once in the text under the video of Sheriff Israel: In an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed that Peterson hid from Cruz when the teenager started shooting.

    * Once under the pictures of Officer Burton in police uniform and Mariners uniform: And in an interview with the New York Times, Coral Springs Officer Tim Burton revealed Peterson hid from Cruz when the teenager started shooting. Burton, who used to be a professional baseball player, said Peterson hid behind a concrete column.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5427207/Trump-says-cop-hid-gunman-coward.html

    When confronted with the FACTS of your lie, you lied again and said you read it in a link...

    It is at the link, and I even spoon-fed it to you like a toddler. Why don't you pull your head out of your ass and read it at the link and cease lying about it?

    There are no facts to support ANY of your claims..

    Says the admitted "prick" whining like a snowflake about an itty bitty word choice I read in article multiple times who obviously didn't follow the link and directions he was spoon-fed to where I read it.

    That is the beginning and end of the discussion...

    Wrong again, snowflake. :p

  142. [142] 
    Michale wrote:

    Wrong. I posted verbiage I read

    False verbiage...

    And you have yet to post a link where it is stated that Officer Burton said "hid"..

    Hence, you continue to lie..

    and you continue to whine like a toddler over the term "hid" versus "took cover."

    And you continue to lie and claim that there is no difference between the two terms, which there clearly is..

    Just like you tried to claim there is no difference between collusion and conspiracy and JL whacked your pee pee over THAT lie as well..

    The fact is, Officer Burton said NO SUCH thing as you claimed he said..

    You lied..

    Plain and simple..

    And now you go on and on trying to defend that lie..

    Not on my watch sweet cheeks.. :D

    "I'll stalemate you to the end of time!!!!!"
    -Quinn, STAR TREK VOYAGER

    :D

  143. [143] 
    John M wrote:

    [130] Balthasar

    "Who's to say that Trump, with the excuse that "crazy democrats" could endanger national security by hamstringing the administration in congressional inquiry, wouldn't right then try to pull a rabbit out of a hat and pardon both himself and his and his entire administration from any wrongdoing, and THEN fire Mueller, claiming that his investigation was, as a result of the pardon, moot?"

    There is just one PROBLEM with that scenario. A sitting President can constitutionally and legally pardon anyone with the EXCEPTION of HIMSELF. The President cannot pardon himself. Trump cannot pardon Trump.

    On the other hand, Trump could allow himself to be impeached and removed from office or resign, have Pence take over as President, and then have Pence pardon Trump, like Ford did with Nixon. That would BE perfectly legal and constitutional.

Comments for this article are closed.