"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.

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

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

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...

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.

Sounds like the Looney Tunes folks have arrived.

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

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...

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...

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!

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. :)

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).

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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. :)

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?

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

That's a big deal. :)

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..

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...

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. :)

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

Another Manafort indictment unsealed

Another precious. Want to read it?

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

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...

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. :)

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!!

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

You are continuing to lie...

As is your norm...

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. :)

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...

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...

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

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

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

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...

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

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.

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. :)

Word....

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...

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

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..

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. :)

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....

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...

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..

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. :)

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...

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

The whole piece is good.

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.

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.

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

There is a HUGE difference as you well know..

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...

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..

No, Officer Burton DID NOT make that statement..

*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

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

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....

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.

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..

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.

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... :^/

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...

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]. :)

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

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...

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. :)

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. :)

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.

That sounds like vilification to me...

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...

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. :)

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...

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

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...

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.

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...

"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.

"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.

"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?

"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.

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...

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.

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..

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...