• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Do You Agree?

stvdv

Veteran Member
So they are left with the question... What to do? :shrug:
True. And many sleepness nights I guess

Despite this, many police departments still allow officers to make on-the-spot decisions about
In movies the chase is top, in real life maybe less.

Should be simple for them to check how high the success rate is with and without "chase and race".

If chase kills relatively many more civilians then better minimize chase, unless it's a serial killer or something like that. E.g. don't chase small criminals (who rob, but don't kill)

But probably the chiefs have thought about these scenarios already

If I were the Mayer, I would fire a missile at the fleeing suspect when the road is clear. :D Just kidding
I sometime see such thoughts surface my mind too:D . Lucky they have drones now, soon all these problems will be solved

Should they just let the suspect get away
Maybe, maybe not. They should also check if cops like as in enjoy chasing. In the movies they seem to like it, but maybe that picture does not reflect real life

How about a joint contract with NASA and all car dealers, to use a satellite tracking system... but then that creates another problem with people's privacy.
Privacy is an illusion anyway, people better realize that. Knowing that to be a fact, I think it's a good idea to involve these advanced systems.

Unless it costs so much extra money that you could easily feed 100 poor families in 3rd world countries. So, afterall it's all quite relative I see here

What else can they do?
In Europa they solved it. This whole covid passport ID thing. Privacy gone, but that was an illusion anyway for already quite some time

I totally get it they are imposing this ID Worldwide now.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
It wasn't about just protecting themselves. Mack Boland wasn't there at the school.
This was about using good judgment to preserve lives... of all whom they could.
Losing one's life, and failing to save any, does not seem wise. Does it?
Police are trained to deal with armed assailants. Rather than do that, they stayed outside the school for almost a full hour, and publicly lied about the suspect's weapons and armour in order to justify taking no action.

They chased an armed shooter into a building full of children, did nothing for an hour, and lied about it in order to justify their cowardly inaction.

Trying to save lives and failing is better than doing nothing. They were cowards and liars. Stop protecting them.
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
I see people
People with emotions
People who are not perfect
Hence I easily empathize reading this

When I put them in boxes with labels
Then I understand also what you say
They are police officers. It is literally their job.

Please stop acting like you are morally superior because you choose to give the benefit of the doubt to police officers who would rather let children die than put themselves at risk. The teachers in the school, people without any weapons or training and who did not swear an oath to protect or serve, DID put their own lives in danger to protect children. If you want to reflect on human nature, perhaps you should wonder why they were willing to do that while police officers cowered in fear and then lied in order to cover it up.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What is this supposed to mean? You think we would run around with katanas if given the chance? Seriously? o_O
No. I don't think you would run around with swords if given a chance.
I said, who knows, as in, we don't know.
We would only know if the situation was presented.

However, looking at your record, you have a commendable record, compared to the rest of the world.

That doesn't mean some wouldn't kill, right?
Japan has one of the world’s lowest murder rates at 0.2 per 100,000 people in 2017 (compared with 5.3 per 100,000 people in the U.S.)., but the country has a grisly record of violent rampages, and they appear to be becoming more common.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Police are trained to deal with armed assailants. Rather than do that, they stayed outside the school for almost a full hour, and publicly lied about the suspect's weapons and armour in order to justify taking no action.

They chased an armed shooter into a building full of children, did nothing for an hour, and lied about it in order to justify their cowardly inaction.
Do you have credible sources to support that assertion.
There is no video footage showing the suspect running... but he walks casually into the school.

Men are seen running from him though, and video surveillance caught him shooting [at someone] at the school.
If the police chased him into the school, why did they not shoot him?
Why did it take them 3 minutes to catch up with him, if they chased him into the school?

Trying to save lives and failing is better than doing nothing.
Not if one acts foolish, no.
For example, A man that cannot swim and is terrified of being in the water, would be foolish to jump in to play hero, and drown, along with the one he "tries to save".

They were cowards and liars. Stop protecting them.
That's an assertion.
If you can prove it, then it would be a fact.
We would see that shown to be the case.

I'm not protecting anyone. I'm not justice, or a lawyer, or any of that.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What is this supposed to mean? You think we would run around with katanas if given the chance? Seriously? o_O
I see you have the death penalty in Japan.
Capital punishment in Japan is a legal penalty. It is applied in practice only for aggravated murder, although it is also permitted for certain crimes against the state, such as treason and military insubordination, as well as kidnapping resulting in death. Executions are carried out by long drop hanging, and take place at one of the seven execution chambers located in major cities across the country.

Death sentences are usually passed in cases of multiple murders, though some individuals who committed only a single murder have been sentenced to death and executed in exceptional cases, such as those involving torture, or kidnapping with a demand for ransom


That makes quite a difference, I think.
 

JDMS

Academic Workhorse
No. I don't think you would run around with swords if given a chance.
I said, who knows, as in, we don't know.
We would only know if the situation was presented.

However, looking at your record, you have a commendable record, compared to the rest of the world.

That doesn't mean some wouldn't kill, right?
Japan has one of the world’s lowest murder rates at 0.2 per 100,000 people in 2017 (compared with 5.3 per 100,000 people in the U.S.)., but the country has a grisly record of violent rampages, and they appear to be becoming more common.

I see you have the death penalty in Japan.
Capital punishment in Japan is a legal penalty. It is applied in practice only for aggravated murder, although it is also permitted for certain crimes against the state, such as treason and military insubordination, as well as kidnapping resulting in death. Executions are carried out by long drop hanging, and take place at one of the seven execution chambers located in major cities across the country.

Death sentences are usually passed in cases of multiple murders, though some individuals who committed only a single murder have been sentenced to death and executed in exceptional cases, such as those involving torture, or kidnapping with a demand for ransom


That makes quite a difference, I think.

What do either of these links have to do with swords? Why did you bring up swords in the first place, while talking about Japanese people?
My issue came with the fact that you seem to be implying that Japanese people would use swords to murder people any more than a European might. I say this as someone who's seen people equate being Japanese with samurai/swordsmaster fantasies. I'm tired of the stereotyping.

So why, why did you mention swords when talking about Japanese people? Why did you say "not to mention, swords", as if its obvious that we would use swords?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I think this case shows nicely that government forces can't be trusted, all should have own gun to defend themselves, if they so want.
Does that include the man who used his gun to mass murder the children here?
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
First I want to apologize for the words I used in post #15.
I should have kept that to myself, considering that when it comes to children, emotions can run high... not saying I don't have those.

I'm sorry I wasn't sensitive to that.
I didn't even plan on getting in a dispute, but just exchange facts. So, I apologize for voicing my "feelings".


Three minutes after the gunman went down the hallway, officers arrived on the scene, and immediately went down the hallway, where the gunfire was coming from.

It makes sense to me... and I am not saying this to 'degrade' anyone... They used the opportunity where the gunman was engaged, to gain ground.
However, they quickly ran for cover, and I understand why.
If a man is shooting at me from cover, and I am in a long hallway, with nothing to hide behind, bulletproof vests won't protect me.

Then all I have is a little pow pow, and those backing me up have the same. I don't feel comfortable they can take out a guy who is behind a wall, unleashing rounds from an automatic rifle, and I am in the open.
There are no marksmen there.
These were not special forces equipped to deal with this situations.

The special forces arrived nearly about half an hour after - 12:04:48. 15 minutes after - which was 48 minutes after the gunman opened fire in the corridors - they moved toward the suspect.

Why the 15 minute delay?
Well, there could be a several reasons.
  • There was a briefing on the situation, and the plan of attack?
  • They needed to get a "mental map" of the classroom from the school master.
  • The marksman was equipping himself.
  • They had to retrieve equipment from the truck.
Sigh
15 minutes. 15 minutes, and they got the job done, and people are condemning them, rather than praising their wisdom, in a situation where they are placing themselves in a long corridor, opened to an attack from a cornered "rat" with an automatic rifle, and a wall for cover... and having not a clue about the layout of the territory, they are about to jump into.

Then there is the factor involving bystanders.
With the police who are not trained marksmen, a situation like this could have happened.
An innocent bystander was "tragically" killed when a California police officer opened fire to shoot another suspect, authorities said.

“...an officer fired his service weapon at the wanted suspect, but instead struck an uninvolved resident who was sitting in a vehicle in the 100 block of Obispo Street,” the statement read.

...As the police closed in, the gunman drew his .45-caliber handgun, and two officers opened fire, discharging 16 shots in all.

Ten people were hit: the gunman, who was killed, and nine pedestrians caught in the hail and ricochet of police bullets
.

Just imagine 9 children hit by bullets from those officer's guns.
I'm trying to hold back. It's hard, but I'll keep my thoughts to myself.


All I can say is, I would like to see all of you take their position, and see how it plays out.
I would like to watch it, and see how many cops are dragged out covered in a white sheets.

I think wisdom, as the Bible says, is the prime thing.
Wisdom is the prime thing. Acquire wisdom; and with all that you acquire, acquire understanding. - Proverbs 4:7

The Biblical sense of wisdom lays emphasis on sound judgment, based on knowledge and understanding; the ability to use knowledge and understanding successfully to solve problems, avoid or avert dangers, attain certain goals, or counsel others in doing so. It is the opposite of foolishness, stupidity, and madness, with which it is often contrasted. Source

I guess there will always be people on both sides of the issue. A. Too much deadly force. B. Too little deadly force. But both sides will have losers, and "winners".

I guess too, this is all the result of man's brilliant creative skills.
"Let's make a gun."
"Why?"
"It's long range, and far more powerful, and quicker than a bow and arrows... and we can make it even faster, and even puncture walls."
Wow! Where to begin…?
To be clear; I am not at this point in time necessarily laying the blame on any particular officer(s), further detailed investigations will determine that. There is already enough evidence however that comand and control in this situation royally screwed the pooch!

“Three minutes after the gunman went down the hallway, officers arrived on the scene, and immediately went down the hallway, where the gunfire was coming from.”
“If a man is shooting at me from cover, and I am in a long hallway, with nothing to hide behind, bulletproof vests won't protect me.”

Actually that is precisely what bulletproof vests are designed for.

“Then all I have is a little pow pow, and those backing me up have the same.”

A “little pow pow”… isn’t that adorable…really?!
Funny how firearms are never described like that when people get killed with them…but I digress.
I counted 7 officers that were visible at that time (3 minutes in) on the video ( all armed with “little pow pows”)
there may or may not have been more present that weren’t visible on the video. It was known to be a single shooter.

Your timeline is distorted.
Actual facts:
Police started receiving multiple 911 calls while the shooter was shooting outside the school at 11:31

As per the time stamp on the video:
11:33 Shooter enters classroom firing multiple
rounds ( carnage begins) call it (T).
11:36 First officers arrive. 7 at least. (T+3)
11:43 Back ups arrive with rifles and full
body armor. (T+10)
11:52. Ballistic shield visible in hall. (T+19)
12:21 More shots fired in classroom
Declaration of “We’re going in”
but no attempt to breach. (T+48)
12:50 Breach of classroom and subject
neutralized. (T+77)

Incidentally, it was Boarder Patrol officers that went in and neutralized the shooter.
Not “special forces equipped to deal with this situations.”

“Sigh
15 minutes. 15 minutes, and they got the job done, and people are condemning them, rather than praising their wisdom, in a situation where they are placing themselves in a long corridor, opened to an attack from a cornered "rat" with an automatic rifle, and a wall for cover..”

So which 15 minutes of the 1hour and 17 minutes are you attempting to defend here? And what about the other 1 hour and 2 minutes?

So why do specific times matter?

Because teachers and children were known to have been shot and timelinesses of medical assistance critical.
Imagine you were shot with an AR15 at relatively close range; do you imagine your chance of survival would be better if medical assistance were rendered in say your 15 minutes or
not for 1 hour and 17 minutes?
It was known that there were survivors inside the classroom “opened to an attack from a cornered "rat" with an automatic rifle”. They were begging. for help through texts and 911 calls.

“Then there is the factor involving bystanders.”

This is completely a nonsensical red herring.
The surviving kids in that classroom (you know the ones begging for help) weren’t “bystanders” they were victims currently under siege.

“Just imagine 9 children hit by bullets from those officer's guns.
I'm trying to hold back. It's hard, but I'll keep my thoughts to myself.”

There’s no need to imagine; 36 injured 19 fatally
by by “”rat” with an automatic rifle”!
“Trying to hold back”…..spare me!
How many of those 19 may have survived if the had been afforded medical attention rather than have to suffer for an hour and seventeen minutes?

“All I can say is, I would like to see all of you take their position, and see how it plays out.
I would like to watch it, and see how many cops are dragged out covered in a white sheets.”

Do you seriously not understand why law enforcement experts are condemning the response to this shooting?

What was it that the Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety said….
oh yeah;
that the law enforcement response to the attack at Robb Elementary was an abject failure and antithetical to everything we have learned over the last two decades since the Columbine massacre.

Three minutes after the subject entered the west building, there were sufficient number of armed officers wearing body armor to isolate, distract and neutralize the subject. The only thing stopping a hallway of dedicated officers from entering room 111 and 112 was the on-scene commander, who decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children.

The officers had weapons. The children had none.

“I think wisdom, as the Bible says, is the prime thing.
Wisdom is the prime thing. Acquire wisdom; and with all that you acquire, acquire understanding. - Proverbs 4:7”

Spare me your BS, you’ve demonstrated that you obviously have neither wisdom or understanding.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
What do either of these links have to do with swords? Why did you bring up swords in the first place, while talking about Japanese people?
My issue came with the fact that you seem to be implying that Japanese people would use swords to murder people any more than a European might. I say this as someone who's seen people equate being Japanese with samurai/swordsmaster fantasies. I'm tired of the stereotyping.

So why, why did you mention swords when talking about Japanese people? Why did you say "not to mention, swords", as if its obvious that we would use swords?
I read that guns and swords are not made easily available to the public, in Japan. So I mentioned both.

After reading the link I referenced, where those who commited mass murders used knives, I imagine that if they had easy access to guns and swords, which are more far reaching, the blood count would have been greater.

Now, I am wondering what you think about that.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I imagine that if they had easy access to guns and swords, which are more far reaching, the blood count would have been greater.

Now, I am wondering what you think about that.
I think the lax gun laws in the US are inevitably going to involve more and more of these tragic mass shootings.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
What if the first responder happened to be there, because they were within a few yards of the suspect at the time, and just had to don their bullet proof vests and follow the suspect into the building, but they are just regular cops?
That would depend on what he'd been trained to do, no?

I agree there's criticism that should be informed criticism. I agree that the humans who work in police or fire or military services consent to undertake certain risks in the line of work.'

And I've never been tested to see how I'd react if a gunman opened fire on a crowd I was in.

So in this case, knowing what I don't know, I leave judgment to others.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Thanks for that.
Quoting her words...
Let me qualify a little bit and just say, the law enforcement training that the FBI is pushing out and has pushed out for years requires that when there is active shooting underway, even if it's a single officer, you must pursue to the sound of the shooting or where you believe the shooter is. You must pursue all the way to the shooter and neutralize the shooter. That is the lone objective, and that — you should never waver from that.

A law enforcement officer, if they're trained, should continue moving forward, even if it means busting through a door, shooting through a door
. I recognize the risks that are going through their heads, 'oh, my gosh, there's children in that classroom. I don't want to hurt a child. I don't want to' — but we need to pursue, pursue, pursue, because the shooters have already proven that they're willing to kill people, and they'll continue doing it. That's why the priority is, you keep moving forward, even if it means you go through walls and if you go through windows and if you go through doors
.

I have a few questions.
1. Are all officers in the 50 states in the US required to follow that strict policy?

2. Protocols are not independent of others though, are they?
3. How does that work with this one?
Police officers shall not discharge their weapons when doing so will unnecessarily endanger innocent persons.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
That would depend on what he'd been trained to do, no?

I agree there's criticism that should be informed criticism. I agree that the humans who work in police or fire or military services consent to undertake certain risks in the line of work.'

And I've never been tested to see how I'd react if a gunman opened fire on a crowd I was in.

So in this case, knowing what I don't know, I leave judgment to others.
That sounds fair.
I don't have all the facts either.
I just read in this article that the delay was due to other "protocols".
Col. Steven McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety, told the state Senate that the police response was an "abject failure." He pinned particular blame on Chief Pete Arredondo, saying that as on-scene commander the Uvalde schools police chief made "terrible decisions" and stopped officers from confronting the gunman earlier.

So, I suppose, it's important to wait until all the facts are gathered..

Protocols differ from State to State.
Imagine having to call your superiors, in order to get permission to engage a suspect, armed with a rifle.
A police officer armed with a rifle watched the gunman in the Uvalde elementary school massacre walk toward the campus but did not fire while waiting for permission from a supervisor to shoot, according to a sweeping critique released Wednesday on the tactical response to the May tragedy.
If that's accurate.

The laws in the US seem to make it difficult, since one could lose their job, for simply using their judgment / discretion.
 
Top