Do You Agree?

[Sheldon]

I am convinced that the proliferation of rampantly violent games and movies encourages such conduct in people that are off base mentally.

It doesn't seem to have any such effect in the many other countries, that coincidentally have strict gun laws.

 

[Sheldon]

For a moment there, I thought I was the only rational person here. Thanks for that.

Here's a tip, if you want to appear rational don't use known logical fallacies like this no true Scotsman fallacy you just posted, as it's something of an own goal.

If everyone is being irrational then point out why you think that to be the case, what principles of logic are you claiming anyone has violated would be a good start, rather than using the word rational as rhetoric like this, and shooting yourself in the foot by violating a principle of logic yourself with a known logical fallacy.

 

[Sheldon]

And so? Why do you think that is? Furthermore, as I understand it, guns are not proliferating in Japan amongst the general public and sold to just about anyone, legal or not. As I look at things, there is so much violent thrill on tv. Why do you think that is? Do you think people love violence? Are thrilled by it?

I think you made a claim of causation without any evidence, and that is not borne out by the evidence, as many other countries have violence depicted in movies and games, and don't have anywhere near the rate of violent gun crime the US suffers. These other countries also have strict laws controlling gun manufacture, sale, and ownership, so the evidence suggests the lax gun laws in the US are the greater causal factor, that and the inevitable proliferation of guns that has resulted from a very profitable industry for gun manufacturers.

 

[Sheldon]

FWIW, in the UK AFO's or armed firearms officers, are specially trained to carry and use firearms, there are also ARV's, armed response vehicles, and all forces have these ARV's, they are crewed by authorised firearms officers to respond to incidents believed to involve firearms or other high-risk situations.

Since all US police officers (I assume) are required to carry firearms, one assumes they receive training in the use of firearms, but this might not involve specialised training in armed sieges and or hostage taking situations. Though given the ludicrous proliferation of guns in the US, maybe it should.

 

[Fool]

No the police deserve pity, not scorn. The police have a hard job.

The police have a hard job. I'm grateful for the police. I know they are people; imperfect as we all are.

Yes, it does.

So the situation does not matter?
Why not rush into a building with a hostage situation, and squash SWAT? No need to call them in any situation.
They should not even take cover behind their vehicles either. Just stand in the open with guns blazing.

The first responders - the cops that went into the building 2 minutes behind the gunman, were the cops that were chasing the truck the gunman lost control of, and crashed.
That's why they got there so quickly.

They are regular street cops, who police the streets, and deal with traffic violations.
They give chase where the criminal tries to get away.
They call SWAT where there is an armed and dangerous menace. They don't put their lives in danger. They wait until SWAT arrives.
That's not wise?

I think people watch too many movies, and then think that's how real life plays out.

Then when cops shoot, out of fear for their lives, they are called criminals.

It's a tough job. Most cops work hard at doing a good job.
Some of these are fathers and mothers, husbands and wives, who want to go home to their families They deserve some credit, I think.

Getting the full picture helps too.

Most rural areas don't have swat teams. It's not financially feasible. Also, most cops, at least in Kentucky have continuous on the job training through the state police academy.

Most active shooters have little to no type of training. So if there was two or more cops on sight, there should have been no hesitation.

Law enforcement isn't the most dangerous job. It isn't even the second most dangerous job. Also, psychopaths choose both the military and law enforcement as one of their preferred professions. It gives them access to power and prestige.

Cops commit crimes too. Where all humans are fallible nothing is perfect.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of this has anything to do with what I said.

Yes, it does, and here's a little tidbit about who sponsors the buying of guns -- The Uvalde School Shooter Did Not Act Alone (msn.com)
By the way, do you like the idea of stricter laws for gun buyers? Or do you believe that guns don't kill, people do?

 

[YoursTrue]

Most rural areas don't have swat teams. It's not financially feasible. Also, most cops, at least in Kentucky have continuous on the job training through the state police academy.

Most active shooters have little to no type of training. So if there was two or more cops on sight, there should have been no hesitation.

Law enforcement isn't the most dangerous job. It isn't even the second most dangerous job. Also, psychopaths choose both the military and law enforcement as one of their preferred professions. It gives them access to power and prestige.

Cops commit crimes too. Where all humans are fallible nothing is perfect.

Well, can't blame the cops then. They tried their best, I'm sure about that. People don't like it when they don't do their jobs according to how they think they should do their job, then they (the protesters) commit more violence on the street to show just how they think about it. Murder is a bit short of imperfection, maniacs cannot be stopped by police. You and I have different viewpoints about these things because I believe God will settle these inequities and failures of human 'nature.' Have a good day.

 

[1213]

...
What do you think... Would it have been wise for those cops to have stormed the classroom? What do you think might have been the outcome?

I think those who are not ready to act in such situation should be in another position. If they are in such position, they put other people's life in danger, because people get false feeling of security.

However, 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. Police is not going to save them in such situation.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Those responsible for first responders standing by as children were slaughtered are guilty of unspeakably depraved negligence.

 

[Fool]

Well, can't blame the cops then. They tried their best, I'm sure about that. People don't like it when they don't do their jobs according to how they think they should do their job, then they (the protesters) commit more violence on the street to show just how they think about it. Murder is a bit short of imperfection, maniacs cannot be stopped by police. You and I have different viewpoints about these things because I believe God will settle these inequities and failures of human 'nature.' Have a good day.

God expects more than faith. People can daydream all they like but indifference in the face of action is cowardly.

They had guns. those killed didn't.

 

[nPeace]

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".

Nobody said it wasn’t a tough job.
I have several cops and law enforcement including SWAT in my family and friends. I’m fully aware of the demands of that job.
All of them understand the possibility of sacrifice involved.

Of course situations matter, that’s why they train for various situations.
Your hyperbolic hypothetical situation is so ridiculous I won’t even bother addressing the particulars.

While I didn’t see the particular broadcast you mentioned, I’ve seen a synopsis of the video just released that is undoubtedly what it was based around.

7 officers (all with body armor) arrive approximately 2 minutes after the shooter. After shots fired from the shooter they retreat down the hallway.
Within 20 minutes several more officers armed with long guns and ballistic shields arrive on scene. About 20 minutes after that, more shots are fired inside the classroom.
It was 1 hour and 17 minutes after the shooter entered the classroom, 1 hour and 15 minutes after the first officers arrived in the hallway, roughly 1 hour after officers with shields and long guns showed up in the hallway before they breached the room a took out the shooter.

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.

As far as getting the full picture: it’s true the video is only from one vantage point and does not show what is going on at any other location, however it is very damning in what it does show.

Mind you, there were several innocent children a couple teachers who didn’t have weapons or body armor inside that room who were texting and calling 911 desperate for help during that 1 hour and 15 minutes while many were literally bleeding out who may have survived had help been rendered sooner, whilst fully trained (perhaps not well), officers with weapons, body armor, and ballistic shielding waited around in the hallway.

And yes all the children and teachers had families too. However none of them had signed on and swore an oath to protect the public.

So yes, situation definitely does matter!

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."

 

[nPeace]

Those responsible for first responders standing by as children were slaughtered are guilty of unspeakably depraved negligence.

Do you have any suggestions about what they should have done, instead of take cover?

 

[nPeace]

Most rural areas don't have swat teams. It's not financially feasible. Also, most cops, at least in Kentucky have continuous on the job training through the state police academy.

Most active shooters have little to no type of training. So if there was two or more cops on sight, there should have been no hesitation.

Law enforcement isn't the most dangerous job. It isn't even the second most dangerous job. Also, psychopaths choose both the military and law enforcement as one of their preferred professions. It gives them access to power and prestige.

Cops commit crimes too. Where all humans are fallible nothing is perfect.

The cops know full well the guidelines against “failing to ascertain the presence of bystanders before firing a weapons.”
Do you think they do, or not?

 

[nPeace]

I really don't know.

I take it that there's a best way to handle such things, and that it can be taught and that this is what the commentators say should have been done.

But if none of the first responders had ever had that training, then they were staring at a blank page when it came to knowing what to do. It would then be a question of how quickly they called for expert help.

If on the other hand any of them knew the procedures but kept out of the way, then I tend to agree with the critics.

Whatever the answer, it's a point on a spectrum, not a simple yes or no.

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?

 

[nPeace]

Yeah to hell with all those dead children, its the cops lives that really matter??

To the cops, both matter... I think.

 

[nPeace]

It is standard procedure to call for backup and not go in unless they are safely in hot pursuit. But, when lives are on the line, they should intervene if possible. They should have already made up their minds that they would risk their lives when they signed up for the job. Their job should not be to stand around doing nothing as people are slaughtered.
.

If possible... and they did intervene. That's why they were there.
There is no benefit in risking one life and not saving anyone. No one benefits.

You know what the posts in this thread remind me of?
People saying what God should do or should have done to prevent or end suffering, as if they know better, and God does not know what he is doing.
All the while they ignore the quality of wisdom, which is being exercised, but they don't understand it... Nor see it.

 

[nPeace]

Oh, thank you

When I read from you "I watched it, w/o sound of course" I decided not to listen, and got a total wrong picture, thanks for clarifying.

Wow, really unfortunate indeed.

Sometimes we wish "if we had not done this or done it differently". If those first responders had not chased him in the first place....

At least 1 less in the list of school shootings on purpose. That trend is really a horror and terrible

If those first responders had not chased him in the first place....
That's something that's proving difficult to decide upon.
Sometimes these fleeing suspects have committed a murder.
The cops don't want them to get away, and at the same time don't want to endanger the public.
So they are left with the question... What to do?

Justice Department Addresses Police Pursuits
Apart from public and innocent bystanders becoming harmed, there have also been at least 139 police officers killed during these chases. In 1990, the Justice Department went so far as to call police pursuits the most dangerous of police activities while urging police departments across the country to adopt policies to list when officers should and should not pursue drivers. Despite this, many police departments still allow officers to make on-the-spot decisions about whether to pursue.

Some states use helicopter tracking, but sometimes the suspect gets away. Some are aware of police tactics.
If I were the Mayer, I would fire a missile at the fleeing suspect when the road is clear. Just kidding.

I thought of things to do. The police have too. They tried using a small tracking device that is fired from the police cruiser, but that sometimes gets dislodged.
Should they just let the suspect get away then?

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.

What else can they do?

 

[stvdv]

I think it is very odd for people to defend cops allowing children and other civilians to be put on danger in order to protect themselves.

I mean, no matter what way you slice it, that is literally the opposite of what a cop is supposed to do.

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

 

[nPeace]

I think it is very odd for people to defend cops allowing children and other civilians to be put on danger in order to protect themselves.

I mean, no matter what way you slice it, that is literally the opposite of what a cop is supposed to do.

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?

 

[JDMS]

That's a good point.
If guns were available as freely in Japan, who knows what the blood count would be there.
Not to mention, swords.

What is this supposed to mean? You think we would run around with katanas if given the chance? Seriously?