• 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?

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
ah_boys_to_men_robinson_road_bts_scene.jpg


I think these guys are fighting.
What do you think. that they are only fighting when they move from behind the vehicle, and just stand with guns blazing?

Stupidity has nothing to do with this.
Why do you continue to bring up completely unrelated incidents?
We are talking about (or in your case ignoring) the actions/inactions surrounding the incident at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, TX on May 24.

All these nonsensical references to other incidents at other times in other places are red herrings!

You continue to ignore the fact that people died as a direct result of the delayed reaction of law enforcement on site.


“One teacher, Mireles, 44, died in an ambulance: her husband Ruben Ruiz, one of six uniformed members of the Uvalde school district's police department, said at 11:48am that 'she says she is shot.'

She was not carried out until after the gunman was dead, an hour later. Three children, including Xavier Lopez, 10, died in hospital, having been shot in the back.

'He could have been saved,' said his grandfather, Leonard Sandoval. 'The police did not go in for more than an hour. He bled out.'”
More than a DOZEN of the 36 trapped in Uvalde school were alive and waiting rescue for an HOUR | Daily Mail Online
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
the Texas Rangers and the FBI are investigating the shooting response and will "get to the bottom of every fact with absolute certainty.
The opinions of anyone is not the important thing here.
The findings from the investigation of the facts are.
Right now, you have given your view. Thanks.

The link offered several facts, and I have offered only one opinion, that the article seemed pretty damning. You seem to have started a thread to ask for views, and are getting more and more butt hurt every time anyone responds in a way you don't like, pretty ironic uh?

Did you read the part where the leading police official in the state said you don't wait for tactical equipment when it involves an active shooter?

Well you've shown you aren't really interested in the views you asked for, or any of the facts, where they don't fit your preconceived views. Thanks...
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
the Texas Rangers and the FBI are investigating the shooting response and will "get to the bottom of every fact with absolute certainty.
The opinions of anyone is not the important thing here.
The findings from the investigation of the facts are.
Right now, you have given your view. Thanks.
“The Texas Department of Public Safety is now investigating the shooting and the subsequent police response. The Department is said that Arredondo mistakenly 'treated the shooting as a barricaded suspect incident where law enforcement would typically negotiate with the gunman.

Instead, they say that he should have treated it like an 'active shooter situation', which would see officers prioritize stopping the shooting by killing gunman Ramos or bringing him into custody.”
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
Do as you wish. Only you can control your behavior, and thinking.
I will do what I think is necessary to do.
Apparently you don't think it's necessary to say what you really meant.
So all I can do is go on what you said, and what I took away from it. So I'm walking away thinking what I thought in the first place. :shrug:
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
The link offered several facts, and I have offered only one opinion, that the article seemed pretty damning. You seem to have started a thread to ask for views, and are getting more and more butt hurt every time anyone responds in a way you don't like, pretty ironic uh?

Did you read the part where the leading police official in the state said you don't wait for tactical equipment when it involves an active shooter?

Well you've shown you aren't really interested in the views you asked for, or any of the facts, where they don't fit your preconceived views. Thanks...
The article only offers one side of the facts. Are you saying these are the only facts to be considered?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
The article only offers one side of the facts.

Facts don't have sides, you're just making your bias obvious, not that it was in any doubt by this point. Also the article quoted the opinion of the leading police official in the state. If all facts are relevant, why have you pointedly ignored every fact in the link I posted, and offered a rather churlish dismissal?

Are you saying these are the only facts to be considered?

Given the sole part you quoted of the article I linked, was where it said very specifically that all the facts were going to be investigated, and you quoted it twice, how is it possible you could ask such a spectacularly stupid question?

You seem to want views that agree with you, then dismiss all facts that don't as somehow premature. For you to imply anyone else's is biased at this point is simply risible.
 
Last edited:

stvdv

Veteran Member
The article only offers one side of the facts. Are you saying these are the only facts to be considered?
Good point.

Anyway, this shooting will be a good opportunity for them to start making some big changes in management of this US problem. Watching this from Holland, I get the feeling school shootings increase rapidly the past few years. IF true that could become a new epidemic in the US. 18 year old children so much ****ed up shooting down grandmothers and children. Wow, there is something seriously going wrong in the US. They better find out the source of the problem...the shootings are just symptomatic, as is fire arm control
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Facts don't have sides, you're just making your bias obvious, not that it was in any doubt by this point. Also the article quoted the opinion of the leading police official in the state. If all facts are relevant, why have you pointedly ignored every fact in the link I posted, and offered a rather churlish dismissal?



Given the sole part you quoted of the article I linked, was where it said very specifically that all the facts were going to be investigated, and you quoted it twice, how is it possible you could ask such a spectacularly stupid question?

You seem to want views that agree with you, then dismiss all facts that don't as somehow premature. For you to imply anyone else's is biased at this point is simply risible.
I was stupid to respond to you Sheldon.
I'm sorry. I don't know why I keep making that mistake.
I won't do it again... I hope. :)
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
As far as I can see @stvdv did no such thing. He simply gave his view - how he sees it.
Exactly...just calmly and decently explaining my opinion after I (and others) got disrespectfully misrepresented/belittled in an indecent way

You took it as a personal attack on your view.
Which it was definitely not...all can believe whatever they want, and when phrased in a humane and humble way, you won't hear me:)

@stvdv tries not to condemn. That's how he is. I have known him to be that way for a long time.
Thanks a lot, and to explain why I am very driven to stick to that, read the below
My Master says "If you condemn anyone, you condemn God"...so, I never condemn anyone online (imagine...I don't even know them)

Although, he seeks to correct me at times, and it may seem like condemnation :), he's not trying to condemn... just trying to help.
Exactly...and when you would have added IMHO, I would not even seek to correct you...only if you forget to phrase it as your opinion;)

In short:
"I only correct others if they...well violate RF Rules...these are quite decent, covering well how I feel one should phrase replies"
Belittling others using nasty english words, well, I might answer like a Stingray (if I am moody), BUT still stick to RF Rules and decent words (because I don't want the wrath of God get to me at night...I love proof of God, but I rather have God-proof when He is pleased with me...not when He is upset:))
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I was stupid to respond to you Sheldon.

Well your response was pretty stupid, that much is self evident.

I'm sorry. I don't know why I keep making that mistake.
I won't do it again... I hope. :)

Damn, every time I open my heart. At least you have abandoned the last bit of pretence you're looking for debate anyway, and the views of others. Maybe change the title to Don't post unless you agree....
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
First I want to apologize for the words I used in post #15.
No need, because you phrased it perfectly
(Of course if you coincidentally phrased it perfectly, but meant it to be mean, well, then maybe apology is in place...but such behavior is not on our ToDo list, right?)

IF others felt bad THEN that was not due to how you phrased it, but due to their negativity while interpreting your words

I should have kept that to myself
You did, by the way you phrased it;)
 

1213

Well-Known Member
That won't reduce gun crime or mass shootings, whereas reducing the amount of guns, and making them harder to obtain does, as other countries have demonstrated. ...

I don't think it reduces violence. Those who will be violent, will get some gun anyway. Banning guns is only harmful for those who are not evil.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I don't think it reduces violence. Those who will be violent, will get some gun anyway. Banning guns is only harmful for those who are not evil.
That has been demonstrated not to be true in multiple other countries, and the US has a massively higher rate of gun crime and deaths than other developed countries that have such gun laws. They also have the highest number of privately owned guns per capita in the world now. This is called evidence, what you posted is just a subjective unevidenced claim.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
I watched a CNN cast condemn officers for not storming the classroom and taking out the gunman. One person even suggested those officers are not worthy to be cops, and should hand in their badge.
I watched the video - muted of course, since I didn't want to hear anything.
I think the first responders were not equipped either mentally, physically, or experienced enough to handle the situation.
The trained and equipped officers arrived 30 minutes later, and moved in a little after 15 minutes - no doubt after a briefing of the situation and planned action - taking out the gunman.
I think those CNN "experts" owe those cops an apology.
It seems many other people... including an ex chief of police agree with them.
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?

A while back a gunman held hostage three women employees at the state mental hospital.
Authorities were called in.
At one point there was a clear view of the gunman at a window.
The crowd kept yelling out to shoot him.
The rely they got was that the authorities wanted a peaceful solution or outcome.
More and more time passed by. Things got worse one woman bled to death.
The two injured survivors could Not even sue the state because they were state employees.
Seems as if things have not changed in 'response time' just as it was back then.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
No need, because you phrased it perfectly
(Of course if you coincidentally phrased it perfectly, but meant it to be mean, well, then maybe apology is in place...but such behavior is not on our ToDo list, right?)

IF others felt bad THEN that was not due to how you phrased it, but due to their negativity while interpreting your words


You did, by the way you phrased it;)
Thanks. I didn't intend it to be mean, but I considered that others might interpret it that way.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
A while back a gunman held hostage three women employees at the state mental hospital.
Authorities were called in.
At one point there was a clear view of the gunman at a window.
The crowd kept yelling out to shoot him.
The rely they got was that the authorities wanted a peaceful solution or outcome.
More and more time passed by. Things got worse one woman bled to death.
The two injured survivors could Not even sue the state because they were state employees.
Seems as if things have not changed in 'response time' just as it was back then.
Do you have more details - like the state, or name of hospital.
I'm interested in seeing what the overall facts were.
I found an item, but I am not sure if it's the same incident. It doesn't seem to be.

However, it has an interesting detail.
Two Nurses Shot During Standoff
Police Capt. Thomas LaCrosse, at a news conference late this afternoon, said police became more concerned for the safety of the hostages early Friday, after Czajkowski started referring to the two women as "suspects" instead of "witnesses" as he had earlier in the standoff, and refused to let either police or family members speak to the women to determine their condition.

LaCrosse said it was "routine" for the State Police Special Emergency Response Team to break windows to gain visual access in situations such as this, but no suspect has ever responded by shooting.


"Routine" led to an unexpected and deadly response.
That's interesting, in the context of officers using judgment versus protocol.
I guess protocol trumps judgment.

Residents weren't happy about the outcome of police protocol, and a psychiatric aide said they set the guy off and triggered him to pull the trigger.
One resident said, he thinks the state police made a mistake, and caused innocent people to lose their lives.

I wonder what might have been the response, if the actions of the police had resulted in the death of one or more of those children at Robb's school , from a cop's bullets.
I have seen some cops traumatized over the death of a "kid" they gunned down.

I remember that boy that had a toy gun, who was shot by police.

I see humans who make mistakes while trying to do their job. I don't condemn them for trying.
However, some are eager to do so.
As @stvdv said... and I agree, "I could not do what they do."


I'm wondering though, if the guy holding the women hostage, were our mentally ill dad, would we have been happy the cops wanted to negotiate, and bring a peaceful end, thereby giving him a chance, or would we have been yelling, "Take him out now that you have the chance. Shoot him in the head."


Thanks though @URAVIP2ME, you gave me an idea.
I have begun doing a historical search.

Pennsylvania standoff ends after 33 hours of police negotiations, hostages rescued
A police standoff in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, came to a peaceful end Tuesday night after over 30 hours of negotiations with a suspect who barricaded himself inside an apartment with two hostages.

Authorities first responded to the scene of the apartment at around noon on June 28 when Derrick Hutcherson, 36, shot a 25-year-old Lower Paxton Township woman...

During that time, the perpetrator fired multiple shots at officers and the officers ran out of options.

Hard job it is. Must be quite tiring, and painful... not to mention, dangerous.
We both know the reason is, it's Satan's world, and the only solution is God's kingdom.
Many don't believe this, but at least some are taking it to heart.
 

Dao Hao Now

Active Member
I wonder what might have been the response, if the actions of the police had resulted in the death of one or more of those children at Robb's school , from a cop's bullets.

Again; part of the reason for the response that you find unwarranted, is the fact that the action (i.e. inaction) DID result in the death of one or more of those children and one of the teachers due to delayed medical attention.

Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge this?
 

stvdv

Veteran Member
I see humans who make mistakes while trying to do their job. I don't condemn them for trying
Exactly. And condemning others exhibits ones ignorance anyway, as it means you mess up the fact:
1) There is a divine incarnation...Who I Am
2) There is an action...What "I" Do
Step 1 in spiritual life is to not identify action with the person, a blunder many make. They mix up the facts

As @stvdv said... and I agree, "I could not do what they do."
Exactly. Humbleness is essential. Even if I could do what they do then still the stuation might be that I freeze due to e.g. a past emotional trauma or so

Condemning even actions just means ignorance. I make this mistake still, but the Wise (and God) declared that from God's POV (Truth) everything is perfect. So to declare someting as a "wrong" action is even "false" (as in incorrect, from the POV of the Wise (God, Truth) ).

I am humble and trust the words of the experts in this. The ancient Wise, Saints, Sages who meditated for years obviously know more than I know
 
Last edited:
Top