yet another twist to the story in FL

[Mr Nice]

Java, Ive heard it takes around 7 soldiers in various support roles to have 1 soldier in combat actually doing the shooting. Is that an approximate ratio of non combat / combat roles ?

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: rshaw125

Originally Posted By: Wolf359

Originally Posted By: rshaw125

The FBI missed many warning signs of 9/11 and never found all of the Oklahoma City bombing suspects.

While the former is true, how do you know about the second? Are you one of the suspects? There was never any evidence of any other suspects. You can't disprove a negative.

It was in the original indictment. 'other unknown co-conspirators'. Many witnesses saw them but they were never captured. At their hotel they had visitors and on the morning of the bombing McVeigh had a person in the passenger seat.

That sounds more like legalize, throw everything at it and see what sticks. There were witnesses which claimed there were other men, but that was extensively studied and it's now well know how memory can be faulty and can't be trusted as being foolproof. I think the conclusion in that case was that the guy who said there were a couple other people was actually confused and those people had been in the day before and had nothing to do with the case. That's why you have a lot of people who are in jail due to eyewitness testimony, but DNA later turns up something else. Memory isn't 100%. It's funny how there are many conspiracy theories out there, but none of them ever pan out, yet lots of people believe them.

 

[bigj_16]

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice

3 more law enforcement officers are now in trouble for not entering the building...

Can we get a link?

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: bigj_16

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice

3 more law enforcement officers are now in trouble for not entering the building...

Can we get a link?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

 

[zorobabel]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp

Originally Posted By: Reddy45

Those of you who live in South FL - What was your perception of the Broward County Sheriffs prior to this incident?

The absolute dumbest law enforcement agency known to man. BSO is who you call if there is a bear in your backyard or a tiger in your kitchen. If BSO were a Street Fighter character, it would be Zangief. Asking BSO to investigate a complex situation is like sitting a monkey at a nuclear reactor. BSO way of handling mentally unstable trouble makers is to ignore them, and keep on trucking because they don't want to deal with a "pain in the butt". BSO are the head knockers. If they can't beat it or shoot it, they're just going to get back in their cars and leave.

I thought you were exaggerating, but in light of the latest article, I believe you.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: Wolf359

Originally Posted By: bigj_16

Originally Posted By: Mr Nice

3 more law enforcement officers are now in trouble for not entering the building...

Can we get a link?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/politics/parkland-school-shooting-broward-deputies/index.html

It's so easy for people sitting in front of a computer to make conclusions about everything that transpired that day. These officers might have though the shooter was outside, or could be coming outside. Who the [censored] knows what they were thinking at the time and did the things they did. There was probably so much initial confusion and trying to figure out what the whole situation was that they didn't instantly jump into the middle of a gun fight. This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.

 

[Gasbuggy]

Common sense thought, 3200 kids pouring out of a building might make it really hard to get into. Fire alarm was already going off, extra noise.

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.

And this is the ONLY thing that'll stop school shootings...more gun laws will do nothing...

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: grampi

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.

And this is the ONLY thing that'll stop school shootings...more gun laws will do nothing...

This may be but they can sure do lots more with electronic doors like our schools and my offices have. I’d even upgrade to the secured revolving doors that don’t allow tailgating … The day someone retires or is transferred at work … they no longer have access to grounds or building …

 

[Astro14]

Originally Posted By: Langanobob

Originally Posted By: Astro14

Originally Posted By: maxdustington

The problem I have is that he was allowed to retire, instead of having to face the music. That sets a concerning precedent. If he engaged, he would probably have gotten killed or injured. Either way, he would have been known as a hero. He chose his pension over serving and protecting.

I think most people would choose pension (or their own safety, or life, whatever) over running into a potential firefight. Combat statistics prove that to be the case. Nearly 75% of US Army Soldiers in WWII did not fire their weapons* That propensity: to not engage effectively, was first noticed in the US civil war. Ordinary citizens, pressed onto the battlefield, responded as most people do: reticent to kill another. Lots of people believe they would run towards the sound of the guns, but most do not in actual circumstances. And while there is no shortage of “keyboard courage” when the analysis starts, you won’t know which you truly are until you find yourself in a similar situation. * ref: “On Killing” by COL. Dave Grossman.

I’ve seen that 75% statistic before and I don’t think it’s coincidental that 75% of soldiers were in support roles and not on the front lines. We faced determined enemies and common sense tells me that we would never have won the war if only 25% of our front line soldiers fired their weapons.

Those “determined enemies” had an equal number of conscripts. And were armed with bolt actions against our M1. So, why would their soldiers have performed any better than our own? Our training has greatly improved. This statistic was true then, but is no longer true because of improved Training. 90% of our current soldiers fire very effectively. We have overcome human nature.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Loss of life is tragic. I've seen it countless ways over my 23 years of LEO. But, let's tally the failures of the "system" here ... - FBI does not properly investigate the potential of threats, not communicate those to local agencies that might have taken it more seriously. - Local agency has multiple contacts with the subject for a few year prior; many domestic issues, reports of life threats, etc. He's never brought up on charges that we're aware of at this point. - Local school resource officer (fully sworn, armed deputy in uniform) present at the shooting does zilch for 4 minutes while the carnage takes place. If we're going to talk reform, let's take a BIG PICTURE view of this.

I have two points to make in response to this portion of your original post: If this shooter was NOT a White male, but was either Black, or Middle Eastern, do you honestly believe that the FBI and Police investigations into this situation would have turned out the same, no charges would have been placed, he would have never been detained/arrested, and he would have been allowed to retain his weapons? Second, on the topic of Reform, do you believe that had he not been able to procure a weapon like the AR-15 with high capacity magazines, he would still have been able to kill 17 people, if he was running around with some other, lower capacity gun, like a bolt action rifle, or a 6 shot revolver, or better yet, no gun at all, and had to commit his murder spree with a baseball bat or a hunting knife? I know that the vast majority of you won't agree with my opinion that I am about to share, but its my opinion, and I believe it to be the truth: - Not everyone needs to possess a weapon capable of inflicting as much damage as an AR-15 and its ilk. - Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. - Every citizen should have the right to earn that privilege. - It should be earned, after proving proficiency and maturity. You know, like a drivers license. - And when the citizen becomes a threat to the public, they should be able to lose that privilege, just like they can lose their drivers license if they violate traffic laws, or lose their freedom if they are convicted of crimes. - Weapons should be insured, like automobiles, and there should be an insurance scale that represents the likelihood of someone being a danger to society that could lead up to the termination of your privilege to own and possess guns. There should be a national database that is shared across all concerned agencies that will allow them to determine if there is justifiable cause to remove a citizens privilege to possess and procure weapons. I could keep going on, but its not going to make any difference for most of the members of this forum. Some of you have said over the years that you want to have weapons like the AR-15 just in case the tyrannical government decides to knock on your door, and take your guns away from you. You guys know who you are, and you're nuts, and are among the people who I think really, really, really shouldn't have guns. Here's a question I have for every LEO on the forum: How much less stressful would your job be if you knew for a 100% certainty that on every call you will ever respond to, or traffic stop that you initiate, that there is ZERO chance that the people who you are about to interact with has a gun on them? How much happier would your family be if they knew there was ZERO chance that you were going to get shot by a nut job with a gun, and a defective brain? BC.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Loss of life is tragic. I've seen it countless ways over my 23 years of LEO. But, let's tally the failures of the "system" here ... - FBI does not properly investigate the potential of threats, not communicate those to local agencies that might have taken it more seriously. - Local agency has multiple contacts with the subject for a few year prior; many domestic issues, reports of life threats, etc. He's never brought up on charges that we're aware of at this point. - Local school resource officer (fully sworn, armed deputy in uniform) present at the shooting does zilch for 4 minutes while the carnage takes place. If we're going to talk reform, let's take a BIG PICTURE view of this.

I have two points to make in response to this portion of your original post: If this shooter was NOT a White male, but was either Black, or Middle Eastern, do you honestly believe that the FBI and Police investigations into this situation would have turned out the same, no charges would have been placed, he would have never been detained/arrested, and he would have been allowed to retain his weapons? Second, on the topic of Reform, do you believe that had he not been able to procure a weapon like the AR-15 with high capacity magazines, he would still have been able to kill 17 people, if he was running around with some other, lower capacity gun, like a bolt action rifle, or a 6 shot revolver, or better yet, no gun at all, and had to commit his murder spree with a baseball bat or a hunting knife? I know that the vast majority of you won't agree with my opinion that I am about to share, but its my opinion, and I believe it to be the truth: - Not everyone needs to possess a weapon capable of inflicting as much damage as an AR-15 and its ilk. - Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. - Every citizen should have the right to earn that privilege. - It should be earned, after proving proficiency and maturity. You know, like a drivers license. - And when the citizen becomes a threat to the public, they should be able to lose that privilege, just like they can lose their drivers license if they violate traffic laws, or lose their freedom if they are convicted of crimes. - Weapons should be insured, like automobiles, and there should be an insurance scale that represents the likelihood of someone being a danger to society that could lead up to the termination of your privilege to own and possess guns. There should be a national database that is shared across all concerned agencies that will allow them to determine if there is justifiable cause to remove a citizens privilege to possess and procure weapons. I could keep going on, but its not going to make any difference for most of the members of this forum. Some of you have said over the years that you want to have weapons like the AR-15 just in case the tyrannical government decides to knock on your door, and take your guns away from you. You guys know who you are, and you're nuts, and are among the people who I think really, really, really shouldn't have guns. Here's a question I have for every LEO on the forum: How much less stressful would your job be if you knew for a 100% certainty that on every call you will ever respond to, or traffic stop that you initiate, that there is ZERO chance that the people who you are about to interact with has a gun on them? How much happier would your family be if they knew there was ZERO chance that you were going to get shot by a nut job with a gun, and a defective brain? BC.

You don’t own guns?

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: grampi

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.

And this is the ONLY thing that'll stop school shootings...more gun laws will do nothing...

I'm not sure where that conclusion comes from. Look at Australia, Europe, et cetera.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

Here's a question I have for every LEO on the forum: How much less stressful would your job be if you knew for a 100% certainty that on every call you will ever respond to, or traffic stop that you initiate, that there is ZERO chance that the people who you are about to interact with has a gun on them? How much happier would your family be if they knew there was ZERO chance that you were going to get shot by a nut job with a gun, and a defective brain? BC.

And what practical parallel are you drawing here? Where does this Utopia exist? Policing exists to enforce laws and regulations and to levy punishment against those that aren't law abiding. If everybody was law abiding, there wouldn't be a need for policing. Unfortunately, criminals, regardless of rules and regulations, will procure weapons that can and are used against not only other criminals but against the general public and even law enforcement. The lack of ability to control this is painfully evident in the jail system where, despite round-the-clock surveillance and physical isolation, weapons are still somehow smuggled in or hand crafted. Criminals will always be armed. Conjuring up some PFM Utopia that will never exist to demonize firearms owners because criminals manage to obtain guns is ridiculous. Human nature doesn't work that way, there are events all throughout history that do an incredible job of demonstrating that.

 

[xxch4osxx]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

Originally Posted By: dnewton3

Loss of life is tragic. I've seen it countless ways over my 23 years of LEO. But, let's tally the failures of the "system" here ... - FBI does not properly investigate the potential of threats, not communicate those to local agencies that might have taken it more seriously. - Local agency has multiple contacts with the subject for a few year prior; many domestic issues, reports of life threats, etc. He's never brought up on charges that we're aware of at this point. - Local school resource officer (fully sworn, armed deputy in uniform) present at the shooting does zilch for 4 minutes while the carnage takes place. If we're going to talk reform, let's take a BIG PICTURE view of this.

I have two points to make in response to this portion of your original post: If this shooter was NOT a White male, but was either Black, or Middle Eastern, do you honestly believe that the FBI and Police investigations into this situation would have turned out the same, no charges would have been placed, he would have never been detained/arrested, and he would have been allowed to retain his weapons? Second, on the topic of Reform, do you believe that had he not been able to procure a weapon like the AR-15 with high capacity magazines, he would still have been able to kill 17 people, if he was running around with some other, lower capacity gun, like a bolt action rifle, or a 6 shot revolver, or better yet, no gun at all, and had to commit his murder spree with a baseball bat or a hunting knife? I know that the vast majority of you won't agree with my opinion that I am about to share, but its my opinion, and I believe it to be the truth: - Not everyone needs to possess a weapon capable of inflicting as much damage as an AR-15 and its ilk. - Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right. - Every citizen should have the right to earn that privilege. - It should be earned, after proving proficiency and maturity. You know, like a drivers license. - And when the citizen becomes a threat to the public, they should be able to lose that privilege, just like they can lose their drivers license if they violate traffic laws, or lose their freedom if they are convicted of crimes. - Weapons should be insured, like automobiles, and there should be an insurance scale that represents the likelihood of someone being a danger to society that could lead up to the termination of your privilege to own and possess guns. There should be a national database that is shared across all concerned agencies that will allow them to determine if there is justifiable cause to remove a citizens privilege to possess and procure weapons. I could keep going on, but its not going to make any difference for most of the members of this forum. Some of you have said over the years that you want to have weapons like the AR-15 just in case the tyrannical government decides to knock on your door, and take your guns away from you. You guys know who you are, and you're nuts, and are among the people who I think really, really, really shouldn't have guns. Here's a question I have for every LEO on the forum: How much less stressful would your job be if you knew for a 100% certainty that on every call you will ever respond to, or traffic stop that you initiate, that there is ZERO chance that the people who you are about to interact with has a gun on them? How much happier would your family be if they knew there was ZERO chance that you were going to get shot by a nut job with a gun, and a defective brain? BC.

How exactly is this going to have any impact on someone getting their hands on a black market AR-15 or any other type of firearm? Criminals are called criminals because they do not care about rules or laws. Make all the laws you want and criminals will still go about their business with not a care in the world.

 

[Wolf359]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx

Criminals are called criminals because they do not care about rules or laws. Make all the laws you want and criminals will still go about their business with not a care in the world.

By that logic why even have locks on your door? If you make it harder, it cuts down on the number of incidents that you have.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: xxch4osxx

How exactly is this going to have any impact on someone getting their hands on a black market AR-15 or any other type of firearm? Criminals are called criminals because they do not care about rules or laws. Make all the laws you want and criminals will still go about their business with not a care in the world.

Yep ... probably a bunch of them cranking out untraceable AR-15 ghost guns as we speak.

 

[ZeeOSix]

Originally Posted By: 4WD

Originally Posted By: grampi

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.

And this is the ONLY thing that'll stop school shootings...more gun laws will do nothing...

This may be but they can sure do lots more with electronic doors like our schools and my offices have. I’d even upgrade to the secured revolving doors that don’t allow tailgating … The day someone retires or is transferred at work … they no longer have access to grounds or building …

Tight building security has to be part of the equation. All doors should be locked and no access in or out unless the school lets kids leave the campus for lunch break (ie, high schools) ... but more danger there, as a sniper could be waiting outside for the lunch let out, or for the end of day let out - Example - LINK. It never ends - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

More patterns emerge... All these system failures look deliberate to me.

No way any of this is deliberate (tin foil hat stuff) ... but what's clear is many systems are not in place, or extremely broken or inefficient.

People don't want to pay for systems. I'd suspect especially in a place like FL, where there is no income tax at all apparently. Systems cost money. It's sad that people have to even think about the need for guards and protection (all of which costs money, yet another evil public servant and pensioner at each public school in a town?). I personally am not a fan of restricting SA weapons, but see very little reason for high capacity magazines. That said, a perp who wants to do bad can rapidly reload from a backpack full of ready 10 round mags too... so while there may be some slight rationale to some semblance of one facet of gun control discussion, it doesn't solve any issue. We already have more people incarcerated than in any other industrialized nation. If a crazy can't get a gun, what's the next step? What will they try next? What are the statistics of school massacres in the rest of the world? Bombs? Cars? Chemicals? Locked doors won't help, this person snuck in. A swipe in/out may help - you can't get in without swiping in. But it's a huge bottleneck and can likely be worked around unless you're going to convert every single school in the country into a mini pentagon. Again, who wants to pay for that? It truly is a matter of finding, tracking, and restricting the crazies, without having big brother in your life or being tracked. But that's a slippery slope towards a one strike rule.

 

[4WD]

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

Originally Posted By: 4WD

Originally Posted By: grampi

Originally Posted By: ZeeOSix

This is why schools need trained armed people that reside inside the school and are nearly instantly ready for action, as that is the best place to be when someone tries to enter the school and shoot it up.

And this is the ONLY thing that'll stop school shootings...more gun laws will do nothing...

This may be but they can sure do lots more with electronic doors like our schools and my offices have. I’d even upgrade to the secured revolving doors that don’t allow tailgating … The day someone retires or is transferred at work … they no longer have access to grounds or building …

Tight building security has to be part of the equation. All doors should be locked and no access in or out unless the school lets kids leave the campus for lunch break (ie, high schools) ... but more danger there, as a sniper could be waiting outside for the lunch let out, or for the end of day let out. It never ends.

My oldest brother hid behind a car for a long time during this one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman