Which of these is the primary enabler of mass shootings in the USA?

[WrestlingRasta]

Copy and paste strikes again.

Read my post above  Or, just drug them up, that’s a lot easier. 
 

When someone says they don’t know what can be done about parenting other than just drug them up, and then tries to double down on it…. not sure I can even continue with the conversation with them.  They’re either not serious and just trying to be stupid, or they’re too far gone  

 

[mspart]

You misconstrue my statement into one of advocacy.   It is not, it is just a fact.   I provided evidence of that fact.  No one twisted your arm to respond WR.  

mspart

[WrestlingRasta]

New tidbit….

the Uvalde officer who was on trial for not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids, was found not guilty of not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids. 
 

So the message is….even if a school has an armed guard and they’re not comfortable doing their sworn duty to protect the kids….it’s okay. 
 

[Paul158]

59 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

New tidbit….

the Uvalde officer who was on trial for not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids, was found not guilty of not doing his sworn duty and trying to protect those kids. 
 

So the message is….even if a school has an armed guard and they’re not comfortable doing their sworn duty to protect the kids….it’s okay. 
 

Do you mean the Parkland resource officer ?

[WrestlingRasta]

Yes I’m sorry, thank you. 

[mspart]

So what good is having armed personnel protecting a school if they won't protect a school?    The prosecution must not have established his intent not to get involved is all I can figure. 

What does the future hold now?   No one will get involved?   That's the precedent set here. 

mspart

[Paul158]

1 hour ago, mspart said:

So what good is having armed personnel protecting a school if they won't protect a school?    The prosecution must not have established his intent not to get involved is all I can figure. 

What does the future hold now?   No one will get involved?   That's the precedent set here. 

mspart

If you get a chance read up on the Parkland shooter. What an utter failure on almost every level that led up to this  tragic shooting. From his parent , to the family that took him and his guns (9) with the gun safe,( the father insisted he give him the key to the safe)( of course the kid had 2 more keys), to the school ,to the local police that had about 50 run ins with him.   If the resource officer could have pin pointed were he was and how many shooters there were he would have needed several other officers to take him out. The shooter had a semi auto rifle ,  and hundreds of rounds of ammo. I doubt if the officer would have lasted 10 seconds had he found him. I think the officer had a 9mm with about 9 rounds. 

[mspart]

I don't see that as an excuse.   The resource officer is there to protect the kids.   By abdicating that, who knows how many kids would still be alive if he had gone after the shooter.   He may not have won that is true.   But it is just as likely, with his training, he could have taken out the shooter before more damage was done.  Even with a 9mm and a few well placed rounds. 

I agree with everything else you said.   I just don't excuse the resource officer who was armed and there to stop this kind of thing.   However, we never truly know what we will do in a similar circumstance until we are in it.   I will give him that much I guess.

mspart

[Le duke]

I don't see that as an excuse.   The resource officer is there to protect the kids.   By abdicating that, who knows how many kids would still be alive if he had gone after the shooter.   He may not have won that is true.   But it is just as likely, with his training, he could have taken out the shooter before more damage was done.  Even with a 9mm and a few well placed rounds. 
I agree with everything else you said.   I just don't excuse the resource officer who was armed and there to stop this kind of thing.   However, we never truly know what we will do in a similar circumstance until we are in it.   I will give him that much I guess.
mspart

SCOTUS has ruled that police have no legal responsibility to protect (and serve) you. Castle Rock vs Gonzalez, 2005.

Which is kind of horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrestlingRasta]

47 minutes ago, Le duke said:

SCOTUS has ruled that police have no legal responsibility to protect (and serve) you. Castle Rock vs Gonzalez, 2005.

Which is kind of horrific.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So then, by Supreme Court Ruling, an SRO in every school is in fact not the answer.   

[mspart]

That sounds like the case.   That one was about a restraining order that was not enforced by the local police.   Apparently that is not required.  So what is the purpose of a restraining order?   3 people are dead as a result.

mspart