Okay, well maybe have that conversation with someone else right now, because I’m not fucking in the mood to be endlessly mansplained how things are and what we SHOULD do based on that… Like FOUR seperate people have made this same point to me and others. WE GET it.
The brave officer engaged him! Oh wait, that makes us look bad, er… no, he didn’t!
I get there’s going to be a lot of confusion, but whoo boy do cops lie, and they’re so willing to say things they don’t know are true if it seems to put them in a good light. Maybe some day we’ll find out what actually happened…
@anon61221983
Sorry. I was trying to make a different point than the others, but I’m apparently not being helpful either way. Very sorry if I’m unintentionally being an aspie a-hole.
You are not. I’ve just been told several times, after saying that I UNDERSTAND the legal situation, that they are not legally obliged to defend people’s lives. My POINT is and remains, that it’s bullshit.
You’re point is fine, I’m just not in a mood for it right now.
With a rusty fucking chainsaw. Holy shit, I just cannot believe the moral rot the GQP has become. “If you let us kill more melanized folks, we’d be more willing to protect your kids.” What the actual fuck…
Not my kid, and not the school my kids go to, but one in our county district. Sorry, that “we” was “we the district”.
One of the high schools with a larger gang presence and an all around rougher school. When we moved to the area, we specifically didn’t move into the area that goes to that school. Our district doesn’t have the most even distribution between school environments.
My kids handled the event well, and they knew some kids at that school. The event was clearly a “one on one” or “few on few” interaction over something shady. It was a planned meet up over some dispute where the participants were sure it would go poorly ahead of time. We didn’t know any of the kids involved in the incident.
Lots and lots of social media calls to bring SRO back after it though. And, it clearly wouldn’t have mattered at all.
Thanks for responding to only part of one sentence. I said " Good guy with a gun means regular citizens, who are already right there at the scene being able to take immediate action to contain or reduce the threat from a shooter." You responded to “…are already right there at the scene* being able to take immediate action to contain or reduce the threat from a shooter.” leaving out the most important part. Good guy with a gun does NOT refer to police AT ALL.
Disturbing, gross cowardice and incompetence summarized in this thread.
But as this thread points out:
“And the best part, because of the Supreme Court decision in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (a 2005 decision delivered by Scalia), no matter how incompetent, cowardly, or negligent police are, they cannot be held accountable.”
This from the article: Her son, Christian Garcia, said a friend in law enforcement who was at the scene saw his mother shielding students during the rampage.
More generally, though, the only thing that they are any good at is a violent response to a violent emergency. Statistics show that everything else they do, they do poorly or are worse at than doing nothing at all.