RE: High school shooting in Parkland FL
February 26, 2018 at 2:57 pm
(February 26, 2018 at 1:55 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Cadet Bonespurs running his fucking mouth again.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/...ave-weapon
Quote:Trump on Parkland: “I’d run in there even if I didn’t have a weapon”
Two-bit phony piece of shit.
Yep, "phony" is the key word. I won't even try to pretend I would a have gone in myself, I accept I could not mentally handle such a situation, but if you are going to talk like you can, his history is inconsistent. If I had been an adult back during Nam, I would have said, "I'll be happy to serve stateside in a non combat role, but if you put me on the battlefield I'd get someone killed." He is dishonest.
And again, I did the boards in radio and covered a WW2 memorial dedication and listened to vets who landed on the beach, and one of the speakers said many who got on the beach froze in fear, that is still more than I could have done, but Trump didn't even do that. Easy to talk about what you would do when you have never been in that situation. Of course 99% of the D-Day soldiers didn't freeze. But the point is, it is absurd to claim what you would do when you don't even have a history of trying.
I have never served in the Military, nor in law enforcement so I won't comment on someone's mental state of mind who is under fire. I only know I cant handle it. But again, even if those cops had gone in, it would be lopsided considering they were facing someone with a more powerful weapon.
I'd say if anything went wrong, it was long term GOP gutting funding for proper training and vetting officers on top of facing a flooded market. One could argue they should have gone in if they want, but even with firefighters and 9/11/01 my landlord was a former firefighter, and he said when he saw the intensity of the flames knowing it was melting the medal, he questioned the orders of sending more in and even said to himself watching, if that metal gets hot enough, it will get soft enough to snap, and it did.
So it is bullshit even if one proves the officers who went in were "cowards" It still would not change long term policy. A standard police issue sidearm would not be able to face a battlefield riffle.
And while I only took pool lifeguard training, not the far more difficult and dangerous ocean training, both are trained that if your victim is pulling you under, you are trained to break away, so if we go by 45 bullshit mentality, even if someone goes in, but has no choice but to retreat to reassess, they are "cowards". If the generals of WW2 took that attitude we would have lost to the Germans. Even in cases where military or police go in, but back off, it is no different than a firefighter assessing a burning building and saying, we cant go in.
I think everyone wants a first responder to be able to handle the stress under life threatening emergencies. But to do that you have to vet those whom apply too, and not simply say "a warm body is good enough". So if onrr are right in these guy's being "cowards", where was the vetting process to wash them out before they took the job?
We also have lots of battlefield vets, whom make it through training, think they can handle it, they see violence, their buddies and or civilians get slaughtered, and that is horrible enough, but then we don't do anything for them to any pragmatic degree, when they suffer PTSD when they come home, then they commit suicide and or get violent with family or society.
Humans sell this hero worship, when what we should be supporting, isn't a perfect human being, but policies that vet better, so we don't end up with anyone who cant handle the job. But even for those whom can, we cannot create crappy conditions that make their jobs harder, even for those who can handle it.
If firefighters don't want to see buildings burn down, business or houses, then building codes matter. If cops don't want to face mass shooters, and society does not want to face an over zealous police force, then it is not a 1 way street. If we want to hire police military who can do the job, we have to have a vetting policy that does that too.
The NRA and the CEOs do not care about protecting either society or law enforcement. This isn't about, or should I say, it should not be about cops vs society or society vs cops. The NRA is for cops until they are not. The NRA is for society until they are not. It is about their leadership protecting profits, their real slogan should be, "Profit's lives matter" and or "Gun's lives matter." But they don't give one shit about either cops or society.
