It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida sheriff refuses to resign during heated CNN interview

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 07:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: network dude


Honestly?

I'm surprised.

I assumed that leftists and CNN would side with the sheriff.


I guess I was wrong.

That is because there is more to hide about people more important than him that are involved.
If CNN wants him to suffer for this, they are making him the scapegoat.




posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

At least two teachers died because they attempted to protect kids using their own bodies as human shields. At least one student died attempting to escort his fellow students to safety (ROTC, btw).

Are you suggesting that by arming any of those three who were running into danger and attempting to do something to protect others, that they would have magically cowered in fear like the 4 deputies because ... gun?


I'm saying that one cannot predict the outcome. Protecting and shielding is different than actively seeking out and engaging a live shooter.

Putting a gun into the hands of those teachers does NOT mean that those teachers will engage in combat with the shooter. Ask the deputies that were too scared to go inside the school if you don't believe me.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

At least two teachers died because they attempted to protect kids using their own bodies as human shields. At least one student died attempting to escort his fellow students to safety (ROTC, btw).

Are you suggesting that by arming any of those three who were running into danger and attempting to do something to protect others, that they would have magically cowered in fear like the 4 deputies because ... gun?


I'm saying that one cannot predict the outcome. Protecting and shielding is different than actively seeking out and engaging a live shooter.

Putting a gun into the hands of those teachers does NOT mean that those teachers will engage in combat with the shooter. Ask the deputies that were too scared to go inside the school if you don't believe me.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 08:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

So are you saying that the teachers that put themselves in harm's way without weapons wouldn't have acted. Being a part of a situation and being apart from the situation are 2 different things, those with responsibility and weaponry to act didn't and others did.


I'm saying that giving a teacher a gun and training does not mean that anyone is safer, as the likelihood of a teacher using a weapon to engage a target is uncertain. Again, see the 4 Broward county deputies if you don't understand my point.

There's a huge difference between knowing how to use a gun, and engaging a human target with the intent on neutralizing that target.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 09:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

So are you saying that the teachers that put themselves in harm's way without weapons wouldn't have acted. Being a part of a situation and being apart from the situation are 2 different things, those with responsibility and weaponry to act didn't and others did.


I'm saying that giving a teacher a gun and training does not mean that anyone is safer, as the likelihood of a teacher using a weapon to engage a target is uncertain. Again, see the 4 Broward county deputies if you don't understand my point.

There's a huge difference between knowing how to use a gun, and engaging a human target with the intent on neutralizing that target.


No one has argued that arming teachers is 100% full proof. Nothing is perfect. However, just the mere possibility of armed teachers and staff at a school would significantly decrease a school being a soft target for a madman.

Schools are vulnerable. If not having armed security made any sense, then why do banks, government buildings, jewelry stores, airports, entertainers, politicians, etc have armed security?



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

The problem is always that there is only ever one solution allowed to be discussed - taking guns away from people who never, ever had anything to do with any of these incidents.

Because somehow, if we take a gun away from that guy out in the boonies of Texas who is using it to control the feral hog population on his land or if we take the handgun away from the lady who is or was being stalked by a dangerous ex or even just take it away from the person who likes to go out to the range and shoot targets on occasion, it is supposed to stop these incidents where it's clear that our public authorities failed at every level to do what we are trusting them to do.


Actually no one that I have heard is talking about a gun grab. Every proposal I've seen is about making guns more difficult to purchase by people with mental issues, known violent tendencies and such.

No one wants to take the guns away from "that guy out in the boonies of Texas" or "the lady who is or was being stalked by a dangerous ex. " That's the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The responsible gun owners think that it's a giant gun grab, but in reality, the sensible solution is to prevent gun purchases by those who don't have the mental facilities to stop themselves from committing heinous crimes.

There is a sensible middle ground that can actually do some good, that doesn't include arming the entire country nor disarming the entire country.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated


No one has argued that arming teachers is 100% full proof. Nothing is perfect. However, just the mere possibility of armed teachers and staff at a school would significantly decrease a school being a soft target for a madman.

Schools are vulnerable. If not having armed security made any sense, then why do banks, government buildings, jewelry stores, airports, entertainers, politicians, etc have armed security?


This school had an armed deputy on the premises. Your point is moot.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Edumakated


No one has argued that arming teachers is 100% full proof. Nothing is perfect. However, just the mere possibility of armed teachers and staff at a school would significantly decrease a school being a soft target for a madman.

Schools are vulnerable. If not having armed security made any sense, then why do banks, government buildings, jewelry stores, airports, entertainers, politicians, etc have armed security?


This school had an armed deputy on the premises. Your point is moot.


School had one armed deputy and he froze up. It does not negate the point. Maybe someone else would not freeze up. Just because one person dies wearing a seat belt does not mean seat belts don't save lives.

There have been several public mass shootings where a CWA ended it even though media rarely actually reports on it.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
I'm saying that one cannot predict the outcome. Protecting and shielding is different than actively seeking out and engaging a live shooter.

Putting a gun into the hands of those teachers does NOT mean that those teachers will engage in combat with the shooter. Ask the deputies that were too scared to go inside the school if you don't believe me.


Here's the thing: I'm not sure how much research that you've done on programs that advocate for, allow, and train teachers to carry a concealed weapon, but most that I've read about are not expecting or wanting these teachers to start clearing rooms and searching the entire building. Most of what I've read is that they want teachers armed in case they or their classroom is confronted or approached by an assailant, and at that time possibly engage the shooter.

I think that too many people seem to think that we're advocating that we turn teachers into special-ops soldiers, and that's not the case at all. Most of us just want our teachers to be able to be legally armed if they so choose, because if they are ever caught in the middle of a situation like that, they should have the option to protect their life and the lives of their students.

Given the chance, most people would use a weapon in their hand to preserve their life and others around them. But if they don't have that option, and all that they can do is either cower in fear or use their own bodies to protect their students, we're failing at giving them necessary options.

Of course no one can predict the outcome of each individual teacher being armed, but dammit, I'm a person who believes that they have a right to be if they so choose to do so and undergo specific training for that type of situation.

And that's the bottom line: You either believe that these teachers have a right to defend themselves or they don't. Everything else is just what-if noise that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme, because if the policies remain the same or even tighten up concerning no-gun zones, then they will all just remain sitting ducks.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: carewemust

From your linked story:

Asked about the car, Veda Coleman-Wright, director of BSO's public information office, explained that it was on loan from the Prestige Imports of Miami for the Toys in the Sun run and that it had been wrapped at no cost to the department.

It was a loaner with a free wrap to support a toy run.

I'm not a fan of this department at all at the moment, but I am a fan of giving credit where it's due, and this Lambo was not a purchased vehicle of the department.

On the flip-side, though, I believe that the claim about faulty radio equipment is horsesh*t.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 11:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Khaleesi

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: Khaleesi

Thanks. I don't know what to think now.
I am kinda creeped out, to be honest.



That interview puts a disturbing twist to the story. I linked an article from the NYT in another thread. He arrived at the school via Uber at 2:19. He was observed arriving. Was he already wearing body armor? Would an Uber driver let someone wearing body armor and carrying a bag in the car and transport him to a school? If not, when did he put it on? How long does it take to put on? Nobody did anything while he was putting on body armor?


someone from the school said they saw Cruz enter the school, they recognized him. So he couldn't have had helmet and tactical gear at that point. This is a strange twist, seems off.


Yes, that's my point. He was seen and recognized. And yet we have a teacher in a televised interview claiming the shooter was wearing full body armor, mask and helmet. The mask and helmet wouldn't take long to put on but what about the body armor? Was he already wearing it when he arrived or did he put it on after he arrived? If he put it on after, where was he while he was putting it on. Why did no one confront him during that time?

The article that I posted in another thread specifically states that he was seen and recognized when he arrived. He was known to have threatened students in the past. Why didn't someone follow him immediately and confront him. Surely anyone in semi decent shape could have put a little pep in their step and caught up with him before he finished putting on body armor. I just can't believe he got into an Uber wearing it. What sane person would pick up someone wearing body armor and carrying a duffel bag and transport him to a school? The Uber driver wouldn't have found that really strange and disturbing? He just couldn't have been wearing it when Uber picked him up. I don't believe that.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: Edumakated


No one has argued that arming teachers is 100% full proof. Nothing is perfect. However, just the mere possibility of armed teachers and staff at a school would significantly decrease a school being a soft target for a madman.

Schools are vulnerable. If not having armed security made any sense, then why do banks, government buildings, jewelry stores, airports, entertainers, politicians, etc have armed security?


This school had an armed deputy on the premises. Your point is moot.

You mean the one that was hiding outside with three of his armed coworkers?

Yes, and cops on the other side of town didn't have any effect either, mainly because they were not in the building engaging the shooter.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

The problem is always that there is only ever one solution allowed to be discussed - taking guns away from people who never, ever had anything to do with any of these incidents.

Because somehow, if we take a gun away from that guy out in the boonies of Texas who is using it to control the feral hog population on his land or if we take the handgun away from the lady who is or was being stalked by a dangerous ex or even just take it away from the person who likes to go out to the range and shoot targets on occasion, it is supposed to stop these incidents where it's clear that our public authorities failed at every level to do what we are trusting them to do.


Actually no one that I have heard is talking about a gun grab. Every proposal I've seen is about making guns more difficult to purchase by people with mental issues, known violent tendencies and such.

No one wants to take the guns away from "that guy out in the boonies of Texas" or "the lady who is or was being stalked by a dangerous ex. " That's the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The responsible gun owners think that it's a giant gun grab, but in reality, the sensible solution is to prevent gun purchases by those who don't have the mental facilities to stop themselves from committing heinous crimes.

There is a sensible middle ground that can actually do some good, that doesn't include arming the entire country nor disarming the entire country.


Jesus I get sick of idiots saying "nobody is saying 'X' "
Look into it FIRST, speak, about it SECOND.
www.washingtonpost.com...

The perpetrator of Wednesday's horrific school shooting in Parkland, Fla., purchased his military-style assault weapon legally. So did the man who shot more than 400 people in Las Vegas in October. So did the man who gunned down 49 people at Orlando's Pulse nightclub in 2016. So did the man who gunned down 26 worshipers at a church in Texas in November. Easy-to-obtain assault weapons, once banned under U.S. law, are a common thread connecting many of the deadliest mass shootings that have occurred in the past few years. Many gun violence experts believe that it's time to bring back the federal assault weapons ban — or at least something like it. “You would see drastic reductions in what I call gun massacres” with the return of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, said Louis Klarevas of the University of Massachusetts at Boston.


Yes, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IT.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 01:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: DBCowboy

The problem is always that there is only ever one solution allowed to be discussed - taking guns away from people who never, ever had anything to do with any of these incidents.

Because somehow, if we take a gun away from that guy out in the boonies of Texas who is using it to control the feral hog population on his land or if we take the handgun away from the lady who is or was being stalked by a dangerous ex or even just take it away from the person who likes to go out to the range and shoot targets on occasion, it is supposed to stop these incidents where it's clear that our public authorities failed at every level to do what we are trusting them to do.


Actually no one that I have heard is talking about a gun grab. Every proposal I've seen is about making guns more difficult to purchase by people with mental issues, known violent tendencies and such.

No one wants to take the guns away from "that guy out in the boonies of Texas" or "the lady who is or was being stalked by a dangerous ex. " That's the issue, as far as I'm concerned. The responsible gun owners think that it's a giant gun grab, but in reality, the sensible solution is to prevent gun purchases by those who don't have the mental facilities to stop themselves from committing heinous crimes.

There is a sensible middle ground that can actually do some good, that doesn't include arming the entire country nor disarming the entire country.


Jesus I get sick of idiots saying "nobody is saying 'X' "
Look into it FIRST, speak, about it SECOND.
www.washingtonpost.com...

The perpetrator of Wednesday's horrific school shooting in Parkland, Fla., purchased his military-style assault weapon legally. So did the man who shot more than 400 people in Las Vegas in October. So did the man who gunned down 49 people at Orlando's Pulse nightclub in 2016. So did the man who gunned down 26 worshipers at a church in Texas in November. Easy-to-obtain assault weapons, once banned under U.S. law, are a common thread connecting many of the deadliest mass shootings that have occurred in the past few years. Many gun violence experts believe that it's time to bring back the federal assault weapons ban — or at least something like it. “You would see drastic reductions in what I call gun massacres” with the return of the 1994 federal assault weapons ban, said Louis Klarevas of the University of Massachusetts at Boston.


Yes, THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT IT.


That doesn't say they're making a gun grab...it says " Many gun violence experts believe that it's time to bring back the federal assault weapons ban — or at least something like it."

My point stands...I have not heard anyone speaking of a gun grab.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

www.sandiegouniontribune.com...

www.ammoland.com...



Keep your head in the sand.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey


Here's the thing: I'm not sure how much research that you've done on programs that advocate for, allow, and train teachers to carry a concealed weapon, but most that I've read about are not expecting or wanting these teachers to start clearing rooms and searching the entire building. Most of what I've read is that they want teachers armed in case they or their classroom is confronted or approached by an assailant, and at that time possibly engage the shooter.


I'm sure that there are some of them that could and would do something. But if you are an experienced combat vet you understand that people freeze up and make poor decisions when under fire.


I think that too many people seem to think that we're advocating that we turn teachers into special-ops soldiers, and that's not the case at all. Most of us just want our teachers to be able to be legally armed if they so choose, because if they are ever caught in the middle of a situation like that, they should have the option to protect their life and the lives of their students.

Given the chance, most people would use a weapon in their hand to preserve their life and others around them. But if they don't have that option, and all that they can do is either cower in fear or use their own bodies to protect their students, we're failing at giving them necessary options.


Now I am starting to agree with your point a bit more.



Of course no one can predict the outcome of each individual teacher being armed, but dammit, I'm a person who believes that they have a right to be if they so choose to do so and undergo specific training for that type of situation.


The outcome could be positive or it's possible you could see teachers shooting students because "I felt my life was in danger" like you see LEOs state quite often. I would agree that preventing a mass murder could be worth the risk...but what if that teacher is incapacitated by a student and the handgun is stolen and used against others in the school???


And that's the bottom line: You either believe that these teachers have a right to defend themselves or they don't. Everything else is just what-if noise that really doesn't matter in the grand scheme, because if the policies remain the same or even tighten up concerning no-gun zones, then they will all just remain sitting ducks.


Sadly it's not as simple as that. I can understand your viewpoint, but I also disagree with it. It's not a black/white issue. There are many many shades of gray in this idea. I'm a gun owner and I can see this. Why can't you acknowledge that there are many issues with your proposal?



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

www.sandiegouniontribune.com...

www.ammoland.com...



Keep your head in the sand.


Assault rifles are every gun?



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

are AR -15's guns?



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: kelbtalfenek
originally posted by: SlapMonkey


I'm sure that there are some of them that could and would do something. But if you are an experienced combat vet you understand that people freeze up and make poor decisions when under fire.


I'm not an experienced combat vet, I'm just a vet who was lucky enough to serve before these endless wars started up.

But to your point, so people freeze up, some don't. It's better to freeze up with a gun in your hand than to be ready to act with nothing to defend yourself. It's that whole 'you're better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it' mentality.


Now I am starting to agree with your point a bit more.

Wow...I don't think that I've had more than a handful of people ever say that on ATS where we started with a difference in opinion. Thank you for actually considering what I wrote.


The outcome could be positive or it's possible you could see teachers shooting students because "I felt my life was in danger" like you see LEOs state quite often. I would agree that preventing a mass murder could be worth the risk...but what if that teacher is incapacitated by a student and the handgun is stolen and used against others in the school???

I would much rather err on the side of caution that these people have an immediate way to defend themselves than to worry obsessively over the fear of some statistically implausible happening. There are millions of people in America who carry weapons on their person every day, and you rarely, RARELY ever hear about someone being overpowered and their firearm used against them. Statistically speaking, that's an improbability.

Remember, we're talking about people who will be trained and (presumably) trained well, so that lowers the likelihood even more.


Sadly it's not as simple as that. I can understand your viewpoint, but I also disagree with it. It's not a black/white issue. There are many many shades of gray in this idea. I'm a gun owner and I can see this. Why can't you acknowledge that there are many issues with your proposal?

Well, for one, I haven't put forth a proposal.

Second, I have acknowledged many times on ATS in different threads that there are myriad ways that teachers and administrators having firearms could go, and that does include some bad. But at the end of the day, for me, I see the possibility of the good far outweighing the results that we see in every school shooting.

And again, I see carrying the firearm as a right for the teachers, even in the face of policies and laws against it, so my opinion on the matter is that they should all be able to, but I do agree that specialized training at the expense of the individual would be necessary in that situation.

I don't know if I posted it to you or in this thread, but I live in KY, and this is a proposal that's been in the works for a few years that I agree with: postky.org. That's more up the alley of what I'm thinking would be a good program to allow this.



posted on Feb, 26 2018 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: kelbtalfenek

are AR -15's guns?




new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join