The last 24 hours have been busy. Hennepin County finally got around to
charging the cop who killed Justine Damond. A good guy with a gun
stopped a shooter in a high school in Maryland. And the guy who was terrorizing Austin with bombs
blew himself up as the police were closing in.
Of these stories, the one in Maryland is the most important, but also most likely to disappear from the news cycle, because it runs counter to the narrative. See if this argument sways you:
 |
| Speaking of fantasies |
I'm not sure how Zal (whoever he is, but he's official) plans to stop all kids from getting guns, but I have to imagine a certain amount of fantasy, backed by overwhelming brute force, would be necessarily involved. Apparently in Zal's world, doing what works gets in the way of doing what he wants. And while a 17-year old is not legally an adult, it's misleading to refer to him as a child. Show us your plan, Mr. Zal. Tell us how you're going to prevent "children" from getting guns. Provide details, please.
We'll be watching the Damond case closely, but at this point I only have one conclusion -- it's still awfully tough to convict a cop.
5 comments:
Zal is quite the contortionist. With an ability like that he could turn his mother into his father. Actually, these days...
Notice the incorrect verb tense? The officer had to shoot.... because ... the child BROUGHT the gun to school. There was no deterrent effect because "the child" was not deterred. That is not the fault of the deterrent but of someone who will not be deterred, and therein lies the problem. The only way to stop a determined aggressor is with superior force. Certainly the "guns free schools act" did not work, except to present what seemed an easy target for this young nut.
Through his parsing of facts, Zai's contortion flies in the face of reality.
A protective system has a number of components. A simple analogy would be a home alarm system. You install a system and place warning signs around the home to deter the intruder. It will deter most, but never all. If the intruder enters the home the owner is alerted and perhaps the police are notified. Once they are alerted an appropriate response is required and expected.
The school resource officer acts in much the same way. The majority will see their presence as a deterrent and comply with the rules. Some won't. When this happens their role changes to alert and respond.
Except by law the school resource officer should not have been allowed to have a gun within 1000 feet of the school, unless that is a sensible exception to an otherwise nonsensical law. It certainly didn't stop the shooter as the "DO SOMETHING with good intentions" law intended.
The students at Marjory Stoneman that demanded more security are getting it - good and hard.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/marjory-stoneman-douglas-students-get-clear-backpacks-safety-measure-n859251
None of these measures, of course, would have prevented the shooting at their school. It's a classic, totalitarian response: ratchet down privacy, rights and liberty in the name of "doing something" - which always seems to benefit the State, not those supposedly being protected.
Post a Comment