[RD] Florida School Shooting

[Timsup2nothin]

Forgive what, though? His crime, as far as anyone is able to articulate, is being the ground-level represent of dysfunctional public policy. No choice he as an individual made was going to have any measurable on that dsyfunction.

Well, he did make the choice to be that ground level representation. Maybe if the "I know, rather than try to limit guns let's hire an armed guard for the school" crowd had been confronted with "hey, no one wants this job because they all say it won't work" they'd have popped their heads out for a look around.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, he did make the choice to be that ground level representation. Maybe if the "I know, rather than try to limit guns let's hire an armed guard for the school" crowd had been confronted with "hey, no one wants this job because they all say it won't work" they'd have popped their heads out for a look around.

Sure, but that was out of the hands of any one individual. Whoever actually agreed to do that job was so far removed the point of policy-making that holding them individually responsible for public policy makes no more sense than holding any other member of the sheriff's department or the school board or the city, county or state governments responsible, because they all signed off on this absurd scheme, they just didn't find themselves on the ground when it all came apart.

If you want to hold these institutions collectively responsible, by all means- but what I'm getting here is the claim that because the officer had agreed to carry out unreasonable and unworkable instructions, for the purposes of assigning blame we should all treat those instructions as both reasonable and workable, which is a total abandonment of both practical and moral reasoning for no clear reason than deflecting responsibility away from those in positions of power.

It's cop-logic, if you can appreciate the irony.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sure, but that was out of the hands of any one individual. Whoever actually agreed to do that job was so far removed the point of policy-making that holding them individually responsible for public policy makes no more sense than holding any other member of the sheriff's department or the school board or the city, county or state governments responsible, because they all signed off on this absurd scheme, they just didn't find themselves on the ground when it all came apart.

If you want to hold these institutions collectively responsible, by all means- but what I'm getting here is the claim that because the officer had agreed to carry out unreasonable and unworkable instructions, for the purposes of assigning blame we should all treat those instructions as both reasonable and workable, which is a total abandonment of both practical and moral reasoning for no clear reason than deflecting responsibility away from those in positions of power.

It's cop-logic, if you can appreciate the irony.

Well, once again I'm not arguing for absolution of the policy makers, I'm arguing against this "oh let's get off the case of this poor downtrodden nebbish that took the job, never batted an eye when cashing his paychecks, and only stopped supporting the idiotic policy under extreme duress. There is no doubt at all that one month ago if I had confronted this guy with "you are a useless lump being paid for a job that cannot and will not actually make the schools a safer place" he'd have called me a variation of liberal, among other names, and defined himself as a hero.

 

[Lexicus]

I basically think that both Tim and TFish are right here. I knew from day 1 that any excuse not to make a real policy solution and blame this on some kind of 'bad apple' phenomenon would be seized. Blaming all this on one dude is silly. But yeah, at the same time he probably found out he doesn't support the policy when the policy might have put him in the way of some bullets.

 

[Farm Boy]

On the one hand yes, he took a job that presents a martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition. But then... that's only the case if he took the job in good faith and then lost his nerve when he in fact realized it was a martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition, and decided to go with scapegoat. I guess you can pity him having to endure the shame, etc... but can we really give him a pass on the scapegoat role he chose? He picked it.

On the other hand, as I and others have pointed out he may have taken the job in bad faith, just assuming he would never have to perform the task. So what then? Do we still want to forgive?

Then there's the third point, that I brought up earlier... the martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition was actually not his only option. He could have gone with "enter the building, find some kids, and then shelter-in-place with them"... With just a little more nerve than "Them kids are on their own, they knew the risks when they showed up to an American school!", he would have been a show stealing "hero" with poster-boy status for armed guards at schools and a permanent place as a guest on the talk show circuit.

Forgiveness is super hard. I'm not sure I'm ready. Signing up to protect kids, then failing to try in any form when actually needed? That's super rough, and I think that's the reality of the specific.

 

[Samson]

I basically think that both Tim and TFish are right here. I knew from day 1 that any excuse not to make a real policy solution and blame this on some kind of 'bad apple' phenomenon would be seized. Blaming all this on one dude is silly. But yeah, at the same time he probably found out he doesn't support the policy when the policy might have put him in the way of some bullets.

If making a different choice would have made it easier to continue the policy of protect with cop, would that really have been a better choice?

If his primary role was preventing this sort of thing, why did he not have a long gun? Surely the person who made that decision bears most responsibility.

 

[mitsho]

The thing is though, you can't really have two scapegoats in the public discourse. If we talk about the single cop, we are not talking about the policy, no?

So who DOES protect the children in such a situation in their mind?

Professionally trained and ready police? But such ready people cost so much that you are not going to post them statically at one school. And again, one man is no man. So you would realistically need teams of two or three. It's way cheaper to reduce that risk by taking away the possibilities to get guns. There are also incidents of school shootings in Europe, so no, you won't eliminate them completely. But total safety is an illusion anyway. Solve the problem, don't try to just build walls against it.

Then there's the third point, that I brought up earlier... the martyr-or-scapegoat, proposition was actually not his only option. He could have gone with "enter the building, find some kids, and then shelter-in-place with them"...

I'm actually not so sure that works. Most schools have double doors. You can't really see into them. What if, when he opens the door, the shooter shows up, and shoots him. He can't hold the door open and be ready to shoot. If you think of how SWAT teams storm a building, how would you do that alone? And if he gets in, and goes into a classroom and somebody knifes him in self-defense thinking he's the shooter? I just don't see that situation in reality as clear-cut. Maybe I worry and think too much, but it just seems that is another one of those written down easy, but in practice quite tricky situations.

 

[Berzerker]

Apparently 3-4 deputies didn't run in either, does their failure mean asking cops to respond to school shootings is a bad idea too? I dont get that logic...

The guy on the scene said he thought shots were coming from outside the buildings and he might have told the next batch of cops the shooter could be outside, they're supposed to take cover and assess the situation at that point. If I was still a student I'd feel safer if 3-4 security people were around.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Yeah, I can totally see 5 draft deferant bone spur, rushing into gun fire without a gun and totally round house kicking the shooter. What a ******** moron

Trump: I would have run into school during shooting even without a gun

"You don't know until you test it, but I really believe I'd run in there even if I didn't have a weapon,” Trump told a gathering of governors at the White House. "And I think most of the people in this room would have done that, too."

The president was doubling down on his criticism of an armed sheriff’s deputy who did not confront the shooter at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where 17 people were killed earlier this month.

"They weren’t exactly Medal of Honor winners, alright?" Trump said. "The way they performed was frankly disgusting.”

Trump also told the governors he ate lunch last weekend with leaders of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

"Don't worry about the NRA,” Trump told the governors. ”They're on our side.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...nto-school-during-shooting-even-without-a-gun

 

[Farm Boy]

If making a different choice would have made it easier to continue the policy of protect with cop, would that really have been a better choice?

If his primary role was preventing this sort of thing, why did he not have a long gun? Surely the person who made that decision bears most responsibility.

Yes.

You're not always supposed to win. Sometimes you're just supposed to slow things down. The larger response takes a little time.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, once again I'm not arguing for absolution of the policy makers, I'm arguing against this "oh let's get off the case of this poor downtrodden nebbish that took the job, never batted an eye when cashing his paychecks, and only stopped supporting the idiotic policy under extreme duress. There is no doubt at all that one month ago if I had confronted this guy with "you are a useless lump being paid for a job that cannot and will not actually make the schools a safer place" he'd have called me a variation of liberal, among other names, and defined himself as a hero.

Okay, so we're all mad at this guy. Now what? What do we do with that anger? What is it for? That's what I don't understand.

We're talking about a systemic failure. This guy's involvement in that was to be the smallest cog in a dysfunctional machine, a political and moral non-agent. Nailing him to the cross benefits nobody but the established authorities, who have an obvious and not at all public-spirited interested in as many people as possible believing that public safety was a question of the moral character of public employees, and not of long-term and large-scale policy decisions.

He failed, sure. But he was set up to fail. He wasn't given the choice to fail, only how much dignity he could scrape together. He opted for "not a scrap", and he has to live with that, but that's about as far as that goes.

Trump: I would have run

I've already rejected this claim out of hand.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is the same Trump who today said that he doesn't want to arm all the teachers, just "the ones with a natural talent that you don't know what it is."

 

[Arakhor]

The BBC reported on that too. I felt like hurling imprecations at the screen when I read that.

Even for Trump, his monomaniacal obsession with being talked about constantly is really scraping the barrel this time.

 

[Berzerker]

maybe he subconsciously regrets avoiding the war and fancies himself a hero to make up for his absence

 

[Timsup2nothin]

maybe he subconsciously regrets avoiding the war and fancies himself a hero to make up for his absence

Maybe he is completely divorced from reality do to narcissistic megalomania. That's my guess.

 

[Zkribbler]

Trump: I would have run into school during shooting even without a gun.

I really hope Trump knows he's lying because if he truly meant this, then he is flat-out delusional.

 

[Lexicus]

The thing is though, you can't really have two scapegoats in the public discourse. If we talk about the single cop, we are not talking about the policy, no?

You can't have more than one scapegoat, but you can certainly talk about a system failing at more than one point.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I really hope Trump knows he's lying because if he truly meant this, then he is flat-out delusional.

Breitbart believes him, and most commenters on Breitbart would do the same, just ask them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Yeah, I can totally see 5 draft deferant bone spur, rushing into gun fire without a gun and totally round house kicking the shooter. What a ******** moron

It would almost be worth having another school shooting if this idiot actually waddled in and got his fat head blown off.

 

[warpus]

Trump values his wallet more than his life, but without his life he can't enjoy his wallet..

He would hide behind the closest man woman or child