From the JBTs to you..
- Thread starter liliysdad
- Start date
- Status
So, when a murderer is before a jury, your advice to the jury is to acquit because they weren't there and don't know what really happened? Be serious!
Fed and State LEOs are two different animals? What's that supposed to mean? It's okay for State LEOs to be JBTs, but it's not okay for the feds to do so? Or you expect the Feds to be JBTs, but state LEO JBTs are few and far between?
Fed and State LEOs are two different animals? What's that supposed to mean? It's okay for State LEOs to be JBTs, but it's not okay for the feds to do so? Or you expect the Feds to be JBTs, but state LEO JBTs are few and far between?
Thats just it....you are not the judge, nor are you the jury. The only evidence you have is that which was relayed by two biased parties...the feds who wanted a cover up, and the "victims" who wanted revenge..there was no true investigation.
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
Anyone here other than me see the video that the SO released?
The video showing the 'use the firetruck for cover' guys laying down full auto covering fire at the windows on their way to the entrance?
The video showing kids being herded out to buses with hands on heads while whole platoons of uniformed people stood around outside? Stood around so long they finally dragged garden hoses over the fences of nearby houses for water?
It was a couple hours or so of raw footage from various viewpoints, some aerial and some terrestrial. No sound track. Interesting documentary.
lpl/nc
The video showing the 'use the firetruck for cover' guys laying down full auto covering fire at the windows on their way to the entrance?
The video showing kids being herded out to buses with hands on heads while whole platoons of uniformed people stood around outside? Stood around so long they finally dragged garden hoses over the fences of nearby houses for water?
It was a couple hours or so of raw footage from various viewpoints, some aerial and some terrestrial. No sound track. Interesting documentary.
lpl/nc
Sindawe
Member
Yea, I saw those clips..
That night after the Columbine shooting. Was all over the news of course, since it happened here in greater Metro Denver. The delay in going into the building was...questionable... at best. What really cinched the issue for me was the leaving of the wounded/bleeding teacher in the classroom when the students pleaded and begged to take him out with them. The teacher bled to death.
:banghead:
My respect for that Dept went way down at that point. Then came the waffling press conferences, the slamming of anybody who liked to wear black, Doc Martin's and trenchcoats.
Yea, its armchair quarterbacking, since I was not the one who may have been under fire. But I help pay their salaries with my taxes. Were those officers my direct employees, they'd have been out of a job right quick. Just I would expect to be were I to act in such a fashion in a crisis. And where I worked at the time, crises could be and were just as life-threatening as Columbine.
That night after the Columbine shooting. Was all over the news of course, since it happened here in greater Metro Denver. The delay in going into the building was...questionable... at best. What really cinched the issue for me was the leaving of the wounded/bleeding teacher in the classroom when the students pleaded and begged to take him out with them. The teacher bled to death.
:banghead:
My respect for that Dept went way down at that point. Then came the waffling press conferences, the slamming of anybody who liked to wear black, Doc Martin's and trenchcoats.
Yea, its armchair quarterbacking, since I was not the one who may have been under fire. But I help pay their salaries with my taxes. Were those officers my direct employees, they'd have been out of a job right quick. Just I would expect to be were I to act in such a fashion in a crisis. And where I worked at the time, crises could be and were just as life-threatening as Columbine.
MacViolinist
Member
I know I'll be quoting someone without attributing it, but here goes: there are good cops and there are bad cops.
On the subject of cops in general, I've seen 3 cops stand by watching and laughing while a guy beat the living hell out of a woman just across from the 96th&Broadway subway stop in Manhattan. I've seen Texas cops stop by my next door neighbor's house to make sure she was ok because her paper was on the front lawn 2 hours after she normally picks it up. I got pulled over on the Whitestone Bridge because an NYPD officer thought my left rear tire was looking a little too flat. No hassle, nothing. One of my friends was beaten within an inch of his life and dumped in the middle of a busy intersection by two members of the San Antonio PD beccause he "looked gay." That was almost 2 years ago and he still doesn't have full use of his left arm (pretty important if you are a musician). Some are good, some are bad.
My guess is that most of the members of the SWAT team at Columbine wanted to go in and get the job done. For crying out loud, this is SWAT. They live for this stuff. And they die for it as well. What most likely happened is that they were given orders to wait, and they obeyed the orders. I could go into a rant about how police are becoming too militarized, but I won't.
Now, to re-hijack this thread.
Speaking of sheep/wolves/sheepdogs, couldn't the Columbine tragedy have been averted or at least severely curtailed if the teachers were allowed to be sheepdogs i.e., CCW while on school property? Would the author of the article at the top of this thread go along with that?
Generally speaking, the police just can't get where they need to be in order to prevent or intervene in the vast majority of violent crimes. Logistically, it's impossible. It is blinding yourself to reality to believe that the police can protect you from harm. That is not to say that I disagree with the sheep/wolf/sheepdog analogy. I am just saying that I am also a sheepdog; I just don't wear a uniform.
If there are any cops reading this that don't believe that I should be allowed to carry a gun, or believe that I should not be allowed to carry the same guns/shotguns/magazines/anything-else that you have access to, let me just say this: armed citizens are everywhere; cops are not. We can be your backup. We will watch your back, just like we watch everyone's back. We are armed, we are trained, and we are vigilant.
On the subject of cops in general, I've seen 3 cops stand by watching and laughing while a guy beat the living hell out of a woman just across from the 96th&Broadway subway stop in Manhattan. I've seen Texas cops stop by my next door neighbor's house to make sure she was ok because her paper was on the front lawn 2 hours after she normally picks it up. I got pulled over on the Whitestone Bridge because an NYPD officer thought my left rear tire was looking a little too flat. No hassle, nothing. One of my friends was beaten within an inch of his life and dumped in the middle of a busy intersection by two members of the San Antonio PD beccause he "looked gay." That was almost 2 years ago and he still doesn't have full use of his left arm (pretty important if you are a musician). Some are good, some are bad.
My guess is that most of the members of the SWAT team at Columbine wanted to go in and get the job done. For crying out loud, this is SWAT. They live for this stuff. And they die for it as well. What most likely happened is that they were given orders to wait, and they obeyed the orders. I could go into a rant about how police are becoming too militarized, but I won't.
Now, to re-hijack this thread.
Speaking of sheep/wolves/sheepdogs, couldn't the Columbine tragedy have been averted or at least severely curtailed if the teachers were allowed to be sheepdogs i.e., CCW while on school property? Would the author of the article at the top of this thread go along with that?
Generally speaking, the police just can't get where they need to be in order to prevent or intervene in the vast majority of violent crimes. Logistically, it's impossible. It is blinding yourself to reality to believe that the police can protect you from harm. That is not to say that I disagree with the sheep/wolf/sheepdog analogy. I am just saying that I am also a sheepdog; I just don't wear a uniform.
If there are any cops reading this that don't believe that I should be allowed to carry a gun, or believe that I should not be allowed to carry the same guns/shotguns/magazines/anything-else that you have access to, let me just say this: armed citizens are everywhere; cops are not. We can be your backup. We will watch your back, just like we watch everyone's back. We are armed, we are trained, and we are vigilant.
Muzzleflash
member
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2004
- Messages
- 318
CCW holders are not sheepdogs, except to members of their family.
Otherwise they are sheep with guns.
(No negative connotations to being a sheep in this analogy)
Otherwise they are sheep with guns.
(No negative connotations to being a sheep in this analogy)
MacViolinist
Member
Muzzleflash,
Wanna bet?
I am rapidly getting the impression that a bunch of people here are sheep. They dont want to think so, and may belong to a different flock, but a herd animal is a herd animal...... We denigrate anyone who does'nt think like us or hew to the party line. We are experts in the arcane art of shouldawouldacoulda. We have an opinion on everything, whether or not we have the knowledge or experience to support it.
Possession of a CCW permit or a gun does'nt mean squat. Neither does the lack of one. I am a career law enforcement professional for whom firearms are both a tool of the trade and a hobby. I have several other hobbies, but this is the only one were people are so quick to voice an opinion on things that they have no direct involvement in, but because there was a gun present, they feel an expertise or entitlement to jack their jaws. I own a scalpel, but I am not about to discuss or offer an opinion on correct surgical techniques unless I first actually learn about, and at the very least observe it and have access to people who have some bona fide expertise.
You want to criticize Columbine, go right ahead. NO ONE has examined, reviewed, second guessed, and reflected on those events more than the troops that were there. But frankly, I'm not sure many of us here have earned the right for the second guessing and name calling. Some people here really need to put on their big-girl panties, stop harping on ancient history and what happened to their aunt's nephew's girlfriend's dog groomer's gay lover when he was stopped for Improper Right Turn, and actually start thinking about what they actually know and do not know, and then working towards solutions instead of bitchin' cause somebody looked at'em cross-eyed or 'cause they think they coulda done better. If that's the case, cowboy up and do it. Talk is cheap, and cheapening.
Possession of a CCW permit or a gun does'nt mean squat. Neither does the lack of one. I am a career law enforcement professional for whom firearms are both a tool of the trade and a hobby. I have several other hobbies, but this is the only one were people are so quick to voice an opinion on things that they have no direct involvement in, but because there was a gun present, they feel an expertise or entitlement to jack their jaws. I own a scalpel, but I am not about to discuss or offer an opinion on correct surgical techniques unless I first actually learn about, and at the very least observe it and have access to people who have some bona fide expertise.
You want to criticize Columbine, go right ahead. NO ONE has examined, reviewed, second guessed, and reflected on those events more than the troops that were there. But frankly, I'm not sure many of us here have earned the right for the second guessing and name calling. Some people here really need to put on their big-girl panties, stop harping on ancient history and what happened to their aunt's nephew's girlfriend's dog groomer's gay lover when he was stopped for Improper Right Turn, and actually start thinking about what they actually know and do not know, and then working towards solutions instead of bitchin' cause somebody looked at'em cross-eyed or 'cause they think they coulda done better. If that's the case, cowboy up and do it. Talk is cheap, and cheapening.
Sendec, the difference between sheep and non-sheep is not what opinions they express or whether those opinions are correct, but whether they adhere to reason when someone presents an opposing view.
If nobody is allowed to express views without having BTDT, this will be one quiet forum. If you don't like people expressing opinions, don't hang out in L&P... very few people are qualified to post about L&P matters in the way you suggest.
If nobody is allowed to express views without having BTDT, this will be one quiet forum. If you don't like people expressing opinions, don't hang out in L&P... very few people are qualified to post about L&P matters in the way you suggest.
Powderman
Member
I can't comment on Columbine.
I wasn't there; I don't know that dept's SOP, or the orders the officers were under.
I don't know the level of training they had.
All I can say is that when you are confronted by a threat--any threat--you will revert to your training. If you are placed in a situation where you have to draw your CCW, you will do what you have trained to do.
Thus, if you have just strapped on a gun without practice, and you don't practice, when the SHTF, you will be a well-armed target.
If you have trained and practiced well, chances are your attacker will be collapsing or running after receiving multiple hits before you even realize fully that you have drawn.
All I can say is this:
While enlisted in the Army, I trained hard, and was trained hard. For years, I trained on clearing buildings, shooting fast and accurately under stress, transitioning to different arms, and close-in gunfighting. I trained to the point that it became second nature to me.
Part of that training is in the old, venerated teachings, learned on the battlefields from across the world, where the tuition was paid in blood.
One thing that was pounded in was this: Assault through an ambush. Speed, accuracy, decisiveness and violence of action in execution will carry the battle. And, the primary mission of the Infantry soldier is this: to close with, and destroy the enemy by means of fire, maneuver and shock effect.
I can't speak for the responding officers at Columbine.
However, I know what I would have done, if I had been one of the first officers on the scene. I believe that if was written best in one of Shakespeare's plays:
"Cry, Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!"
I know what I would have done.
I wasn't there; I don't know that dept's SOP, or the orders the officers were under.
I don't know the level of training they had.
All I can say is that when you are confronted by a threat--any threat--you will revert to your training. If you are placed in a situation where you have to draw your CCW, you will do what you have trained to do.
Thus, if you have just strapped on a gun without practice, and you don't practice, when the SHTF, you will be a well-armed target.
If you have trained and practiced well, chances are your attacker will be collapsing or running after receiving multiple hits before you even realize fully that you have drawn.
All I can say is this:
While enlisted in the Army, I trained hard, and was trained hard. For years, I trained on clearing buildings, shooting fast and accurately under stress, transitioning to different arms, and close-in gunfighting. I trained to the point that it became second nature to me.
Part of that training is in the old, venerated teachings, learned on the battlefields from across the world, where the tuition was paid in blood.
One thing that was pounded in was this: Assault through an ambush. Speed, accuracy, decisiveness and violence of action in execution will carry the battle. And, the primary mission of the Infantry soldier is this: to close with, and destroy the enemy by means of fire, maneuver and shock effect.
I can't speak for the responding officers at Columbine.
However, I know what I would have done, if I had been one of the first officers on the scene. I believe that if was written best in one of Shakespeare's plays:
"Cry, Havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!"
I know what I would have done.
Well said Powderman. I find it sad and unfortunate that so many these days have the "thee before me" mentality when it comes to putting themselves in jeopardy. The PD at Columbine were guilty of this in action and it cost children their lives. Whether it's a violation of your rights to diminish perceived risk to them, or outright standing by and watching people die, it's pathetic.
Any of the folks that are complaining about Columbine ever actually been to that facility? Ever read any of the actual debriefs...not the one it Time magazine? Do you know how many IEDs were there? How they were set to fire? The #s of booby traps that would have injured fleeing students if they had just herded them out?
No, and because of that lack of knowledge, it is easy to say "Just go in and get 'em". If you read the actual reports, you will see why the PD did what it did. This has been discussed to death in about 10 different topics.
No, and because of that lack of knowledge, it is easy to say "Just go in and get 'em". If you read the actual reports, you will see why the PD did what it did. This has been discussed to death in about 10 different topics.
KMKeller, an extensive list of items you can review can be found at http://www.co.jefferson.co.us/ext/dpt/officials/sheriff/chsmaterials.htm . It appears that one of the available items is a CD (audio) of the shoot team interviews (Released April 10, 2001), available for $19. I bought the Jefferson County Sheriff's Office Report, which also is shown on that list. The link to the order form for that CD is https://www.alpinemediaduplication.com/columbine.html
This report has the radio tapes and a lot of information. I think it cost about $12.
Hope this helps.
This report has the radio tapes and a lot of information. I think it cost about $12.
Hope this helps.
Those are more or less the same docs we got in active shooter training. Once you read the transcripts and listen to the tapes, it is obvious that the officers on scene went much farther than anyone could have expected them to. An example would be the IED policy which forbid officers to move past or mess with IEDs. There were 70+ IEDs rigged to explode on command detonate or as booby traps. The policy said that when SWAT met an IED, they were to stop and allow EOD to disarm before going futher.
Those SWAT officer moved through the IEDs, even as they were detonating in the background in order to rescue as many students as they could. The school is a HUGE facility and nobody even knew how many shooters there were or if it was one of the students so in effect, the PD had hundreads and hundreads of suspects that could at any time command detonate all of the IEDs and kill the very people they were trying to save... Still look as simple? The mentality of just going in and having a shootout will more often than not get the hostages killed.
Those SWAT officer moved through the IEDs, even as they were detonating in the background in order to rescue as many students as they could. The school is a HUGE facility and nobody even knew how many shooters there were or if it was one of the students so in effect, the PD had hundreads and hundreads of suspects that could at any time command detonate all of the IEDs and kill the very people they were trying to save... Still look as simple? The mentality of just going in and having a shootout will more often than not get the hostages killed.
Cosmoline
Member
Grossman is simply wrong. His basic premise is that most people will not kill, and have to be trained extensively in order to kill. This is not correct. Rather, most people simply refrain from killing because it is such a fundamental aspect of the social contract. It goes beyond legality or even civilization, and indeed even in the most primal societies people refrain from killing. Why? Because they know by killing they are placing themselves outside the social contract in an exposed position which will have to be justified. Until it is justified and supported, the killer is himself exposed to reprisal attacks.
But when the contract dissolves, or as it is phrased in these parts when the SHTF, even the most humble and tame person will certainly kill. A pastor up the road shot and killed two intruders with a .44 Magnum without a moment's hesitation, and this was merely one of the more sensational cases.
Recent evidence has shown that the infamous sociological studies about whether front line troops fired on the enemy were deeply flawed and completely unscientific.
There are no sheep, and there are no sheepdogs. I'd go so far as to say there are no wolves. There are only people. And people are by nature the most dangerous animals on the planet. That includes the ones behind bars, the ones in the blue uniforms and you and I as well. Indeed with the knowledge and skill of many on these board's it's safe to say we're among the most dangerous people of all, because we know what one person and a rifle can actually do and we know how to do it.
It seems to me Grossman's "sheepdog" yapping is a way of bolstering his own ego. Like folks who constantly refer to themselves as "warriors" because they had some basic military training. Fact is the thin blue line does little for me besides reminding me when my tail light is out and check my cab for signs of meth--raising $$ for the state in the process. Fine, let them do that. It hardly makes them the "hard shell" protecting me from these alleged wolves. I protect myself, and I do not expect them to help me. Indeed I've got *real* dogs to protect me. Ones who never demand pay raises, never take coffee breaks and who will lay down their lives for mine without hesitation.
But when the contract dissolves, or as it is phrased in these parts when the SHTF, even the most humble and tame person will certainly kill. A pastor up the road shot and killed two intruders with a .44 Magnum without a moment's hesitation, and this was merely one of the more sensational cases.
Recent evidence has shown that the infamous sociological studies about whether front line troops fired on the enemy were deeply flawed and completely unscientific.
There are no sheep, and there are no sheepdogs. I'd go so far as to say there are no wolves. There are only people. And people are by nature the most dangerous animals on the planet. That includes the ones behind bars, the ones in the blue uniforms and you and I as well. Indeed with the knowledge and skill of many on these board's it's safe to say we're among the most dangerous people of all, because we know what one person and a rifle can actually do and we know how to do it.
It seems to me Grossman's "sheepdog" yapping is a way of bolstering his own ego. Like folks who constantly refer to themselves as "warriors" because they had some basic military training. Fact is the thin blue line does little for me besides reminding me when my tail light is out and check my cab for signs of meth--raising $$ for the state in the process. Fine, let them do that. It hardly makes them the "hard shell" protecting me from these alleged wolves. I protect myself, and I do not expect them to help me. Indeed I've got *real* dogs to protect me. Ones who never demand pay raises, never take coffee breaks and who will lay down their lives for mine without hesitation.
WonderNine
member
No wonder they found out later that over half of the kids were killed by the SWAT team.
Ok, I've read a mountain of info about Columbine and I never saw anything at all that said the SWAT Team killed a bunch of kids. Can you cite your source for that? I think we would have heard a LOT of outcry if that were true. I am going to guess that the only source for that crap will be something along the lines of CopWatch or the DU.
WonderNine
member
I'll see if I can dig up the articles next week, I don't have internet access like I used to. It was mainstream from what I recall. Several SWAT members admitted it.
Most of the allegations of police shooting kids were nothing more than speculation by plaintiffs in civil litigation. There was one story of a SWAT sgt. who allegedly said that he shot one of the students, but that story has been thoroughly discredited.
Glock-A-Roo
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2003
- Messages
- 57
Back on topic. Based on Grossman's writing that I've read, he's an elitist of the worst sort. He only believes in the "sheepdog" mentality as applied to government agents (police, military, etc). He does not support the idea of civilian sheepdogs, or at least civilian sheepdogs with the tools to do a sheepdog's job.
Grossman advocates for the severe limitation of civilian sheepdog tools, and only does the "sheepdog buddy" schtick w/ police & military types.
I have seen very detailed and convincing counterpoints to his psychological theories. Grossman is essentially a strict behaviorist, so he chooses to ignore a large chunk of what motivates the human mind.
The final straw for me was his ranting about some kid who went on a shooting spree w/ a .22 pistol. Grossman says the kid had a phenomenal hit percentage (compared to "trained police") all because he played "first person shooter" video games, and that's the training that made the kid a good shot. Anyone who has spent a while shooting knows how hard it is to learn trigger control, and to not flinch; you don't get those skills from playing "Doom". We also know that a huge reason why cops have low hit percentages is because they are reacting to attack instead of instigating an attack. This shows me that Grossman is either 1) misinformed or 2) lying.
I don't have any respect for the man.
Oh, one more thing. I was a sheepdog a long time before Chuck Grossman started his self-promotion.
Grossman advocates for the severe limitation of civilian sheepdog tools, and only does the "sheepdog buddy" schtick w/ police & military types.
I have seen very detailed and convincing counterpoints to his psychological theories. Grossman is essentially a strict behaviorist, so he chooses to ignore a large chunk of what motivates the human mind.
The final straw for me was his ranting about some kid who went on a shooting spree w/ a .22 pistol. Grossman says the kid had a phenomenal hit percentage (compared to "trained police") all because he played "first person shooter" video games, and that's the training that made the kid a good shot. Anyone who has spent a while shooting knows how hard it is to learn trigger control, and to not flinch; you don't get those skills from playing "Doom". We also know that a huge reason why cops have low hit percentages is because they are reacting to attack instead of instigating an attack. This shows me that Grossman is either 1) misinformed or 2) lying.
I don't have any respect for the man.
Oh, one more thing. I was a sheepdog a long time before Chuck Grossman started his self-promotion.
Wondernine:
If you got enough internet access to post an allegation like that you darn well have enough to back it up.
One of the major training issues that came out of Columbine was the idea that there may actually be a role for suppressive fire in situations like that, because cops were'nt shooting at all. Every cop out there is trained to not fire unless they have a specific target and reasonable assurance that they can hit it "safely". I've been told by one trainer that now we are to lay fire where we think the BGs are - no way I'll do that. I'm not certain how many rounds were fired after the on-scene SRO engaged the shooters, but it was'nt many.
Cite a source, a reliable source, or step off.
Now, back to complaining about a guy most of you have'nt met or had a discussion with.
If you got enough internet access to post an allegation like that you darn well have enough to back it up.
One of the major training issues that came out of Columbine was the idea that there may actually be a role for suppressive fire in situations like that, because cops were'nt shooting at all. Every cop out there is trained to not fire unless they have a specific target and reasonable assurance that they can hit it "safely". I've been told by one trainer that now we are to lay fire where we think the BGs are - no way I'll do that. I'm not certain how many rounds were fired after the on-scene SRO engaged the shooters, but it was'nt many.
Cite a source, a reliable source, or step off.
Now, back to complaining about a guy most of you have'nt met or had a discussion with.
Cosmoline
Member
?? Do I have to meet a man to disagree with his views? That's news. I guess I'd better stop complaining about Kerry and the DC antis because I've never met them or had a face-to-face discussion with them
Maybe this guy is a good fellow. I have no clue. But his points are not well taken. In fact, by calling me a "sheep" he's being very insulting. I take exception to that, and I don't think I'm out of line in doing so.
- Status
