Comments on the El Paso Shooting

[M]

Oren and Kevin;

With respect, I believe this post needs it's own page. 

M 

Kevin wrote;"Every politician is saying the first responders did a good job in El Paso shooting. That`s a bunch of bullshit. 6 minutes first police on seen. Law enforcement shot 0 times. 27 minutes after first shot the gunman gave up as police closed in on him. 21 minutes went by from first on seen to confronting the gunman. The gunman was shooting people the whole time so police could hear where he was. Much death happened during that 21 minutes .  I want to puke when I hear the politicians come out and say what a good job they did....Trump I hope comes out with a different view of the whole thing.  My respect for police is real...But I will not cheapen my respect by saying they did a good job....Fox is full of shit on this one..

Oren Replied;"

Kevin, and others,

There is much to say on this one -- MUCH!   And, I am speaking as a retired law enforcement officer, supervisor, and administrator.

First, given the facts as we have them at this time, I have to agree with Kevin; the police did a lousy job.   El Paso is reminiscent of many other mass shootings in that the law enforcement response was sloppy and ineffective at best, and negligent at worst.   Police should have responded immediately!   The FIRST arriving officer should have gone in IMMEDIATELY -- people were DYING!   No time to waste waiting for back-up or supervisors!

The same thing happened in the (Colorado, I think) school shooting where police stood around with their thumbs up their asses waiting for permission or instructions to enter the school.   Say What?!   

Juxtapose that with the shooting at the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, California.   Police response was immediate and forceful, resulting in only three dead, including the shooter (more on this later).   

The tepid police response by El Paso PD officers tells me much about El Paso PD's training and leadership (the Chief of Police is as good as gone, but I'm sure that is no consolation to the dead, wounded, and families).   The apparent fact that the police fired zero rounds while the slaughter went on for 23 minutes -- 23 MINUTES -- speaks volumes!  The fact that the shooter gave up IMMEDIATELY when FINALLY confronted by police tells me even more.  

Let me give you an example.   When I was on the job I had a couple of situations somewhat similar to this, both with peaceful outcomes.   In both cases, we confronted the would-be gunman IMMEDIATELY and FORCEFULLY.   In both cases, he KNEW he was outgunned and WOULD die if he did not surrender, and I mean RIGHT FREAKING NOW!   He gave up and no one got hurt or killed.   THAT is appropriate police response.

Now, let's talk about the REAL, UNDERLYING issue -- gun-free zones.   Unknown to most people, Texas does not allow people to be armed without State permission (Kansas does, BTW, and we don't have this crap here).  In other words, the victims in El Paso were defenseless, giving the shooter free rein to kill as many as possible.

Back to the Garlic Festival in Gilroy, California.   Police were manning the gates, screening for guns and weapons, disarming the victims.   The shooter simply cut a hole in the fence, entered and started shooting.   The fact that police were already there, manning the gates, significantly lessened the casualties.   BUT, that's not the point.   I'll bet serious money that if the patrons had not been disarmed, the shooter would not have picked the Festival in the first place.

The same thing happened in the Colorado movie theater shooting with over 20 movie-goers dead.   The theater was a gun-free zone.   The shooter bought a ticket and entered the theater.   When everyone was seated, he left via the emergency exit, blocking the door slightly open, went to his car, retrieved his gun, re-entered via the emergency exit, and started mowing down movie-goers who were lined up in nice neat rows.   Then, all he had to do was shoot at the exit doors as people tried to flee.   BUT, what if there had been several armed patrons in the audience?   I dare say he might have gotten off three rounds before coming under massive return fire.   Problem solved!

It is important to note that these mass shootings almost ALWAYS happen in gun-free zones.   El Paso, the Colorado movie theater, Sandy Hook, and the Florida nightclub are but a few examples.   Mass shooters don't target armed "victims".   Hey, someone might shoot back!   Dang, hate when that happens, don't you?

The media, especially the Lefties, will never talk about this simple fact.   Instead, they will reflexively, in knee-jerk fashion, talk about how best to disarm the public.   So, too, will politicians, ignoring the glaringly obvious fact that they are surrounded by armed bodyguards.   But not us, OH NO, can't have THAT!

Further, I love it when the media hyper-focus on the occasional and rare incident of real or imagined police misconduct while, simultaneously, ignoring (or even justifying) the daily slaughter in places like Chicago, Detroit, New Orleans, and Baltimore, all gun-free zones run by Democrats.  

Back to El Paso.   Yes, this is a human tragedy, but one caused and worsened by police incompetence and politicians.   It will make interesting media fodder and nothing will be resolved.

Enough of my rant.

Oren "

As a retired Patrolman/Public Safety Officer I must concur with those points.

M

[M]

Imagine just how fast the news has reacted on this to change the narrative in favor of the Democrats.

[M]

More response from Oren;

Let me add something I found out today.

Apparently, seventeen (17) States already have "Red Flag" laws where friends, family, neighbors, etc. can "report" gun owners they think should be disarmed.   As stated previously, the accused RARELY is told who the accuser is or what the accusations are.   Maryland's is the worst -- BY FAR.   Maryland accusers can be anonymous.   YES -- ANONYMOUS!   NO, I'M NOT KIDDING!

How the Hell do you defend yourself against anonymous complaints that result in your loss of Constitutional rights?!

This smacks of Communist East Germany where no one trusted anyone and was scared to death of everyone, fearing that they would be reported for even the most innocent of words or deeds.

Yet, predictably, politicians are engaging in knee-jerk, reactionary, tyrannical actions and recommendations, none of which will solve anything.

I suspect that, counter to Liberal expectations, conservatives will stop reporting anyone while Liberals will report everyone.

Oren

[M]

Further response from Oren;

First, believe it or not, there ARE people who DO file false accusations, more than you know.   As a retired cop I can personally attest to that.   I cannot count the number of times I encountered people trying to file false reports.   In almost every case, the accuser had some "beef" with a neighbor, family member, or acquaintance.   It happens!

Second, the above leads to the falsely accused having to hire an attorney and spend up to thousands of dollars trying to regain rights that should never have been denied or taken in the first place.

Third, the above nightmare is extremely time consuming.   It often takes weeks, months, or even years to undo.   It's somewhat like identity theft where the victim's life is totally disrupted through no fault of their own.   

Fourth, you are both right and wrong.   Yes, Red Flag laws are patently unconstitutional, BUT having the courts strike them down is both time consuming and EXPENSIVE, requiring time and money the victim usually does not have.   Do you really want to have to go through that?   Really?!   

Fifth, I suspect you are functioning under the illusion that courts are automatically on your (the peoples') side.   THEY ARE NOT!  They are on the side of the government.   Courts almost always take the position that government must have a point or it wouldn't file the case in the first place.   Courts, believe it or not, unconsciously assume you must be guilty of something, in this case, insane or dangerous.   Judges are government workers and they think and act like it.   I KNOW!   I have seen it way too many times!

Sixth, Yes, Red Flag laws, as written and used are clear violations of Due Process (your day in court), the right to face your accuser, and (in this case) the Second Amendment.   IF someone is perceived to be a danger to self or others, that person must be PROVEN to be said danger BEFORE his/her rights are taken away.   That person MUST be able to face their accuser, IN COURT, BEFORE being stripped of rights.   

Seventh, under our system of jurisprudence, the State has to "prove a positive", i.e., that the accused is guilty.   The accused does NOT have to "prove a negative, i.e., that he/she is innocent.   But, like so much of the Constitution, these "inconvenient" (for the government and the Left) rights are being openly ignored.

Sorry, Kevin, but these proposed and enacted Red Flag laws are just feel-good tripe, period.   They are just politicians' attempts to placate the public and the Left's attempt to disarm it.

Oren

[M]

My response to Kevin and Oren;

Being a retired Patrolman myself, I have to agree with Oren on this and add; Most of the people involved in Red Flag Confiscations would not think about going to court, they would stand their ground. 

 >

Look what happened when that court order was executed in Maryland, and the gun owner was shot and killed. The mindset of the officers who shot him were probably in the response mode of considering the situation a "domestic argument, or armed and dangerous individual" because of that "Red Flag", and responded like they did because of that mindset. You usually have to make snap judgments about the armed persons mental state IMHO, and those conditions are by far the most dangerous situation to respond to.For the Police and the armed citizen. 

>

Add to the mix, most of the people who are getting their guns confiscated have not committed any crime, and will normally resist what they consider an unwarranted situation. If those victims don't actually realize the danger of the situation they put themselves and the police in, there will be many more such incidents happen. 

>

The "Red Flag" laws need to be constructed to reflect that problem. Personally I would like to see a set of finite and clearly written guidelines created, standardized Nation Wide, and open to public scrutiny. Those guidelines being the only ones used to determine if a person is dangerous to themselves and others, to initiate a "Red Flag" response of gun confiscation.

>

Those Guidelines are to be the only criterion used by the courts, without any interpretation by the courts, where a person is being targeted by "Red Flags". The person must first be examined by an impartial professional to determine if those guidelines apply. After that is done, and the person has their day in court, then would be the time to confiscate if it was deemed necessary. 

>

There also needs to be a review at the Governments expense, to periodically see if the conditions still exist, and if the conditions do not still exist, return the guns to the owner or the owners estate.