19 officers stood in the hallway waiting. Now, 19 children are dead

Pi

Pigs are cowards and have proven it time and again.

 

Would you recommend we change our system to match Germany's system?

 

I doubt we'll ever know for certain. There's not going to be any way for the medical examiner to know which gunshots were sustained when, but this should indicate to you (and should have indicated to the police) that it was at least likely:

"12:21—3 shots heard on call"

And from what I've read elsewhere, those weren't the only shots that occurred while the police were waiting outside.

 

What's the problem in Germany ?

 

You have quotes ready for that?

 

Well, Germany has two problems, really:

1) just like here, crazy people occasionally get ahold of a gun and kill some innocent people

2) unlike here, they have far less freedom than we do.

 

Do you recognize how crazy that sounds? The cops wanted lots of little kids to die, to help in the push for gun legislation-- that is Cuckoo!

 

Lol, people want to try to take guns away from citizens, when our police are apparently not all that great at their job. I am far more confident in my own tactical shooting skills than I am about some police officers shooting ability. This incident just reinforced my belief that every citizen should be able to be as well armed as an infantryman if he wants to be. The gun control crowd can get bent.

 

It wouldn't surprise me. Politicians have condoned far worse without thinking twice. Just look at every war we have been in since WW2. FAR worse violence inflicted, with many, many women and children killed.

 

These posts really do speak for themselves.

 

It would seem the story, which it is "the main mission" to foster in the public mind, is that there are secret conspiracies all around us, controlling reality-- and that objective, would appear to be Epoch's.


There is perhaps, "some kind of foundation," to the story, but not one that justifies Epoch's rewrite of it-- see my next post.

 

1) Occasionally? As in occasionally it rains in Florida?

2) They are far less freedom? OK then prove it.

Below is the German 'Basic Law' setting out the rights of a German Citizen. The rights listed within it differ in their form of expression from countries such as the US for example but they are quite comprehensive in scope.

https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.html

 

The part of the story that has me scratching my head, is what I heard today. Apparently one of the mothers of kids in the school, who was urging the police to take action, they eventually handcuffed, for her "interfering in an active investigation." Ultimately, though, once they thought she'd learned her lesson, they let her go. This woman walked away from the cops, and the crowd, then made her way to the school, opened a door to get in, found her 2 kids, and got them out!

The confusing thing, though, is why it was only her two kids, who left with her? There were surely others, with them. Of course the t.v. news media did its usual poor job of explaining, or examining, details. The only explanation that makes sense to me, would be if the teacher in the classroom, told all the other students to stay in place, and not chance making a run for it. Hopefully that was not a classroom that later suffered casualties.

 

Well, for starters, Germany doesn't even remotely begin to live up to its "Basic Law". Just a couple of examples for you to chew on:

"Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. There shall be no censorship."

Compare that lofty ideal with this elderly German woman's experience:

"A German court has sentenced an 89-year-old woman to 14 months in prison for Holocaust denial.

Ursula Haverbeck, dubbed the "Nazi Grandma", has been convicted several times but is yet to spend time in jail.

She was first given a jail term last year but received additional punishment for handing out pamphlets repeating her beliefs to those attending court.

...

The pair founded a now-banned education centre and she has written for a right-wing magazine where she has argued that the Holocaust never happened.

Haverbeck was initially sentenced to eight months in jail in 2016 after she claimed Auschwitz was not a concentration camp, in a letter to the mayor of the German town of Detmold."

I don't know, maybe "There shall be no censorship" translates different in German. What do you think?

source: Germany's 'Nazi Grandma' given jail term for Holocaust denial - BBC News



Just one more example for now:

"(1) Freedom of faith and of conscience and freedom to profess a religious or philosophical creed shall be inviolable.

(2) The undisturbed practice of religion shall be guaranteed."

vs

"German police broke up a church service of over 100 maskless people on Saturday evening, where they found worshippers singing and failing to social distance."

source: Police break up church service in Germany with over 100 maskless worshippers | The Independent

What happened to "inviolable", "undisturbed practice" and "shall be guaranteed"?!?


EDIT: What the hell, just one more: the "Basic Law" is not even consistent with itself.

"(1) All persons shall be equal before the law.

(2) Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist."

vs

"Men who have attained the age of eighteen may be required to serve in the Armed Forces, in the Federal Border Police, or in a civil defence organisation."
and
"If, during a state of defence, the need for civilian services in the civilian health system or in stationary military hospitals cannot be met on a voluntary basis, women between the age of eighteen and fifty-five may be called upon to render such services by or pursuant to a law. Under no circumstances may they be required to render service involving the use of arms."

 

Do you trust your government not to commit evil Acts?

I don't put anything past them.

But like I said I would need evidence but you just go ahead and believe that I believe that without evidence because that's what you're going to do anyway

 

I won't even quote the numerous posts, but the people know who they are.
I am completely stunned by how many people are blindly defending the cops.
According to them:
"Cops can do no wrong"
^Good luck with that...:smdh:
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/28/us/f...y-led-to-catastrophic-consequences/index.html

 

GO back and RE-READ the laws.

Both are the first two examples are very specific in nature and therefore erroneous in terms of the original question i.e. a request to prove that Germans have less rights that a citizen of the US.

The first relates to fee speech regarding a (specific topic). The US and other countries also have examples of instances of 'banned' free speech that can lead to criminal sanctions. Try inciting violence in public against a race or religious group and seen what happens. The second example barring the location on numerous locations throughout the US arrests were made for non-compliance with COVID regulations when in force. So basically both examples are just cherry picking.

The last example women can serve in the armed forces (there is no prohibition against them doing so, indeed any such probation would be illegal under Germans Law). So in the event of a war & the 'mass call out' of women those wishing to serve/fight could do so. The law states that the rest can be assigned to other duties. Any apparent or actual contradictions or questions of interpretation relating to the general law are resolved via Constitutional Courts like they would in the US via the Supreme Court.

Again the key question remains - proving that Germans are 'less free' that citizens of the US which is the claim that was made.

 

Please quote said posters saying that the cops can do no wrong, AJ.

I'm sure that will be right after you provide proof that their "Usual Patrol Duties" are, as you put it "Shaking Down Girls for Sex at Traffic Stops and Killing Innocent Black People in Cold Blood"

 

No, that is not what you said; and I posted your ENTIRE POST; in fact, in my subsequent post to Eleuthera, I quoted posts which show the disingenuousness of your current claim. So do I really have to explain your own post to you? Well then, as pathetic as this is, here we go. These are posts #10 & #11:

Eleuthera said: ↑
Epoch News has a story today about how the Border Patrol guy was texted by his wife who was in the school and he went over and got his wife and the kids out. Yes, the plot thickens...this was a scripted event, and not the first of its kind.*

FatBack said: ↑
*That's a bridge too far for me without some concrete proof.

But it does make you ask questions when they know there is a school shooting going on they just sit there with a thumb up their ass
[End quote]

So that was what you said you needed proof for, that it was a "scripted event." But this was not your post, I said sounded cuckoo. That post actually came beforehand. Here are posts #7 and #8:

Eleuthera said: ↑
I'm betting the cops were playing along with the script....

FatBack said: ↑
While I am not willing to bet on it there is a conspiracy theorist WITHIN ME that says it's almost as though they wanted a high body count.

If the body counts not very high it doesn't Garner much national attention to push for stripping people of their guns
[End quote]

Note that the idea I called cuckoo-- that the cops would WANT a high body count, as well as what their reason would be for wanting it-- came from no one other than yourself. So it is complete bullshit for you to claim that you had said you "would need evidence," for the very idea which YOU were putting forth.

That, then, is the TRUTH, which you are knowingly misrepresenting, and which is the pretext for your allegation against me (at top), that actually fits yourself, like a glove:
"you just go ahead and believe that I believe that, without evidence, because that's what you're going to do anyway."



P.S.-- The quotes of your's & Eleuthera's, I reproduced, above (numbers 7, 8, 10, and 11) are what constitute "evidence." Simply your word-- of which you demonstrate, once more, its unreliable worthlessness-- without any quotes, does not (just in case you were confused about that).

 

I feel like I’m watching us fall into 3rd world country status.

We love and cherish zygotes, but, damn, once those kids are out, random gunmen shooting actual very young persons, is sad, but perfectly acceptable. We’ll pray and think on it.

 

Go away and rant your long-winded rant at someone else.

Most people with any common Sense without an agenda understand what that's a bridge too far for me I would need to see concrete proof means.

Go pester somebody else.

 

Actually, it was just reported today that one of the parents who had initially been handcuffed, after the cops released her, separated from the group, made her way to the school, opened a door, found her two kids, and then took them out of the building (and harm's way); so doing something beneficial was actually not as impossible as you seem to assume.

It is being reported that this police force did, in fact, recently get training for just this sort of circumstance; and at the moment of truth, they ignored that training.

It certainly did cost lives: after being shot, time is of the essence. Besides any additional children who were shot during that time, the first hour is the most crucial in determining survival of existing gunshot victims, and so is called, by emergency medical responders, "the golden hour." I have heard the story of one little girl here, for instance, who survived by playing dead, laying on top of the body of her best friend, who actually had been shot. The reporting is that the girl said she could feel her friend breathing, so knew that she was alive; she could not, ultimately, last long enough, for the lackadaisical rescue effort.

The media is not making all its accusations, in the absence of any professional opinions. While all would like to wait until there is a full investigation, it is the seeming consensus of these experts that, based on what is so far known, it appears the police really botched this. For example, the former D.C. Chief of Homeland Security & Intelligence, Donell Harvin, said that the police actions of this force seemed, "unprofessional."


When the first couple of officers arrived, even though they are trained to engage the shooter, it would be unsurprising to find that, in facing an assault rifle with just their pistols, they were intimidated. Though we would like to believe that all cops are heroic (and all doctors are ethical, etc.), the truth is that, among any large group of people, you are going to get large variations. Perhaps these can be minimized, under particularly demanding, and selective, training regimes (as for the Navy SEALS, for example). We cannot be this choosey, however, and still find all the police that we need. @Buri admitted as much, when he made the rather harsh comment, that some of his former, fellow cops, were only cut out for writing parking tickets & such. And when a commanding officer arrived on the scene, perhaps it was as Buri has speculated, this one officer's cowardice and/or incompetence, which was holding back others.

Now, I am willing to wait to find out why this went so badly; but your impulse to justify the police actions-- which to all eyes, including top professional ones, were indefensibly wrong-- regardless of the facts, makes it clear that, to the discredit of your "opinion," you will be unwilling to reasonably assess those facts, when they all do finally come in.

 

Yes, and I understood what it meant as well-- to the claim of Eleuthera's, at which it was directed. But that was not the comment I was talking about, as you well know, since I quoted your very own, speculative offering, about the possibility of the police actually wanting a high body count, because they might believe it could help in the drive for gun control legislation. Frankly, I think you are giving their power to predict future consequences, far more credit than it deserves. But regardless, as I just showed, in my previous reply, your own suggestion was NOT the one which you used the "bridge too far," comment about, or for which you voiced a need for more evidence-- of course, because this was your own thought.

The thing that, "Most people with any common Sense without an agenda understand," is that if they are caught in a blatant lie, as you are now, which can be easily verified, the intelligent course is to just shut up, not to continue to "pester," the person who you had attacked with false claims, acting as if he is the one who is being the ass (with "an agenda") which, in fact, they would be proving themselves to be.

Just a word to the wise-- though I don't know if it'll do you any good.

 

That the OP is trained.

 

And she could have been killed and got those kids killed, stopping the parents was the right call.
Actually they fell back on their training, police are trained in such situations to seal of the area and prevent further loss of life rather than storm in Hollywood style, that attitude changed after Columbine but it's the right thing to do in 99% of cases. The initial responders as you say were seriously outgunned (and 2 of them were wounded).

I do not put much credibility on Monday morning football managers, let's wait for the inquiry and see (it now seems to be emerging that the door in question was steel and officers couldn't get it open.