What She Told The FBI
Horrible. A woman gave copious information to the FBI about how dangerous this mass murderer of children was. Just one excerpt from it.
The call was made on January 5, 2018, reports the NY Daily News' Chris Sommerfeldt and Jessica Schladebeck:
Following the deadly rampage, FBI admitted it had not passed on details of the woman's call to the Miami field office for consideration.
Read the stuff in that report. How does any person who takes that report or sees that report not immediately get on the phone and take action?
In other absolutely appalling behavior, four armed men -- the armed school resource officer and three sheriff's deputies -- hid behind cars while children were gunned down by a monster with a terrible weapon.
Daily News and Twitchy via @Instapundit
Good grief! The FBI has a vast amount of egg on its face.
What exactly do they need before they act on a tip and even question someone?
You'd get a visit from the Secret Service for far less than this if he had specified targeting the White House.
Patrick at February 24, 2018 3:02 AM
Hopefully this results in a complete cleaning house and overhaul of the FBI. Its long overdue. Criminal negligence charges all around, too.
Momof4 at February 24, 2018 4:15 AM
Chances are that they're going to fire an scapegoat that CNN as always will love to chase at this person's place of residence, and will double-down by also put cameras in front of the fired agent's relatives.
Sixclaws at February 24, 2018 5:15 AM
What exactly do they need before they act on a tip and even question someone?
Check and see if they are a republican politician.
.
Also remember, for decades law enforcement officials and agencies have argued in courts that they have no duty what so ever to protect any given citizen from crimes in progress - and the courts have AGREED
EVERY
SINGLE
TIME
lujlp at February 24, 2018 6:00 AM
What lujlp said - "The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html
Snoopy at February 24, 2018 6:16 AM
Which is understandable, in a way. Without such protections in place, the police become liable should a well-meaning rescue attempt go wrong for any reason.
Patrick at February 24, 2018 6:16 AM
I wonder when the *resource officer* had last been to the range and actually qualified with his service weapon?
Keystone cops, a politically correct FBI that is an arm of the Democratic party, and trangender surgeries for the military.
Then people still wonder why Trump was elected.
Isab at February 24, 2018 8:16 AM
". . . four armed men -- the armed school resource officer and three sheriff's deputies -- hid behind cars while children were gunned down by a monster . . ."
And cops should risk their lives? for what? so the BLM and other hate groups can blame them for all of society's ills?
Yes, it is appalling behavior; but, it is not surprising given how cops are, nowadays, damned if they do and damned if they don't.
charles at February 24, 2018 9:40 AM
Which is understandable, in a way.
No. The courts give them way too much leniency when it comes to qualified immunity. Things that if you or I would do that would get us arrested, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and sent to prison, they don't even get the barest slap on the wrist.
Maybe paid leave whilst being investigated. Sounds horrible. Meanwhile, the courts and prosecutors *wink*wink*nudge*nudge*.
Again, the notion of To Protect and Serve is a great bit of PR. But as always, unless you're lucky and an officer happens to be on the scene[1] or in the neighborhood, you/us/we are the first responders. Anyone arriving after the fact are recorders of the incident, or the clean up crew.
[1] This incident came to mind: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_State_University_attack
and more specifically:
See something, say something sounds great, but only if someone will do something.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 24, 2018 10:48 AM
“Terrible weapon“? Are you kidding me?
Gregg famously is a researcher. Please tell me you will ask him about this, because the AR15 is one of the lowest powered rifles one can buy. They were basically built with three criteria in mind: 1000 foot pounds at 300 yards, lightweight ammunition and measurable reliability.
To call the WEAPON, “terrible“ is to anthropomorphize it - hardly representative of a “Science“ – based blog.
Do you call it something different when the police are holding it?
Radwaste at February 24, 2018 10:49 AM
I wonder when the *resource officer* had last been to the range and actually qualified with his service weapon?
Probably the last time he had renew his weapon qualification. Any time from days before the slaughter, to just shy of 12 months ago. Presuming they have to qualify every year.
Unlike the "gun nuts" more than a few cops don't go to the range on a regular basis.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 24, 2018 10:58 AM
And cops should risk their lives? for what?
Because they swore an oath to do so? Is that so hard to abide by? oh, right, it's more important that cops make it home that night than those students, or you, should you have the misfortune to have an encounter with one just before the end of their shift.
I find this wryly amusing:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/02/23/police-officers-guard-home-deputy-assigned-to-florida-hs-who-never-went-in-during-shooting-report.html
More cops to protect a retiree than were assigned to protect 4,000 students? well, ok, I'm glad we have our priorities straight. Oh, right, going home after their shift.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 24, 2018 11:06 AM
One can read about the ballistics of the 5.56x45 ammunition here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO#Performance
I R A Darth Aggie at February 24, 2018 11:18 AM
6/1 = 6.00
1/4000 = 0.00025
6/.00025 = 24,000
So the retired, now a private citizen, school resource office currently is enjoying 24,000 times the armed protection he was SUPPOSED to provide to these students?
Why does he need 24,000 times the fire power he refused to provide the student in his charge to protect him from questions?
lujlp at February 24, 2018 11:40 AM
Patrick: What exactly do they need before they act on a tip and even question someone?
Just a fake dossier paid for by the opposing political party that ran the FBI during the previous eight years.
Ken R at February 24, 2018 1:07 PM
We're talking about saving lives. And whether you're a police officer or a private citizen, you are under no obligation to aid anyone in distress. (That is, unless you owe some duty to the person in distress, such as your kids, or your actions placed them in their distress in the first place.)
But if I'm walking down the beach and I see a five year old kid drowning in the ocean, I have no obligation whatsoever to do anything about it.
I'm perfectly within my rights to keep right on walking. So, when it comes to a duty to save lives, neither the police nor a private citizen has any obligation. So, no, I would not be arrested if I failed to save lives.
Patrick at February 24, 2018 1:18 PM
Dana Loesch: 18 calls, including from neighbors and family members... 39 home visits... 2 FBI tips... Nothing done... No questions...
It's almost enough to make a cynical person think they didn't want to stop it from happening.
Ken R at February 24, 2018 1:23 PM
I like the part where the FBI is in cahoots with all the crazies because black helicopters Illuminati Freemasons Jews commies feminists.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 24, 2018 1:55 PM
And whether you're a police officer or a private citizen, you are under no obligation to aid anyone in distress.
So, lets see if I have this right. A duly sworn law enforcement official who is aware of a forcible felony being committed is not duty bound to intervene?
Then there's no point in having police. None.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 24, 2018 2:16 PM
In other absolutely appalling behavior, four armed men -- the armed school resource officer and three sheriff's deputies -- hid behind cars while children were gunned down...
Reminds me of an amateur video I saw from the Virginia Tech massacre that showed a half dozen chubby cops with shotguns and AR-15s hiding behind trees and police cars while you could hear the sound of gunfire from inside the building.
At Columbine there were police outside the school within minutes after the shooting started at 11:19 AM. They returned fire when the two shooters fired at them from inside the building, but it was 1:09 PM, one hour and 50 minutes after the shooting started and 61 minutes after the shooters killed themselves, before SWAT teams entered the building. Some of the wounded kids were not evacuated until almost 3:30 PM.
As others have said above, the police have no duty to save lives and many seem not inclined to try if it involves risk to themselves. Their highest priority is their own safety.
Mass shootings don't show a need to control or ban guns. They show a need for more civilians to be armed. The government will not protect you.
Ken R at February 24, 2018 2:22 PM
"A duly sworn law enforcement official who is aware of a forcible felony being committed is not duty bound to intervene?"
True.
And, upon thinking about this, you will see that the decision, best shown in Warren v. DC, is justified:
Establishing a duty to "intervene", or to take action to protect an individual, exposes police to lawsuits for failure to perform that duty.
Even in cases where there was no police presence or action.
The result would be a bankrupt city. The only reason this sounds like a bad thing, or requires any thought at all, is that people have been told that "others" have this duty, to protect you, by those who stand to profit from your defenselessness.
Radwaste at February 24, 2018 3:51 PM
Before Columbine, the standard police procedure in an active shooter situation was to wait for SWAT, cops trained in infiltration and armed for the task.
After Columbine, the standard procedure was changed. Cops are now expected to enter the building and attempt to subdue or kill the active shooter(s) as they arrive on the scene.
The fact that it took so long to stage a SWAT team at Columbine and for that team to enter the building caused police departments across the country to re-evaluate their active shooter procedures and develop better ones.
This according to the Charlotte-Mecklenburg PD officer who taught the active shooter class I took last year.
Conan the Grammarian at February 24, 2018 5:08 PM
Establishing a duty to "intervene", or to take action to protect an individual, exposes police to lawsuits for failure to perform that duty.
Ok. Good to know. It blows up one the gun grabber's talking points: why do you need guns? the cops will save you.
No. No they won't.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 24, 2018 7:12 PM
> No. No they won't.
Meanwhile, consider this. When self-beloved government enthusiasts start using language in that clipped way, we know we have a real problem.
Don't forget this person.
Crid at February 24, 2018 7:46 PM
Stephen Willeford didn't wait until backup arrived when he grabbed his AR-15 and stopped the Texas church shooter. Was his AR a "terrible weapon" or a "wonderful weapon?" A bolt-action .223 can do just as much damage in the same time period as an AR if one is motivated to do so. It's not the gun or the caliber. It's the intent of the shooter.
The cops are afraid and think of their safety before yours.
Florence and Normandie.
http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-police-pullout-riots-outbreak-reconstructed-19920505-story.html
This whole incident has nothing to do with firearms. It's a failure of government and law enforcement including the FBI.
2015 FBI murder stats by weapon:
rifles of all types: 252
heads/hands/feet: 624
blunt instruments, hammers, clubs: 437
knives: 1544
Jay J. Hector at February 24, 2018 8:26 PM
The solution is clear Jay. We need heads/hands/feet control laws in this nation. Until we amputate the heads, hands, and feet of all citizens we will never be safe.
Ben at February 25, 2018 5:47 AM
The fact that a .223 (5.56mm) bullet moving at high speed radically changes direction when it hits flesh is not really relevant to whether an armed populace deters government tyranny.
Gun control advocates have been using scary bullets to frighten the public for years. Remember when Teflon-coated "cop-killer bullets" were gonna kill us all?
Conan the Grammarian at February 26, 2018 5:28 AM
I see that the Broward County Sheriff's Department is still every bit as worthless as it was when I lived there, three decades ago. I wonder how much they made on civil forfeitures last year. So cops are guarding Scot Peterson's house? Which cops? Broward County? From the description, Peterson lives in Palm Beach County. If the cops are Broward County, they are out of their jurisdiction.
And in other news: "Shelter in place" kills. Remember, kids: run, hide, fight.
Cousin Dave at February 26, 2018 6:30 AM
And while I'm here, I will give kudos to the Coral Springs city police. It sounds like they did the job that the sheriff was supposed to do.
Cousin Dave at February 26, 2018 6:32 AM
Leave a comment