Born Hunter
-
Content Count
18,002 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
31
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Articles
Gun Dealer's and Fieldsports Shop's
Reloading Room
Blogs
Calendar
Store
Classifieds
Everything posted by Born Hunter
-
I get ya wilf/Walshie etc. I just disagree.
-
Maybe i will mate but i honestly doubt it. Some rules are there to be broken becuase they are unneccessary. You say all rules should be obeyed because otherwise you're setting a precedence to disobey every rule. Well conversely should a rule that states all boys have to wear skirts be obeyed? There IS such a thing as excessive regulation and that just teaches kids to justifiably rebel against any authority. If the authoruty is always reasonable then a reasonable human being can see the value in it. I do agree that if the rule existed before enrolment you haven't much to complain about but
-
Imo stupid rules don't apply and equally stupid laws don't apply. I do support you on the whole rules thing, the problem is when those rules become excessive and unnecessary. I mean we wouldn't just accept any rules would we? I don't think rules like this teach kids squat other than that authority is sometimes excessive and unfair which is imo hardly teaching them to follow the law.
-
Scot for the Nobel prize in diplomacy.
-
Exactly how I feel even if I do find it hard to disagree with what many expected of this man. I simply won't judge him.
-
I think the role and responsibility of LEOs in the US is a bit more serious than over here. I mean their job is the same but the weight it carries does seem to be very different in each respective society. They expect more from their lot than we do imo.
-
He was an School Resource Officer that I believe was deputised by the Sheriffs dept. That role includes law enforcement on school grounds, ie dealing with criminality in the classroom as well as potential security threats to the school. His duty was to engage and kill that shooter and because he didn't he was suspended without pay by the Sheriffs dept and is now under investigation. I think this blame game is utterly pointless. The only thing folks should really be cpncerned with is how to improve things to avoid this happening again. I find it hard to believe they need a seal team deploy
-
Probably.... It might be Austin but it's still Texas! LOL
-
Historical evolution of protocol for mass shooters in the US. http://towerhistory.org/changes-police-response-ut-tower-shooting/
-
Look fella if you want to measure dicks then I'll just let you measure it up against the local sheriff's. His words. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/broward/parkland/florida-school-shooting/fl-florida-shooting-sro-20180222-story.html Again, stating what their protocol is for an active shooter incident. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/us/police-security-florida-shooting.html
-
I can't argue with that. That is how they're told to respond. While the shooter is occupied with killing folks, get in a kill him. I don't write the rules but that is the fact of it.
-
I'd call that taking cover but yeah he was there. What I mean is it's possible he did what he thought was his duty. He wasn't just hiding in a cupboard waiting for the banging to stop.
-
I think to say he did nothing is unfair. He got to the scene and I believe liaised with other LEOs to help give a better equiped force the info they need on the situation. Whether he bottled it or just made a monumental mistake I don't know but I don't think it's fair to imply he was hiding or anything.
-
I'm not saying it's the right call by the US agencies and depts but it is what they tell their officers to do. Like i have said f**k loads of times, whatever went wrong needs evaluating and correcting. I'm not judging this SRO. If they need better training, selecting, deploying in pairs, with more appropriate weaponry, whatever.
-
It don't give me any feeling mate. I'm just stating what I'm led to believe is a fact. Regular cops are told to engage an active shooter and not wait for SWAT. SWAT are useless when most attacks are over inside of their response time, hence the change in protocol.
-
Apparently regular LEOs are supposed to engage, NOT wait for specialist units. I agree on the final part. The SRO will feel like shit now. But that has to be addressed for the future.
-
Your feelings are totally understandable. Yeah I read that too, since the onslaught of these terrible mass shootings LE procedures changed from 'wait for SWAT' to 'kill the b*****d asap'. It sounds like the SRO was near retirement having served for 32yrs and now taken early retirement. He may have had a heart condition for all I know, he may have bottled it, I don't know. Whatever happened needs assessing and corrective action needs taking. If that means only recruiting from combat proven vet's or time served LEOs, having an age limit, improving selection and training, deploying them in p
-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_resource_officer Not sure how much training, selection or experience one of these SROs has but it sounds like it wasn't enough for this one. What I did find interesting is that the shooting lasted 6 minutes (as is typical of a active shooter incident) and the SRO was allegedly on the scene within 90s. Had he engaged and stopped the shooter how many lives would he have protected? I think at this stage it's unfair to judge the fella, it's all speculation. The authorities need to know why he was ineffective and work to correct that for the futur
-
Fair enough. That aspect of it I have no experience of. My, perhaps naive, view of school is that we should be setting kids up for the real world. That don't mean totalitarianism and forcing kids to conform, that means showing them that life is all about choices and how you choose to present and carry yourself is what will make you as an adult. The smart and sharp appearance of a modern gent gets a man immediate respect from his peers and opens doors that the scruffy ill mannered man doesn't. By just forcing kids to comply without showing them the choice or the consequences what have you taugh
-
That's all well and good but what's the need to dictate to kids the one aspect of their appearance they do have some freedom over? And if it really is necessary then what is so wrong with that style? The world is changing and short back and sides ain't the only smart look anymore. Tuck ya shirt in, tie up and long, clean appearance and well mannered but hair seriously? It's bollocks imo. Rather than forcing kids to comply, why not show them the benefits of a smart and sharp appearance and let them decide if it's worth it.
-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/02/22/pupils-threatened-isolation-sport-meet-mcdonalds-haircut/ Seems a bit f***ing ridiculous to me. Frankly, what right should a state school have to dictate what hairstyle it's pupils have? Doesn't even seem that bad to me. It's a young style but not what I would class as low in the standard it presents. Not that I think that should be the schools business anyway. I break one of those rules and I work in a white collar profession.
-
You read the comments? Here's an absolute pearl "I am well aware of the damage they did, my daughter is a conservationist. However farming, beating and skimming alive animals of fur coats is by far the worst thing here." Where the f**k do these idiot get this shite from? In England...... really? Beating and skinning alive? Probably perfectly acceptable to them farming huge amounts of meat to overindulge in though, because "that's food"..... f***ing idiots.
-
We've got the K and the F.........but no C
Born Hunter replied to Blackbriar's topic in General Talk
If I must eat filth then it's Burger King for me! Chicken is for folks flirting with vegetarianism! Bland shite that needs added flavour to make it palatable. -
No, I mean as adults. What's their opinion as adults on what happened to them as children. Surely if it was such a terrible thing to do to a child the victims would be vocal in their opposition, or at least broadly unanimous? Fact is that majority of proponents are as much 'victims' as anyone. I also see that the majority of folks against are not victims themselves, just against it in principle. I might be wrong and I'm sure there will be a group of affected people who genuinely consider themselves victims too.
-
I presume of course there is a big vocal movement of victims that have suffered from this? I mean we should remember the main folks that are defending it are also victims, they just don't feel they are. I just think it's funny how it seems that most the folks that should be upset about this (folks that were done) support it while most the folks that are against it were never effected anyway. There's bound to be a group of genuine aggrieved victims, I just think it's interesting to see which side those affected tend to support.
