Yeah, I read that and wondered, was it from the time of the 911 call and dispatch? or was he there for several minutes before he started shooting? or was he shooting for several minutes before someone got through to 911?
Like to know more.
I’m not sure how they operate, but when they have to go interview someone in regards to Mass shooting threats, bombing threats etc. do they take local LEO’s along for the interview process.
The FBI can’t be everywhere, either can local LEO’s but I would feel a lot safer if the locals were in on some of this, it might create an overlap that would be helpful in watching these guys.
I cant speak for the entire nation, but my experience is that local LEO’s often don’t have a clue that feds are working something in their AO. Heck, there is butthurt all around when LEO’s find out the state drug unit is working something in their AO without telling them.
From the other side of the fence, in an 8-hour day, if an agent had to run down 6 leads, in 6 different jurisdictions, they’d get nothing done but briefing LEO’s on what they have…so their mindset is probably, let’s see if we have something first.
Another way to handle that would be have task forces comprised of feds and area LEO’s, but that takes away resources from local agencies who may already have folks gone supporting a DEA or ATF task force.
So what is the solution we are going to have to come up with?
I don’t like hearing FBI: “we knew about this guy” after each one of these either but until someone commits a crime what is the solution.
The Left will say take all the guns starting with ARs. We all know that’s BS. Yet a solution is necessary and our side will have to provide it.
So what get’s me with this guy is what exactly would deter him. If you wake up one morning and decide ok, I’m going to do “X”. They seem to ignore the part about dying in the process. So would a death penalty deter them? I’m thinking, no.
Even if the FBI assigned a personal agent to every “we knew about him” type guy, they still can’t read his mind. If he posts on Facebook he’s going to burn it down today, fine… how are you going to find and stop him? You can’t.
I don’t get the hate of Jews either. Never have understood that, especially not in context of the USA. with that in mind though… Jehovah’s witnesses have built secure worship facilities for as long as I can remember specifically for the hardening against religious attacks. “Well we’re an open door deal”… Yeah, so are the Catholics, they still rape little boys. If you don’t understand that you need to lock the doors to your car, house, gym locker, desk drawer, business, and yes your Church… then you need a smack upside the head. It’s not a sign of casting away, it’s a sign of keeping safe what you already have. This is at least three churches now that -could have- saved a lot of lives. “well we have to trust God and be open” BS… God doesn’t need you to trust in him to the point you get everyone killed when trouble comes to town. Do you leave your doors and windows open in a storm, a hurricane?
The Left has one answer which we all know is non-solution. Somebody better think of something pretty damn quick. Like I said, it probably won;t deter anything but I would be ok with a “same day trial”. This would be when interrogation was over. All the facts gathered that can be. Have a trial that day and kill them that night.
The woman that bought her son the rifle knowing he was a danger should be put under the jail.
But again, death to these people does not seem to be a real priority. For themselves I mean. When I wake up in the morning I hope I stay alive all day and repeat the process. Apparently these guys don’t see life that way. How do you deter that mindset?
NPR is reporting that the FBI SAC does not believe that the PODS was known to LE.
In a nutshell we have to accept some things if we are going to live with any semblance of freedom. We need to do a better job of getting everyone to understand that.
There will always be bad people, nothing we can do is going to stop them. Our best defense is vigilance and involvement with others.
Before I scheduled a semi-elective surgery in 2009, I asked the Doc ‘I’ve been under general a lot in the last couple years, does that increase my risks?’ Apparently that gets asked a lot, because he referenced the stats on miles driven per fatality accident, and deaths from anesthesia during surgery. I was more at risk driving home.
If you stop and think about it, everything we do in life is a balanced risk versus benefit. Planes are going to crash, are you going to fly, etc.
We need to be cognizant of that, and, most of us aren’t.
I just dread this false Utopian land of bliss with no guns that the Dems are going to push again. If they were not just flat out lying to get votes and pad their pockets, maybe I wouldn’t have as much a problem with it. But it’s just a giant lie heaped on top of a sick crime.
Reminds me of that scene in Breaking Bad where Skyler has had enough of Marie and keeps telling her to shut up. That’s what it’s like with the Dems. They don’t want a solution. They want our guns and honestly at this point in the game. I think they just want them now for spite.
Crime is a factor in our lives that’s for sure but we need to develop solutions to at least make some of the most serious stuff more difficult. Especially when a pretty strong solution is to simply lock a door and install some cameras.
Like what?
Are you referring to “accepting” things that really put a dent in these atrocious acts or what the other side would like to force on us? Example: the Left will want to take guns. That won’t put a dent in anything, and it will certainly create many more problems than it solves. I would suggest, when guilt is not in doubt (like in this case and the Florida school shooting for instance), that they be tried and executed the next morning. Both of those situations involve “accepting” things we aren’t accustomed to.
I think 26 Inf was just remarking that freedom comes with a certain level of danger (the rest of his post makes that clear), and that in a country the size of the US with a population of 300+ million people and climbing there will be the occasional mass shooting (which would continue to be true if there was a total ban on civilian firearms ownership starting tomorrow).
As tragic as these events are, they are also statistically incredibly rare. That they have come to be such a fixture in the collective national psyche is more a reflection of the state of our national news media (competition for ratings and ad revenue, if it bleeds it leads, etc) and an innate human tendency towards fascination with tragedy and violence.
How about the fact that evil exists in the world and you and everyone else should do what they can to prepare accordingly?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I read it as we may need to accept some kind of compromise (that will obviously screw us over like with guns) in order to live with that “semblance” of freedom. I see what you’re driving at though, and that may be the case. It wasn’t accusatory, it was basically asking for clarification.
Of course, it would go without saying that of the 13,000 FBI agents, you’ll find many, many excellent ones with their heads and hearts in the right place for the job. And I would also agree that pointing to their failures to stop these shootings is using the same logical fallacy that anti-gunners use when they point to these shootings as proof that “assault weapons” are only used for mass murder: The, coincidentally named, Texas sharpshooter fallacy (using only examples that support one’s claim while ignoring all examples that disprove it). There are no doubt many mass shootings that were prevented, by the FBI and other agencies, that no doubt never even made more than a footnote in local news sources.
However, with that being said, the FBI does do a number of things that annoys both me and others in law enforcement. First, they demand to be the lead in any investigation in which they are involved. They act as though their authority exceeds that of all other agencies in all situations, including other federal agencies. They demand that all other agencies, local, state, and federal, share all their intelligence and evidence with them, but refuse to share any of their information with other agencies.
I also wonder how much the FBI is needed these days though, at least in their current state. Most of their areas of expertise and jurisdiction are covered by other federal agencies that specialize in those areas. The DEA covers drug crime, obviously. ICE covers terrorism and transnational crime, as well as cyber crime. DSS, Secret Service, Marshals, and US Capitol Police investigate threats to U.S. officials. The IRS-CI, ICE, and Secret Service all investigate financial crime. The Marshals handle fugitive recovery, and assist local LE with multi-state crimes. The FBI does…all of the above, but really doesn’t specialize in any of it. And they think they’re better at all of those things than all those other agencies. Plus, the FBI is, and has been pretty much for their entire existence, the most political of the federal law enforcement agencies. So I wonder if the FBI were to dissolve if we would really lose a whole hell of a lot. I don’t think we would, as all the other agencies would pretty quickly pick up the slack.
My dealings with the FBI have been less than stellar. Case in point: several years ago I responded to a bank robbery. After much footwork the perp was identified and, to make a long story short I arrested him at the bus station getting ready to leave town. I took him to the PD when two FBI agents showed up and took custody of him. The next day all the headlines say “FBI solves bank robbery and makes arrest”. Anyway, I digress.
Tx_Aggie nailed it.
“The universe is rarely so lazy…”
This synagogue was progressive egalitarian, which means they hate everything I believe in.
There are a number of FBI agents here at M4C who post and lurk that share your interests, values, and observations on the…peculiarities…of their employer. The broad brush you paint them with is unjust, and not acceptable conduct.
What does egalitarian mean in the context of your comment?
Generally, when I’ve heard it in relationship to Church it is reference to allowing women to preach or hold leadership positions.
Just curious if that is what you meant as I don’t know whether Orthodox Jewish folks allow women Rabbis.
Regardless, the shooter was a pox upon humanity.
I don’t think that it is a conspiracy, I think that it is the MSM ratchets up the tenor and temp closer to elections and it triggers the infinitesimal percentage that will light off. That and the mean time between the 0.0000002% of people that decide to shoot up their school or place of work.
After Parkland I think “go directly inside no matter what” is the new SOP, for better or worse. As much as “active shooter” is pretty much the same thing, the environments are usually all unique. The Wells Fargo one turned out well, this one didn’t go so well.