the Rights of "Possible" Terrorist Suspects.. What Level Should They be Afforded?

CT - I think you and I have a difference of opinion on what could have been done realistically to prevent the mentally ill shooter from pulling out a hidden shotgun.

And - should Wilson do the DPST "walk of apology" for not being prescient in his actions.

lawyers and pundits love to spend hundreds of hours and words dissecting in retrospect the actions of cops and others - and assigning "Blame" when they were not present in the heat of the moment. .




Who is to say that if accosted - and asked to drop the coat - the shooter would not have immediately brought out the gun and fired at one stopping an individual they considered "suspicious".??


It is a tragedy - but I, for One, will not condemn Wilson - he did the best thing he possibly could have done, IMHO - and demanding apologies for what a reviewer in retrospect considers the proper action - is a non-starter with me.


Better to focus on what can be done to help prevent in the future. Apologies and appeasement are not constructive - IMHO. Better to work on keeping weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill.
Chief Kraus asked his officers to attend services in uniform - that means armed - and that is one deterrent. Still won't prevent a suicidal shooter from barging in and firing until a response takes him/her down.



Of course - the kalifornia crazies are all up in arms that a congregation defended itself - they believe that enforcing "gun free zones" creates safety. idiots do not understand that individuals carrying legally in such gatherings are there for safety -not to cause ham - and to protect against the rare mentally ill shooter. but, the DPST's are incapable of understanding that their 'gun free zones" just create a target of opportunity with no capacity for self-defense against shooters. Biden is on record that self-protection is "idiotic".

Biden and the DPST's are the idiots.



CT -Thanks for the cogent discussion and debate.

Unlike others who have only name-calling and scatology to contribute.

Give your balls a tug you dumb twat. Yous can’t make a single post without calling me out, can yous, Rexsy? Even when I deigns to provide you with a sophisticated opinion on a subject, you do the same things, bitch.

Yet somehow yous expect others to engage in “cogent discussion and debates.” You’re a pathetic little “mean girl” with PMS, Rexsy, and deserve all the discipline you’ve received.

Make sure yous take your coat off when you get to church today, young lady.

Laugh that one off.

Give your balls a tug .... Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Are you jealous he has them to tug? You keep being infatuated with balls

.... even in your avatar!

CT - I think you and I have a difference of opinion on what could have been done realistically to prevent the mentally ill shooter from pulling out a hidden shotgun.

And - should Wilson do the DPST "walk of apology" for not being prescient in his actions.


Who is to say that if accosted - and asked to drop the coat - the shooter would not have immediately brought out the gun and fired at one stopping an individual they considered "suspicious".??
Originally Posted by oeb11

we do have a different opinion.. I reiterate that 3 different security people watched this guy closely, ready to draw their steel. they would be inches away when asking the shooter to remove his coat..no way could he fire off a round. in fact, he was only able to later, because they allowed him to create distance when he walked up to receive communion.

ironically, I have found the "real world" is far more reasonable than this Forum.. I have engaged several people, a hard right-winger included, about my belief that the shooter should have been stopped before any weapons were fired. every single one agreed with me, the "hard right" guy in particular.. he even offered more ideas, such as hugging the shooter to feel for a weapon, and walking side-by-side with him, as he received communion.

There is no right answer to the incident, Taking away rights doesn't work ( gun control) Nobody wants a "fire fight " anyplace but a packed church.
The real take away is armed people saved the day for many ( the right to be armed) the same issues come up mental , illegal weapon , arrested many times before . The LSM is going to let the issue drop because it doesn't if the narrative , will not answer how he got the gun where (ATF already knows) why he wasn't getting mental help or in jail.

There is no right answer to the incident, Taking away rights doesn't work ( gun control) Nobody wants a "fire fight " anyplace but a packed church.
The real take away is armed people saved the day for many ( the right to be armed) the same issues come up mental , illegal weapon , arrested many times before . The LSM is going to let the issue drop because it doesn't if the narrative , will not answer how he got the gun where (ATF already knows) why he wasn't getting mental help or in jail. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

and affording bogus "rights", the belief by many of you here, that the shooter had a right to walk in, wearing an over-sized coat and disguise, and be left alone, despite entering private property, and being deemed an impending threat by the entire security staff, is certainly a wrong position.

Wow how far off can you be ,

No the "shooter didn't have the right to kill people , or be on the street with the past the LSM reported
With that said a church is a safe place (they have been for 100s of years) sooo do you want people "searched before entering "
And what Disguise , a coat in winter on a cold day , I guess I missed the ski mask part?

Wow how far off can you be , Originally Posted by rexdutchman

not far at all..

No the "shooter didn't have the right to kill people , or be on the street with the past the LSM reported
With that said a church is a safe place (they have been for 100s of years) sooo Originally Posted by rexdutchman

if the Church is so safe, why did AT LEAST 8 people draw a handgun within moments of the first shot having fired? the coat was over-sized and bulky, the temp outside was light jacket weather at most. ski mask?

no ski mask.. he wore a fake beard and mustache that everyone knew immediately was fake.. caught Security's attention, all 3 security personnel stood close to the Shooter after he sat, and eyed him the entire time. they knew he was impending trouble!

and they failed.. they allowed the Shooter to create space between them, later, and he killed 2 Parishioners. now the One Guard is a Hero, Abbot gave him a Medal.. to me he is a guy who could have saved 2 lives.

and affording bogus "rights", the belief by many of you here, that the shooter had a right to walk in, wearing an over-sized coat and disguise, and be left alone, despite entering private property, and being deemed an impending threat by the entire security staff, is certainly a wrong position. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

A church or any other place that is open for use, while a private property, happens to be a public place. Small But very important distinction. So yes, he and anyone else from suzy to Mr Clinton to Dolly Parton to Joe Smoe, all have a right to walk in as they see fit.

A church or any other place that is open for use, while a private property, happens to be a public place. Small But very important distinction. So yes, he and anyone else from suzy to Mr Clinton to Dolly Parton to Joe Smoe, all have a right to walk in as they see fit. Originally Posted by Texanbychoice

didn't say they didn't.. but they don't have a right to hide a gun while wearing a disguise, intending to commit murder.

Hmm..

I have had a number of conversations in "the real world", regarding this shooting incident, and EVERY single person I had colloquy with, agreed completely with my view that Church Security should have asked the gunman to remove his overcoat.

which underscores the Troll nature of this Forum. so many simply want to disagree and insult, just to be on the other side.

you probably agreed with me all along, but don't want to see a good gun response go to waste