PDA

View Full Version : Shooting at Fort Hood



Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-02-2014, 05:38 PM
CNN is reporting an active shooter at Fort Hood, with at least one confirmed casualty. Surrounding areas are locking down and shutting down.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-02-2014, 05:45 PM
now saying 'injuries' in multiple.

Breakaway
04-02-2014, 05:50 PM
Link http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=9489551

Kevin

htom
04-02-2014, 07:33 PM
Fool me once ... will we ever learn?

The shooter has been "self-neutralized"?

I'd hate to think that any US military personnel might neutralize someone attacking them!

Phillip Allen
04-02-2014, 08:43 PM
I don't suppose we should allow soldiers to have guns...

genglandoh
04-02-2014, 08:44 PM
Yesterday there was this story about an ex army recruit who was planning a Ft hood inspired jihad.

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Army recruit whose 'Ft. Hood-inspired jihad' prompted alert not a threat: FBI
An Army recruit who triggered a military and law enforcement alert is not considered an immediate threat by the FBI - even though the agency said he told friends he planned a "Ft. Hood-inspired jihad" against fellow soldiers" and warned it was "imminent."

FoxNews.com reported Monday that the FBI was searching for a recent Army recruit known as "Booker, also known as Mohammad Abdullah Hassan" after obtaining an alert based on FBI intelligence and provided by the agency's Kansas City division. The alert, which the FBI sent to the U.S. Marine Corps, local police departments and other law enforcement agencies, was titled "Planned Ft. Hood-inspired Jihad against US Soldiers by Army Recruit" and said Hassan had warned his "jihad was imminent."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/01/ex-army-recruit-who-threatened-ft-hood-inspired-jihad-not-threat-fbi/

ccmanuals
04-02-2014, 08:47 PM
Yesterday there was this story about an ex army recruit who was planning a Ft hood inspired jihad.

EXCLUSIVE: Ex-Army recruit whose 'Ft. Hood-inspired jihad' prompted alert not a threat: FBI
An Army recruit who triggered a military and law enforcement alert is not considered an immediate threat by the FBI - even though the agency said he told friends he planned a "Ft. Hood-inspired jihad" against fellow soldiers" and warned it was "imminent."

FoxNews.com reported Monday that the FBI was searching for a recent Army recruit known as "Booker, also known as Mohammad Abdullah Hassan" after obtaining an alert based on FBI intelligence and provided by the agency's Kansas City division. The alert, which the FBI sent to the U.S. Marine Corps, local police departments and other law enforcement agencies, was titled "Planned Ft. Hood-inspired Jihad against US Soldiers by Army Recruit" and said Hassan had warned his "jihad was imminent."
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/01/ex-army-recruit-who-threatened-ft-hood-inspired-jihad-not-threat-fbi/

Fox news is despicable. Law enforcement has already declared there is no connection to this and what happened at Ft Hood today.

The Bigfella
04-02-2014, 08:48 PM
I don't suppose we should allow soldiers to have guns...

Finally... a hint of something smart.

genglandoh
04-02-2014, 08:53 PM
Fox news is despicable. Law enforcement has already declared there is no connection to this and what happened at Ft Hood today.

Please try to control your hatred of Fox news.

Fox news did not say this story had anything to do with what happened today because they wrote it YESTERDAY.

Phillip Allen
04-02-2014, 08:54 PM
Please try to control your hatred of Fox news.

Fox news did not say this story had anything to do with what happened today because they wrote it YESTERDAY.

Oops! :)

(let's see if any bilge lefties demand an appology from him :) )

The Bigfella
04-02-2014, 09:03 PM
Okay. I demand that Ian apologize for saying what you posted hints of something smart.

Yes, I apologise.

Jim Bow
04-02-2014, 09:07 PM
It was an argument in the motor pool.
Remember the old days, when pissed off soldiers used to fight it out behind the barracks?
Now they pack their own (god given, constitutionally approved) heat.

CWSmith
04-02-2014, 09:15 PM
Remember the old days, when pissed off soldiers used to fight it out behind the barracks?

It doesn't stop with soldiers. My theory is too many men with too short penis (real or metaphysical).

Flying Orca
04-02-2014, 09:17 PM
The real question is, will anyone spend the money to buy enough politicians to do something about it?

CWSmith
04-02-2014, 09:29 PM
The real question is, will anyone spend the money to buy enough politicians to do something about it?

What they will do is "more guns".

Flying Orca
04-02-2014, 09:39 PM
A popular option, and one with purchased supporters already unless I miss my guess.

Lew Barrett
04-02-2014, 09:57 PM
I dislike Fox news.

genglandoh
04-02-2014, 10:11 PM
Just to be clear the only people at Fort Hood who are allowed to carry weapons are the military police.

Paul Girouard
04-02-2014, 10:14 PM
Just to be clear the only people at Fort Hood who are allowed to carry weapons are the military police.

Yes a large number of people think everyone is armed on a military base, truth is very few are armed and the weapons that are legally there are highly controlled. But then what do civilians know about military bases.

LeeG
04-02-2014, 10:43 PM
Yes a large number of people think everyone is armed on a military base, truth is very few are armed and the weapons that are legally there are highly controlled. But then what do civilians know about military bases.

I saw MASH

The Bigfella
04-02-2014, 11:11 PM
Yes a large number of people think everyone is armed on a military base, truth is very few are armed and the weapons that are legally there are highly controlled. But then what do civilians know about military bases.

Want to compare how many times this civilian has eaten in the Officer's Mess, slept in the Officers Quarters... with your tally? :D

Paul Girouard
04-02-2014, 11:19 PM
Want to compare how many times this civilian has eaten in the Officer's Mess, slept in the Officers Quarters... with your tally? :D


How is where you or I slept on US Military bases have any bearing on my statement?

Phillip Allen
04-02-2014, 11:25 PM
Just to be clear the only people at Fort Hood who are allowed to carry weapons are the military police.

it's been over 40 years since I mustered out of the Navy... but I doubt there are any unaccounted for firearms on any US base... promoting the idea that there is is just another bit of agenda driven dishonesty

Gerarddm
04-03-2014, 12:35 AM
Business as usual.

The Bigfella
04-03-2014, 12:38 AM
it's been over 40 years since I mustered out of the Navy... but I doubt there are any unaccounted for firearms on any US base... promoting the idea that there is is just another bit of agenda driven dishonesty

Visiting US Navy ships have been shown to be one of the main means by which illegal handguns were imported into Australia

The Bigfella
04-03-2014, 12:39 AM
How is where you or I slept on US Military bases have any bearing on my statement?

Its got the same bearing on the reality of the situation as your original statement.

Paul Girouard
04-03-2014, 01:12 AM
Its got the same bearing on the reality of the situation as your original statement.

Ya, sure it does. The average civilian has a excellent working knowledge about the daily workings of military bases, sure they do, if you say so.

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 01:22 AM
Visiting US Navy ships have been shown to be one of the main means by which illegal handguns were imported into AustraliaRoyal Australian Navy ships actually. I was told (by a mate who was in HMAS Stuart) that when they came back from the Philippines it was a wonder that the ship even floated, due to the number of illegal handguns stashed around the ship.
US sailors are unlikely to be carrying personal weapons at sea, highly unlikely to know when they go to sea that they will get shore leave in Australia and it's extremely unlikely they would have the contacts to sell them here.

David G
04-03-2014, 02:33 AM
My friend Chuck said, "Another Ft. Hood shooting? Hey - this is TEXAS - that's what we do."

The Bigfella
04-03-2014, 02:47 AM
Ya, sure it does. The average civilian has a excellent working knowledge about the daily workings of military bases, sure they do, if you say so.


Oh, sorry... "the average citizen"... well, that's different then....



But then what do civilians know about military bases.

Some civilians know quite a bit

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 02:57 AM
Oh, sorry... "the average citizen"... well, that's different then....




Some civilians know quite a bitIn the words of our Prime Minister, they are the "suppository of all wisdom".
http://youtu.be/nIOM9kpTaho
...or not. :D

BrianW
04-03-2014, 04:59 AM
The future is not bright for the US military when PTSD is the topic. It appears the system failed when they allowed him to PCS before completing treatment at his prior post. Moving is very stressful for junior enlisted members who's budget is already stretched to the limit.

During a PCS there is a feeling of being disconnected from the military. Everything is new, for the member and his family.

That said, I have no respect for this mans actions. He has brought pain and misery to a huge number of families, especially his own.

The Bigfella
04-03-2014, 06:28 AM
Permanent Change of Station

Nicholas Scheuer
04-03-2014, 07:01 AM
With all the rage about Concealed Carry among civilians, I'm surprised the US Army hasn't embarked on a program to have discreet cadre at all installation armed 24-7 so that they are in a position to take out trouble at the first sign. Heck, the Colt 1911 is the sidearm of choice among thousands of enthusiasts, and the U S Army has warehouses full of ammo. The Military Police can't do it; the white stripes on their helmets are too easy for berserk shooters to spot.

slug
04-03-2014, 07:02 AM
More guns ?

aww jeez...............

slug
04-03-2014, 07:07 AM
Thanks Ian.
I sort of agree with you Brian.
But its not just the PCS that is the problem , its the feeling of being alien , outside of your "work" environment . Even in a home town , you are alien.
Yes , most certainly what the soldier did was wrong , but it is the military , and by extension the government that has to shoulder the responsibility.
He is their responsibility , and they should be doing whatever is necessary to stop him harming himself , and others.
Lots of issues involved , some of which have been argued about often on this forum.
But to blame the suffering soldier is a bit tough.
Regards Rob J.


I totally agree... The government..or somebody, I really don't care who..needs to pass laws and initiate programs that creates a totally stress free, touchy feely , everything is just great ! world.

this would be far easier than removing guns from the population

Iceboy
04-03-2014, 07:09 AM
Most army side arms are Beretta M9 semi automatics chambered in 9mm.
With all the rage about Concealed Carry among civilians, I'm surprised the US Army hasn't embarked on a program to have discreet cadre at all installation armed 24-7 so that they are in a position to take out trouble at the first sign. Heck, the Colt 1911 is the sidearm of choice among thousands of enthusiasts, and the U S Army has warehouses full of ammo. The Military Police can't do it; the white stripes on their helmets are too easy for berserk shooters to spot.

slug
04-03-2014, 07:14 AM
When I read all the nonsense in this thread ,sarcasm is my only response.

get the guns out of society...stop making up excuses.

gun nuts have millions of excuses... oh, it was stress

bogdog
04-03-2014, 07:22 AM
When I read all the nonsense in this thread ,sarcasm is my only response.

get the guns out of society...stop making up excuses.

gun nuts have millions of excuses... oh, it was stressPlease share your wisdom, how do we get guns out of society?

Phillip Allen
04-03-2014, 07:24 AM
When I read all the nonsense in this thread ,sarcasm is my only response.

get the guns out of society...stop making up excuses.

gun nuts have millions of excuses... oh, it was stress

Stalin disarmed his citizens and the penalties for getting caught were severe... I’m sure the faction wanting to disarm the average citizen has other comparable notions as well

bogdog
04-03-2014, 07:30 AM
Stalin disarmed his citizens and the penalties for getting caught were severe... I’m sure the faction wanting to disarm the average citizen has other comparable notions as wellOnly the NRA members:cool: To be fair they're the ones who started the "cold dead hands."

slug
04-03-2014, 07:42 AM
Please share your wisdom, how do we get guns out of society?


Just look around...the British, the Australians, Germans, French.... They have very very few guns in society.

i was recently at the police station to turn in some illegal explosives. i Asked them how many guns were in my town....seven...and they know the reason each permit is issued and they can at a moments notice inspect the gun owner for mental state and gun storage.

There are no stress related gun rampages. The only gun I will ever see is in the newspaper, front page picture...drug smugglers caught, 12 kilos cocaine, and two handguns. Rampages happen with sticks ,clubs , knives..most times the police get control before someone is killed.

Unfortunately Americans don't want to hear this...they love guns and wish to solve the gun problem with more guns...

if only everyone had a gun and everyone was happy and there was no stress...and the farce goes on.

bogdog
04-03-2014, 07:55 AM
Just look around...the British, the Australians, Germans, French.... They have very very few guns in society.

i was recently at the police station to turn in some illegal explosives. i Asked them how many guns were in my town....seven...and they know the reason each permit is issued and they can at a moments notice inspect the gun owner for mental state and gun storage.

There are no stress related gun rampages. The only gun I will ever see is in the newspaper, front page picture...drug smugglers caught, 12 kilos cocaine, and two handguns. Rampages happen with sticks ,clubs , knives..most times the police get control before someone is killed.

Unfortunately Americans don't want to hear this...they love guns and wish to solve the gun problem with more guns...

if only everyone had a gun and everyone was happy and there was no stress...and the farce goes on.
That didn't answer the question though. How would we get guns out of our society?

Phillip Allen
04-03-2014, 07:57 AM
That didn't answer the question though. How would we get guns out of our society?

the same way any other dictator would...

BrianW
04-03-2014, 08:02 AM
Yes , most certainly what the soldier did was wrong , but it is the military , and by extension the government that has to shoulder the responsibility. He is their responsibility , and they should be doing whatever is necessary to stop him harming himself , and others.

I agree fully that the military and the government, through the Veterans Administration, are responsible for providing the needed counseling for our soldiers suffering from PTSD. I don't believe the military is responsible for his actions today at Ft Hood. That was his doing.

In the thread about the Israeli program, removing firearms from the servicemembers diagnosed with PTSD, the topic veered towards suicide in general. While I don't feel the general population should be restricted due to the actions of people who commit or attempt suicide, I do agree that when diagnosed with a mental issue, firearms should be removed from that persons reach.

Now, how do we get there?

jpb54
04-03-2014, 08:51 AM
Just look around...the British, the Australians, Germans, French.... They have very very few guns in society.

i was recently at the police station to turn in some illegal explosives. i Asked them how many guns were in my town....seven...and they know the reason each permit is issued and they can at a moments notice inspect the gun owner for mental state and gun storage.

There are no stress related gun rampages. The only gun I will ever see is in the newspaper, front page picture...drug smugglers caught, 12 kilos cocaine, and two handguns. Rampages happen with sticks ,clubs , knives..most times the police get control before someone is killed.

Unfortunately Americans don't want to hear this...they love guns and wish to solve the gun problem with more guns...

if only everyone had a gun and everyone was happy and there was no stress...and the farce goes on.


In the U*S , the police have NO legal obligation to protect it's citizens per the SCOTUS . You are on your own until after something bad happens . I'll keep my guns ,thank you .

ccmanuals
04-03-2014, 10:37 AM
Yes a large number of people think everyone is armed on a military base, truth is very few are armed and the weapons that are legally there are highly controlled. But then what do civilians know about military bases.

Ft Hood is a huge military installation in fact a small city. They also have alot of DoD law enforcement on the base as well.

Phillip Allen
04-03-2014, 10:42 AM
Ft Hood is a huge military installation in fact a small city. They also have alot of DoD law enforcement on the base as well.

I guess the next thing to do is to show us that one of the 'legal' firearms was used...

Iceboy
04-03-2014, 10:56 AM
Ditto, from someone who would not be here to agree if he did not possess the means to defend himself and his family.
In the U*S , the police have NO legal obligation to protect it's citizens per the SCOTUS . You are on your own until after something bad happens . I'll keep my guns ,thank you .

slug
04-03-2014, 11:09 AM
They call this...Paranoia

ccmanuals
04-03-2014, 11:09 AM
I guess the next thing to do is to show us that one of the 'legal' firearms was used...

Don't understand your point here.

John of Phoenix
04-03-2014, 11:13 AM
I agree fully that the military and the government, through the Veterans Administration, are responsible for providing the needed counseling for our soldiers suffering from PTSD. I don't believe the military is responsible for his actions today at Ft Hood. That was his doing.

In the thread about the Israeli program, removing firearms from the servicemembers diagnosed with PTSD, the topic veered towards suicide in general. While I don't feel the general population should be restricted due to the actions of people who commit or attempt suicide, I do agree that when diagnosed with a mental issue, firearms should be removed from that persons reach.

Now, how do we get there?Start with a decent mental health program. As to getting guns away from impaired people, lotsa luck.

John of Phoenix
04-03-2014, 12:11 PM
In spite of all the weaponry stored there, a stateside or overseas peacetime military installation is as close to a gun free zone as you'll find. Except for law enforcement, no one has a weapon or that's the way it's supposed to be.

There are locks upon locks upon locks for the weapons in arms rooms - machine guns, grenade launchers, rifles, pistols, bayonets - and the ammunition is stored in separate equally secured facilities.

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 01:13 PM
Stalin disarmed his citizens and the penalties for getting caught were severe... Iím sure the faction wanting to disarm the average citizen has other comparable notions as wellYou can't trust those commies. First they take everyone's guns, then just so people were completely helpless, they trained Russian children (via Komsomol) in the use of military weapons and infantry tactics.
Fortunately for the cause of Freedom! the Russians (and East Germans, and Poles, and Hungarians) were able to overthrow the tyrants by pointing their fingers at them and shouting "Bang".

Outside the cities, hunting rifles were and are quite common.

ccmanuals
04-03-2014, 01:17 PM
Right wing social media is frothing at the mouth to arm all military on all installations. They fantasize about the hero scenario.

Paul Girouard
04-03-2014, 01:18 PM
In spite of all the weaponry stored there, a stateside or overseas peacetime military installation is as close to a gun free zone as you'll find. Except for law enforcement, no one has a weapon or that's the way it's supposed to be.

There are locks upon locks upon locks for the weapons in arms rooms - machine guns, grenade launchers, rifles, pistols, bayonets - and the ammunition is stored in separate equally secured facilities.


Exactly! I wonder if Ian will question where you slept while on base?

The gun the shooter used may have been legal for the shooter to own, but it was UA / Un-Authorized/ illegal for him to bring it on base, hence a illegal weapon.

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 01:25 PM
Australians don't generally carry guns for self defence. Why aren't we being murdered at a much greater rate than Americans if we are unable to protect ourselves?
The fact is, the reverse is true. We are safer than Americans.
I've asked this question numerous times. Nobody has even attempted to answer, because they know the "guns make life safer" argument is a load of hooey. It's utter nonsense and they know it.

CWSmith
04-03-2014, 01:27 PM
Australians don't generally carry guns for self defence. Why aren't we being murdered at a much greater rate than Americans if we are unable to protect ourselves?
The fact is, the reverse is true. We are safer than Americans.
I've asked this question numerous times. Nobody has even attempted to answer, because they know the "guns make life safer" argument is a load of hooey. It's utter nonsense and they know it.

There is no answer other than "You are right!"

Phillip Allen
04-03-2014, 01:28 PM
what a strange religon you have, steve

JimD
04-03-2014, 01:37 PM
Australians don't generally carry guns for self defence. Why aren't we being murdered at a much greater rate than Americans if we are unable to protect ourselves?
The fact is, the reverse is true. We are safer than Americans.
I've asked this question numerous times. Nobody has even attempted to answer, because they know the "guns make life safer" argument is a load of hooey. It's utter nonsense and they know it.

Actually, I think your question has been answered many times and it goes something like this: Statistically we Australians, Brits, Canadians are safer. But individually, there is no question that guns have been used successfully by owners to defend themselves (typically from other individuals with guns).

bogdog
04-03-2014, 01:40 PM
...
The fact is, the reverse is true. We are safer than Americans...
No you're not, you got all them creepy crawly things with fangs, heck you just had some poor guy murdered by a krait just a few weeks ago.

John of Phoenix
04-03-2014, 01:46 PM
Right wing social media is frothing at the mouth to arm all military on all installations. They fantasize about the hero scenario. Boy, I never saw that one coming <roll eyes>



Australians don't generally carry guns for self defence. Why aren't we being murdered at a much greater rate than Americans if we are unable to protect ourselves?
The fact is, the reverse is true. We are safer than Americans.
I've asked this question numerous times. Nobody has even attempted to answer, because they know the "guns make life safer" argument is a load of hooey. It's utter nonsense and they know it.And bases are remarkably safe. Indeed, the reason these military shootings grab the headlines is because they're so rare. Want to discuss why they're rare? Certainly not a shortage of trained shooters. Maybe that actually contributes TO the safety? You know, weapons safety training? Could it be a lack of guns? No, couldn't be anything like that.

John of Phoenix
04-03-2014, 02:21 PM
Ft. Hood shooting: Gunman bought weapon at same store as Nidal Hasan

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-fort-hood-shooting-20140403,0,864732.story#ixzz2xqvfXKK5Guns Galore store in Killeen.

Ain't that something.

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 02:21 PM
No you're not, you got all them creepy crawly things with fangs, heck you just had some poor guy murdered by a krait just a few weeks ago.Things with fangs? You mean, like, bears? mountain lions? alligators? coyotes? rattlesnakes? :D

Kraits in Australia? I always thought they were an Asian snake, but we don't need no stinkin' kraits anyways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Krait

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 02:25 PM
Actually, I think your question has been answered many times and it goes something like this: Statistically we Australians, Brits, Canadians are safer. But individually, there is no question that guns have been used successfully by owners to defend themselves (typically from other individuals with guns).Individually, people can and have got drunk and driven home without killing anyone.
Statistically, carnage would result if everyone did it.

Flying Orca
04-03-2014, 02:31 PM
Australians don't generally carry guns for self defence. Why aren't we being murdered at a much greater rate than Americans if we are unable to protect ourselves?
The fact is, the reverse is true. We are safer than Americans.
I've asked this question numerous times. Nobody has even attempted to answer, because they know the "guns make life safer" argument is a load of hooey. It's utter nonsense and they know it.

Same thing with Canadians. The closest I can get to an answer is that the US is "special".

I'll just let that resonate for a little while.

htom
04-03-2014, 02:34 PM
The Veteran's Administration has nothing to do with treating active duty military.

htom
04-03-2014, 02:36 PM
Australians don't generally carry guns for self defence. Why aren't we being murdered at a much greater rate than Americans if we are unable to protect ourselves?
The fact is, the reverse is true. We are safer than Americans.
I've asked this question numerous times. Nobody has even attempted to answer, because they know the "guns make life safer" argument is a load of hooey. It's utter nonsense and they know it.

Actually, several of you keep asking this and I keep answering it. We are attacked much more often, and much more seriously, than you are. If you believe that it's the firearms that are doing the attacking, well, you're just wrong.

Jim Bow
04-03-2014, 02:43 PM
In the U*S , the police have NO legal obligation to protect it's citizens per the SCOTUS . You are on your own until after something bad happens . I'll keep my guns ,thank you .
Could you provide a link to that SCOTUS decision? Or, is it just another quote from the latest copy of American Rifleman?

JimD
04-03-2014, 02:44 PM
Individually, people can and have got drunk and driven home without killing anyone.
Statistically, carnage would result if everyone did it.
No disagreement from me, stevebaby. Just sayin' what the standard answer to the question is.

JimD
04-03-2014, 02:47 PM
Actually, several of you keep asking this and I keep answering it. We are attacked much more often, and much more seriously, than you are. If you believe that it's the firearms that are doing the attacking, well, you're just wrong.
So any idea how you got to be a culture that is so willing to attack one another?

Phillip Allen
04-03-2014, 04:32 PM
Slug , if Americans really want to get rid of a great deal of weaponry off the streets , follow the lead of one of the countries that have been there , and done it.
Put it to the vote !.
Of course the NRA will run one hell of a scare campaign , we see the likes on this thread already.
But its all BS.
Been there , done that.
Anyway , I feel sorry for the shooter , that he went this far.
And his family , and the people he shot , and their families.
Having more guns obviously is not the answer.
Take the lead of the countries that have reduced the amount of weaponry on the streets , that have made it harder for people with issues to be in possession of firearms , and you will see a reduction in the death toll.
That is all I have to say.
Over and out.
Rob J.

speaking of scare campaigns

The Bigfella
04-03-2014, 04:46 PM
speaking of scare campaigns

Does the truth scare you?

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 06:14 PM
Actually, several of you keep asking this and I keep answering it. We are attacked much more often, and much more seriously, than you are. If you believe that it's the firearms that are doing the attacking, well, you're just wrong.If you're being attacked more often than anyone else, I'd like to see some evidence of that. I doubt it will be forthcoming. I'm not sure what being attacked more "seriously" actually means...could you clarify that for us?
It certainly looks to me as if you've just said that your firearms aren't working as any sort of deterrent. Is that what you were trying to say?
And they're certainly not making you any safer, because Americans are much more likely to be murdered than Australians.
So just for comparison...
How often are Americans likely to be attacked?
How often are Australians likely to be attacked?

Paul Girouard
04-03-2014, 06:26 PM
The Veteran's Administration has nothing to do with treating active duty military.

Yup , another point where the "average "civilian has little to no understanding of military life and issues.

How many nights have you slept in Officer Housing htom ? As if that has any bearing on the subject :rolleyes:

htom
04-03-2014, 07:28 PM
Could you provide a link to that SCOTUS decision? Or, is it just another quote from the latest copy of American Rifleman?

Google away:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189

New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

How can you be expected to follow the law if you don't know the law?

htom
04-03-2014, 07:34 PM
Yup , another point where the "average "civilian has little to no understanding of military life and issues.

How many nights have you slept in Officer Housing htom ? As if that has any bearing on the subject :rolleyes:

One, if my memory is correct; about a dozen of us from an Explorer Post (older Boy Scouts) while I was in high school spent one night in BOQ at an Air Force Base outside Mobridge, SoDak.

Peter Malcolm Jardine
04-03-2014, 08:41 PM
Actually, several of you keep asking this and I keep answering it. We are attacked much more often, and much more seriously, than you are. If you believe that it's the firearms that are doing the attacking, well, you're just wrong.


Only a very small percentage of your gun deaths have anything at all to do with outside attacks. You guys just shoot each other.

Paul Girouard
04-03-2014, 09:02 PM
Does the truth scare you?


No, how about you, does it scare you? How many nights have you slept at sea on a CVN working flt ops to flt ops?

The Bigfella
04-03-2014, 09:06 PM
No, how about you, does it scare you? How many nights have you slept at sea on a CVN working flt ops to flt ops?


Come on Paul.... don't lose sleep over it.

Paul Girouard
04-03-2014, 09:08 PM
Come on Paul.... don't lose sleep over it.

Ah, it's only 7PM here, not quite bed time yet Ian:D

Jim Bow
04-03-2014, 09:37 PM
Google away:

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189

New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=341&issue_id=72004

How can you be expected to follow the law if you don't know the law?

Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)
A case where police department would not enforce a restraining order against a husband, BECAUSE the wife only wanted it enforced when it was convenient for her. She often allowed the guy into the home despite the order.


DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189
is about the Wisconsin Department of Social Services not protecting a child.


New York Times -- http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/po...otus.html?_r=0
Page Not Found


http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/m...issue_id=72004
404 - File or directory not found.

stevebaby
04-03-2014, 10:11 PM
If you're being attacked more often than anyone else, I'd like to see some evidence of that. I doubt it will be forthcoming. I'm not sure what being attacked more "seriously" actually means...could you clarify that for us?
It certainly looks to me as if you've just said that your firearms aren't working as any sort of deterrent. Is that what you were trying to say?
And they're certainly not making you any safer, because Americans are much more likely to be murdered than Australians.
So just for comparison...
How often are Americans likely to be attacked?
How often are Australians likely to be attacked?As I expected, no answer.
Because there is no answer.
It's nonsense.

htom
04-03-2014, 10:49 PM
Only a very small percentage of your gun deaths have anything at all to do with outside attacks. You guys just shoot each other.

How is it that you think being shot (and for some, killed) is not being attacked?

htom
04-03-2014, 11:00 PM
Why the NYTimes won't give you the page I don't know, here's what they give me. --

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

By LINDA GREENHOUSE
Published: June 28, 2005

WASHINGTON, June 27 - 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.

The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.

For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.

Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.

The theory of the lawsuit Ms. Gonzales filed in federal district court in Denver was that Colorado law had given her an enforceable right to protection by instructing the police, on the court order, that "you shall arrest" or issue a warrant for the arrest of a violator. She argued that the order gave her a "property interest" within the meaning of the 14th Amendment's due process guarantee, which prohibits the deprivation of property without due process.

The district court and a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit dismissed the suit, but the full appeals court reinstated it and the town appealed. The Supreme Court's precedents made the appellate ruling a challenging one for Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers to sustain.

A 1989 decision, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, held that the failure by county social service workers to protect a young boy from a beating by his father did not breach any substantive constitutional duty. By framing her case as one of process rather than substance, Ms. Gonzales and her lawyers hoped to find a way around that precedent.

But the majority on Monday saw little difference between the earlier case and this one, Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278. Ms. Gonzales did not have a "property interest" in enforcing the restraining order, Justice Scalia said, adding that "such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property."

Although the protective order did mandate an arrest, or an arrest warrant, in so many words, Justice Scalia said, "a well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes."

But Justices Stevens and Ginsburg, in their dissenting opinion, said "it is clear that the elimination of police discretion was integral to Colorado and its fellow states' solution to the problem of underenforcement in domestic violence cases." Colorado was one of two dozen states that, in response to increased attention to the problem of domestic violence during the 1990's, made arrest mandatory for violating protective orders.

"The court fails to come to terms with the wave of domestic violence statutes that provides the crucial context for understanding Colorado's law," the dissenting justices said.

Organizations concerned with domestic violence had watched the case closely and expressed disappointment at the outcome. Fernando LaGuarda, counsel for the National Network to End Domestic Violence, said in a statement that Congress and the states should now act to give greater protection.

In another ruling on Monday, the court rebuked the ....

htom
04-03-2014, 11:03 PM
And from the PoliceChief magazine --

Chief's Counsel

No Duty to Protect: Two Exceptions

By L. Cary Unkelbach, Assistant County Attorney Representing the Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Centennial, Colorado

Law enforcement generally does not have a federal constitutional duty to protect one private person from another. For example, if a drunk driver injures a pedestrian or a drug dealer beats up an informant, agencies and their officers usually would not be liable for those injuries because there was no duty to protect.

Nonetheless, agencies need to be aware of two exceptions, referred to as the special-relationship and the state-created danger theories, which, if pled and proven, may establish a constitutional duty to protect by police. While plaintiffs who are harmed by third parties often raise both theories when they sue police, the state-created danger exception appears to be litigated more frequently than the special relationship exception, which often is more easily analyzed and defined.

Since its 1989 holding that a duty to protect generally does not exist, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly spoken on the two exception theories that have since evolved.1 Instead, many federal courts have analyzed, defined and applied these exceptions to a variety of fact patterns. Not all of these lower court decisions are consistent with one another. Agencies, in reviewing their policies, should be aware of the approaches taken by the federal courts in their circuit. This article gives a brief overview of the different judicial approaches to a federal due process claim but does not address whether a failure to protect action could be brought under state law. ...

htom
04-03-2014, 11:06 PM
The cases you can find in a number of places. If you search the text looking for "police have no duty to protect" you might not find that phrase; lawyers. Even the NYT thinks that is what they mean.

Jim Bow
04-04-2014, 12:23 AM
My interpretation of the several articles that google found is that the police have no duty to place an officer at my front door 24/7/365.
Therefore, I agree with the "no duty to protect" comments.

I still don't plan to get so scared, anxious, and nervous that I must carry a 13 round semi automatic pistol every time I leave the house.

slug
04-04-2014, 12:52 AM
The reason the police have lost the ability to protect is because everyone is running around with guns pretending to be protectors.

Get rid of the guns, make life easy for the police and bring this grotesque death toll down .

the stressed out serviceman is a classic example....too many guns and he used one to solve his problem .

htom
04-04-2014, 01:07 AM
It's a little worse than that, Jim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia It's hard to find the actual decision online, this is the best I can do. http://www.scribd.com/doc/117390498/Warren-v-District-of-Columbia-D-C-1981

Wikipedia summarizes it (warning, this will be very triggering to rape victims)


Incident

In the early morning hours of Sunday, March 16, 1975, Carolyn Warren and Joan Taliaferro, who shared a room on the third floor of their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street Northwest in the District of Columbia, and Miriam Douglas, who shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter, were asleep. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to perform oral sex on him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly.

Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 0623 hours, and was recorded as a burglary-in-progress. At 0626, a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 3." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they observed one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 0633, five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 0642 and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble;" it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. At knife point, Kent and Morse then forced all three women to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the captive women were raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon one another, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.
Appellants' claims

Appellants' claims of negligence included:

the dispatcher's failure to forward the 0623 call with the proper degree of urgency;
the responding officers' failure to follow standard police investigative procedures, specifically their failure to check the rear entrance and position themselves properly near the doors and windows to ascertain whether there was any activity inside;
the dispatcher's failure to dispatch the call received at 0642 hours.

Decision

By a 4–3 decision the court decided that Warren was not entitled to remedy at the bar despite the demonstrable abuse and ineptitude on the part of the police because no special relationship existed. The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial.[3]

The police may have a duty to protect you if you're in custody (as long as they're not otherwise busy, or inept.)

Phillip Allen
04-04-2014, 07:11 AM
It's a little worse than that, Jim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia It's hard to find the actual decision online, this is the best I can do. http://www.scribd.com/doc/117390498/Warren-v-District-of-Columbia-D-C-1981

Wikipedia summarizes it (warning, this will be very triggering to rape victims)



The police may have a duty to protect you if you're in custody (as long as they're not otherwise busy, or inept.)

"official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists. The case was dismissed by the trial court for failure to state a claim and the case never went to trial."

sounds like something lj would have written (a very slippery character)

TomF
04-04-2014, 07:24 AM
How is it that you think being shot (and for some, killed) is not being attacked?There's certainly a lot of attacking going on, sometimes using guns. But as PMJ observed, it's citizen-on-citizen; if America's being attacked, it's by Americans.

There's a certain chicken/egg dynamic going on.

BrianW
04-04-2014, 08:10 AM
The Veteran's Administration has nothing to do with treating active duty military.

If you're responding to my post earlier... Correct. I was implying the VA is how the 'federal government' treats ex-servicemembers for PTSD, while active duty are treated by the military.

I was not crystal clear. Always a big mistake around these parts. ;)

BrianW
04-04-2014, 08:42 AM
And bases are remarkably safe. Indeed, the reason these military shootings grab the headlines is because they're so rare. Want to discuss why they're rare? Certainly not a shortage of trained shooters. Maybe that actually contributes TO the safety? You know, weapons safety training? Could it be a lack of guns? No, couldn't be anything like that.

Could it be the lack of guns? Could it be the training? Yes, and yes.

But we should also look at military bases where there are lots of guns. Guns in the hands of trained shooters every minute of the day, 7 days a week, for months on end (okay, not in the shower, and not in the gym.) Guns with loaded magazines inserted and one bolt or slide rack from being able to send anywhere from 15 to 30 bullets into a crowded DFAC or TOC. These military bases where PTSD is as rampant, or even worse than the Ft Hood, where separation from loved ones is the most extreme.

When we look at those military bases, and ask the same two questions, the answer is different for the first one.

"Could it be the lack of guns?" - Nope, guns freakin everywhere, from pistols to SAWS, thousands of them, all the time, everywhere.

"Could it be the training? - Yes, but that only counts for safety, not intent.

How about... "Could the number of guns potential victims have available, influence a possible shooters actions?" - Maybe.

ccmanuals
04-04-2014, 11:38 AM
If I recall during Vietnam the preferred method of dealing with interpersonal issues was fragging.

htom
04-04-2014, 12:43 PM
If I recall during Vietnam the preferred method of dealing with interpersonal issues was fragging.

Not preferred, the last resort if the other mechanisms were unsuccessful in correcting the faults.

BrianW
04-04-2014, 08:44 PM
If I recall during Vietnam the preferred method of dealing with interpersonal issues was fragging.

"Fragging" is more about murder of an individual for specific reasons.