Terrorism at the Boston Marathon?

04/21/2013 02:32:15 PM · #351

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Cory:

Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.

Ownership of firearms is a right, not a requirement. Not owning a gun or not being able to defend your household against forced entry doesn't make you irresponsible, nor does it mean you belong to a lower subset of the citizenship.

Well, we'll probably not agree on this, but doesn't it? I suppose that mothers who don't take prenatal vitamins aren't irresponsible either?

My point is: if you're not responsible for your own safety, don't expect someone else to be - you might get lucky, but luck isn't how I want to protect myself and my family.

Then again, I tend to either work on my own cars, or double check the work I've hired out because I can't trust my life to some idiot wrench turner - sure it might be the mechanic's fault when the bolt they forgot to tighten falls out - but it's my ass that's strapped into the seat when I'm going down the interstate at 80MPH.

So tell me, honestly, do you really think that you can count on the police? Even the Supreme Court has ruled that they're not here to protect you - so for you to expect them to be is... irresponsible. How can you argue otherwise?

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 14:36:01.

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

04/21/2013 02:39:03 PM · #352

Originally posted by Cory:

So tell me, honestly, do you really think that you can count on the police? Even the Supreme Court has ruled that they're not here to protect you - so for you to expect them to be is... irresponsible. How can you argue otherwise?

I assumed that people around the world paid their taxes also to have protection. Maybe it doesn't work as it should, but this is not a reason to say that police can't do anything for your safety.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/21/2013 02:46:43 PM · #353

Originally posted by Alexkc:

Originally posted by Cory:
So tell me, honestly, do you really think that you can count on the police? Even the Supreme Court has ruled that they're not here to protect you - so for you to expect them to be is... irresponsible. How can you argue otherwise?

I assumed that people around the world paid their taxes also to have protection. Maybe it doesn't work as it should, but this is not a reason to say that police can't do anything for your safety.

Bad assumption. They are not here to protect you. They do enforce general safety rules, and do have a mission of crime prevention, but usually 'crime prevention' amounts to arresting a criminal who's already committed crimes - in fact, they really can't arrest someone before they've committed a crime, so true crime prevention becomes an impossible task.

Heck, last year a guy was being hunted down by the NYPD, he showed up on a train, verbally confronted officers, then proceeded to attack a guy with a knife, stabbing him in the face, once the chosen victim had subdued the guy and had the situation in control, the cops came out of the operators cabin and tapped the victim on the should saying "You can get up now". They would have watched his murder before acting, even though they were actively seeking the guy who did it, and were aware of his presence.

And to be fair, I'm not saying this is somehow wrong - what I'm telling you is that they will most likely not be there when you need them most, and that's not because they aren't doing their jobs, but rather simply because of the nature of reality - you can keep a gun in the drawer, but you'll have to keep your cops at the station. Again, their job is to take the report and catch the criminal, not to defend you or save you from the bad guys - that's entirely up to you.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 14:50:16.

FourPointX

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/21/2013 03:03:17 PM · #354

cory man you know i love ya but you're thinking on this is just too militia-minded and isolationist for me. in your words, i guess i'm living in a fantasy world thinking the police will be there to help me when i need it, but i'd rather live in that world dude.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

04/21/2013 03:04:31 PM · #355

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:
Ok.

So here's a video of the process.

You'd be ok with being treated like this?

It's not like they politely ask you to leave the house.

Didn't seem unreasonably harsh to me, in the circumstances. But gee whiz, that was a HECK of a lot of people walking out of that house :-)

Really? I thought it was pretty overboard. Once they knew these people weren't who they were looking for why march them out with their hands up? Why frisk them every 10 feet? I thought this story nailed everything pretty much on the head... //readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/17052-how-boston-exposes-americas-dark-post-911-bargain

04/21/2013 03:06:29 PM · #356

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:
Ok.

So here's a video of the process.

You'd be ok with being treated like this?

It's not like they politely ask you to leave the house.

Didn't seem unreasonably harsh to me, in the circumstances. But gee whiz, that was a HECK of a lot of people walking out of that house :-)

Really? I thought it was pretty overboard. Once they knew these people weren't who they were looking for why march them out with their hands up? Why frisk them every 10 feet? I thought this story nailed everything pretty much on the head... //readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/17052-how-boston-exposes-americas-dark-post-911-bargain

Perfect quote: Why did this story drive the whole country nuts? Because we traded rights for "security," and didn't get either.

Benjamin Franklin summed it up in a single sentence: "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 15:21:32.

04/21/2013 03:16:00 PM · #357

Originally posted by FourPointX:

? How is recognizing that the job of the police is NOT to protect you being militia-minded and isolationist?

I don't have a loaded gun in the house at the moment, and I spent a good bit of yesterday at the farmers market visiting with friends, I work for the government as a contractor, and have been through security clearance, aside from the fact that I live in a neighborhood and invited all the neighbors over for BBQ last week.

How exactly does that fit your description of me?

.. Again, to describe someone as militia-minded and isolationist puts them pretty squarely in the realm of David Koresh, or of Kazinsky, or McVeigh - I don't think that's particularly fair to me, but if you see being ready to meet the world on it's own terms as meriting such comparisons, then I suppose that's your decision - to me, I think it's pretty inappropriate.

Tell ya what, do me a favor to see if I'm right. Call your local police, or find an officer to talk to, ask them if you can depend on them to protect you from the bad guys, or if you would be better off empowering yourself? Any officer who has been on the force for a couple of years who is being honest will tell you that I'm quite right.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 15:17:44.

FourPointX

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

04/21/2013 03:20:46 PM · #358

i definitely didn't mean to lump you into a group with those guys, and i apologize if that inference was easily made.

i have family on the job, i will ask them how they feel about your assertions the next time we chat.

eta: this is the comment that led to my "militia-minded" label

Why not? Women are perfectly able to defend themselves, given the right training and tools, as are children to at least some degree. A recent case of a local 11 year old who scared off home intruders with her mom's little pink rifle comes to mind. A bit of martial arts training on top of some basic firearms training, and your family CAN defend themselves.

call me chauvinist, and i likely am, but i don't think i can reasonably expect my wife to arm herself

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 15:23:56.

04/21/2013 03:30:53 PM · #359

Originally posted by FourPointX:

Please do, I'd like to hear their response.

Here's the scenarios to introduce -
Unarmed, but physically dangerous, intruder in your home, his desire is to kill you and then use your wife/children for his pleasure.
Home intruder, armed, wife is alone, he intends to rape her before killing her, but isn't too particular about the order of events.
Burglar, armed with knife, caught in act by you stumbling downstairs after you hear a noise - person is known to you, and they are desperate to not be caught, ie. willing to kill.
Random attacker on the street - reason unknown, weapon: brick, desire: homicide.

Ask your family members if you can depend on them in any of these situations. My guess is they'll tell you that you're on your own - hell, I don't even know why you need to ask them honestly, how is it that you can't see that in each scenario above the couple of minutes it takes for the police to respond is far more time than you have. Besides, have you ever actually called 911? That alone takes a full minute or more, plus they always want to keep you talking - I've gotten to the point that I call, relay the information I need to relay, and hang up. The catchy saying around this is "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away!", and it's absolutely true.

Does your wife have a condition that prevents the use of her eyes or limbs? If not, then it's just a mental block - the real beauty of firearms is that they really do level the field.

What your wife CANNOT do is physically defend herself from a guy with my size and training. What she CAN do is put a hole in their face. Although, it sounds as though she would be unwilling to do that, at which point being a victim of violence was actually a choice she actively made - if it were my wife who found herself in this horrible situation, I'd just prefer that she has the choice, rather than having that choice be predetermined by her refusal to learn to operate a weapon effectively.

I genuinely hope that you'll never have any reason to think back to this conversation with regret, but just imagine how you'd feel if you did. It's the old fire extinguisher / spare tire argument, you'll probably never need it, but better to have it anyway.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 15:38:41.

04/21/2013 03:40:36 PM · #360

Originally posted by Kelli:

I don't want this to get missed, it's 100% how I've felt about this since the moment the bombs went off.

Originally posted by Story:

"Why did this story drive the whole country nuts? Because we traded rights for "security," and didn't get either."
.....
Benjamin Franklin summed it up in a single sentence: "Those who would give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

04/21/2013 05:01:57 PM · #361

Originally posted by Cory:

- I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.

The very sad thing about this comment Cory is that most people cannot take care of themselves, regardless of the fact that they might own a firearm or not.

If firearms were indeed the panacea you seem to think it is, then the good ole USA would be the safest place in the world to live in... and sadly one is probably safer in a theater of war than the USA.

Ray

04/21/2013 05:08:55 PM · #362

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:

Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.

really? everyone? what's the point of having the police then?

To take the report.

Trust me... you don't need police officers to do that, a good steno can take much better notes than most police officer.

Ray

04/21/2013 05:11:09 PM · #363

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

- I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.

The very sad thing about this comment Cory is that most people cannot take care of themselves, regardless of the fact that they might own a firearm or not.

If firearms were indeed the panacea you seem to think it is, then the good ole USA would be the safest place in the world to live in... and sadly one is probably safer in a theater of war than the USA.

Ray

Do note that firearms were just a very small part of what I mentioned. Guns are tools that can be used to defend one's self, nothing more.

So you think I'd be safer in Afghanistan than in the US? Doubtful..

I do agree that the sad thing about the comment is that you're quite right - most people cannot take care of themselves. Sad indeed - their ancestors would be truly ashamed.

Canon EF-M 22mm f/2.0 STM Lens

04/21/2013 05:13:37 PM · #364

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Cory:

Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.

really? everyone? what's the point of having the police then?

To take the report.

Trust me... you don't need police officers to do that, a good steno can take much better notes than most police officer.

Ray

So tell me Ray, how does this scenario play out in most cases? When an attacker comes calling, do the police often save the victims during the episode of violence? What percentage of violent attacks are stopped, while hot, by the police?

I suspect that you're quite right that we should just send a stenographer, since they would take a better report.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 17:14:30.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

04/21/2013 05:30:13 PM · #365

Originally posted by RayEthier:

I've had more than one police officer tell me that only rarely do they catch criminals in the act. Usually, they show up to do their part in picking up the pieces and do what they can to catch the criminal afterward. They have also told me that "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." Until the police arrive, you are the only one who can protect yourself. If that's 5 minutes, 10 minutes or two hours away, you're on your own.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/21/2013 05:37:48 PM · #366

Originally posted by Cory:

You really seems to have a boner for police and display a general mistrust of them and I will work on the premise that you have had some bad interaction with them.

Just out of curiosity, how many fires do the FD stop before they start, what about people in boats...how many are saved by the Coast Guard before they get in trouble... how many people are saved by rescue teams before they get caught in a predicament... can you see where I am going with this.

There is a monumental amount of difference between prevention and reaction and you seem to be bent on focusing solely on the reaction of the police.

Do I think I personally can protect my family...a resounding YES even at my fairly advanced age. Do I think that the police are as useless as tits on bolts as you seem to suggest...not in the least,and that is where we differ.

Have a great day... I wish you well.

Ray

snaffles

Nikon D7100

04/21/2013 05:55:35 PM · #367

Originally posted by RayEthier:

... how many people are saved by rescue teams before they get caught in a predicament...Ray

Hmm sorry Unca Raymee, love you to pieces, but I knew many SARs when I was living in BC a gazillion years ago and none had ever been called out before people got themselves into predicaments. Only after. I have heard of maybe one time when SAR were called out early to avert a disaster, and that was in more recent years.

As for Cory and his cynicism, honestly I can't say I blame him. Unless going on super-solid evidence that something bad is about to happen, cops only roll action once something bad has already happened.

I have worked as a licensed PI in Ontario with a very well known and highly respected PI and trust me, because we're not answering to a rigid hierarchy and set of protocols, we can and do find out a helluvalot more and help PREVENT bad s**t from happening in the first place. Trust me on this.

04/21/2013 06:11:28 PM · #368

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

So tell me Ray, how does this scenario play out in most cases? When an attacker comes calling, do the police often save the victims during the episode of violence? What percentage of violent attacks are stopped, while hot, by the police?

You really seems to have a boner for police and display a general mistrust of them and I will work on the premise that you have had some bad interaction with them.

Just out of curiosity, how many fires do the FD stop before they start, what about people in boats...how many are saved by the Coast Guard before they get in trouble... how many people are saved by rescue teams before they get caught in a predicament... can you see where I am going with this.

There is a monumental amount of difference between prevention and reaction and you seem to be bent on focusing solely on the reaction of the police.

Ray

The FD and Coast Guard actually are about the worst possible choices you could have made. They exist to rescue people, that IS a part of their mission. A cop pulls up to a fire call, he blocks off the scene, and keeps people from interfering, an important job no doubt - but a firefighter shows up, and he runs into the building to save lives - he has the equipment and training to do so, the cop does not. Cops aren't trained to save lives - if they were, then CPR would be a general requirement wouldn't it? Besides that, the Coast Guard requires that you have life preserves and/or life boats, along with fire extinguishers and a bunch of other safety equipment, why? Because they realize you're on your own for the first while.

I do think their policy of boarding vessels for "routine inspections" is bullshit though. :)

You sound like you're supporting boaters who go out on the ocean without life preservers, compasses, GPS, water or food and then moan about the Coast Guard not saving their asses for a week.

And yes, to confirm, I have had a variety of experiences with the police, both when they were taking reports, and when I, or friends/family/renters were the subject of their attentions. I have had my rights violated, and have been disrespected, and have never found the experience to feel as though they exist to serve, or protect me.

If you haven't had extensive experience with the police (on the receiving end, when they didn't know you are an LEO of some sort), then I would suggest that you are actually unqualified to speak on how they treat 'citizens' in the course of their duties.

None of that is to say I think they're worthless, they do have an important job to do, it's just that they get a little overzealous sometimes, and have a general attitude problem in many areas of our country.

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 18:46:10.

04/21/2013 07:05:40 PM · #369

Originally posted by snaffles:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
... how many people are saved by rescue teams before they get caught in a predicament...Ray

Hmm sorry Unca Raymee, love you to pieces, but I knew many SARs when I was living in BC a gazillion years ago and none had ever been called out before people got themselves into predicaments. Only after.

... and just how does differ from a situation where a person calls their local PD because a burglar is attempting to enter their home... in both scenarios we are dealing with reaction to a given circumstance.

Having spent 30 years in a national police force and some 15 years dealing with matters related to national security, I do believe that I have an inkling of what I am talking about.

I might also add that, contrary to the belief of some, I was fully trained in CPR and a variety of search and rescue procedures.

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 19:11:50.

04/21/2013 07:33:39 PM · #370

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by snaffles:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
... how many people are saved by rescue teams before they get caught in a predicament...Ray

Hmm sorry Unca Raymee, love you to pieces, but I knew many SARs when I was living in BC a gazillion years ago and none had ever been called out before people got themselves into predicaments. Only after.

... and just how does differ from a situation where a person calls their local PD because a burglar is attempting to enter their home... in both scenarios we are dealing with reaction to a given circumstance.

Having spent 30 years in a national police force and some 15 years dealing with matters related to national security, I do believe that I have an inkling of what I am talking about.

I might also add that, contrary to the belief of some, I was fully trained in CPR and a variety of search and rescue procedures.

Ray

SAR would train for CPR - not regular duty patrolmen. That makes sense, since SAR is there to actually save people.

It differs in this way: You seem to be arguing that it's not up to people to take care of themselves. I understand that you would like to have job security and all, but encouraging people to be unprepared, and to simply rely upon the police to protect them, or save them, is dangerously irresponsible at best.

04/21/2013 07:49:38 PM · #371

Originally posted by Cory:

Let me try this again... not only did I get CPR training, but I had to maintain it and yes we did have to undergo regular tests. I was also trained in a variety of security, safety and rescue procedures whilst working in the police department... depending on what it was exactly that I was engaged in.

I am certainly NOT advocating that people NOT take care of themselves since my approach is quite the opposite to that. You might wish to peruse the content of a discussion I had with

Flash where we discussed issues such as target hardening, contingency planning and a host of other preventive and reactive measures.

I most certainly do not advocate relying solely on police for protection, but by the same token I have seen the carnage caused by ill prepared and poorly trained individuals that falsely thought that having a firearm was the solution to all possible confrontation.

Therein my friend is where our approach to the issue seems to differ greatly.

Ray

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 19:53:49.

04/21/2013 08:07:43 PM · #372

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

SAR would train for CPR - not regular duty patrolmen. That makes sense, since SAR is there to actually save people.

It differs in this way: You seem to be arguing that it's not up to people to take care of themselves. I understand that you would like to have job security and all, but encouraging people to be unprepared, and to simply rely upon the police to protect them, or save them, is dangerously irresponsible at best.

Let me try this again... not only did I get CPR training, but I had to maintain it and yes we did have to undergo regular tests. I was also trained in a variety of security, safety and rescue procedures whilst working in the police department... depending on what it was exactly that I was engaged in.

I am certainly NOT advocating that people NOT take care of themselves since my approach is quite the opposite to that. You might wish to peruse the content of a discussion I had with Flash where we discussed issues such as target hardening, contingency planning and a host of other preventive and reactive measures.

I most certainly do not advocate relying solely on police for protection, but by the same token I have seen the carnage caused by ill prepared and poorly trained individuals that falsely thought that having a firearm was the solution to all possible confrontation.

Therein my friend is where our approach to the issue seems to differ greatly.

Ray

Where did I suggest that a firearm was the end-all-be all solution? Hell, I specifically stated otherwise in explicit terms earlier. I honestly can't take your position seriously when your position seems to be that I'm advocating firearms as a solution to this problem, which I have not, nor will I ever, do.

As for the CPR, I'm pretty sure about the states, but are you telling me that up north it's a requirement for regular patrolmen to be up to date on their CPR certification?

My position is that you cannot rely upon the police for protection, and that it's up to you to take care of yourself. You seem to have initially desired to refute that assertion, but have now circled back to not advocating relying solely on the police for protection?

Tell me, what level of responsibility do the police have when it comes to protecting people from harm by those who would do them harm, for whatever reason? What is your position on this?

My position is that it's all up to you for the entire time in which it will matter.
(with due acknowledgement, of course, to the rare exceptions where sufficient time elapses before the harm occurs for the police to mobilize an effective response. Even in these statistically rare cases, it can easily be argued that very often the perpetrator had no real intention of harming the victim at any point, but was only using the threat of violence as a coercion tactic.)

ETA: I do want to point out that the few videos I've seen of Canadian cops, they mostly seem to be very professional and polite. You might want to contrast the general behavior and treatment of citizens by both forces, and also remember that things have changed a great deal in terms of training and treatment of civilians in the last 20 years. I have no idea when your boots were last really on the pavement as a grunt, but I'm betting it was long enough ago that your information isn't as up to date as it could be.

On the other hand, I've generally found detectives and above to be very professional, and even a pleasure to deal with - but I'm afraid they aren't really the problem when it comes to the bad behavior I cite, I seriously doubt that you would have ever done anything even similar to the shit cops have pulled on me personally, but times have changed, and I've spent most of my life on the other side of the tracks, so it's not too surprising that our opinions on the matter would differ radically. :)

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 20:16:35.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/21/2013 08:12:19 PM · #373

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Cory:

Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.

Ownership of firearms is a right, not a requirement. Not owning a gun or not being able to defend your household against forced entry doesn't make you irresponsible, nor does it mean you belong to a lower subset of the citizenship.

Well, we'll probably not agree on this, but doesn't it?

By that token you would represent a lower subset from those who don't need to resort to devices to protect themselves.

04/21/2013 08:18:10 PM · #374

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by Cory:

Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.

Ownership of firearms is a right, not a requirement. Not owning a gun or not being able to defend your household against forced entry doesn't make you irresponsible, nor does it mean you belong to a lower subset of the citizenship.

Well, we'll probably not agree on this, but doesn't it?

By that token you would represent a lower subset from those who don't need to resort to devices to protect themselves.

You haven't been reading. First, note that my response of "doesn't it" refers to the fact that someone who is not able to defend their household against forced entry DOES make them irresponsible.

Secondly, note that there is not a loaded firearm in my house. I'm pretty confident about not needing a gun for defense. Although, I might want to eat a rabbit sometime this week, or just go have some fun at the range. :)

Honestly, I don't even feel that I need them when I've gotten death threats, last time was just about a year ago - serious enough to warrant my girlfriend being granted a restraining order against a guy in another state. I sent him my address, and an explicit invite to come have a visit. The only 'weapons' I kept accessible were knives, a hammer, and a camping hatchet, and it was really just more that they were in a location that I was aware of, and had planned the use of them if the need arose.

On the other hand, I did make sure that my girlfriend was armed with a very expensive and very lightweight revolver, and have spent time ensuring that she fully understands the use and limitations of that weapon. Why? Because she can't split your skull with a hammer like I can. :)

Message edited by author 2013-04-21 20:27:38.

yanko