Shootings

[Blackhawk]

Blackhawk and Isgrimnur

I appreciate the direct response. Is there, do you think an appropriate line?

I'm a little confused. Do you mean on the mental health issue and who should be denied ownership?

As long as it remains a constitutional right, it should be fairly high, as in a condition that makes them a real danger to other people. Exactly what is and is not included on that list is a question for experts and some detailed diagnostic criteria. Someone having a non-violent mood disorder shouldn't be enough to take away their rights. It would be a scary precedent if it were, and as I said earlier would probably just prevent the people who need help from ever seeking it.

I mean, there could be hypothetical solutions, such as requiring a mental health examination before a purchase, but only if it were applied to every single person and not just the ones who 'look crazy', have unpopular ideas, or had some anxiety issues 15 years before.

[Combustible Lemur]

Blackhawk and Isgrimnur

I appreciate the direct response. Is there, do you think an appropriate line?

I'm a little confused. Do you mean on the mental health issue and who should be denied ownership?

As long as it remains a constitutional right, it should be fairly high, as in a condition that makes them a real danger to other people. Exactly what is and is not included on that list is a question for experts and some detailed diagnostic criteria. Someone having a non-violent mood disorder shouldn't be enough to take away their rights. It would be a scary precedent if it were, and as I said earlier would probably just prevent the people who need help from ever seeking it.

I mean, there could be hypothetical solutions, such as requiring a mental health examination before a purchase, but only if it were applied to every single person and not just the ones who 'look crazy', have unpopular ideas, or had some anxiety issues 15 years before.

I don't think you're confused.
The bar varies quite a bit on many rights, good or bad. Search and seizure, and voting are the first two that come to mind.
If everyone gets tested before buying, okay I'm down but I think that may be unrealistic. Though, doctors notes sorta worked for weed in some states for a while.

Wouldn't crazy eyes and Librul devil man just be able to bring the doctors note? Though that suggests the need for oversight in the medical community.
Aren't the people who avoid the doctors in order to buy a gun exactly the people we wouldn't want to have a gun? One of the things that really helped me stop smoking was the realization that I was using not hearing bad diagnosese as an excuse. I'll stop when I make good choices/ I don't want the doctor to judge me. Shit reasons for not fixing dangerous behavior.

Edit: no guns aren't smoking, but suicide is grossly exacerbated by making easier for people to make self destructive decisions while dealing with manageable and otherwise non dangerous mental illnesses. Also I'm aware that people will find a way, my childhood icons keep reminding me of that. But guns also make it WAY more likely.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Blackhawk]

If everyone gets tested before buying, okay I'm down but I think that may be unrealistic.

I agree. That's why I said it was a hypothetical solution.

Aren't the people who avoid the doctors in order to buy a gun exactly the people we wouldn't want to have a gun?

No, I'm talking about a general avoidance, as I said earlier, of the stigmas and consequences that come from being diagnosed with a mental disorder. Losing your rights, whether they plan to exercise them or not, is a major discourager when it comes to seeking treatment when people know that it will be a permanent part of their record. And that doesn't even touch on convincing parents that taking their kids to a therapist is a good idea when a bad diagnosis could have such a negative impact. It's one thing if it is a high bar and only happens in clear, extreme cases, but make it so that people are having that happen left and right and you'll do more harm than good. We want more people getting help, not fewer. Let's not create another, even bigger barrier to getting treatment.

[Kraken]

However, it does make the whole “just arm teachers...problem solved!” talking point just that much more absurd.

That's a diversionary tactic. When gun control seems to be gaining traction, change the subject to mental illness or threaten to fight gun violence with more guns. It's asinine, but it works.

[Isgrimnur]

People doctor-shop for pain meds. If you don’t think there is a large contingent of doctors who will pencil-whip a gun screening, I have a bridge to sell you.

[Combustible Lemur]

If everyone gets tested before buying, okay I'm down but I think that may be unrealistic.

I agree. That's why I said it was a hypothetical solution.

Aren't the people who avoid the doctors in order to buy a gun exactly the people we wouldn't want to have a gun?

No, I'm talking about a general avoidance, as I said earlier, of the stigmas and consequences that come from being diagnosed with a mental disorder. Losing your rights, whether they plan to exercise them or not, is a major discourager when it comes to seeking treatment when people know that it will be a permanent part of their record. And that doesn't even touch on convincing parents that taking their kids to a therapist is a good idea when a bad diagnosis could have such a negative impact. It's one thing if it is a high bar and only happens in clear, extreme cases, but make it so that people are having that happen left and right and you'll do more harm than good. We want more people getting help, not fewer. Let's not create another, even bigger barrier to getting treatment.

Two things, why does it need to be permanent? We expunge legal records all the time and limitation statutes abound. Let's ignore that the internet makes the court public opinion permanent.

And second, if the bar is set at "danger to self or others, including impending danger" in my experience (as a teacher) that is under or around 1%. It seems you are suggesting that those parents of borderline kids should be able to use the theoretical abuse of a slippery slope legislation to both not properly treat their own kids, and demand the government not address actual at risk students.

While I realize there is a legit percentage of policies I follow that do this, the majority of our protocols fall in the opposite direction. Make sure the in danger kids are caught in the net, apologize and adjudicate the kids who may get caught up in a overzealously.
I just say kids because that's what I work with. Theoretically that could be extrapolated to adults.

I feel like addressing mental health and allowing people to frankly and openly discuss the dangers, non dangers, normalcy and statistical needs of the broad world of mental states and conditions will encourage people to engage rather than hide away from it. I do see the danger in talking "ban the crazies". I personally avoided several borderline labels, none that would be considered illness, just for school records. But if schools worked then how they worked now I would have take every accommodation available.

I don't know. I've know suicidal gun owners that didn't commit. I've known suicidal non owners who did. Kids without that I'd trust with one and my life and those with guns that probably shouldn't be any where near them.

It seems like we should be able to work towards a middle ground a nuanced approach. But everybody is so fucking paranoid and distrustful. Earned or not.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Combustible Lemur]

People doctor-shop for pain meds. If you don’t think there is a large contingent of doctors who will pencil-whip a gun screening, I have a bridge to sell you.

If you think perfect isn't the enemy of better, I've got a library full of examples to sell you.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Isgrimnur]

I dispute that overloading our mental healthcare system with box-checking is better.

[Zaxxon]

Mental health is something to include in potential solutions, but despite GOP talking points, this is not a mental health problem at the core. Like arming teachers, it's a red herring to distract from actually addressing gun prevalence.

America doesn't have a monopoly on mental health issues. We have gold medals in firearms per person and on firearm deaths.

[Combustible Lemur]

I dispute that overloading our mental healthcare system with box-checking is better.

Sooo, we don't want more mental health evaluations and treatment in the US?

Not that I want to burden otherwise healthy people who are just looking for some counseling. But, it seems like a way to spur commerce, tax gun buyers, and create a paper trail of responsibility. All while catching some, annoying others, maybe or maybe not making a difference.

Psycholigists, and psychiatrists aren't generally (maybe? ) state employees. Again, a terrible comparison but, Jiffy lube has standards, sometimes cheats, makes money and also inspects a shit load of cars. Don't want to pay the man or be inspected? Don't own a car.

Yes, cars aren't enshrined in the constitution. Fine, let's get that well regulated Militia requirement as part of gun ownership.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[Blackhawk]

I wasn't actually suggesting that every gun purchased require a certificate of mental health, just that it was a hypothetical way that it could be implemented. We don't have the resources to actually make it happen. There simply aren't enough qualified people to go around.

It seems you are suggesting that those parents of borderline kids should be able to use the theoretical abuse of a slippery slope legislation to both not properly treat their own kids, and demand the government not address actual at risk students.

If I'm following this (and I'm really tired right now, so I may not be), then no. I'm not suggesting that anyone should do anything to not treat or be treated. I'm saying that many people are some combination of untrusting, uneducated, and misinformed. It's already hard enough to get a lot of people/parents to seek mental help for something as (relatively) benign as depression when seeking mental help is still seen by so many as being weak, defective, or 'crazy.' Add in more stigma and real-world consequences to the various diagnoses, and people will avoid getting help in droves. Again, I'm not saying they should, I'm saying they will out of ignorance and fear.

Yes, mental health is an issue, but it is one with an ugly history that our society hasn't outgrown, and the prejudice against people with mental health issues is both real and ugly, especially when so many don't distinguish between dangerous conditions and common non-dangerous ones. Remember after Sandy Hook when everyone was trying to point to autism as a cause?

[Unagi]

I think the President calling them "Sicko shooters" is a great starting point.

[Defiant]

The student that claimed that CNN rewrote his question has apparently rewritten an email from CNN to support his claim.

Parkland shooting survivor's family shops doctored emails with CNN to media outlets

[Combustible Lemur]

I wasn't actually suggesting that every gun purchased require a certificate of mental health, just that it was a hypothetical way that it could be implemented. We don't have the resources to actually make it happen. There simply aren't enough qualified people to go around.

It seems you are suggesting that those parents of borderline kids should be able to use the theoretical abuse of a slippery slope legislation to both not properly treat their own kids, and demand the government not address actual at risk students.

If I'm following this (and I'm really tired right now, so I may not be), then no. I'm not suggesting that anyone should do anything to not treat or be treated. I'm saying that many people are some combination of untrusting, uneducated, and misinformed. It's already hard enough to get a lot of people/parents to seek mental help for something as (relatively) benign as depression when seeking mental help is still seen by so many as being weak, defective, or 'crazy.' Add in more stigma and real-world consequences to the various diagnoses, and people will avoid getting help in droves. Again, I'm not saying they should, I'm saying they will out of ignorance and fear.

Yes, mental health is an issue, but it is one with an ugly history that our society hasn't outgrown, and the prejudice against people with mental health issues is both real and ugly, especially when so many don't distinguish between dangerous conditions and common non-dangerous ones. Remember after Sandy Hook when everyone was trying to point to autism as a cause?

I appreciate the skepticism of people who are involved in the "mental health" world.

And yet.
If it's not a mental health issue (along with gun prevalence and culture) what is it? The devil?

I want better research, better funding, better empathy, and better education into the neural status and health world. But fuck me if we're saying we shouldn't study or legislate medicine because many of us believe in the four humors.

I just don't think open discussion, expanding markets, and increased treatment is going to make people flee. If we suggested locking people up maybe but, we aren't suggesting that. And if anyone is, they're an asshole

We don't let people with HIV give blood but open discussion and increased access to testing has been good (yes bumps and bastards who exploited it) in the aggregate.

I don't think we can fix stigma if we don't head on address the issue. Autism is a good example maybe. People with autism face a lot of challenges and hurdles, and sometimes prejudices, but less than they did a few years ago when we didn't test or accommodate for fear if everyone judging our child.
I have decent faith in the humanity of our system and in my experience the most damage can be done when we don't step in the light and let others make shit up.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[msteelers]

The student that claimed that CNN rewrote his question has apparently rewritten an email from CNN to support his claim.

Parkland shooting survivor's family shops doctored emails with CNN to media outlets

That’s really sad.

[Blackhawk]

And if we passed a law that said that people with autism became ineligible for (something desirable for which autism wasn't a factor), what would that do to parents concerned their child had autism? Wouldn't they hesitate to look for a diagnosis is a diagnosis closed doors for their child? And when the media reported that people with autism were now considered too risky to be eligible for (whatever), how would people who weren't knowledgeable about it react to a person they knew had autism?

Ok, we're getting off topic and on tangents here. The point is that I'm in favor of more research, more money, more doctors, better treatments, wider availability, better insurance options, and better screenings. I'm in favor of people with dangerous diagnoses being blocked from access to weapons. All I'm saying is that we have to be careful how we go about it. Put the bar too high on what is considered a 'dangerous diagnosis' and we miss people. Put it too low and we strike a blow against mental health by increasing stigmas and decreasing the appeal of seeking treatment. Where do I put hte bar? I don't. We have professionals for that. I saw this this morning:



If we create a situation where having APD plus schizophrenia fails a background check, that's a good thing. If we create a situation where having autism or a phobia does, that's a bad thing. We need to advance the issue, not create more harmful, knee-jerk legislation.

[Blackhawk]

Gotta start somewhere, and voting with money and supporting businesses that are paying attention to these things is a tiny, marginal start. Voting and "will of the people" is apparently bullshit in modern America, but hit a company in the bottom line (or support them due to an action), and shit gets paid attention to.

I don't see Met Life on that graphic.

And Hertz comes off the board

Add MetLife, Best Western, Delta, and United.

[Enough]

So with the NRA having helped lead plaintiffs to victory in Printz vs U.S, they now want to blame gun violence on the failure of background checks? How can we have effective background checks if the federalism standard from that case says that making sheriffs to perform background checks violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution? Oh sure they can do it voluntarily, but there is literally no way to force the states to report to the database or implement nationally standardized checks.

It's not just the 2nd, the NRA's victories have constructed numerous firewalls against any kind of effective gun control. Not saying we shouldn't do something, but even with broad support it could still be challenging legally.

[Zarathud]

People doctor-shop for pain meds. If you don’t think there is a large contingent of doctors who will pencil-whip a gun screening, I have a bridge to sell you.

Until they've done so for a shooter. Enforcement is a repetitive process, not a one-time deal.

[Carpet_pissr]

Gotta start somewhere, and voting with money and supporting businesses that are paying attention to these things is a tiny, marginal start. Voting and "will of the people" is apparently bullshit in modern America, but hit a company in the bottom line (or support them due to an action), and shit gets paid attention to.

I don't see Met Life on that graphic.

And Hertz comes off the board

Add MetLife, Best Western, Delta, and United.

And Allied, Norton, and the other two on there related to them.

[Skinypupy]

Good to see that Wayne Lapierre has updated his official site.

www.waynelapierre.com.

[Combustible Lemur]

[quote="Blackhawk]



If we create a situation where having APD plus schizophrenia fails a background check, that's a good thing. If we create a situation where having autism or a phobia does, that's a bad thing. We need to advance the issue, not create more harmful, knee-jerk legislation.[/quote]

I think we're pretty much on the same page, I work in field where the bar for counseling is very low and the risks from being diagnosed are very low. So the idea that creating a market akin the drug lab market, but for guns and mental health would send people scurrying back to caves seemed overly pessimistic to me. I just don't see something like autism precluding gun ownership. On the flip side if I was an immigrant, I'd just point to ICE and scream hell no.


Isgrimnurs response that expecting people to test for gun ownership was impossible and wrong didn't make sense to me.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[LawBeefaroni]

Wait, it wasn't just the school security officer, there were 4 good guys with guns in Parkland, and it didn't do any good?

When Coral Springs police officers arrived at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, on February 14 in the midst of the school shooting crisis, many officers were surprised to find not only that Broward County Sheriff's Deputy Scot Peterson, the armed school resource officer, had not entered the building, but that three other Broward County Sheriff's deputies were also outside the school and had not entered, Coral Springs sources tell CNN. The deputies had their pistols drawn and were behind their vehicles, the sources said, and not one of them had gone into the school.

Gee, I imagine knowing you were likely going against a crazed person with a death wish armed with an AR-15 might be kinda scary.

Not getting shot to death is probably a pretty high priority for most officers. I don't know what the normal protocol is for a situation like this, but deputies are not swat members trained with breaching high risk hostage (with no intel, you have no idea what exactly is happening) situations.

So I don't judge these officers at all, because I don't know what the right response is supposed to be, or whether they followed proper protocol or not. Sure I wish they stormed the castle and saved the kids but I also wish superman was real. Wishes aren't reality. I can *imagine* lots of details that make their actions poor choices or good choices. I have no idea.

If it turns out that they failed in their duties, then I'll be critical. Until then, taking cover seems like a pretty good idea to me.

I'll judge them. I'll judge them as peace officers but not as men (or women). As peace officers, they failed. In an active shooter situation, protocol is to engage and stop the shooter. They're not supposed to wait on backup. And while their first job is to make it home at the end of the day, there are two times when most good cops will do what needs to be done without regard for their own safety: officer down/under fire and someone shooting kids. And in the case of an active school shooter, policy agrees.

The Coral Springs officers knew this. That's they they were surprised and later made a point of it. That Sheriff has a lot on his plate right now but the actions of those deputies will need to be addressed eventually. Also, why they didn't have or didn't get their patrol rifles raises some questions. They were apparently at their vehicles.



Edit, because I know someone will ask:

Police Response to Active Shooter Incidents (PDF)

In the Columbine incident, police from various Denver-area agencies responded but did not enter the school to stop the shooters for more than 30 minutes. That reflected their training, which was based on the concepts of containing the situation and waiting for SWAT team members to arrive, mobilize, and respond.

This type of training reflected the thinking at the time. And it was appropriate for hostage incidents
or other scenarios in which it made sense to wait for a SWAT team to respond, because SWAT
personnel are better equipped and trained in special tactics than are patrol officers. However, Columbine
did not involve hostage takers; it involved two youths intent on quickly killing people at random. Columbine brought a realization by law enforcement leaders that a much faster response was needed for active-shooter incidents.

Columbine brought about a sea change in police tactics. “Contain and negotiate” may be appropriate for hostage incidents or situations where a person is barricaded in a room and unable to harm victims. But it is not appropriate for active shooter incidents. Columbine resulted in new approaches in which patrol officers are being trained to respond to active shooters as quickly as possible.

These new policies undoubtedly have saved many lives. Following is how the Associated Press described one of the most recent events, an attack at a supermarket in Elkhart, Indiana on Jan. 15, 2014:

A deadly shooting at an Indiana grocery store
could have been much worse if not for the quick
actions of two police officers who relied on training
that has become commonplace since the 1999 Columbine
shootings. Cody Skipper and Jason Tripp
arrived at the Elkhart store within three minutes
and needed less than 60 seconds to fatally shoot a
gunman who had killed two people and was threatening
a third.1

[Punisher]

From that same report you linked..

SOLO ENTRY IS QUITE DANGEROUS
Here is something important to consider. People talk about how the response to active shooters has changed since Columbine, and officers are encouraged
to do a “solo entry” if they are the first on the scene. And in some of the discussions I’ve heard, the rationale behind it seems to be, “Well, it’s really
not that dangerous, because the attacker usually kills himself.”
So I wanted to take a look at it from our data and see if the situation really is clear when there’s one officer going in by himself or herself. And the first thing I found is that in 57 percent of the cases where there’s single-officer entry, the scene is still active. There is still gunfire ringing out. The attacker is still killing people. That’s a higher number than what you see in the overall data, but it makes sense because the solo officer typically is getting to the scene faster than the cases where multiple officers arrive at once.
Here’s what happens if the scene is still active and an officer goes in. Sixty-two percent of the time, the officer shoots the attacker. Another 13 percent,
the officer otherwise subdues the attacker. The remaining 25 percent of the time, the suspect kills himself.
So 75 percent of the time when the solo officer goes in and the scene is still hot, the officer is taking direct action against the attacker.
And here’s an even more important statistic:
In all of the solo entries we identified where the scene was still hot, one-third of the police officers who made that solo entry were shot.
I’m not opposed to solo officer entry, but I think the officers ought to be informed explicitly about what the risks are, if they’re going to take that risk.

So it is quite possible that their protocol does not require a solo entry. It does seem like a bad tactic to me..

[GreenGoo]

If there's no shooting happening, I'm not sure that a solo entry is necessary.

I have exactly zero knowledge in this area.

[Blackhawk]

All I can say, from the comfort of my recliner at home, is that if I were there and the odds were 25% that I'd be shot and maybe die, but 75% that I'd stop the attack and save multiple childrens' lives, I have to hope I'd go in. That's worth the risk.

[msteelers]

FWIW, the sheriff is denying the story that three deputies were outside the school during the shooting. He says the SRO was the only deputy on scene.

That’s from a letter he sent to the governor trying to save his job. A state legislator had previously written the governor asking for sheriff Israel to be removed.

[Jag]

FWIW, the sheriff is denying the story that three deputies were outside the school during the shooting. He says the SRO was the only deputy on scene.

That’s from a letter he sent to the governor trying to save his job. A state legislator had previously written the governor asking for sheriff Israel to be removed.

And this is all split straight down party lines. The Sheriff is a hard core Democrat. The calls for his job are all Republican. I'm not saying he shouldn't be fired, but it's purely politics right now.

[msteelers]

And it’s no longer just one House Republican calling for his removal. It’s pretty much all of the Florida House Republicans.

[Grifman]

FWIW, the sheriff is denying the story that three deputies were outside the school during the shooting. He says the SRO was the only deputy on scene.

That’s from a letter he sent to the governor trying to save his job. A state legislator had previously written the governor asking for sheriff Israel to be removed.

And this is all split straight down party lines. The Sheriff is a hard core Democrat. The calls for his job are all Republican. I'm not saying he shouldn't be fired, but it's purely politics right now.

No, not necessarily. A lot of people in the community are upset about the sheriff, and their being upset has nothing to do with politics. One could easily argue that Republicans are responding to community outrage while Dems are acting politically by not saying anything.

[Victoria Raverna]

The only reason to own an AR-15 is to kill people.

There are plenty of other reasons.

Exactly!

My step-brother specifically told me he bought his AR-15 because it was fun to shoot at the range. Why should he be punished? Just because people and children are being routinely murdered while going about their everyday lives, now he can't shoot at a piece of paper? This is America, dammit!

As long as it is other people and other people's children.

[msteelers]

No, not necessarily. A lot of people in the community are upset about the sheriff, and their being upset has nothing to do with politics. One could easily argue that Republicans are responding to community outrage while Dems are acting politically by not saying anything.

The Republicans, in their letter to the Governor, were not asking for an investigation. They were asking for the Sheriff to be fired. That's absolutely a political move. If they were just demanding an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, this would barely be news. I assumed the FDLE was already investigating the issue. It turns out Governor Scott didn't order them to until Sunday, which I find surprising.

[LawBeefaroni]

From that same report you linked..

SOLO ENTRY IS QUITE DANGEROUS
Here is something important to consider. People talk about how the response to active shooters has changed since Columbine, and officers are encouraged
to do a “solo entry” if they are the first on the scene. And in some of the discussions I’ve heard, the rationale behind it seems to be, “Well, it’s really
not that dangerous, because the attacker usually kills himself.”
So I wanted to take a look at it from our data and see if the situation really is clear when there’s one officer going in by himself or herself. And the first thing I found is that in 57 percent of the cases where there’s single-officer entry, the scene is still active. There is still gunfire ringing out. The attacker is still killing people. That’s a higher number than what you see in the overall data, but it makes sense because the solo officer typically is getting to the scene faster than the cases where multiple officers arrive at once.
Here’s what happens if the scene is still active and an officer goes in. Sixty-two percent of the time, the officer shoots the attacker. Another 13 percent,
the officer otherwise subdues the attacker. The remaining 25 percent of the time, the suspect kills himself.
So 75 percent of the time when the solo officer goes in and the scene is still hot, the officer is taking direct action against the attacker.
And here’s an even more important statistic:
In all of the solo entries we identified where the scene was still hot, one-third of the police officers who made that solo entry were shot.
I’m not opposed to solo officer entry, but I think the officers ought to be informed explicitly about what the risks are, if they’re going to take that risk.

So it is quite possible that their protocol does not require a solo entry. It does seem like a bad tactic to me..

So 100% of the time an officer goes in solo on an active scene, he either shoots (62%) or engages (13%) the attacker without hitting him or the attacker kills himself (25%).

33% of the time the officer is shot (not always fatally). Yes, it's dangerous. But it undobtedly saves lives.

Of course whether Florida was a solo thing or whether several Sheriff's deputies were stacked up outside remains to be seen.



Slightly off topic, but remember Lt. Brian Murphy? The shooter was about to murder a room full of women and children when Murphy, responding solo, drew him outside. While the shooter was engaged in shooting Murphy 15 times, a second officer arrived and mortally shot the shooter (who killed himself as he was bleeding out).

A year later, Murphy was approached by a survivor who was inside the temple during the shooting.

"She said, 'How many times were you hit?' I said, 15. She said, 'Yes, don't you get it? One bullet for every one of us who was hiding inside.'"

It turned out there were exactly 15 people hiding in the pantry. Murphy had caught the shooter's eye before he could go back in and continue killing.

[Moliere]

When Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel Was Accused of Corruption, He Responded: 'Lions Don't Care About the Opinions of Sheep'

Two years ago, the Sun Sentinel reported that Israel was rewarding top political supporters by giving them and their family members cushy jobs doing public relations and community outreach for the Broward County Sheriff's Office. One such position, outreach manager, paid out a salary of $78,489. The person who got that job was the husband of Israel's campaign manager.
...
Asked about the allegations, Israel responded, "What have I done differently than Don Shula or Abraham Lincoln or Martin Luther King, Gandhi?"

He also said, "Lions don't care about the opinions of sheep." That's a paraphrase of a quote from the Game of Thrones character Tywin Lannister, a villainous public administrator known for promoting his family's interests ahead of the government's or the people's.

That's quite the comparison.

[msteelers]

This sheriff seems to have a habit of making completely boneheaded comments.

Idiotic quote aside though, what exactly did he do wrong? Every politician awards those loyal to them in the campaign. Every sheriffs office has a public outreach office. I’m 90% certain that my local sheriff has his campaign manager as PIO.

I didn’t see anything in the linked article that makes me think there is a lot of corruption in the office.

[YellowKing]

All Parkland needed was President Trump:

"I really believe I'd run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that too," Trump told a gathering of US governors at the White House.

To quote those kids, "We call BS!"

[Kraken]

We're saved! It's Cadet Bonespurs to the rescue!

[LawBeefaroni]

All Parkland needed was President Trump:

"I really believe I'd run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that too," Trump told a gathering of US governors at the White House.

To quote those kids, "We call BS!"

I don't doubt it one bit. He's got an army of Secret Service and the governors each have a state police detail. They'd run in, sure...maybe even as soon as 10 minutes after their armed guards took care of the situation and gave the all clear.

[$iljanus]

All Parkland needed was President Trump:

"I really believe I'd run in there, even if I didn't have a weapon, and I think most of the people in this room would have done that too," Trump told a gathering of US governors at the White House.

To quote those kids, "We call BS!"

I'm sure he daydreams about doing stuff like that with a big parade to celebrate his daring deeds during boring policy meetings or intelligence briefs.

[Isgrimnur]

Georgia

The Georgia Senate blocked a lucrative tax break bill on Monday that would benefit Delta Air Lines after the Atlanta-based company severed ties with the National Rifle Association.

Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle said he would not support tax legislation that helped the airline “unless the company changes its position and fully reinstates its relationship with the NRA.” He echoed a growing number of conservatives who opposed the measure over the weekend.
...
That move forced Gov. Nathan Deal and other supporters of the $50 million jet fuel sales tax exemption to shift to the defensive, and prompted a growing number of Republicans to try to strip the provision out of a broader tax-cut bill that has already passed the state House.