Stone Mountain Heritage Rally: This gave me my first laugh of the day! The good ol' boys ready for anything when most have moved on, they don't understand that they can keep their...

jelun

This gave me my first laugh of the day! The good ol' boys ready for anything when most have moved on, they don't understand that they can keep their "heritage".
There were more guns than flags.
The Heart of a MILITIA MIND': They love to Dress Up: Show us Their Big Boy Guns: Talk Real Stupid
August 2, 2015

Protests took place at Stone Mountain, George last week as people came together to promote their southern heritage. It even brought out armed guards from the community.
It seems like these sort of people have a real complex when it comes to feeling like theyre under attack. The image of armed guards standing outside of a protest that no one came to fight seems perfect for the Confederate flag movement.

Armed to the teeth, ready for a fight, and the rest of the world has moved on.
http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/08/the-heart-of-a-militia-mind-they-love-to-dress-up-show-us-their-big-boy-guns-talk-real-stupid/

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

jelun wrote:

This gave me my first laugh of the day! The good o... (show quote)

I wonder if they are ready to stand guard around churches to protect their "way of life" as they like to describe it.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

sorry for the repeat....

jelun

Dummy Boy wrote:

I wonder if they are ready to stand guard around churches to protect their "way of life" as they like to describe it.

For all the talk about persecution it isn't necessary to have weapons on the outside, I guess.
We know that some feel they need protection in the nave due to the "accidental" shootings of family members that have been reported.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/18/pastors-daughter-accidentally-shot-in-the-head-in-church-dies/
http://www.stltoday.com/suburban-journals/stcharles/news/no-charges-filed-for-accidental-shooting-in-wentzville-church/article_04a783ec-6f52-5395-a71a-a311caf9528f.html/

Maybe we shouldn't give them any ideas.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

jelun wrote:

For all the talk about persecution it isn't necess... (show quote)

------------

Living 50 miles south of Nashville, I was among the first to hear of the latest movie house shooting, this afternoon. Happy to report that the 29 year old perp is no longer a threat to anyone, but not happy to know that we will never know what drove him to his act; unless the police can find a note somewhere.

The, kicker is that less than an hour after the police had taken out the suspect, several of our esteemed state legislators posted that "... this would have not happened if the population had access to more guns." I've been in combat AND I own several guns and even have a concealed carry permit. But, even I know the carnage that could've happened in a dark theater if several armed people started returning fire at muzzle flashes. What would've been even more scary is that the other, armed movie-goers would've been shooting at other movie-goers. It seems the "pistol" the perp was carrying was really an air pistol. So, the "Shoot-out at the Cinamark-8," would've been between the movie-goers as the perp only used pepper spray and a hatchet to attack with.

Our SFB Tennessee State legislators are so brainwashed and owned by the NRA, plus they're so anti anything Obama, that they'd jail their own parents for even thinking that the 2nd Amendment needed a revision to make it more applicable to our day and time. In spite of the YEARS of hearing that Obama was going to take away our guns, I've not been forced to give up the first one. In fact, I've increased my collection. I'm far more afraid of the "gun-nuts" than I am of there ever being a law that outlaws owning a gun. Actually, I'm in favor of registraring any and all firearms. AND, restricting the sale of "assault-style" rifles and high-capacity magazines. Plus, I favor getting a ballistic sample of every rifled firearm for a national database.

Please note: in NO WAY am I faulting the police or the way they responded. In fact, I commend the MNPD for the way they handled a very dangerous situation. As more info comes out, it may be the perp got away with "suicide by police."

jelun

alabuck wrote:

------------

Living 50 miles south of Nashville, I was among the first to hear of the latest movie house shooting, this afternoon. Happy to report that the 29 year old perp is no longer a threat to anyone, but not happy to know that we will never know what drove him to his act; unless the police can find a note somewhere.

The, kicker is that less than an hour after the police had taken out the suspect, several of our esteemed state legislators posted that "... this would have not happened if the population had access to more guns." I've been in combat AND I own several guns and even have a concealed carry permit. But, even I know the carnage that could've happened in a dark theater if several armed people started returning fire at muzzle flashes. What would've been even more scary is that the other, armed movie-goers would've been shooting at other movie-goers. It seems the "pistol" the perp was carrying was really an air pistol. So, the "Shoot-out at the Cinamark-8," would've been between the movie-goers as the perp only used pepper spray and a hatchet to attack with.

Our SFB Tennessee State legislators are so brainwashed and owned by the NRA, plus they're so anti anything Obama, that they'd jail their own parents for even thinking that the 2nd Amendment needed a revision to make it more applicable to our day and time. In spite of the YEARS of hearing that Obama was going to take away our guns, I've not been forced to give up the first one. In fact, I've increased my collection. I'm far more afraid of the "gun-nuts" than I am of there ever being a law that outlaws owning a gun. Actually, I'm in favor of registraring any and all firearms. AND, restricting the sale of "assault-style" rifles and high-capacity magazines. Plus, I favor getting a ballistic sample of every rifled firearm for a national database.

Please note: in NO WAY am I faulting the police or the way they responded. In fact, I commend the MNPD for the way they handled a very dangerous situation. As more info comes out, it may be the perp got away with "suicide by police."

------------ br br Living 50 miles south of Nashv... (show quote)

Having worked with the mentally ill for nearly 30 years I am not a big fan of killing people for their disease. That is, unless we provide equal treatment and kill all sick people. I don't think that will happen soon.
You just reminded me of a new topic I want to start. Thanks.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

I

jelun wrote:

Having worked with the mentally ill for nearly 30 years I am not a big fan of killing people for their disease. That is, unless we provide equal treatment and kill all sick people. I don't think that will happen soon.
You just reminded me of a new topic I want to start. Thanks.

---------

I wouldn't say the police killed the perp because of his disease. At the time, all they knew was that he was using a deadly weapon and had attacked people. That he drew what resembled a pistol only added to the severity of the situation. Remember, this was inside a movie theater, not out in the bright sunlight.

Also, there wasn't any way for them to know what the mental or physical condition of the perp was. He had attacked 3 people and released pepper spray inside the theater. In instances like that, judging the mental competency of an individual isn't paramount. That comes later. Everyone already knows the perp "must be crazy" because of what he's doing. But, safeguarding innocent lives takes precedence.

jelun

alabuck wrote:

I br br --------- br br I wouldn't say the polic... (show quote)

When someone is doing something crazy we can assume that they are, no?
I know it is much cheaper to kill people than to take them to court, however... we are supposed to be guaranteed the ability to defend ourselves.
I grant you he was shooting what appeared to be a real weapon, but they manage to take others in easily enough.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

jelun wrote:

When someone is doing something crazy we can assume that they are, no?
I know it is much cheaper to kill people than to take them to court, however... we are supposed to be guaranteed the ability to defend ourselves.
I grant you he was shooting what appeared to be a real weapon, but they manage to take others in easily enough.

------------
With all due respect, jelun, have you ever served in the military or been a LEO? Have you ever been charged with protecting public safety? Have you ever been in a combat situation, either with firearms or in hand-to-hand combat?

Why do you think the perp was killed over the cost of taking him to court? And, why do you feel that just because the cops have managed to disarm some perps, that they should've be able to do so in this, particular, situation?

Let me say, from 1st hand experience, that when you're in a situation where lives hang in the balance and there is known to be a "deadly threat" in the immediate area, people have already been attacked and injured and there a very real potential of more people being hurt, and the perp, in this case, is not acknowledging a police officer's commands to stop, but, instead continues to make threatening actions, taking the time to try to, assess the perps mental state and try to get him to allow himself to be arrested, isn't a priority.

If you were in this situation, would you have tried to talk to the perp or would you have tried to exit the building? You must realize, too, that every situation is different. Here is no "cookie-cutter" approach on how to approach these situations.

While it would be nice if the perp had allowed himself to be apprehended, it was his choice to not follow orders. It was the perp who designed and developed the situation the police came into. The police didn't know the perp from Adam's house cat, let alone whether or not he was suffering from a mental illness.

The cops can't be faulted in this situation. From the news reports, the perp had been committed to 4 Middle Tennessee mental hospitals since 2004. It's documented that the perp was schizophrenic, heard voices, and was homicidal and suicidal. As such, why would mental health professionals not recognize the potential threat this man posed to himself and others and kept him institutionalized? To say otherwise now is easy. 20/20 hindsight is always the easiest sense to use when assigning blame for a situation like this.

jelun

alabuck wrote:

------------
With all due respect, jelun, have you ever served in the military or been a LEO? Have you ever been charged with protecting public safety? Have you ever been in a combat situation, either with firearms or in hand-to-hand combat?

Why do you think the perp was killed over the cost of taking him to court? And, why do you feel that just because the cops have managed to disarm some perps, that they should've be able to do so in this, particular, situation?

Let me say, from 1st hand experience, that when you're in a situation where lives hang in the balance and there is known to be a "deadly threat" in the immediate area, people have already been attacked and injured and there a very real potential of more people being hurt, and the perp, in this case, is not acknowledging a police officer's commands to stop, but, instead continues to make threatening actions, taking the time to try to, assess the perps mental state and try to get him to allow himself to be arrested, isn't a priority.

If you were in this situation, would you have tried to talk to the perp or would you have tried to exit the building? You must realize, too, that every situation is different. Here is no "cookie-cutter" approach on how to approach these situations.

While it would be nice if the perp had allowed himself to be apprehended, it was his choice to not follow orders. It was the perp who designed and developed the situation the police came into. The police didn't know the perp from Adam's house cat, let alone whether or not he was suffering from a mental illness.

The cops can't be faulted in this situation. From the news reports, the perp had been committed to 4 Middle Tennessee mental hospitals since 2004. It's documented that the perp was schizophrenic, heard voices, and was homicidal and suicidal. As such, why would mental health professionals not recognize the potential threat this man posed to himself and others and kept him institutionalized? To say otherwise now is easy. 20/20 hindsight is always the easiest sense to use when assigning blame for a situation like this.

------------ br With all due respect, jelun, have ... (show quote)

Mental health professionals would not keep him hospitalized because tax payer are not willing to spend the money to keep the mentally ill locked up unless it is in jail.

Please explain to me what being in the military has to do with this?
Does someone who has served in the military have some special skill with disabilities? It would seem that if that were the case there would be less vets running around with PTSD and less than 22 suicides a day that appear to be related to military service.

It would have been nice if he allowed himself to be apprehended?
Is that how cops determine what to do these days? If it is easy we will honor the US Constitution and if it is difficult the person gets killed?
Do you know how far away from the dead man these police were when they decided that it was a good idea to kill him before they found out he was using a toy?

What I did do was protect both the mentally ill and the public from those sick people for 30 years without killing anyone.
Law enforcement is disregarding the rights to equal treatment and due process much too often.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

jelun wrote:

Mental health professionals would not keep him hospitalized because tax payer are not willing to spend the money to keep the mentally ill locked up unless it is in jail.
This is a true, yet sad, statement. It's a shame that money has to play a part in keeping our citizenry safe from the mentally ill. But, neither you nor I make the rules. We simply try to live by them.

Please explain to me what being in the military has to do with this?
Does someone who has served in the military have some special skill with disabilities? It would seem that if that were the case there would be less vets running around with PTSD and less than 22 suicides a day that appear to be related to military service.
Since you asked, I'll tell you. Being in the military can go a long way to keeping us safe from law breakers; be they mentally ill or not. The military training of the 1st police officer on the scene was that of a combat Marine. As such, he was trained on how to approach an armed and dangerous suspect. But, don't let that dissuade you from your already prejudice opinion of the situation. I suppose you'd have handled the situation entirely differently. However, I have no doubt that if you were the one who entered first, you'd probably be the first dead victim of the perp.

According to the police officer's televised statement, upon entering the DARK theater, he HEARD what sounded like small-arms fire. Also, he FELT what seemed to him to be the wind generated by 3 bullets whizzing by his face. I would suppose that with that kind of auditory and tactile sensory input, his first reaction was to "duck and cover." That's what any "normal" person, such as yourself, would do. I believe it has something to do with "self-preservation."

Remember, there are other people in the theater, trying to get out, at the time this was occurring. So, here we have a cop, entering a dark theater, hears what sounds to him like gun-fire and he feels blasts of air go by his face. Oh, I forgot to mention, the perp had also discharged pepper-spray into the theater, after hitting two women in thier faces with it.

After hearing the shots and after feeling the blasts of air, the cop, believing he had been shot at, by the perp, returned fire. Apparently, the perp wasn't hit, or wounded enough, to stop shooting his gun and continued toward the exit door. The cop, said he yelled at the perp to stop but the perp didn't comply. I'm sure, at this time, you'd be yelling at the perp to drop his weapons, too. NOT! You'd be like all the other people - running for cover. I find it rather disingenuous that you would fault the police. As others were running OUT and AWAY from the danger.

As to the military and PTSD, I couldn't agree with you more. I think that our military has been treated very shabbily by our government. Why? Because it costs too much to acknowledge and treat the after-effects of war.

It would have been nice if he allowed himself to be apprehended?
True. But, he chose not to. Instead, he attacked 2 women with pepper-spray and one man with a hatchet.

Is that how cops determine what to do these days? If it is easy we will honor the US Constitution and if it is difficult the person gets killed?
The cops simply react to a situation the best they can. Why is it that you find fault with the cops for defending the other people AFTER they were attacked by the perp? It seems that you want to give the perp a pass because it was found out AFTER THE FACT that he suffered from mental illnesses. At the time all this was going down, would you take the time to ask someone attacking you and others the state of their mental health? Remember, this perp had assaulted 2 women and tried to murder a man who was coming to the aid of the women. If, as you infer, the police killed a man that they should've subdued, at what point do you put any responsibility on the perp? It's come out that the perp was ordered to stop several times. At what point does it fall in the perp to obey the orders given him by the police? Is finding out AFTER the perp failed to follow orders and attacked the police, that the perp suffered from mental illness a valid attack on the police for trying to protect the lives of the public AND their own lives?

Do you know how far away from the dead man these police were when they decided that it was a good idea to kill him before they found out he was using a toy?
What a biased question! If you want to believe that the police WANTED to kill the perp, then there's not much reason to continue dialog going with you. You're mind is already made-up.

What I did do was protect both the mentally ill and the public from those sick people for 30 years without killing anyone.
So, you're saying, that in 30 years, none of your patients/clients ever committed any violent crimes? Congratulations!
Law enforcement is disregarding the rights to equal treatment and due process much too often.

Mental health professionals would not keep him hos... (show quote)

A few bad apples can spoil the whole barrel. I try to not make broad, sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people. As someone who spent 30 years working with the mentally ill, I would've thought you felt as such.

jelun

alabuck wrote:

A few bad apples can spoil the whole barrel. I try to not make broad, sweeping generalizations about entire groups of people. As someone who spent 30 years working with the mentally ill, I would've thought you felt as such.

Maybe you were tired.
You may not make sweeping generalizations but you are condescending and make LOTS of assumptions.
The first police officer said... :roll:

Maybe we are talking about different incidents because these are the reports that are out there in accounts I have found.

http://www.tennessean.com/news/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/06/shots-reportedly-fired-at-tennessee-movie-theater/

She Wolf Loc: Currently Georgia

Just my opinion. When Reagan decided any mentally ill person who could not be cured could not remain in the hospitals, he put hundreds of people out in the street. With proper care many of these people would never have become violent. With no care and the added stress of being homeless many did.

Many hospitals have no choice but to release people, they really feel should remain a little longer. It is my understanding, unless a person is a danger to themselves or others they must be released. I understand the reason for these laws. When I was younger people could be committed much to easily. Quite a few wives were disposed of this way. However, when we put the decision in the hands of insurance clerks and judges with no mental health training, we created a monster.

Do we punish the cancer patient for having cancer? No of course not but we do punish the mentally ill for being ill. The stigma attached to mental illness keeps many people from seeking help. If the measure of a society is how it treats the most vulnerable of its' people, we are horrid.

jelun

She Wolf wrote:

Just my opinion. When Reagan decided any mentally... (show quote)

I have been feeling sorry all morning about being so harsh, but, man... there have been SO MANY incidents reported (thinking NM and Cali, foremost) that did allow the officers to dodge responsibility. The taxpayer gets to pay for their poor skills, of course.
Things are improving a bit with the ACA, never enough, though. There are just never enough beds and those with substance abuse problems seem to take precedence in treatment programs, or so I hear.

alabuck Loc: Tennessee

jelun wrote:

Maybe you were tired. br b Quite tired! I'm a l... (show quote)

No, we're supposed to be talking about thus one incident. But, again, by your grouping ALL recent police actions in your part of the discussion, you're trying to interject the basis of your anti-police prejudice into this one incident.

julen, just like you, I wish there had been a way that the perp would've allowed himself to be apprehended. Contrary to you, I firmly believe, too, that the officers involved wished they'd not been forced to use deadly force. My maternal grandfather was a police chief of a town in Ohio. My brother was an undercover narcotics officer, then became a uniformed officer with a police force, in Alabama. I would think that with these relatives serving as police officers, and from listening to their stories of their various exploits, that I could have somewhat of an understanding of how police officers think and act.

Again, from what I saw on TV and from what I read in the paper, this perp was given several opportunities to 'cease and desist." HE chose not to. Instead, he attacked 2 women with pepper spray. He attacked and wounded 1 man by striking him with a hatchet. In other words, the perp committed an assault on 3 people; one of the assaults - the one on the man - could be classified as attempted murder. Add to the scenario, the arrival of the police. Only knowing that there was a man, inside with a gun, they went into a dark room only to be met with what sounded and felt like pistol fire. That equates to being met with deadly force.

To be fair, you need to try and put yourself into the shoes of the police. How would you, given the same set of circumstances, have reacted? After having been fired upon, in a dark room, by someone you know nothing about, other than he just shot at you and he'd already attacked 3 other people, would you still holster your pistol and simply run up to the perp and tackled him?

You need to put the blame where the blame is due. In this case, it's ALL on the perp. No one forced him to commit his acts of violence; except, maybe, the voices in his head. No one forced him to not heed the commands of the police to stop, drop his gun and get in his knees with his hands behind his head. no one forced him to release pepper spray in the theater as the first step in his attempt to flee the scene. No one forced him to continue firing at the police as he ran out the back door. No one forced him to throw a bottle of propane at the police as he exited the back door of the theater, in his endeavor to get away from the scene.

Given all this, it seems this mentally ill perp had a fairly well thought-out plan of attack. But, I don't think, being mentally ill is a good reason for claiming "police brutality." The perp was violent. He used deadly force on theater patrons. He attacked a police officer. He resisted arrest. He attempted to flee from the crime scene HE made via his own actions. Sorry, jelun, I'm not seeing this your way. His being mentally ill isn't an acceptable excuse for the police to have refrained from their use of deadly force. He was given multiple opportunities to surrender. He didn't. He paid the consequence.