LOCKDOWN!! An overreaction?

These days the slightest possibility of some potential threat results in the most extreme reactions.

For example last week in San Diego somebody reported "shots fired" near an elementary school. The response involved a lockdown not only of that campus, but elementary school campuses throughout the city. Dozens upon dozens of cops swarmed the schools--armed to the teeth and in all their SWAT gear--with choppers scouring rooftops.

As it turns out, there was no shooter, no gun, and no shots--just a report. It was followed of course by frightened parents, crying kids and even more fear-mongering by the media. A media that never seems to point out the obvious disconnect that while there may or may not have been some lone gunman on the roof there are in fact now on campus dozens of police officers in full body armor with assault rifles at the ready. What used to be a vague threat is now essentially an occupying army with soldiers marching kids out of the building. From the outside looking in, the solution to the threat looks far more frightening than the threat itself.

Who knows how much money was spent looking for a non-existent threat, how many real crimes were not prevented because the police were chasing wild geese?

It seems to me that reacting so strongly to the initial report of a threat only gives ammunition to the kinds of people who like to do such things; let's call them "terrorists".

Why bother to build a bomb or plot to hijack an airplane, when you can cripple a police force, shut down a airport, or close a school system with just a phone call?

I'm not advocating ignoring threats of course, but certainly a cooler response and looking at ways for law enforcement to better assess a threat.

the president and security chief be fired for not locking the campus down after the first report of a domestic shooting. Overreactions are going to be hte norm for a while.

witness, then crime in general and crimes in school will increase.

If anyone has seen a crime and not notified the proper law enforcement agency and if necessary agreed to be a witness, that person is aiding and abetting crime.

IMO criminals know some/many/most citizens will not get involved in crime even to the minimum extent of reporting such events. If I'm correct, that gives criminals a blank check to commit crimes.

In todays society with ubiquitous cell phones, IMO there is absolutely no excuse for not reporting crime.

Or maybe, human nature.
Ever hear of Kitty Genovese? There wasn't any rap music in 1964, and there were plenty of telephones.

...

Are you suggesting that we should all report folks because we think they ***MIGHT*** commit a crime? Or only certain crimes?

If so, are you willing to have the government fully indemnify me and provide the cost for my legal defense when the innocent person I wrongfully suspected and accused brings suit against me to take all my assets because they think I had a personal vendetta against them? And make no mistake they are innocent until they commit a crime and are found guilty of having done so.

What criteria am I supposed to use to determine who might commit a crime - or a violent crime? Anyone who owns or possesses a weapon or a gun? Or maybe anybody who just seems a little creepy to me? Or maybe just those who disagree with my political or religious views? Seems like a slippery slope to me. For what it is worth, attorneys in my state are routinely taught that there are NO consistently reliable predictors of violent behavior. A long time practicing clinical psychologist I know agrees with that assessment.

While I am willing to confront wrong behavior I am not willing to be used as tool to promote an atmosphere of fear and suspicion - and that is exactly what I become if I allow myself to assume the role of a de facto surveillance operative. I think such behavior is dangerous and will only serve to further erode any remaining sense of community in our nation. In other words, it is divisive.

I refuse to live in fear. I refuse to promote an atmosphere of fear and suspicion. I believe we are better served by building bridges than bunkers.

edit for typo

SCOTUS has said government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody.

Self-defense is a personal problem and group problem.

Police typically get involved only after a crime has been committed, e.g. a school shooting. Only the citizens of a community can effectively prevent crime in a non-fascist state.

If you refuse to live in fear, then you have only one choice, move to a gated community with secure shopping centers. Unfortunately that's not possible for most people so they can either cower in fear or get involved in making their neighborhood and community safer from crime.

Will that happen? I doubt it and people will continue to complain about crime and blame government.

I don't have answers other than to assert crime doesn't seem to thrive when citizens protect each other and I don't mean just keeping and bearing arms.

in a small 1950's house in working class neighborhood in a city where more than eight of every one thousand citizens was a crime victim in 2003. The same year, the city was ranked among the top 50 cities nationwide for violent crime. Crime rates here - and particularly violent crime - have continued to increase. In the past year there have been two occupied home invasion robberies in my neighborhood - as well as some other assorted crimes.

I take precautions to protect myself and secure my property. I know my neighbors and we speak regularly. I have taken a self defense class. I own a gun. I have two dogs. I don't keep fixed schedule. I try to remain alert.

I know how to be controlled and resourceful in dangerous situations. Many years ago when I was a teenager somebody tried to abduct me. I resisted. On another occasion I was chased by someone wielding a knife. On another occasion an employee of our family business threatened to kill us all. I used to live in a rural area without ready access to police protection and had the experience of waking to find intruders outside the window in the wee hours of the morning.

I refuse to live in fear. Clearly, I could choose to be afraid. But why? Fear is an attitude. It is a state of mind. It is a choice. And its presence can limit and define the way you live your life. I will not surrender that authority, control and responsibility to someone else.

Gated communities are monuments to fear. That is the primary reason they are gated. Yet most victims of murder and violent crimes know the perpetrator. No gate in the world can protect you from a bad relationship. Houses are mostly wood, masonry and nails. Stuff is stuff. Things can be replaced and they do not define who or what we are. No shopping center is truly secure. Anything of value can be stolen or destroyed.

Life is too short and too precious to live in fear - or to invest in fostering an environment of fear and suspicion.

edit for bad typing

They're afraid of guns, but only the ones owned by law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment right.
Some admit they would rather sit back and be executed rather than fighting back (or even allowing someone ELSE to defend them.)

To the extent Democrats are perceived as pussies, the appellation is frequently justified.
Bah.

Agreed. Wholeheartedly.

:toast:

But I guess I should 'report' you just to be sure.
:eyes:

report someone to law enforcement. :sarcasm:

Be careful what you wish for. Or maybe you're a Nazi...who knows?

Is there a bounty on "suspects" in your neighborhood? :eyes:

reaction.

You understand perfectly well the point I made.

In each case, a citizen must make a judgment call on whether a person is a threat to society when she/he behaves in an unusual way.

On the other hand, I may have misjudged you and you are not capable of making such decisions. If that's the case, I apologize for not understanding your limitations.

to judge who MIGHT be a possible threat. And I say again that kind of attitude is typical of an asshole. Whether you qualify I leave to others to decide.
Since you obviously think "guilty until proven innocent" should be the law of the land, I respectfully suggest you get the fuck out of my land.
FOAD.

Does this scenario even begin to get your notice as a parallel to what Chimp did to Saddam/Iraq? Is irony dead?

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=local&id=5271014

Air controllers call for criminal investigation Eyewitness News Exclusive

New York - WABC, May 3, 2007) - The air traffic controllers who were exposed to that carbon monoxide now want a criminal investigation into why they weren't allowed to leave their control center, even though they were dizzy and disoriented -- and trying to direct hundreds of planes.

SNIP:

Air Controller's interviews from Wednesday:





If you get a chance, WATCH THE VIDEOS! They are at the ABC link provided.

Sounds like DOMESTIC terrorism to me. In New Jersey, of ALL places!!! Hmmmm...

show of police force? I doubt it.

We have to lockdown our school every time the police helicopter flies over head.

Of a boy's bathroom in an elementary school. That was last week.

do we have to go through this? gun free zones only apply to those who are not disposed to break laws, lunatics/crims don't obey them. let people be able to defend themselves and this shit ends right now.

They aren't amenable to reason. Pretty much like trying to convince a fundy that evolution is a fact.

I want one of those like you wouldn't believe.