the Rights of "Possible" Terrorist Suspects.. What Level Should They be Afforded?

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

So CT your saying no right to a fair court trail ? No right to walk down the street without "show me your papers,?

of course I'm not saying that.. why do you guys go off on severe tangents?

the guy in question went on to private property, wearing a bulky long overcoat, wearing a disguise. he has no right to sit down in the Church and expect to be left alone.

I remember going to a Church once, that was holding a protest against a Film that had been released.. I went with 2 other guys, we pulled in to the parking lot shortly before the start of the protest, and a Security Guy was on us in 45 seconds.. we had parked way in the back lot, but this Dude spied us, and hauled ass to find out why we were there.. one of the guys mumbled something about being curious about the protest, the Guard told us to get the fuck off their property.. we did, and quickly!

we had no "rights".. I'm sure the guard thought we were suspicious parking were we did, and expected we might be disruptive. he was wrong, we were genuinely curious, and just wanted to observe, but I see his point.. he had every right to insist we leave. and so the Security Guy at West Freeway Church of Christ had every right to insist the Killer remove his coat.

last night I was at Wal-Mart, I purchased some items in the self-checkout, started to leave, and the Wal-Mar security guy insisted to see my receipt and scan it. am I supposed to be offended? fuck, I wasn't wearing a bulky coat, nor was I in disguise, and I legally paid for my items.

[kehaar]

Ttan, you specifically azked why le`s hands are tied. The followups are an attempted walkback. Fundamentally your argument is stupid. Churchs are places of acceptance. Perhaps this guy should have been escorted out based on previous experience with him specifically, but that is likely why he wore a dosguise.

If you are saying that a church should eject everyone scruffy looking, you are just an asshole, and no further discussion is necessary.

I personally believe that your posts are left wing hate filled bigoted propaganda, and you dont believe any of it, cest la vie

[HoeHummer]

Not very polites there, good buddy.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by kehaar

Ttan, you specifically azked why le`s hands are tied. The followups are an attempted walkback. Fundamentally your argument is stupid. Churchs are places of acceptance. Perhaps this guy should have been escorted out based on previous experience with him specifically, but that is likely why he wore a dosguise.

If you are saying that a church should eject everyone scruffy looking, you are just an asshole, and no further discussion is necessary.

I personally believe that your posts are left wing hate filled bigoted propaganda, and you dont believe any of it, cest la vie

It's simply his method of debating. Start out with some outrageous premise or statement. Feign faux outrage and self righteousness. Walk back what he "meant" to now act like the reasonable one in the room.

In the end, to his latest walk back of question. Sure the church could have asked him to remove his coat. Why they didn't, I don't know. I'm not psychic. But I'm also not stupid enough to float a premise that the church "allowed" the shooting.

[kehaar]

Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Not very polites there, good buddy.

What part of my statement is impolite, except the spelling? Frankly, blunt, plain stated, facts that are relevant, and necessary, are the essence of being polite.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by kehaar

Ttan, you specifically azked why le`s hands are tied. The followups are an attempted walkback. Fundamentally your argument is stupid. Churchs are places of acceptance. Perhaps this guy should have been escorted out based on previous experience with him specifically, but that is likely why he wore a dosguise.

If you are saying that a church should eject everyone scruffy looking, you are just an asshole, and no further discussion is necessary.

I personally believe that your posts are left wing hate filled bigoted propaganda, and you dont believe any of it, cest la vie

I personally believe you are an Ignoramus who has not followed the thread.

the LE part of the discussion was left behind long ago.. my focus is on the Church shooting. read your account. you say IF he had not worn a disguise, it would have been fine to escort the guy out. but wearing a disguise, while disguising a weapon? no, we should accept him, and give him 6 seconds of lead time to murder. you fail to address the fact that the Security people were hair-trigger READY for this Killer to begin his rampage.. they KNEW trouble brewed, the aftermath is proof. they admitted to watching him closely from the moment he walked in. is that "acceptance"? the Killer obviously knew he was being closely observed, he waited until communion so he could separate himself a few yards, to begin his killing spree. yet YOU think the poor man should be left alone, that is what God would want.

and fuck you, by the way.. I am MORE pro-law enforcement than you, the right-wing gun waivers.. I applaud the 6 other people who pulled handguns out.. but damn if this could have been nipped in the bud.. and SHOULD HAVE BEEN

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

I applaud the 6 other people who pulled handguns out.. but damn if this could have been nipped in the bud.. and SHOULD HAVE BEEN

And I applaud them as well, including their self restraint(as is the case with most gun owners), to not turn it into some wild west shooting gallery.

But I still dispel your notion that the Church or Security Guard are in any way at fault for any malfeasance in not stopping it ahead of time. That is really out there logic.

Waiting patiently, you have 26 minutes to prove your point or continue your walk back.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by eccielover

And I applaud them as well, including their self restraint(as is the case with most gun owners), to not turn it into some wild west shooting gallery.

But I still dispel your notion that the Church or Security Guard are in any way at fault for any malfeasance in not stopping it ahead of time. That is really out there logic.

Waiting patiently, you have 26 minutes to prove your point or continue your walk back.

you just hit the Pittsburgh 2,000.. nice.

not walking back anything, and I never do. I maintain the Head of Security should have asked the Killer to remove his Coat. he is bathed in laudatory appreciation for holding the murder count to two, but he has mud on him, IMO.

none of you have dispelled my analogies.. metal detectors, Grocery store receipt checkers.. for some reason "the Church" is beyond that kind of behavior.. nonsense.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

you just hit the Pittsburgh 2,000.. nice.

not walking back anything, and I never do. I maintain the Head of Security should have asked the Killer to remove his Coat. he is bathed in laudatory appreciation for holding the murder count to two, but he has mud on him, IMO.

none of you have dispelled my analogies.. metal detectors, Grocery store receipt checkers.. for some reason "the Church" is beyond that kind of behavior.. nonsense.

And I won't dispel your bullshit analogies. I agree, the Church could have all that. They didn't and it's now hindsight to try and pin blame because they didn't.

The only one to pin blame on is the initial shooter. And I will continue to bathe the man that stopped him in 6 seconds with laudatory appreciation.

That you don't says something about you.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by eccielover

I agree, the Church could have all that. They didn't and it's now hindsight to try and pin blame because they didn't.

The only one to pin blame on is the initial shooter. And I will continue to bathe the man that stopped him in 6 seconds with laudatory appreciation.

That you don't says something about you.

you are coming around..

of course it is hindsight. that's what mistakes are, a failure to grasp something at the initial time, that you realize later. I don't blame the Head Guy for the murders, I think he was not sufficiently trained or aware. I hope he wasn't just "looking out for the rights" of the Killer. I don't say Security caused murder, or should be prosecuted or sued. but Security failed.. they meant well, I'm sure. but so do I when I make mistakes.

we could have a good learning experience from this tragedy.. instead you have USA Today bitching that 6 people drew weapons. you have the right-wing gun lobby that heralds this example of gun "victory".. the real discussion is lost. the best use of weapons is to NOT have them used on anybody! you and others mistake the so-called gun battle "victory", as a win for your political stripe. but I see it as people (even the Killer himself) who perished without need.

you and I agree.. you are just willing to excuse Security, in light of everything that occurred, I believe Security should own up to their mistake.. not legally, no sanctions, but they should admit a level of failure.. we can all benefit. it would undoubtedly lead to better training.

[eccielover]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

you are coming around..

of course it is hindsight. that's what mistakes are, a failure to grasp something at the initial time, that you realize later. I don't blame the Head Guy for the murders, I think he was not sufficiently trained or aware. I hope he wasn't just "looking out for the rights" of the Killer. I don't say Security caused murder, or should be prosecuted or sued. but Security failed.. they meant well, I'm sure. but so do I when I make mistakes.

we could have a good learning experience from this tragedy.. instead you have USA Today bitching that 6 people drew weapons. you have the right-wing gun lobby that heralds this example of gun "victory".. the real discussion is lost. the best use of weapons is to NOT have them used on anybody! you and others mistake the so-called gun battle "victory", as a win for your political stripe. but I see it as people (even the Killer himself) who perished without need.

you and I agree.. you are just willing to excuse Security, in light of everything that occurred, I believe Security should own up to their mistake.. not legally, no sanctions, but they should admit a level of failure.. we can all benefit. it would undoubtedly lead to better training.

Well, we don't really agree. Security is not LE. And that's the difference from your original post to now.

Security covers a wide range of duties. At a bank and many other locations like I'm guessing this Church, they are mostly there to stop something as it unfolds, not do preventative actions.

I'm considering the Church security the same unless the Church had specific other policies for their security officer.

There to respond and quell issues as they arise, which is absolutely what was done in that 6 second window.

If you want to give armed security the ability to pre-judge, then yes, train them better, but that is not inherently their job.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by eccielover

Well, we don't really agree. Security is not LE. And that's the difference from your original post to now.

Security covers a wide range of duties. At a bank and many other locations like I'm guessing this Church, they are mostly there to stop something as it unfolds, not do preventative actions.

I'm considering the Church security the same unless the Church had specific other policies for their security officer.

There to respond and quell issues as they arise, which is absolutely what was done in that 6 second window.

If you want to give armed security the ability to pre-judge, then yes, train them better, but that is not inherently their job.

forget LE, I am on the Church Shooting.. we do agree on that. you may not realize it just yet, so let me assist

you mention a Bank. they try to prevent trouble! starting with theft.. "let me see your ID".. many banks have cameras at the desk, trained on your every move. you better believe they have mandatory "see something say something" training. they don't need to stop a Robbery-in-progress, except to toss red dye into the bag.. let the Cops finish it up, when they discover red dollar bills.

I disagree it is inherently NOT the job of security to stop trouble before it occurs. ask for ID, look suspicious people over, ask questions.. if the Dude with the bulky coat and disguise entered my place of Business, you bet your ass he would not sit down until he explained himself, convincing us he is not out to fuck up our day.

your hang up appears to be the Church angle.. it is not Christian to make a Murderer feel unwelcome.. remember my example upthread, about getting kicked off Church property? fuck, I really was innocent, but the Security Guy said he would call the Police if we didn't leave.. not very "Christian", but I get his position.

[oeb11]

CT - on the Texas church shooting.

Assumption - that the church had Security trained to intercept individuals disguising weapons to be used for a mass shooting.

I have seen nothing one way or another about the status of the church "Security" preparations.

I doubt this small congregation had an organized, trained security force such as seen at a bank or place of business with valuables - say diamonds, etc.

The incidence of such shootings is so rare - likely less than lightning fatalities - although i do not have exact statistics at hand.

How many churches/places of worship have trained , armed security to evaluate every person walking in as a threat. I remember the individual had a history with church and members - they had provided some "care" for him prior to the shooting incident. Individuals in the sanctuary may have had some familiarity with the shooter prior to the incident.
Entering a sanctuary in a bulky coat in winter is not unusual, and would not in and of itself create suspicion of a mass shooter entering. Perhaps a mentally ill individual who needed guidance - and may not have been appropriate to sit through a worship service - but not in and of itself a criteria for a search and disrobe the coat intervention. The individual was not wearing a mask - or other feature to identify him as a threat to the congregation.

A church is not a bank - which has money - and attract robbers. Churches - other than a collection plate - are not generally considered targets for armed criminals.

Should this small congregation have had a trained "Security" apparatus to protect them - which might or might not have been able to intervene against a person known to at least some of the members?
Perhaps in a perfect world. But Security costs money - something a small congregation is likely to have little of.



I share your outrage over the incident, and the needless deaths of good members of our society. I am not willing to blame a church "Security" service until I am sure they had a "Security " service trained, and effective in such interventions. Sounds to me that they were somewhat organized - as multiple people drew weapons - but only One person fired - a restraint that speaks to some training in handling firearms under stress.



Please correct if more than one congregant fired to stop the threat.



As in many incidents - it is a learning process for our society - and I am ambivalent about requiring all small organizations at low risk being required to have "Security" .


One thing is clear - the individual was mentally ill and possessed a firearm - ILLEGALLY!. That is a far better focus for prevention efforts - although likely more difficult to accomplish than passing a law to require"Security" of all churches or places of worship.

Note - not saying you ever suggested that, CT.



My thoughts - Thank You for bringing up the topic and a good debate on the subject, Sir.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by oeb11

I doubt this small congregation had an organized, trained security force such as seen at a bank or place of business with valuables - say diamonds, etc.

The incidence of such shootings is so rare - likely less than lightning fatalities - although i do not have exact statistics at hand.

How many churches/places of worship have trained , armed security to evaluate every person walking in as a threat.
Entering a sanctuary in a bulky coat in winter is not unusual, and would not in and of itself create suspicion of a mass shooter entering. The individual was not wearing a mask - or other feature to identify him as a threat to the congregation.

Should this small congregation have had a trained "Security" apparatus to protect them

I am not willing to blame a church "Security" service until I am sure they had a "Security " service trained, and effective in such interventions. Sounds to me that they were somewhat organized - as multiple people drew weapons - but only One person fired - a restraint that speaks to some training in handling firearms under stress.



Please correct if more than one congregant fired to stop the threat.

As in many incidents - it is a learning process for our society -
One thing is clear - the individual was mentally ill and possessed a firearm - ILLEGALLY!. That is a far better focus for prevention efforts


My thoughts - Thank You for bringing up the topic and a good debate on the subject, Sir.

thank you Sir.. I would probably quit posting in this Forum, if you, and 1-2 others who post infrequently, did not have worthwhile things to post.. I get wearied by post-after-post of insults, hit-and-run stupid brief posts, that advance nothing, other than the belief that the poster is a Right-Wing Imbecile.

you are right, I think, that the Security Force was somewhat ad hoc, not fully trained to deal with a range of possible threats. but the Media has held up the Security Guy, Jack Wilson, as a Hero who did all he could.. I say he didn't.. Wilson is an ex- Reserve Sheriff's Deputy, and instructed on Firearms. it may be he emphasized shooting accuracy over detection and prevention. Wilson should have done more.. I place blame on him, the guy in charge.

https://gazette.com/ap/national/meet...5a35e94b3.html

if you recall what I wrote earlier, I said because of 2 things that happened IN TANDEM... the bulky coat AND the obvious disguise, that should have set alarm bells to ask for the removal of his coat. Wilson was already hair-trigger ready, he spotted trouble when it walked in, but something held him back.. was it the idea that this is Church, the guy should be left alone? was it the idea that "I'm ready if/when this guy strikes"? I would like to know his thinking.. Wilson had a reason to leave the guy alone enough to kill 2.. I believe his judgement, if any was utilized, was flawed.. sort of like placing your hand near a burning stove, thinking you had a half inch of room before your hand caught fire.. you miscalculated and got a quick, small burn, but you praise yourself for pulling your hand back rapidly, and keeping your thumb and fingers intact.

the other 6 did not fire. it was over too fast, I assume.. but the one Security guy who was killed had drawn his gun to shoot.. too late. see my point, though? they were willing to play fast and loose, hoping they could get off rounds before the Murderer did.. frankly, he out-smarted them by walking away, to receive communion, to create space so he could draw his shotgun and fire first.

I think Wilson should be transparent, admit his team (himself, really) could have done more, and that would help lead a discussion on future prevention. frankly, I consider it a bit cowardly to bask in the praise that is only loosely deserved. I cringe at the idea he will trumpet his shooting, in ads this Fall, while running for County Commissioner.

https://texasscorecard.com/local/her...-commissioner/

[HoeHummer]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

your post is absurd. none of what you said is true. why do you bother?

you prove my point about the lack of intellectual capacity, and rank incoherency of the Right-Wing Fascists on this Board.

Originally Posted by rexdutchman

So CT your saying no right to a fair court trail ? No right to walk down the street without "show me your papers,? THAT what I said about rights
And yes the shotgun looked very short ( illegal) but the LSM is not going to follow up much because it wasn't a """Black AR "

Oebsy got caughts in a spot again, but Rexsy’s respond was all’s we needed to prove your point, CT

Oebsy, yous are an idiot apologists.