On Saturday, March 3, 2018 at 6:52:32 AM UTC-5, dvus wrote:
On 3/2/2018 11:28 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 3/1/2018 6:47 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

On 2/28/2018 8:53 AM, Dove Tail wrote:
dvus wrote:

Yes, that's why intelligent people want armed protection for
them in the future. I don't expect you to understand the
premise.


They had "armed protection" and it was completely worthless.

Complain to the guy who told them not to go in, whomever that was.


DO you have evidence that the school safety officer was ordered to
not go in to the school? I think not, he was too busy worrying
about his retirement and didn't give a hoot about the children
citizens he was tasked with protecting.

Do you have evidence he wasn't ordered to not go in? I don't know
either way yet, so I'm willing to wait until the evidence is in.


If "you don't know either way yet", then why did you write "Complain to
the guy who told them not to go in"?

Because all the reports I've seen or heard indicate that the deputies
were told to "stage" outside and wait for SWAT. My comment was based on
those reports but I'm willing to alter them if evidence appears that
contradicts what I wrote. I wish the Liberals/Socialists would take the
same path and change their minds about anything when evidence shows them
to be wrong but that never happens.

The question is rhetorical, no need to answer.

Of course not, Liberals never want to hear anything that casts doubt on
their beliefs. If someone dares to contradict them they run for their
"safe spaces" and brand the opposing person a "hater".

He should have never been a sworn officer, he was better suited to
being a meter maid.

Statement not based on facts.


Of course it is based upon facts. He failed to do his job, then,
instead of facing an investigation and discipline, he resigned
immediately after the incident.

There will still be an investigation and hopefully the facts will
emerge. If the officer was derelict he may lose his pension.

--
dvus

Agree with your overall assessment, ie we really need to wait for all
the facts. It's especially disturbing to see the president weighing
in and making accusations before there is an investigation. But on
what basis do you think the deputy who was stationed there could
have his pension in jeopardy? AFAIK, usually that can only happen if he
was convicted of a crime, not simply for failing to follow procedure
or meet their performance standards.