For those who won't read more than two lines:
My apologies to ()pen(arry if anything I wrote was inaccurate. Can we all try to be a little slower to take offense?
Charles
For those who want some details and maybe some food for thought, read on. But please nobody complain about the length when I already gave you the readers' digest version.
"Law enforcement and the district" claimed "about two hours".
I'm not quite ready to assume that everything that comes from the police or the government is a lie. Maybe it is. Maybe in this case it was. I simply don't start with that assumption. I took the info in the original article at face value.
Here's a statement from Shoreline SD[/URL]. 7:20AM to "about" 11:00AM. So much for "about two hours". I don't know what the schedule for elementary school classes is in Shoreline SD.
I seem to have missed reading these details previously. My apologies.
No one, especially me, said a response of the kind you imply "at all schools" "was warranted".
Nor did I intend to suggest you did. You did, however, say that some response was warranted across the district:
"A response is, of course, appropriate. ....
"Here's what that response ought to look like, given the evidence at hand: Shoreline police send a handful (<=6) officers to the school in question to establish a security presence, without interfering with normal activity; Shoreline police send an officer or two to each other school in the district to observe the campuses, without interfering with normal activity;..."
(emphasis added)
Again, I never intended to suggest nor imply that you supported the kind of response that was made. And if you or anyone else honestly got that impression from something I failed to explain clearly, I apologize.
But perhaps if we could all take a deep breath and assume that we are conversing with decent people who generally agree on issues of personal liberties rather than assuming that any disagreement is a sign of some jack booted thug who wants to send us re-education camps, those itching to violently overthrow the government and murder cops, or whatever other image may come to mind when someone doesn't agree with our view 100%, we'd have slightly fewer misunderstandings.
It seems, from linguistic evidence, that you aren't stupid.
I appreciate that. Thank you.
What does concern me is you making false representation of what I said. Outright false. That you will please knock off, immediately.
Now, since you don't seem stupid either, perhaps go re-read my post, carefully, and without any bias toward assuming I have any evil or ill intent, and see if I actually did suggest/imply that you supported anything close to the response made. I'm pretty sure I wrote that you had supported "some precautionary response ... at all schools" in the district in reply to some who seemed to be arguing that any district-wide response was inappropriate. If you find something I've posted that you can quote in context that rationally suggests otherwise, I'll apologize yet again, and edit my post to correct any misunderstanding. What more can I offer?
You have made it abundantly clear that you think the response enacted was appropriate, at least in kind.
Please re-read more carefully.
In my first post on the matter I wrote: "It seems there was some over-reaction."
Beyond that, I've far more taken issue with characterizing the response as "martial law", "tyrannical", or "paramilitary" based on what I read in the OP's linked article that included a report of a 2 hour security response and then letting school out early than defended the response itself. I have not condemned the response as strongly as some others have. I don't know whether a lock down and security sweep is the best response in this case or not. The response you suggested may have been entirely appropriate and adequate. You seem to be far closer to the incident with far better information. I wish it could be presented with a little less drama, accusations, and overt bias against police and government.
Again, I sincerely did not intend to imply that you endorsed the response that was given. You made that perfectly clear in your post where you asserted what the proper response would have been. So since you've conceded I'm not stupid, it makes no sense that I would claim something entirely opposite what you clearly, plainly wrote. I wrote only that you had agreed that "
some precautionary response was warranted at all schools" (emphasis added).
If anyone, more removed from the emotion of thinking they were personally mis-represented honestly thought I was claiming you supported the response that was made, I'll both apologize and question their reading ability. I'll then go edit my post. (And I'm not slamming you if there was any emotion clouding judgement when you believed I'd mis-represented your position. I very much take issue when someone mis-represents my position. So I fully understand.)
As I posted earlier, if we get this kind of police reaction to something that obviously is not a threat, I'll join you in piling on about gross over-reaction. But as you noted, language matters. I think "martial law" and "tyrannical" have meanings that do not apply to a few hours of excess of caution when it comes to a credible witness (and if the school employee isn't credible enough to be honest in the report he made, he shouldn't be a school employee). Show me a lockdown for the purpose of keeping parents away from children and I'll join the chorus of "tyranny, tyranny".
But understand this. I start from a position similar to the founders/framers of believing that functioning governments are better than lack of government. I believe even today that most police officers have good intentions and are not evil thugs nor tyrants. Whatever the statistics may say, the emotion among the population--and so among those they hire and elect and empower to provide general security in society--is one of extreme caution when it comes to any hint of a school shooting. Simply put, I start from a position of benefit-of-the-doubt for the police when it comes to them responding to an overtly expressed threat of violence towards schools. It is clear that others start from a very different position.
This doesn't mean either of us are evil or wrong. It means that some difference of views will occur.
I would greatly appreciate if we could consider those differences without resorting to name calling or imparting of evil intent. I've gone back and re-read each of my posts on this matter. I've not insulted anyone. I've not suggested anyone supports rape. The closest I've come to incivility is being a bit curt and telling twoskins to "give it a rest" when he kept pushing on what I believe is an inappropriate use of of the term "marital law". (I also thought he misused "Hearsay" but he didn't quite pick up on that.)
Let just ask several of you this question. What is your purpose here? Is it to castigate and alienate anyone who doesn't agree with 100%? Or is it to consider some different viewpoints, to build some relationships with those you wouldn't otherwise meet, gain some ideas for being effective, maybe even work together to advance RKBA? Is it some healthy recreation with sometimes vigorous, but civil debate, which benefits might include thinking more deeply about our own positions? Or is to beat the other guy into submission? Do we want lots of gun owners and RKBA supporters, with diversity of views to feel welcome on the board? Or we want to limit participation to those who agree entirely with us or at least are willing to get down into the mud of personal accusations and written unpleasantness?
This is a pro-RKBA board. It is not an anti-cop board, or an anti-government board. Frankly, the posted story has (almost?) nothing to do with lawful OC, nor RKBA. It is about a police response to a man allegedly making a threat of illegal violence while in possession of a gun. I trust nobody here is going to suggest such a man nor his reported conduct has anything to do with lawfully OCing a gun, nor RKBA. Even fairly significant disagreement on this story should have nothing to do with our ability to work together on RKBA, and so our responses to each other should, likewise, be calculated not to harm the ability to work together on RKBA.
I can and did readily agree that the response seemed to me to be excessive. I quibbled only with the excessive use of language some used to describe it. I did so with far less vigor than you've responded to what you think is my inaccurate use of language.
Should either really warrant such venom?
I've been on this board 8 years. I've seen it ebb and flow. The current tone is pretty much a low point for civility and useful dialogue. And I admit I've been part of that recently. I'm trying to do better. I invite others to re-consider why they are here and join me in elevating the level of discussion a bit.
I do wish you all the best.
Charles
