Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26

Thread: OH - Armed citizen dials 911 and waits...and waits...and waits...

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    From http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5621

    Armed citizen dials 911 and waits...and waits...and waits... printable page Submitted by cbaus on Mon, 04/28/2008 - 00:15. By Chad D. Baus
    Gun ban extremists and others who oppose the right of self defense are fond of saying that when a person is in danger, the best thing to do is to call 911 and let the police take care of it.

    But what happens when you dial 911 and the police tell you to wait...and wait...and wait?

    One Columbus-area business owner was wise enough to have made his own plans for that very eventuality...

    On Thursday, April 17, a drive-thru carryout owner and Concealed Handgun License (CHL)-holder was investigating why his security alarm went off after just having closed up for the night when he was surprised by an intruder who had been hiding in his store. The entire confrontation that followed was caught on tape.


    [flash=425,355]http://www.youtube.com/v/0IeVxeg4mgI&hl=en[/flash]

    As can be seen in the security video the intruder surprised the store owner, who was forced to draw his gun when the intruder advanced toward him.

    He ordered the intruder onto his knees, and held him at gunpoint while attempting to dial 911. At that point, the intruder got up and began advancing toward the CHL-holder again.

    The store owner attempted to keep the intruder from approaching him, and showed admirable restraint as the intruder advanced on him several times.
    The 911 call begins at that point.

    "I've got a gun on a guy that's in my business," the store owner says. "Get the cops here."

    "Where are you at?" inquires the 911 operator.

    After the store owner gives his address and the name of his business, he says again "Get 'em here."

    The operator responds by asking "Why do you have a gun on him?"

    The store owner calmly explains "because he's in my business after hours."

    At this point, the intruder can again be seen approaching the store owner, and moving himself out of the cameras' view.

    The operator can be heard asking "who is this person?", just as the store owner is heard giving the intruder commands, and the operator asks again, "Who is this person?"

    The store owner, preoccupied with the intruder's refusal to comply with his demands, doesn't respond. He can again be heard commanding the intruder to get on the ground as the operator says "Sir you need to talk to me....You need to talk to me...Who is this gentleman that's in your business?...Hello?"

    The store owner comes back to the line and says, "Yeah, what can I do for you?"
    "You need to talk to me and tell me why do you have a gun to this man's head?" the operator demands, imagining something that never occurred, let alone ever communicated to her by the store owner. The operator continually peppers him with questions for which she already had been told the answers. "Is the business closed? Did he break in?"

    The store owner explains again, "Yeah, my business is closed, I was here a half hour. He was hiding in here. I shut the door and then my alarm went off. I come over here and the guy's in my business."

    "Stay on the line with me," the operator replies. "I have officers en route," she finally informs him, more than one minute into the call.

    As the 911 audio and security video shows, the store owner's attention was drawn away from the intruder as he was forced to explain/ defend himself to the 911 operator about why he was holding a man at gun point.

    Next the operator informs the store owner that "when an officer gets there you have to put the gun down. Do you understand that?"

    "I understand that," he replies.

    "What is your name?" she can be heard saying, at the same time the store owner informs her that "There's two of 'em in here." (The store owner had been told this by the intruder. It turned out to be a lie.)

    "Are the both on the ground?", the operator inquires.

    "No. One's in the office, and the other's just standing around right now," he replies.

    At that point the store owner can again be heard issuing commands to the intruder.
    "Do you have a permit for that gun, sir?", she continued, hopefully referring to an Ohio concealed handgun license, since no permit is required to own a handgun in Ohio.

    "Yes I do," he replied, "and I'm on my own property."

    "Ok, well, you need to answer my questions and stop being brief to me," she scolds.

    "What is your name?" The store owner replies with his name.

    At the same time the operator is peppering him with questions, the store owner hears a horn honking outside. Thinking the police have arrived and need a way into the building, he can be seen in the video backing toward the locked door. (The honking horn turned out to be the store owner's daughter, coming to see why he had not turned off the alarm. Her car can be seen approaching in the security footage.)
    More than two and a half minutes into the 911 call, the intruder took advantage of the situation and long delay in police response and fled out the door as the store owner shouts "Get back here!"

    After inquiring about the intruder's physical description and direction he fled, the operator again says "We have officers en route. They're still en route."

    At the three minute mark, the operator can be heard asking someone to relay the information to county law enforcement (who eventually responded to the call).

    "Obviously I've got an emergency situation, she says, revealing exactly who she thought was the bad guy in the situation. "I have a gentleman with a guy at gun point."

    The store owner can then be seen in the security video searching the business to determine if there was a second intruder.

    More than a minute after the intruder escaped, and three and a half minutes into the 911 call, the operator explains that the delay is because "you called the Columbus police department so we're having to relay the information to the county if you could stay on the line with me."

    "I'm here," he replies calmly.

    "I understand that sir," she retorts. "I'm, ah, we're trying to get the county out there. You called the Columbus police department."

    "I called 911," the store owner says.

    "You've called the Columbus police department. Your cell phone has come to the Columbus police department. We're getting on the phone with county to have them respond sir," the 911 operator answers as the clock on the call passes the four minute mark.

    "I'm glad there were no shots fired," the store owner calmly observes.

    "OK, sir, do not be angry with me," the operator replied defensively.

    The operator then inquires about the whereabouts of the second intruder, and the store owner replies that he still believes "he's in here somewhere."

    Finally, more than four and a half minutes into the call, the operator said "I'm going to patch you through to the county. They are en route. I'm gonna transfer you there. You need to stay on the line."

    "Don't do anything stupid," she concludes, once again treating the store owner as if he was the person she was most concerned about.

    At just under five minutes after the store owner called 911, a second vehicle can be seen in the security video pulling up outside the store. The driver a retired deputy who lives close to the store and knows the store owner. He heard the alarm and responded.

    Another minute later, and nearly six minutes after the 911 call was first placed, a sheriff's deputy's cruiser appears on the security video, and soon after the deputy can be seen clearing the building. Thankfully, there was no second intruder.
    NBC Columbus (WCMH) posted a video report on the incident on their website entitled "Owner Draws Gun".

    [flash=425,355]http://www.youtube.com/v/8BTwAZz1h4w&hl=en[/flash]

    NBC Columbus reported that although the police say they know who the burglar was but that as of the time of the televised report he had not been arrested.

    Conservative estimates from the U.S. Department of Justice have found that there are 1.5 million defensive uses of a firearm each year, most of which do not end in shots being fired, or in much media attention, if any. There are likely many more than go completely unreported, even to law enforcement.

    In communications I have had with him following the incident, the store owner told me that "this could have went bad from the beginning. I had a loaded shotgun and a .45 with easy access in the office where he came out of. It was like this guy wanted to die."

    He also observed his belief that "everything happens for a reason" and has expressed to me his hope that this incident can serve as a training tool. I have no doubt that it will.

    The store owner notes that there is one important lesson that CHL-holders can immediately take away from this incident.

    "This has opened my eyes to how bad the 911 system is when calling from a cell phone," he told me. "If there is a next time I have programed my phone to speed dial the sheriff's department directly."

    Another observation that can be made is that conversing with the 911 operator was clearly a frustration this store owner didn't need. As can be seen in the security video, the store owner was able to maintain control over the intruder prior to his being peppered with questions by the 911 operator.

    "I was screaming at him so loud before the 911 call that I lost my voice for 3 days." But when the store owner began calmly talking to the 911 operator, it seemed to encourage the criminal to want to talk and debate with him.

    In my concealed carry classes I teach my students that we never want to discuss or debate with the criminal - only give orders for him to follow. I would never presume to second-guess a person in this situation after the fact, but this incident has convinced me that if ever put in this situation I will at least consider the option of giving the 911 operator the information they need to find my location and then putting the phone down (but keeping the line open!) so that I can concentrate on the criminal.

    A third lesson that this incident presents is the need for passage of Ohio's Castle Doctrine legislation, which was passed by unanimous consent by the Ohio Senate earlier this month, and is currently awaiting more committee attention in the Ohio House.

    "Through the whole timeframe of holding him at gunpoint," the store owner recalled to me, "I was thinking if I pull the trigger I'm the one that will be going before the grand jury and I'm the one that will be spending thousands of dollars defending myself."

    The store owner did a lot right, given the situation. He tried to keep distance. He ordered the person to the ground away from him. When the intruder fled, he let him go and gave a good description and direction to the dispatcher. I only hope I get half of what he did right if I am in a situation such as he was.

    If ever there were an example of how responsible CHL-holders are trained to be, even in the midst of such a charged situation, this is it.

    And if ever there were an example of why it is irresponsible to advise people to gamble their very lives on calling 911, this is it.

    Chad D. Baus is the Buckeye Firearms Association Vice Chairman and Northwest Ohio Chair, and teaches the Ohio Concealed Carry class through Northwest Self Defense LLC.

    Click here to access the list of Ohio CHL-holders acting in self-defense in the Buckeyefirearms.org Education Guide.
    Raw Video:[*]Camera 1[*]Camera 2 Raw Audio:[*]911 Call




  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Excellent article. Thanks for posting!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Carson City, Nevada, USA
    Posts
    344

    Post imported post

    911 is almost worthless at times. I've dialed 911 in So. Lake Tahoe and wound up talking to Sacramento CHP dispatch, who then transferred me very quickly to Truckee, CHP dispatch----which is an hour away on the other side of the lake! In turn, they have to call So. Lake P.D. There is no direct 'emergency' line, and the 'business/non-emergency' is only available until 5 p.m.

    I haven't tried 911 here in Carson City, but I'm betting it would be no better. The locals are so short handed that the response time is too long to be any use.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    4

    Post imported post

    There seems to be a big problem with 911 and cell phones....the 911 technology just hasn't kept up. It's a problem when dispatchers have to relay information from one agency to another.

    Maybe somebody could enlighten me on this subject, but why is it that sometimes the dispatcher you get on the other end is basically useless, and just ends up calling another dispatcher for you? Shouldn't any 911 dispatcher in the country be able to dispatch services anywhere?

    The dispatcher in this case almost seems to blame the caller for not calling the "right" agency, but his response of "I called 911" is totally legitimate. We've been drilled to call 911 in the case of an emergency, but it seems that isn't always the best number to call. What will it take to make it so that it is the best number to call?

    Furthermore, I know my cell phone has a feature that is supposed to allow 911 dispatches to access my location....but this doesn't seem to be the case.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    Why did the call taker even ask about his having a permit for the weapon? Why was this more important than a description of the person or other details? :shock:

    But overall.... good story.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    comp^2 wrote:
    There seems to be a big problem with 911 and cell phones....the 911 technology just hasn't kept up. It's a problem when dispatchers have to relay information from one agency to another.

    Maybe somebody could enlighten me on this subject, but why is it that sometimes the dispatcher you get on the other end is basically useless, and just ends up calling another dispatcher for you? Shouldn't any 911 dispatcher in the country be able to dispatch services anywhere?

    The dispatcher in this case almost seems to blame the caller for not calling the "right" agency, but his response of "I called 911" is totally legitimate. We've been drilled to call 911 in the case of an emergency, but it seems that isn't always the best number to call. What will it take to make it so that it is the best number to call?

    Furthermore, I know my cell phone has a feature that is supposed to allow 911 dispatches to access my location....but this doesn't seem to be the case.
    Well, 911 might not be able to locate you with your phone's GPS, but take comfort that Big Brother can use it to find you.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    comp^2 wrote:
    There seems to be a big problem with 911 and cell phones....the 911 technology just hasn't kept up. It's a problem when dispatchers have to relay information from one agency to another.

    Maybe somebody could enlighten me on this subject, but why is it that sometimes the dispatcher you get on the other end is basically useless, and just ends up calling another dispatcher for you? Shouldn't any 911 dispatcher in the country be able to dispatch services anywhere?

    The dispatcher in this case almost seems to blame the caller for not calling the "right" agency, but his response of "I called 911" is totally legitimate. We've been drilled to call 911 in the case of an emergency, but it seems that isn't always the best number to call. What will it take to make it so that it is the best number to call?

    Furthermore, I know my cell phone has a feature that is supposed to allow 911 dispatches to access my location....but this doesn't seem to be the case.
    Well, 911 might not be able to locate you with your phone's GPS, but take comfort that Big Brother can use it to find you.
    Sad but true.:X

    TJ

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Well, 911 might not be able to locate you with your phone's GPS, but take comfort that Big Brother can use it to find you.
    The Government use of GPS is going to be no different than the 911 center. The GPS data is no different. It is a series of numbers that tell someone your general location.

    I am not sure how big brother will do any better with the same data.

  9. #9
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post

    I think Public Enemy said it best, "911 is a joke".

    This isn't bashing just my opinion.
    Make that call for a after actions report.
    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Great Lakes, , USA
    Posts
    167

    Post imported post

    The incompetance of the 911 operator in this case is quite apparent.
    -Bad attitude towards the victim
    -The wrong/irrelavent questions
    -Should have called appropriate agency immediately upon understanding address and patched the officer in to the victim as it was a B&E IN PROGRESS.

    This 911 operator should be fired outright or removed from duty and retrained until she gets it right. Peoples lives are at stake. Both the caller/victim and the responders, be it police or fire. Just one of those jobs that has to be done right the first time, because there may not be a second time.

    Inexcuseable. This business owner should file a complaint with the appropriate agency in hopes of getting something positive done to avoid this in the future.

    I have called 911 before and gotten mixed results. Some operators know their stuff and get the important info right up front. I've even been patched into the responding officer. In that case it was quite beneficial as he was able to hear my comments first hand and respond appropriately upon arrival. Slick.

    It also pays to know what the average response time is where your home and business is. If you are in a rural or lightly populated area, response could be upwards of 20min or even more. It pays to be able to take care of yourself.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    275

    Post imported post

    Wouldn't he have been justified in shooting him on sight? He was on his property, and obviously not afraid of the owner. This is why we have such high crimes these days. Robbers aren't afraid of anything anymore. If people would start defending their property, and not just their health, maybe there would be less crime. (I'm not saying the owner did anything wrong in this situation, I'm just saying I can live with one less criminal in the world, as long as it's justified.)

    EDIT: Didn't read the part about Ohio not having the Castle Doctrine yet. My bad.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    7,607

    Post imported post

    WhiteRabbit22 wrote:
    Wouldn't he have been justified in shooting him on sight? He was on his property, and obviously not afraid of the owner. This is why we have such high crimes these days. Robbers aren't afraid of anything anymore. If people would start defending their property, and not just their health, maybe there would be less crime. (I'm not saying the owner did anything wrong in this situation, I'm just saying I can live with one less criminal in the world, as long as it's justified.)

    EDIT: Didn't read the part about Ohio not having the Castle Doctrine yet. My bad.
    Depends on the state I guess.

    Most often the guy needs to be a clear and present danger.

    To me.... a gun running towards a gun is clearly a danger as he is not scared and if he getsthegun.... he could kill you with your own gun if he gets it. You can try to run but when you cannot run any more or hit a dead end... you have to decide what you want to do to stay alive.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    , Georgia, USA
    Posts
    25

    Post imported post

    Reminds me of an old joke.

    George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his
    wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she
    could see from the bedroom window.

    George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there
    were people in the shed stealing things. He phoned the police, who
    asked "Is someone in your house?" and he said "no". Then they said that
    all patrols were busy, and that he should simply lock his door and an
    officer would be along when available.

    George said, "Okay," hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police
    again. "Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were
    people stealing things from my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about
    them now because I just shot them." Then he hung up.

    Within five minutes six police cars, a SWAT Team, a helicopter, two
    fire trucks, a paramedic and an ambulance showed up at the Phillips'
    residence and caught the burglars red-handed .

    One of the Policemen said to George: "I thought you said that you'd shot
    them!" George said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"



    :celebrate


  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,422

    Post imported post

    *

  15. #15
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Great joke, Boomer!

    Great story, Pointman!
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    WhiteRabbit22 wrote:
    Wouldn't he have been justified in shooting him on sight? He was on his property, and obviously not afraid of the owner. This is why we have such high crimes these days. Robbers aren't afraid of anything anymore. If people would start defending their property, and not just their health, maybe there would be less crime. (I'm not saying the owner did anything wrong in this situation, I'm just saying I can live with one less criminal in the world, as long as it's justified.)

    EDIT: Didn't read the part about Ohio not having the Castle Doctrine yet. My bad.
    Well... in a recent thread, a member made the calculations that pretty much the entire country, excepting the cities, has a lower crime rate than 100 years ago. Therefore, the most efficient way to cut down on crime would be to kill every person living in every city in the country. That would leave the already low-crime rural areas, which are also agriculturally-oriented, so there would be an abundance of food and other resources, eliminating the poverty that drives so many people to crime. Also, as rural culture tends to be less materialistic, the greed factor of crime would be diminished as well, rendering crime practically non-existant.

    Elect imperialism2024! Tough on crime!



  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Elect imperialism2024! Tough on crime!

    you got my vote!



    On a more serious note, had I been the guy on the other end of the phone, I would have simply thrown the phone down. I ould have felt that I relayed enough information to the 911 center for them to make an accurate assessment of the situation ( someone is in my store) and I would have then went about securing the individual. whenever I chack my home ( any time my dogs bark in the middle of the night) I have my 9mm and a can of mace ready. I also have a miniature baseball bat. If I can get the guy on the ground, I will have my wife take the other gun and train it on him while I secure him, then I'll re-call 911. If I don'thave time for all ofthat, I'll just do what I have to and then inform 911 of their gross incompetence later.



    short answer, 911 is secondary in my house, protecting my family and mysel;f are primary.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    WhiteRabbit22 wrote:
    Wouldn't he have been justified in shooting him on sight? He was on his property, and obviously not afraid of the owner. This is why we have such high crimes these days. Robbers aren't afraid of anything anymore. If people would start defending their property, and not just their health, maybe there would be less crime. (I'm not saying the owner did anything wrong in this situation, I'm just saying I can live with one less criminal in the world, as long as it's justified.)

    EDIT: Didn't read the part about Ohio not having the Castle Doctrine yet. My bad.
    Well... in a recent thread, a member made the calculations that pretty much the entire country, excepting the cities, has a lower crime rate than 100 years ago. Therefore, the most efficient way to cut down on crime would be to kill every person living in every city in the country. That would leave the already low-crime rural areas, which are also agriculturally-oriented, so there would be an abundance of food and other resources, eliminating the poverty that drives so many people to crime. Also, as rural culture tends to be less materialistic, the greed factor of crime would be diminished as well, rendering crime practically non-existant.

    Elect imperialism2024! Tough on crime!

    Again I'm just "a member" after posting something memorable that took a lot of work

    If you get elected now you owe me a cabinet position!!


    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  19. #19
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    From the other thread in hte PA forum:

    deepdiver wrote:
    From available DOJ stats, nearly 30% of all homicides (all causes) in 2005 were committed in:

    Birmingham, Phoenix, LA County, LA City, Chicago, Indianapolis, NOLA, Baltimore, Prince George County MD, Detroit, Kansas City MO, St Louis MO, Las Vega, NYC, Cleveland, Columbus, Philadelphia, Memphis, Dallas, Houston and Milwaukee (chosen because of the available data they were all the ones with 100+ murders in 2005)

    These cities and counties only contain about 8.5% of our population. If a few other large urban areas were available, I would bet that the differentials would be even greater.

    That means, excluding those areas, the rest of the country has a murder rate of about 4.4 /100,000 (calculated) whereas with those areas the murder rate is 5.8/100,000 (DOJ) for 2005, the lowest since 1966. But without those few areas, without that 8.5% of the population, the murder rate is as low as it was last in 1909. In other words, 91.5% of our population has a murder rate not seen nationally for 100 years. Just 10 years ago, the gap was even larger.

    Wisconsin as an example:
    Milwaukee contains about 11% of all of Wisconsin's population
    In 2005 over 62% of all murders in WI occurred in Milwaukee.

    IL example:
    Chicago contains about 22.5% of all Illinois' population.
    In 2005 over 58% of all murders in IL occurred in Chicago.

    And, since this is the PA state forum:
    Philadelphia contains about 12% of all PA's population.
    In 2005 nearly 50% of all murders in PA occurred in Philadelphia

    How does this apply to this thread? Well, the fact is that a very small percentage of our population can't all live together in a crowded area and those population centers attempt to punish the other 90% of us who generally get along pretty well by restricting our rights over their failures to govern, police and function.

    ETA: In various sources the homicide rates reported can vary quite a bit. My data was culled from the DOJ data. Wikipedia, UN and other sources have different numbers. A wiki article on the subject quotes DOJ crime stats as the source but differs by .4 from the DOJ site.
    EDIT: DOH - apparently I can't spell Philadelphia
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    Ah, thanks DD.

    I'll put you in the position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

  21. #21
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Ah, thanks DD.

    I'll put you in the position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    Actually, given my background in real estate and real estate closings, and being familiar with how utterly retarded many of the HUD regulations and forms are, and knowning that HUD is much more pernicious that most people realize and effects much more of people's lives everywhere in this nation than most people realize, I could do that and fix a lot of problems.

    On the other hand, IF you were president that is an empty offer because I know that you would wisely eliminate HUD and several other cabinet offices. Good try
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    imperialism2024 wrote:
    Ah, thanks DD.

    I'll put you in the position of Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
    Actually, given my background in real estate and real estate closings, and being familiar with how utterly retarded many of the HUD regulations and forms are, and knowning that HUD is much more pernicious that most people realize and effects much more of people's lives everywhere in this nation than most people realize, I could do that and fix a lot of problems.

    On the other hand, IF you were president that is an empty offer because I know that you would wisely eliminate HUD and several other cabinet offices. Good try
    Nice catch. Though there really wouldn't be too many cabinet offices available, as I would be doing quite a bit of job slashing. (Don't tell the Federal employee voters that...)

    Maybe I could put you in the Secretary of Selling Federal Land to Pay Off Debt position... though that wouldn't be long-lived either, depending on how efficient you are :P

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Tennessee, ,
    Posts
    695

    Post imported post

    personally, I would say that a position in some sort of beauracracy auditing would be preferable...

    theres a whole lot of Federal alphabet soup that should be eliminated....

  24. #24
    Campaign Veteran deepdiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Southeast, Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,974

    Post imported post

    Why not just eliminate 7-8 current cabinet level departments (HUD, HHS, Education, DHS, Transportation, labor, commerce and agriculture) and create a new department to further trim the federal departments that I'll head up - say we call it the "Department of Redunancy Elimination Department"
    Bob Owens @ Bearing Arms (paraphrased): "These people aren't against violence; they're very much in favor of violence. They're against armed resistance."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Catasauqua, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    3,047

    Post imported post

    deepdiver wrote:
    Why not just eliminate 7-8 current cabinet level departments (HUD, HHS, Education, DHS, Transportation, labor, commerce and agriculture) and create a new department to further trim the federal departments that I'll head up - say we call it the "Department of Redunancy Elimination Department"
    There ya go

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •