Difdi
Regular Member
Individual with a gun - no shots fired, no known threat = lock down the campus :banghead:
I wonder, given their reaction to 2nd amendment rights, do they also lock down the campus if they see someone with a newspaper?
Individual with a gun - no shots fired, no known threat = lock down the campus :banghead:
You answered your own question.
And that really is the answer: they think they have to treat every minor incident as a full blown terrorist attack. They might call it "training", or testing their systems, or just as excuse for some possible overtime, but they're not going to pass up an opportunity.
who possess infinite technology, weaponry, and capability.
I am sure that they violate state law just like LWIT in Kirkland does and attempts to disarm students and punish those who are armed.
It achieves several objectives, none of them necessary or in any way beneficial to us, the citizenry.
1. Overtime is great.
2. Putting on the battle rattle is super cool. If they're lucky, it will even be "better than sex".
3. It reinforces the mythos portrayed in every TV show involving police, namely that there are existential threats around us at all times, which are held at bay only through the efforts of a standing army of heroic soldier-police, who possess infinite technology, weaponry, and capability.
Point # 3 is an absurd representation of TV cop shows. Most shows I watch portray cops as human beings, with all the flaws, shortcomings, doubts, and variety (some good guys, some bad) that goes along with that.
.
Point # 3 is an absurd representation of TV cop shows. Most shows I watch portray cops as human beings, with all the flaws, shortcomings, doubts, and variety (some good guys, some bad) that goes along with that.
Whether you are talking Law and Order, Hill Street Blues, Barney Miller, etc. NONE of those shows or the more current shows portray cops as possessing infinite weaponry, capability, and technology.
For example, I was watching one cop show recently (flipping through the channels) and it was LAPD show iirc and the cop was attending a narcotics anonymous type meeting to help him overcome his addiction to prescription opiates.
So they didn't fire the cop for being a drug addict? Why? Oh because of the mythos he is so badly needed because of the constant existential threats?
So they didn't fire the cop for being a drug addict? Why? Oh because of the mythos he is so badly needed because of the constant existential threats?
I wonder if he (the fictional TV cop) was caught by a drug dog being led around the outside of his house, leading to a false alert, numerous badgering questions, and the house and its occupants seized under exigency "to prevent evidence being destroyed", while a warrant was obtained.
Or, a Long search of his car that found a single prescription pill his kid dropped.
I also wonder whether they showed him sitting in a cell on the possession conviction. Wait? There wasn't a possession conviction?
There is no violation of state law in a PRIVATE educational institution (or any other private business) to prohibit firearms carry on their property.
I only saw part of the episode, but how can you get a possession conviction based on drugs you are legally prescribed?
I get it. I've seen it in post after post. You've got a big chip on your shoulder and a reflexive need to turn every post and every thread into a venue for you to express your amazing insights into the character of LEO's.
My original point stands and the OP made an absurd counterfactual statement about cops being betrayed in the media in a way they simply are not. In show after show, they are shown as flawed human beings, generally well meaning, good hearted people doing a tough job, doing it reasonably well, sometimes heroically, sometimes abysmally, etc. That's the reality of how media portrays cops. You've got a full spectrum of course, from Bad Lieutenant and on.
SNIP ...your amazing insights into the character of LEO's.
Why would they fire him for being an addict? That makes no sense. He got addicted to prescribed medications and recognized his addiction and did something about it.
I only saw part of the episode, but how can you get a possession conviction based on drugs you are legally prescribed?
I get it. I've seen it in post after post. You've got a big chip on your shoulder and a reflexive need to turn every post and every thread into a venue for you to express your amazing insights into the character of LEO's.
My original point stands and the OP made an absurd counterfactual statement about cops being betrayed in the media in a way they simply are not. In show after show, they are shown as flawed human beings, generally well meaning, good hearted people doing a tough job, doing it reasonably well, sometimes heroically, sometimes abysmally, etc. That's the reality of how media portrays cops. You've got a full spectrum of course, from Bad Lieutenant and on.
LOL....the mere fact you have to ask why....is hilarious.
More people die per year by prescription drugs than ones the state deem contraband.
any many more people use prescription drugs then illegal drugs, and deaths from prescriptions are either
A) not applying the directions
or
B) suicide
or
C) illegal use of drugs they don't have a current prescription for...