When the truth comes out, you will be surprised. I am already getting the inside scuttlebutt and it is not good. I see lawsuits against the county imminent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Printable View
When the truth comes out, you will be surprised. I am already getting the inside scuttlebutt and it is not good. I see lawsuits against the county imminent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hopyard
Yep, the truth will come out... Freedom of Information Act requests are being made to the County and the Sheriff's Dept. Apparently the Pima County Sheriff had quite a little file on The Shooter. So far, it seems The Sheriff is fighting the release of those documents despite AZ state law which allows those documents to be released as public record.
Again, I have no dog in this fight. As far as I'm concerned The Shooter has full responsibility for his actions. But, we're going to find out what's what with this Sheriff. He's going to have a media colonoscopy and as far as I'm concerned, he brought this on himself. I believe his attempts to clearly blame right wing talk radio for this poor lads mental derangement leads one to believe he knows a lot more about this shooter then he wants people to know.
Yesterday, a close personal friend of the shooter was on two news programs and clearly stated the shooter was not a political person. He did not even like the news, and did not listen to talk radio. Who knows whether or not that is true... but the Sheriff, today is still blaming right wing talk radio angry rhetoric. And yet he admits he has no evidence of this. So, you tell me if that's political or not. You tell me if the Sheriff doesn't have an agenda.
I think when it's all said and done there will be a lot of, "would've, could've, should've".
Biker
Quote:
Originally Posted by canav844
Quote:
Originally Posted by MattInFla
^^^^^^^^^^If deemed accurate^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Then I think that is a clearcut indication where the good sheriff stands on Gun control, and brings him under suspicion as to whether he may have an agenda.
Question:
I've not seen it as yet; Does anyone know why the congresswoman had no security detail at this event?
Why were the local police or for that matter Safeway too not having a detail in lace to provide just basic crowd control and management never mind executive/VIP protection toward the Congresswoman and her staff.
From what I can tell there were only her and her unarmed college aged intern aides at what was a reasonable to expect large turnout public space event.
Where were the police and why did they even have to be called at all (911) to respond as rather than being there in the first place?
- Janq
He absolutely had a mental disorder. To really understand what makes him tick you need to read the book by Michael Savage titled....Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/...SH20_OU01_.jpg
Janq, and others:
No security detail, and from what I have heard this was a "spur of the moment" event that was announced on Twitter just the night before.
Biker
Janq, Excellent question! It's my understanding, it's up to individual congress people to request protection from the U.S. Marshall's service when they wish to have protection. For the upper high profile congress people, I think they also hire their own security details.
I don't know why this congresswoman did not have any type of security whether she would have requested it or not. My guess is that she felt pretty safe on home turf where she is relatively liked by most.
But as all of us here are well aware of the "Anywhere, Anytime" factor, it does raise the question.
QKShooter, you are referring to The Sheriff, of course, right? :rofl:
I too thought they would, but apparently they all don't, necessarily. I hope they could request it (not at their own expense) if they wanted to. After this, they probably all will. I wish it could be that our politicians could walk around among us as one of us (because that's what they're supposed to be!) but I guess not.
My mother, an RN, told me a few months ago that Lawton Chiles (governor a few terms back here in FL) used to come to the hospital to visit a relative by himself in just a plaid shirt and some blue jeans. No security detail at all... the governor.
The Sheriff was unprofessional at best, and it got worse from there. Even surrounding Sheriff's called his statements out of line, and "unprofessional in that type of situation".
On the worse side, his failure to act in the past cost 6 lives and 14 others to be in the hospital and have an impact not only on the families, but the community and country ...... due to one idiotic nut job.
As the saying goes, don't open the can... if you are not ready for the smell you may find coming out of it. I think this one is going to go south and bad for the Sheriff ... just based upon the Natl News and info I've heard.
the Sheriff's politics have nothing to do with whether or not he performed his duty.
I disagree. The political persuasion of the sheriff had nothing to do with this. His lack of professional ethics and a disregard for the law resulted in his unwillingness to apply the law. I have seen a good many LEOs personally disagree with a law and still enforce it. Its called ethics, this sheriff appears to lack it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubbiesdad
If this guy had made multiple (as in dozens) of death threats against persons in the past then LE IS culpable. If this article is true then there CLEARLY was a reason to put this guy behind bars BEFORE he went on a shooting spree. If making death/terroristic threats is a crime then this guy should have been off the streets!Quote:
Originally Posted by Blair
Bark'n and Biker,
Thank you for the responses...I'd had no clue toward the items you add.
If this was announced by Twitter (or anything for that matter) she and her handlers still had to have planned this prior...And with that it seems to me to be a no brainer to request security just for the sake of crowd control alone.
The announcement itself might have been short notice but considering everybody by all reports says she was a smart cookie, I just can't believe that she looked up from a book at say 6P and thought lets do a town forum and then hit Twitter at 6:45P.
I mean she had to locate a venue and get permission to be there, with a crowd. That alone is a clue...For her, Safeway and local law enforcement too.
Also everybody knows that no matter how likable a politician might be there are still always that person who HATES said person, even as they might even be the Son of God himself.
Never mind cuckoos and whack-a-doodles who do things such as shoot Presidents to impress a teen Hollywood actress (!).
Now I'm not putting blame on the victim nor the victims staff. Don't get me wrong.
What I am saying though that aside from general Joe Taxpayer being mindful of 'Anytime, Anyplace'...She is not such a person but rather is a real VIP ('Very Important Person') being a legislator and state representative to Congress!! Hello...McFly?
I'm just stunned that nobody thought to do more than nothing at all for such a person toward such a specific type event (a political soap box talk!).
Would such a detail have been able to stop the shooting in specific of Giffords? Not without aid of some major happenstance luck.
How about her aid who was killed standing to her side? Nope for him too...Second round exits the barrel just as quick as the first.
But what about the other 28 rounds fired that hit 18 other people and killed five others in specific including the 9 yr. old girl there to see & hear what political discourse is like? I'd be willing to bet strongly on Yes.
Even as clearly he was standing among a crowd of people (background).
It is now well reported that he was just a few feet away from Giffords and the podium/stage area where she was speaking as with her aides to her side. So with that it's not like he was a hard to see and identify target shooting from within the crowd deeply.
Lots of folks blaming guns, high cap mags, Sarah Palin (?!), political imagery and tone...But I hear no questioning toward the obvious; Why was there no security detail in the way of law enforcement (even just one police officer) being actually on site actual.
- Janq
I've been at public rallies and smaller meetings with my Congress Critter and there never was any security. The first time was a public meeting with the Congressman Phil Gram; later Republican Senator Graham of Graham Rudman fame. He'd attempted to do us a favor which I attempted to return by attending his rally. There were about 30 or 40 people outside the county courthouse but no security.Quote:
Originally Posted by Janq
I much more recently attended a rally for our Congressman who was just defeated. It was a little more private because there was a 250 buck minimum donation I think, but no security at all.
I don't think the absence of security is at all unusual; probably that will now change dramatically.
Janq, there is no doubt that at the very least, the Tucson P.D. and the Pima County Sheriff were notified she was going to be there. And I agree, no security was a grievous act of omission on someones part. And if the Tucson P.D. and the Pima County Sheriff, were not even notified she was going to be on site, then again, another grievous act of omission.
What is really going to suck, is if within the Pima County's dossier they apparently have on "The Shooter", I would think if any comment for his dislike for the Congresswoman is within there, then the Sheriff has a lot of explaining to do.