I think the hockey puck choice is stupid, arming students and teaching them to fight back (when cornered) rather than being a victim is a step in the right direction. But there are better things you could throw, like rocks or food cans for example. It’s almost like they don’t want the mass murderer to actually get hurt.
Also, these aren’t children, they’re legally adults. Some of them are actually adults and may have served or currybe serving in the military and may have concealed carry permits. But they’re likely not allowed to carry on this campus.
Furthermore, have they done anything else tangible to make the campus safer?
Sigh. No number can be enough. Of course the article mentions that any number less than even more gigantic is not supporting the troops.
Are troops getting significantly higher wages from these payments? Is mental health when they return improved? Are the troops really profiting from all this at the rate Lockheed Martin is?
The fuck does this mean? What’s vastly more “at stake” now than 3 years ago? Who determines it and when will “too much” not be at stake?
Pucks just wouldn’t do much. I was a goalie for a long time, took an unreal amount of pucks in gaps in padding. Slap shots and some wrist shots could stun you for a second, but a thrown puck would be nothing, especially with the odds it would be awkward/inaccurate/weak. Why the hell not just baseballs?
This thread cracks me up a little bit. Because I definitely fit the “stupid”.
When I go out, it’s mostly to restaurants. For years now, I’ve imagined (“imagery training” for the win) flinging drinkware (teacups mostly lol) at anyone who walks through the door with a weapon.
Back in the day (karate man I was), I faced down some street dude who kept following me and cursing because I had dared to look into his eyes, apparently. When I finally stopped to face him, dude had a hand in his jacket pocket and was mumbling about knife/gun/blah blah. I had an umbrella in my hand, and I zoned in onto his hand, imagining that I would try to kick it away, and then whack him on the head with my umbrella as hard as I fuckin’ could. It was one of those everything around you fades away moments; suddenly, dude is still talking knife/gun/blah blah but starts backing up and then turns and walks, quickly, away.
The stupid part is, I decided that the best way to attack a guy with a gun is to go towards him, so I started practicing forward rolls, coming up, and attacking. I practiced it, I did. Not anymore lol, too old, might break a neck doing a forward roll…
At my age, I probably need to be carrying. But it would be stupid, because if people in real life acted like some do here on the interwebz, I’d probably lose my temper and shoot 'em. Then my Mom would be sad.
This is a news story just breaking, more details I suppose will come out fairly soon. Sorry to Batman and Idaho, but it sounds like this story belongs in this thread:
How two officers that are supposed to have guns to protect the public and one shoots the other out of a fight, I don’t understand and find a little unsettling.
There aren’t any details surrounding the altercation in the article, so you can’t understand much of anything at this point. If we assume the shooting was totally unjustified then what conclusions should we draw?
If you take a population of 69,000 individuals (LEO’s in Canada), how many would you expect to exhibit perfect judgement at all times under all conditions? How many would you expect to have or develop mental health problems that the screening processes do not weed out?
Is there something you think should be done differently?
it is still early in the SIU process of revealing to the public details, and I realize some people get into arguments at work.
I have worked places where I had to read and sign all kinds of anti harassment and anti violence paperwork as a due part of the hiring process. It is just that if guns are being carried around all the time the utmost concern should be for rational usage. The other officer is not likely one would think to initiate a life or death decision on the part of the shooting officer.
Of course people argue at work, just like some people get violent at work. When I was a 21 year-old shift supervisor I had a middle-aged employee challenge me to a fight on the clock. Later that year a truck driver got stabbed by a woman in my lot. Not all workplace arguments are the same. Sometimes you argue about a powerpoint slide, sometimes you argue because the plant manager tried to fuck your wife at the holiday party.
Do you think this is not the case for police or is there a specific policy/operating procedure you think should be changed?
Is anyone making a case against this?
One would think, but there are no details surrounding the altercation besides one cop shooting another in front of witnesses.
I do realize it is early, but are there not job interview questions along the lines of, ‘what do you do when you feel like losing the plot?’ I will still believe that the job does require one to go into violence mode with some natural inclination, but going off on another officer like that has me wondering if nothing mitigating will develop out of this story.
As to other workplace violence, an uncle on my Dad’s side lost his job I think twice for altercations at work, and his wife supported him and the family for a few years, i think he was himself on welfare for a while. He even was a gun owner, long guns he sport shot with the requisite locked case and that sort of thing.
I’ve gotten hit by a few playing street hockey as a kid that left big bloody bruises. You’d hear that ball sizzling through the air then an explosion of pain!
Niagara Regional is known to have problem children, and this guy is a shining example of that. I’ve heard through the grape vine that while surprised, many thought it was just a matter of time before something like this happened with this individual.
With it being in Michigan there’s a chance… barrage of slap shots, then half the kids javelin throw the sticks, other half charge tomahawking the sticks.