Mass Shootings

Broward Co. Sheriff Israel: ‘Not My Responsibility’ That His Employee Failed to Confront Parkland Shooter

"I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training. If he didn't have the heart to go in, that's not my responsibility."

|

Apart from Nikolas Cruz, charged with killed 17 people, the second villain of the mass shooting in Parkland, Florida, is shaping up as Broward County Sheriff Scott Israel.

At CNN's "town hall" last week, Israel attacked defenders of the Second Amendment and said he and law enforcement "need more power." Since then, it's come to light that his department's armed "school resource officer," who was on the scene, failed to engage the shooter. So did three other sheriff's deputies. When charged with corruption during a 2016 re-election campaign, Israel compared himself to Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, and former Miami Dolphins coach Don Shula—and declared, "Lions don't care about the opinions of sheep."

Now there's this stunning denial of responsibility, in which Israel explains to a local news reporter why he is refusing to resign: "I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training. If he didn't have the heart to go in, that's not my responsibility."

Confidence in police is below its 2004 peak, even if it's rebounded from a post-Ferguson low in 2014. There are many reasons for that, including a seemingly endless stream of cases in which police shoot unarmed suspects and face few if any legal consequences. Add to that now a high-profile cop categorically declaring that his ass is covered merely by giving the requisite training to his staff, rather than overseeing a properly functioning department.

The Parkland shooting is quickly moving from a story about the need for more restrictions on weapons and owners to one about how officials failed to execute their duties. Israel's craven responses will only feed that narrative, which might at least have the salutary effect of raising public consciousness and holding police accountable.

Watch the clip here:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

181 responses to “Broward Co. Sheriff Israel: ‘Not My Responsibility’ That His Employee Failed to Confront Parkland Shooter

  1. He is not totally off base here. He wasn’t personally there and is not responsible for every screw up. He is, however, responsible for how the officers are trained and what they are told to do in such a situation. So, why did these guys not go in? Was it pure cowardice or were they following orders or not trained properly? If it is the latter, then Isreal is 100% responsible.

    1. True, he is not responsible for every screw up. But he has the responsibility to hire people that will carry out their duties. Four officers didn’t do their jobs. He either doesn’t train his officers or his hiring practices make him unfit for the job.

      1. I agree. He has a lot of responsibility here. But that responsibility comes from whatever failures in training and hiring contributed to this.

        1. I would say he’s 100% more responsible than the NRA, who he was trying to portray as responsible at the Town Hall.

          Where he, no doubt, knew what his officers did. He didn’t, of course, mention it.

          1. Exactly this. He blames the NRA and refuses to accept any blame himself. Incompetent AND terrible at logic.

          2. The media is avoiding that point you made that he already knew all the details about the SRO running away and the first responding LEOs were to chickenshit to stop the shooter or even setup a perimeter to catch the shooter as he walked away from the school.

        2. Would the sheriff be limiting his responsibility if his deputies had executed a perfect tactical entry and suppression of the threat? I doubt it.

          1. I doubt it as well.

    2. if Peterson had gone in and got the killer, Sheriff Israel would be saying, “I didn’t do anything. It was the SRO who was the hero.” Right?

      He wasn’t personally there and is not responsible for every screw up.
      None of the CLEOs around these parts would dare cop out like that, even for one screw-up. If four of their officers failed that spectacularly they’d be gone.

    3. Agree totally!

  2. He then responded, “Talk to the hand, because the face don’t understand.”

    1. This is guy is a petty little twerp.

      1. A not uncommon trait among FL sheriffs.

        1. Well he is a New York Jew who moved to FL to show those hayseeds how it’s done.

  3. I hope this gun ban is as successful as the drug ban and the people ban from crossing the border.

  4. Peterson was scared to go in because he had bullied the kid for years and was terrified of him. In fact this was a culture of bullying and even though it seems like they are scapegoating Peterson, they will actually rally around him because they were all complicit. Just you wait.

      1. Sounds like we need more bullying legislation from DC. Thank god for Michelle Obama and all of her tweets.

        1. Michelle’s book will explain all.

          Guaranteed bestseller….among lefties.

          1. You should stop using the word “lefties” anywhere in your post, except right at the end. So no matter what you write, put “… among lefties” at the end.

            “McDonald’s breakfast is the best thing they have… among lefties.”

            “This shirt doesn’t fit quite right… among lefties.”

            “My dick is too big to fit in your virgin asshole… among lefties.”

            Just go nuts.

            1. I think this is a great suggestion.

            2. You don’t mentally add that to all of lc’s comments already?

            3. Also fried chicken.

            4. If the left side of your brain controls your right side and the right side of your brain controls the left side, then the right mindset for masturbation is only present….among lefties.

            5. Funny, it only affects certain people.

              Its also interesting that you never can provide that good retort to what I say.

              Keep up the good work.

              1. That wasn’t even a retort. That was an honest suggestion that sounds funny to me. Thought you’d be down what with your ever present hatred of lefties.

              2. To be fair, your idea of “good retort” doesn’t extend past that old elementary school classic, I’m Rubber You’re Glue.

                1. You would know all about not using rubbers but glue instead.

            6. Is this the libertarian version of adding ‘in bed’ to the end of religious song titles?

              1. No, this is the libertarian version of pulling the last slice of cake out of the fridge at two A.M. after a bout with insomnia and finishing it off and not really enjoying it because you just know this is going to put more pounds on you than you think it really should and then sobbing yourself to sleep as you rub your fat fat fat tummy and worry that nobody could ever truly love you because of how ugly and fat and gross you are.

                Among lefties.

                1. No, this is more like the anarchy version of Libertarianism. After years of not getting anywhere with anarchy, you use great retorts on certain websites and with the subtlety of a Benjamin Tucker, ply your trade with what you consider jokes. Years later you grow tiresome of Libertarians gaining ground against the forces that be. You realize how many years have been wasted and how fat and gross you have become.

                  Among Nanarchists.

                  1. Nanarchists? Like, people who are for a really really tiny government?

                    1. Government run by old Mexican ladies.

  5. It is worse than just not going in. They didn’t let the EMTs into the building to save people

    http://www.theblaze.com/news/2…..sponse-was

    “Everything I was trained on mass casualty events says they did the wrong thing,” he explained. “You don’t wait for the scene to be cleared. You go in immediately armed. Retrieve the victims. You can’t leave the victims laying there.”

    “We were asking to go in. Asking the scene commander to go in. Why are we all standing around? Why are we not having patients to treat? Why are we not going into the building and retrieving these kids? The response every time was law enforcement did not clear the scene and would not allow medical personnel to go in,” he added.

    The EMS worker believes that if he and other medical responders were allowed to enter the building as soon as they arrived, they could have saved more lives. He explained he was willing to risk his life to save the lives of others and was very frustrated over the situation.

    The EMS worker stressed that he believes law enforcement made the decision they thought was best at the time, but emphasized that he believes it was the wrong one.

    “They should have been more aggressive about getting the victims out,” he said.

    How many kids bled to death because of these cowardly assholes?

    1. If all of those officers are still employed, this is criminal.

      And they want to pull our guns away because the police will protect us. Except they will not. And gun control advocates need to be asked what to do in a case like this, where the authorities are too scared to do anything.

      1. See, this is why we need guns: to shoot the cop guarding the door, so we can go in & administer aid.

    2. How many kids bled to death because of these cowardly assholes?

      The men armed with back boards, compression tape, and medical shears want to run in and get people out of an active shooter zone and you, armed with a rifle and a handgun, are holding them back while the shooting goes on?

      I’m not a fan of forced gender conversion therapy, but after having your dick so compellingly handed to you in a metaphoric sense, might as well finish the job.

      1. What kind of a person could do that and then live with themselves? I know I know, the kind of person who becomes a cop. Seriously, I don’t think I would ever get over standing around and letting a bunch of innocent people get shot.

      2. What I understood was that at that point there wasn’t even any shooting going on. They must have just been waiting for the shooter to come out, kneel down, and crawl towards them.

    3. This makes me sick to my stomach.

    4. The EMS worker believes that if he and other medical responders were allowed to enter the building as soon as they arrived, they could have saved more lives. He explained he was willing to risk his life to save the lives of others and was very frustrated over the situation.

      Perhaps the point is to let the victims bleed out as tribute to the Anti-Gun God.

      Or more likely, their procedures suck. During the Las Vegas shooting, EMTs responded and acted quickly at the risk of their lives, damn the police.

  6. That idiot sheriff should just blame Hillary Clinton for letting those 17 students die. The Dotard would promote him to AG if he did.

    1. Hey dummy, you just shit yourself again?

    2. Is Dotard your pet name for Obama?

      You know he had to leave office, right?

    3. That’ll show those right wingnuts!

      Because Trump! Trump! Trump!

      Trump!

      Drumpf!

      Trump!

      All the time, no mattter what, right wingnuts fault!

      1. Palin’s Buttplug recently made a lazy post beneath his usual standards in which he copy-pasted a comment he had made the night before, and which wasn’t even applicable the second time he posted it. However, since then he’s been absolutely on fire DESTROYING Rethuglicans.

        Well done, Buttplug. Good to have you back.

        1. Butt does such a great job. Its no wonder why the FSB hired him.

    4. Excellent suggestion. It would at least get the Keebler Elf out of the position.

    5. You do realize you are echoing the language of one of the most evil and vicious rulers in the world today, right?

  7. I thought there was some sort of scandal brewing in that part of FL where the cops were letting juvenile crimes go unpunished in order cook up better numbers. Is that “fake news”?

    1. Stay tuned.

    2. Nothing…to…see…there.

      Its gun control or bust!

  8. The FBI dropped the ball, local police dropped the ball. The biggest culprit in this tragedy, apart from the shooter, is the government–any way you slice it.

    And taking this tack is much better than anguishing over the question of whether libertarian arguments against gun control are persuasive.

    https://reason.com/blog/2018/02…..20-podcast

    No, authoritarianism isn’t the solution to the problem of evil, and, yes, the government dropped the ball pretty much everywhere they possibly could. Those facts may invite libertarian arguments, but they’re also statements of fact.

    1. The police at every level failed to protect the public here. Somehow the left takes that to mean that everyone should give up the ability to defend themselves. I don’t think that that is going to get them very far.

      1. I’ve been arguing that part of the problem is that the FBI has transformed itself into an international anti-terrorism force, and it’s shifted their focus away from it’s supposed to be–protecting our rights from criminals and nut-jobs here at home.

        The FBI dropped the ball in two out of the last three mass shootings.

        They’ve been eviscerated on both sides of the aisle for making fools of themselves during the last election.

        It’s astounding that no one is calling for a top down reform of the FBI. They can’t seem to do anything right, and it’s the international terrorism distraction. They’re trying to chase down terrorists in Syria, even while their background check system is letting the Texas church shooter buy an arsenal and their head office is failing to forward tips on specific school shooting threats to their Miami field office.

        Maybe Trump is reluctant to go after the FBI for fear of being accused of interfering with the Mueller investigation. Maybe the press is reluctant to go after the FBI for fear of undermining the Mueller investigation. Regardless, there isn’t a division in the private sector that could perform as badly as the FBI has done over the past two years and escape total reorganization.

        1. The FBI isn’t very good at terrorism either. The problem is that the FBI doesn’t know what it is supposed to do besides getting itself into the newspapers. Why is the FBI investigating college basketball coaches? Why is it spending so much time going after child porn when other organizations like the postal service and ICE and state and locals are equipped to do so? The answer is, those things get it headlines and that is all the FBI cares about.

          I have a friend who spent five years as a US Attorney on the Texas border with Mexico. During the entire five years, the FBI came to him to make one case; it was against a guy who was smuggling counterfeit Beyonce CDs. All of the drugs and crime on the border and the only thing the FBI can be bothered with is Beyonce CDs.

          1. Have you been watching the Paramount Network’s miniseries “Waco”?

            It’s so freaking good, I can’t believe it’s on television.

            I assumed they’d make Rand Weaver, David Koresh, et. al. look like the most evil people imaginable.

            Instead, it makes the FBI (and the ATF) look like they’re out of control, unaccountable, and don’t know what they’re doing.

            Did you ever see the documentary, “The Man Who Knew” on Frontline, about the FBI agent who was raising red flags everywhere within the FBI about the threat on the World Trade Center–was effectively chased out of the FBI for making such a clamor–and then ended up dying on 9/11 as head of security for the WTC?

            The FBI has been dysfunctional for a long time. You’d think libertarians would be leading the charge for reform. Forget about auditing the Fed. Let’s audit the freaking FBI.

            1. I haven’t watched it. But I might have to. An FBI agent in Minnesota had the 20th hijacker. And no one paid any attention to him.

              1. It’s excellent.

                All available for free online.

                I thought it would be proggy as hell.

                It isn’t anything like that.

                It’s so libertarian I can’t believe it.

            2. “Let’s audit the freaking FBI.”

              You, sir, are obviously disturbed and a threat to good social order. Turn yoursel…err…your weapons in to the nearest LEO immediately.

            3. Audit? How about disband? The only federal agency that should be armed is the Marshals.

            4. Thanks for the report Ken. I saw that show and was hoping it was good.

              I know Netflix can be kind of lefty but they do let alternatives get their stuff turned into good shows.

              One good result from the government murdering religious people who only violated unconstitutional gun laws, is that the government really hesitates before going after religious groups now.

            5. I’ve heard “Waco” is quite good. What I never got about the whole incident is, if memory serves, Koresh left the compound to go into town fairly regularly. They could’ve always arrested him then. And didn’t the undercover guy there tell the ATF to not go in because they already knew they were coming?

              1. A package of weapons opened up during delivery and the local sheriff contacted the ATF. The ATF set up surveillance for illegal weapons but one of the Davidians was a federal licensed firearms dealer.

                Supposedly the ATF got bad intel that Koresh rarely left the Mount Carmel compound. The Branch Davidians often left the compound to trade in town.

                The federal case then added child abuse and spouse abuse which are state violations of law and then that the Davidians were operating a meth lab.

                A reporter who was briefed by the ATF to record the triumphant federal raid asked for directions from a postal carrier which was related to Koresh. Koresh also knew that one of the undercover ATF agents was a federal agent.

              2. That’s all in there.

                . . . and much worse.

                1. There was a decent show about Ruby Ridge.

                  An FBI sniper literally murdered a mother and her infant in her arms.

                  Inexcusable. This is the type of FBI’s experienced agents that the Democrats are trying to defend. Of course not all agents are murderers but they protect those that are.

            6. The FBI has been dysfunctional for a long time.

              Like, since its inception.

              -jcr

              1. I don’t know where it got its good reputation.

                I’m guessing it comes from things like comic books, “The Untouchables”, “Silence of the Lambs”, stuff like that.

                Yeah, Hoover was notoriously awful.

                Whatever good reputation they have, what did they ever do to get it?

                I guess they went after the Mafia.

                1. They were rotten at the top, but their people in general were top notch until ~1980. I guess the rot at the top had to filter down eventually, but it took decades.

        2. “Maybe Trump is reluctant to go after the FBI for fear of being accused of interfering with the Mueller investigation. Maybe the press is reluctant to go after the FBI for fear of undermining the Mueller investigation.”

          Occam’s Razor?

          1. It’s not the simplest explanation.

            The simplest explanation is that congress is incompetent, and it never even occurs to them that the FBI is dysfunctional–despite their long list of high profile errors.

            1. It occurs to them but the drive to maintain an illusion that government is not corrupt and incompetent is more important.

      2. So the lessons learned from the Parkland school shooting:
        * Local police were called to the shooter 39 times, but he was never arrested or committed which could have placed him on the background check list.
        * The Broward County Sheriff’s Office was informed twice that the shooter was planning a school shooting, but did nothing.
        * The FBI were informed two times, once very credibly, that the shooter was planning a school shooting but did nothing.
        * The killer took a gun into a gun-free zone where everyone inside was disarmed and defenseless except …
        * … the police officer assigned to guard the school who hid outside the school building like a coward in the critical moments while the youngsters inside he had to protect were slaughtered.
        * This is all the fault of the NRA.
        * Law abiding citizens should be disarmed since the government will protect them from criminals.

        1. * Armed police officers prevented lifesaving medical personnel from rendering aid to wounded students, in the interested of controlling the scene

        2. “* Local police were called to the shooter 39 times, but he was never arrested or committed which could have placed him on the background check list”

          Unless he was in the process of being prosecuted, or was serving a misdemeanor sentence, or was convicted of a felony, this would have done nothing. He would possibly have been flagged, but if he didn’t meet any of those requirements, he would have had his purchases released after a few days.

          As to commitment, an LEO can’t do it by themselves.

          1. If he’d been taken in a few times, being an object of scrutiny might’ve deterred him. Or prodded him, I’m not sure which.

          2. Florida has a law, the Baker Act, whereupon the police may transport said disturbed person to any ER & disturbed will be involuntarily retained for 72 hours for psych eval. Also, any family member could do the same by explaining their concerns, what he has expressed & that he possessed weapons.

      3. “”Somehow the left takes that to mean that everyone should give up the ability to defend themselves. “”

        They’ve been saying that for years. If you defend yourself in NYC in any manner, you are likely to get arrested.

    2. Quick logic lesson: You can easily distinguish a fact from an argument by the person making it telling you that it is a fact rather than an argument.

      1. That is true of a lot of things. Some things are obvious what they are, facts being one of them. So any time someone feels the need to point out the obvious, it is almost certainly because whatever they are claiming is obvious is not what they are claiming it to be.

        1. So facts are obvious but if someone points out that facts are obvious then those facts aren’t facts? Something is not making sense here. What am I missing?

          1. It is one thing to point out a fact. You say “hey sparky, the sun rises in the east”. There is nothing wrong with that. What Hugh is talking about and I think correctly, is when someone points out a fact and then tells you it is a fact. I don’t have to tell you that the observation that the sun rises in the east is a fact. You know it is. So when I say something and then add to it that “it is a fact”, it almost certainly means what I am saying isn’t a fact. Otherwise, it would speak for itself as being one.

            1. Ah, I get it now.

            2. This is an interesting and noticeable psychological habit you bring up. People that tend to say “it’s a fact” a lot are not really so confident about it and are typically trying to assert their power through knowledge that they don’t genuinely possess (because knowledge is a form of power).

              1. And here I am asking below about which one isn’t a fact–and no one is answering me.

              2. Sometimes it’s used for emphasis, and libertarians are lacking in persuasive technique. If you can say the right thing at the right time, accuracy is 100% unnecessary. While we’re busy finding sources and shit, actual successful politicos are just spouting emotional nonsense. And winning. Consistently.

                1. Yes, we’ve only persuaded people to accept gay marriage, legalize recreational marijuana, do nothing about gun rights in the wake of mass shootings, etc., etc., etc.

                  But our arguments are extremely ineffective?

                  You’re swimming in sweet water and dying of thirst. Open your eyes and look around you.

            3. *The sun rises in the west on Venus.

      2. So which one isn’t a fact?

        1) How can authoritarianism address, much less solve, the problem of evil?

        2) Did the government not drop the ball pretty much everywhere they could?

        1. You have statemented your facts in a questionable form, making it unpossible to accuritize.

          1. But other than that, I agree with you 103.47%. (friggin edit button)

        2. Well, they are both matters of fact. But #2 is knowable and #1 not so much.

    3. And as was discussed last week, the problem with libertarians is that they seem to think that spouting facts at people will do anything to convince them of a position. Not only that, but those facts should immediately start being spouted at the earliest possible moment.

      Now many of your fellow libertarians agreed that people should just sack up, get over their crying, and listen to all the facts presented logically by the libertarian logic leaders of logic. Because logic.

      1. You make it sound like the government doing absolutely nothing in the wake of the two mass shootings before this last one were an insufficiently libertarian outcome.

        1. I said nothing at all about government so I’m not quite sure why you read it into my reply.

          As I stated last week, my belief is that libertarianism will never be more than a fringe ideology because libertarians seem to believe that if you have facts and logic then you don’t need anything else. I commented that running a long string of factually correct but emotionally vacant articles immediately after a traumatic event is a good way to turn people off. I believe people should be given time to grieve and vent and rant before you step in and start telling them why they’re wrong.

          1. I agree with this in general. Nobody is thinking rationally after a tragedy, however Reason spent most of the first 48 hours debunking blatantly false facts. It’s damage control.

            Trying to actually convince someone of a solution within a month is pointless, though. It’s not like we haven’t tried it 500 times before.

          2. You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.

            Libertarians want the government to do nothing to attack our gun rights in the wake of big mass shootings.

            In the two big mass shootings before this last one, the government has done absolutely nothing.

            Given those facts, why are you saying how ineffective libertarian arguments are?

            Given the facts, libertarian arguments appear to be getting libertarian results.

            The only failure appears to be in your mind–I guess you give a lot of credit for style points. Maybe the effective libertarian arguments aren’t your style–that doesn’t mean they aren’t effective.

            1. Does anyone else remember when libertarian arguments for gay marriage were ineffective?

              Does anyone else remember when libertarian arguments for legalized recreational marijuana were ineffective?

              Does anyone think those arguments are ineffective anymore?

              The purpose of libertarianism is not to seize the levers of power and force libertarianism on everyone by winning elections.

              The purpose of libertarianism is to persuade non-libertarians to support libertarian positions, eventually making the world more libertarian from the bottom up.

              Our arguments are extremely effective. I’ve now given three examples.

              1. Ken, it’s $park?’s belief that his views about… things… are more significant than even the meager LP. It’s not clear how facts and logic compose an ideology under his belief system, but they do. The LP clearly doesn’t have and could never hope to obtain the personal charisma or social fine tuning that an organization like the NRA does. In any event, what’s important after a mass shooting isn’t the victims or the survivors, or the facts and logical progression of how the shooting happened but $park?’s firm beliefs about the libertarian party and their social repugnance.

                1. In any event, what’s important after a mass shooting isn’t the victims or the survivors, or the facts and logical progression of how the shooting happened but $park?’s firm beliefs about the libertarian party and their social repugnance.

                  I don’t even know where you’re trying to go with this. The Libertarian Party has its social repugnance demonstrated to it every election, it doesn’t need my help.

                  1. “”The Libertarian Party has its social repugnance demonstrated to it every election, it doesn’t need my help.””

                    Now that’s opinion trying to be disguised as fact.

              2. I think Catotarians have had some influence on the very narrow issue of pot, especially among conservatives, but I think sociologically the cultural shifts that have led to gay marriage have had little to do with influence from libertarian theory or politics. I agree there have been significant other successes, though, and that this is probably the best national strategy for libertarians to take.

              3. You’re fooling yourself Ken. All of these are “wins” despite any arguments made from a libertarian standpoint. Do you think that anyone on the left gives a crap about negative rights with regard to almost anything? At best, the left cares about “fairness”, not liberty. Don’t confuse their motives. And while the right may be slightly better with regard to the concepts of liberty, it’s only because the right has been the government’s whipping boy for so many years. The vast majority of self-described conservatives would gladly trade the 4th amendment in favor of the 2nd.
                Face it, libertarianism is not digestible for the vast majority of people. It requires adherence to principles that are often hard to swallow. I fucking hate the 2nd amendment as written. It’s outdated, and an albatross hung over the neck of this nation. That said, it’s the law. And if I want I want the 1st and the 4th to be respected, I have to afford the same respect to the 2nd. Most people right or left don’t have those kinds of principles and simply go with their feelz.

                1. Thank you, Eric.Maybe it’s just that I’m not very persuasive, but I haven’t had much luck selling libertarianism to folks. While debating that Jeff Session’s push to have the DEA restrict prescription opiates is contributing to overdose deaths the two counterarguments were, “silver, libertarianism doesn’t work,” and, “opiates are bad, why is this so hard to understand?” I never brought up libertarianism. I just don’t think politicians and cops should be telling doctors what to do.

                  Similarly, essentially the only thing I’ve argued after this most recent shooting is that, “if you want gun control, repeal the 2nd.” I guess most people think I’m just challenging them to a game of chicken, but I’m honestly trying to say, “hey we already ignore the constitution too much, if this is what most of us want to do, then we should do it the right way.” No sell, because they consider the 2nd to be a bad amendment.

                  The constitution is not an enumeration of personal rights. It’s a restriction on government because they can and will try to squash those rights in particular. We’ve allowed a massive precedent of ignoring them, and it’s extremely dangerous.

                2. “All of these are “wins” despite any arguments made from a libertarian standpoint. Do you think that anyone on the left gives a crap about negative rights with regard to almost anything?”

                  Gay marriage wasn’t “won” with arguments from a libertarian standpoint?

                  Legalizing the recreational use of marijuana wasn’t won with arguments from a libertarian standpoint?

                  Gun control hasn’t been shot down with arguments made from a libertarian standpoint?

                  You seem to be missing the point that if non-libertarians used libertarian arguments successfully, then that’s a testament to the effectiveness of libertarian arguments.

              4. “-ism” can mean belief, philosophy, tendency, etc. But it can also mean practice, style, etc. Libertarian activists don’t all have to make more people into radical libertarians, or even necessarily more libertarian, to make some progress or deter some regress. They can also work for liberty by other means, some of which are to change people’s minds in ways that coincidentally produce more libertarian results, even if it doesn’t make those people more libertarian.

            2. Given those facts, why are you saying how ineffective libertarian arguments are?

              You don’t seem to understand what I’m saying.

              By all means, make your arguments. The arguments aren’t the problem, it’s the manner in which they’re made. If you’re crying because your daughter was just killed by some crazy fuck who shot up her school and I walk up and tell you to calm down because more people died in car accidents, you’re probably not going to pay much attention to me.

              It’s not what you say, it’s when and how you say it. For the most part, libertarian arguments aren’t made by libertarians.

              1. Which, if true, kinda suggests that libertarian arguments have currency so long as someone not marked as a libertarian dork is making them. Nu?

                1. so long as someone not marked as a libertarian dork is making them

                  I don’t know that it’s necessarily the person so much as the presentation.

                  1. The problem is the presentation? This ain’t lip-synching at the Super Bowl or a screw-up at the Oscars. Timing may be everything, but in a current events cycle that barely lasts 15 minutes, when the last lie told becomes the truth, you have to say what you have to say as soon as possible, as clearly as possible. Else when the decks are clear all that will mean is that people have moved on to the next existential crisis du jour.

              2. So now you admit that libertarian arguments against gun control are effective, you just don’t like their style?

                1. So now you admit that libertarian arguments against gun control are effective, you just don’t like their style?

                  There’s no “now” about it, it’s what I said last week. I said that the problem is always with the presentation of the position. You seem to think that if you come along and say “logic logic logic logic logic” people will just suddenly agree with you. Unfortunately most people don’t wok that way.

                  1. What is the problem with the presentation of the position if the argument is effective in achieving libertarian goals?

                    Success is a terrible indication of failure, but you keep pointing to successes as if they were failures.

                    What were the negative consequences of our presentation after the last two big mass shootings?

                    I don’t see a ban on assault weapons anywhere in sight, and that would be the first thing to look for.

                    The only failures I can see after the last two big mass shootings were fashion fouls, and they only seem to be fashion fouls according to you.

                    1. Ok, Ken, tell me why people don’t like libertarians. It’s obviously not because libertarians are right about everything. What could the problem actually be? You place high stock in libertarian solutions to things, if libertarian solutions are winning then why are libertarians hated?

                    2. “”Ok, Ken, tell me why people don’t like libertarians.”‘

                      Because they are usually not team blue, or team red. Those teams love to hate people not on their team.

                    3. Yup. Two ways to be mediocre and millions of ways to be exceptional and all the standardized polling indicates that one of the two varieties of mediocre is winning. Always.

    4. “Something must be done” — OK, what can be done that doesn’t excise the 2A from the Constitution, and at the same time leave guns only in the hands of the police, the military, terrorists and criminals? I can’t see that as a desirable solution to anyone except a passionate opportunist.

      In each one of these incidents the story line involves failures to follow up on information known and reported beforehand, and in some cases (such as this) a failure to respond appropriately in real time. These are not things that can be solved by adding new laws and regulations to the existing mountain of laws and regulations. Instead, how about we focus on figuring out how to make what we have work, and then decide what more, if anything, needs to be done. I doubt there will be much.

  9. I just defend my employees. I am not responsible for them.

    /Sheriff- employer of all people that work for the Sheriff’s Department.

  10. Christ, what an asshole.

    1. Thank you; I can’t believe anyone posted that until now [I was about to].

  11. “The Buck Doesn’t Even Slow Down Here.”

    1. Sad no one takes responisibilty anymore, I blame Trump

      1. HAHAHAHAH OMFG. Laughed seriously out loud, probably best joke I’ve read all week. Thanks.

  12. Ever notice how the professions of Politics and Law Enforcement seem to be attractive as careers for the types of people you would least want in those positions?

    1. Yes. Because generally good people look at what it takes to win an election and decide they’re not willing to sell their soul to win or they’re just too stupid to realize they have to sell their soul to win.

      1. Indeed, and law enforcement careers attract rigidly moral (their cars are black and white for a reason) and power hungry bullies all too often as well.

    2. Well since sheriffs are elected positions, that would make them politicians. And most police chiefs/commissioners are political appointees, which is even worse than elected positions.

    3. Police business is a hell of a problem. It’s a good deal like politics. It asks for the highest type of men, and there’s nothing in it to attract the highest type of men. So we have to work with what we get …

      Lady in the lake by Raymond Chandler

  13. The more this guy talks, the more I dislike him.

    1. FL’s Arpaio? Or, Arpaios all the way down?

      1. Arpaio would have had Cruz on a chain gang clearing pythons out of the everglades.

      2. More like Baltimore’s William Rawls.

    2. More importantly, the more America dislikes him. Yet another own-goal by the Left, and everything is starting to fall apart. This guy is an over-the-top POS LE-brass stereotype; and people are already starting to weary of the rich suburban kids with the ban-all-guns picket signs, and wary (whatever the media may desperately try to say) of regarding their grief-stricken pubescent minds as oracles of public policy wisdom. Even among them, dissenting voices are starting to leak out.

      Even I am starting to get optimistic–were it not for our own penchant for own-goals. This issue is starting to exit the outrage cycle, and will be kept alive only by debate over these idiotic gun control bills that “our” side has introduced for some reason that entirely escapes me. We should kill those bills now, if only for this reason. Not that I trust anyone retarded enough to introduce them in the first place to suddenly grow a brain.

      1. This issue is starting to exit the outrage cycle, and will be kept alive only by debate over these idiotic gun control bills that “our” side has introduced for some reason that entirely escapes me. We should kill those bills now, if only for this reason. Not that I trust anyone retarded enough to introduce them in the first place to suddenly grow a brain.

        This. Sadly.

        1. have any bills been introduced to un-restrict citizens in gun free zones? I don’t know, I’m genuinely curious.

          1. The NRA and gun rights supporters have made very good inroads into clearing out unconstitutional gun control over the last few years. It was limited to states since Obama was president. Now that Trump is president, the progress to get rid of gun control has spread.
            Indystar loosening gun control
            Bills that would change background check requirements, waive the lifetime handgun carry permit fee and clarify that people can bring firearms onto church grounds, even if a school is on the premise, passed out of Senate and House committees Wednesday.

          2. TDS has caused the left to kind of become disorganized on gun control.

            The lefties tried using the Vegas shooting as a rally but it didn’t work. Now Parkland is already losing steam to get more gun control.

      2. “…regarding their grief-stricken pubescent minds as oracles of public policy wisdom.”

        Excellent.

      3. This guy is an over-the-top POS LE-brass stereotype; and people are already starting to weary of the rich suburban kids with the ban-all-guns picket signs, and wary (whatever the media may desperately try to say) of regarding their grief-stricken pubescent minds as oracles of public policy wisdom. Even among them, dissenting voices are starting to leak out.

        And, again, to paraphrase Instapundit, why are these kids’ views on the issue more “relevant” than Steve Scalise? He actually was shot in a pre-planned massacre in the hopes of turning Congress through assassination that, had Scalise not been there, might’ve been more successful in that regard.

        1. I’m pretty sure Scalise is a Republican so… That’s why he’s no expert

    3. He’s a crass careerist doing everything he can to defend the indefensible, namely himself.

  14. The only chance Scott Israel might have to salvage his reputation at this point is if he immediately changes his name to Scott Palestine.

    1. Okay, i laughed at this one.

  15. I’ve heard arguments that it isn’t reasonable to expect the police to intervene in a school shooting unless they’ve got an entire battalion of armored heavily-armed SWAT officers on scene. And it’s just plain crazy to allow the adults (teachers and other staff) to be armed. Okay, fine. Now what? Where does that leave the people trapped in the building with a murdering maniac? What are they supposed to do?

    1. When I read those arguments I laugh, when I read the part about ‘because AR15’ I laugh louder. What a bunch of ignorant cowards.

      1. I particularly loved the “Bullets go 3x as fast as a regular gun” bullet. Because at less than 50 feet, the difference between impact in 1/100 of a second and 3/100 of a second is key.

    2. Those people are fucking hacks who don’t give a damn about facts. They don’t care about the truth, only fitting something into their religion. The capital police shot the bernie sanders supporter, who was using a rifle, with pistols. An NRA, civilian member, stopped the texas church shooter. And these officers did nothing.

      For years we’ve been told we don’t need guns because we’ll the cops have them and they will protect us. This pretty much shows that for the lie it’s always been.

    3. The reliance on SWAT has nothing to do with the realities of the situation (who really needs 50 to 100 heavily-armed officers to take down one teenaged gunman?) but with the realities of cops defending the structure they have created. If individual cops go in, make a plan on the fly and take the kid down then SWAT loses a lot of its raison d’etre. And on the other hand, if individual cops do that and it is against department policy to do anything other than wait for SWAT, and anything goes sideways, the cops are left twisting in the wind regardless of how the encounter went down overall.

      Always remember that the principal feature of bureaucracies (police, FBI, whatever) is to protect their existence and the perception that we need them to exist. Things that could actually be done to create more responsive, nimble and effective response mechanisms are deliberately put on the back shelf because the bureaucracies have so much invested in the monsters they have created. “Do something”? Go to work on that.

      1. Very good. If all the officers do is call for SWAT and then hide, they could save a lot of money by hiring high school students to do that.

  16. You know, this guy Israel is really tiresome and unimpressive the more he talks.

    1. He reminds me of Costanza when he tried to laughably explain why he pushed kids and an old lady out of the way during the fire.

  17. Leftism is a fucking cancer. The government failed at every level, and their response is to give more power over to them. The FBI was notified of the shooter, the sheriff’s office had 39 different calls regarding him, there were FOUR armed police officers outside the school as it was being shot up, and all of them did nothing. And who’s to blame??? Why the NRA, gun owners, and Republicans, of course! Fucking hell.

    This sheriff is a piece of human garbage. He goes on that show-trial of a townhall and blames everyone else but himself. If anyone has blood on their hands, its him.

    1. Agreed. With that kind of dialogue [deflect from their own failure and blame the NRA, gun owners, Republicans] who the hell needs Russian trolls?

    2. He’s blaming gun owners and the NRA, but through his failures and pass the buck attitude, he is making the case for gun ownership and self defense.

  18. “I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training. If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.”
    The buck something, something, but Citizen X beat me to it.

    1. Well, he is a Democrat in a Democrat county. If Obama claimed ‘the bus stops here’ and proceeded to completely ignore this to laughable and cynical heights, why shouldn’t Israel give it a crack?

      1. I’d correct you to “buck,” but since that term was heavily used in Jim Crow days to refer to sexually threatening black men, it’s at least as racist as suggesting that Obama takes the bus to work.

        1. “Buck” and particularly “passing the buck” was a term used by poker players to not want to deal.

          This became a term to avoid your job and pass it on to someone else.

  19. At CNN’s “town hall” last week, Israel attacked defenders of the Second Amendment and said he and law enforcement “need more power.”

    Let’s see how fast Black Lives Matter gets sidelined here.

    1. Hard to contemplate giving them more power when every day they make it pellucid that they haven’t the foggiest idea how to use the power they have for the benefit of the people they are supposed to protect.

    2. Every time the politicians focus on a high profile shooting, Black Lives Matter is ignored.

      1. You say that as though it’s a bad thing

  20. As always, I wonder about the point at which angry, grieving fathers will go vigilante.

    To hear that your child was not protected, was not cared for, and died because of inaction, while EMTs were prevented from giving aid. I just can’t imagine.

  21. You know, he’s right, he’s not responsible, we all are, every American, and all we have to do to fix this problem is give him more power and resources. It’s really that simple.

  22. The “can’t count on me defense”
    He is making the case for gun ownership and self defense and why we should never compromise our 2nd amendment rights.

    1. Every time cops hide outside in their MRAPS until the shooting stops makes a case for the second amendment.

      1. I still cannot believe communities are fine with their police having MRAPS.

        Luckily, nothing a .50 cal round cannot destroy.

  23. I’m starting to lose any doubts that the first step to reducing gun violence is to completely disarm all police forces in this country. Second we deregulate all weapons. These common sense policies would reduce gun violence by helping alleviate the fear of police violence that young urban street pharmacists endure regularly, while at the same time making suburban worry worts accountable for their own safety and security all the while preventing them from criminalizing others because of their irrational fears.

  24. Well, he is right and wrong. No, he can’t guarantee that someone with training is going to do as they are trained. But he is responsible, meaning how do you help make sure the next person does do what they are trained to do. It’s just that with a single instance, it seems pretty fruitless.

  25. Now there’s this stunning denial of responsibility, in which Israel explains to a local news reporter why he is refusing to resign: “I gave him a gun. I gave him a badge. I gave him the training. If he didn’t have the heart to go in, that’s not my responsibility.”

    Actually, shithead, as the head of the department you are accountable for the actions (or lack thereof) of the employees under your direct supervision. FFS, you could have at least thrown out the usual bromides about “reviewing our procedures… implementing additional training… etc.”

    Christ, what an asshole.

    1. ^^This

  26. The Democrats should run him for President. He’d fit right in. Obama, Hillary, Israel.

  27. Another bloody-blue location on the murder map politically run by the inept left.
    When seconds matter their cops are only minutes away even when they are on site.
    Then, the left blame the mess that they created on the inanimate instrument first, political enemies next.
    Never do they look in the mirror where the real blame lies. Mental illness indeed.

  28. First, I call BS on the reference in the article to “a seemingly endless stream of cases in which police shoot unarmed suspects and face few if any legal consequences”. You link to several Reason articles covering a gamut of police-related subjects, only some of which involve police shooting unarmed suspects and getting away with it. Let me suggest you leave the yellow journalism and scare mongering to Colin Kaepernick and his myrmidons. They’re much better at it.

    Second, there is a later report that the policy for the police at this and other schools is that if there is any shooting each officer is to go onto the campus alone to find the shooter. I call BS on that too. At the very least the officers would be trained to go in teams. No department in its right mind would call on its officers to confront a shooter on his or her own. And if Sheriff Israel had his department do so, I rest my case.

Comments are closed.