Arpaio, Do it yourself but keep paying us.

[tod evans]

The ineptitude of kops becomes more apparent as things heat up....




From Drudge;


Arpaio calls on 250K armed citizens to stop terrorism and mass shootings

http://www.kpho.com/story/30644963/arpaio-calls-on-250k-armed-citizens-to-stop-terrorism-and-mass-shootings

Draw your weapons.

That's what Sheriff Joe Arpaio is urging nearly a quarter-million Arizona gun owners to do to fight terrorism and mass shooters.

On Tuesday, the so-called "Toughest Sheriff in America" said he cannot guarantee the public's safety and called on them to take matters into their own hands if necessary.

"I'm just talking about the areas where you have large crowds and someone pulls out the gun and starts shooting. Maybe somebody with a concealed weapon takes the guy down," Arpaio said.

Specifically, Arpaio was looking to the 250,000 Arizonans who carry concealed weapons permits to help keep the peace.

But there are some in law enforcement who are calling this a bad idea.

Steve Henry, chief deputy of the Pinal County Sheriff's Office, said untrained gun owners could add to chaotic situations at big events, increasing the risk to innocent bystanders.

"Sometimes it's not proper to pull the trigger because the collateral damage is not worth it," Henry said. "We don't want to walk into a gun fight between anybody, much less a gun fight where people are untrained."

Arpaio's comments came in the wake of terrorist attacks in Paris, Beirut and Mali.

As such, the percentage of Americans who think a terrorist strike is somewhat or very likely to occur in the homeland in the next few months has skyrocketed.

According to a CBS poll, 69 percent of Americans believe an attack is imminent.

Arpaio referred to the terrorist group ISIS, or ISIL, as a reason gun owners should be on the lookout. He also spoke about the Colorado man accused of killing three people at the Planned Parenthood last week.

Had someone been armed, the sheriff said, maybe he or she could have stopped the shooter.

"I'm concerned about what's going on. Just think about Colorado. If there was someone in there with a concealed weapon that guy would have been shot down," he said.

Arpaio is not the first politician to call for more guns after a tragedy.

Three years ago, Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert proposed arming more citizens after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Connecticut where 20 school children and six adult staff members were killed.

At the time, Gohmert said: "I wish to God she had had an M-4 in her office," referring to the school’s principal.

There have been some cases where an armed civilian stopped a mass killer.

In 1997, an assistant principal in Pearl, MS, fatally shot an armed student after he had killed two other students and injured several others.

Still, it appears to be a rare occurrence. Regardless, Arpiao believes armed citizens is one way to keep the public safe.

"All I'm saying is if it's controversial, then OK, let it be controversial, but we have to protect the public," he said.

[timosman]

Arpaio referred to the terrorist group ISIS, or ISIL, as a reason gun owners should be on the lookout.

He does not even know who the heck am I supposed to be afraid of. :confused:

[RJB]

He does not even know who the heck am I supposed to be afraid of. :confused:

You never know which terrorist group the government will be temporarily allied.

[jmdrake]

The ineptitude of kops becomes more apparent as things heat up....


I'm confused. How is Arpaio being "inept" in this? What he's talking about is the way things used to be. There would be one sheriff in town, paid, and he would deputize armed citizens when necessary to take care of threats. It worked pretty good for a long time. The alternative is what is likely to happen which is the hiring of more police, the militarization of the police, and the complete surveillance of the American people. Way to go sheriff Joe!

[jmdrake]

He does not even know who the heck am I supposed to be afraid of. :confused:

The confusion in the name has been created purposefully by the media and the federal government. It's really the Syrian rebels we funded and trained.

[wizardwatson]

He does not even know who the heck am I supposed to be afraid of. :confused:

I think he was pretty clear:


"I'm just talking about the areas where you have large crowds and someone pulls out the gun and starts shooting. Maybe somebody with a concealed weapon takes the guy down," Arpaio said.

I was watching a Navy Seal making fun of an ISIS propaganda training video the other day and he said something that stuck with me. Paraphrasing, "The threat is in the hands. You don't care if the person is old or young, male or female, brown or white, or Muslim or whatever. You look at the hands. That's where the threat is."

Local protection isn't complicated. If someone is mowing down unarmed people what got them to that point isn't your immediate concern.

[tod evans]

I'm confused. How is Arpaio being "inept" in this? What he's talking about is the way things used to be. There would be one sheriff in town, paid, and he would deputize armed citizens when necessary to take care of threats. It worked pretty good for a long time. The alternative is what is likely to happen which is the hiring of more police, the militarization of the police, and the complete surveillance of the American people. Way to go sheriff Joe!

The concept of police 'protecting' is, by itself, inept.

Even with their M-16's, Bearcats, body armor and mass surveillance there's no way, regardless of the number of kops, that they can 'protect' everybody.

So in my opinion this serves to shine a light on their true function, revenue generation, well that and enhanced welfare for ex-foo-ball players and veterans. (Jobs as kops)

I wasn't accusing Arpaio of being inept in his position in this article, I was pointing out how the cost/concept of policing for protection is of itself inept...

[fisharmor]

No.

Unless there is an immediate threat to me or a member of my family, I'm not shooting anyone.

What Arpaio will never admit is that if one of the CHP holders in his turf shoots anyone, Arpaio's men are going to take the shooter to jail, where he will sit until he can scrape together the price of a small home to pay a lawyer to get him out temporarily... and hopefully, after the course of about a year, if that lawyer has bought drinks for the prosecutor, the shooter might have a clean record afterward.

[kcchiefs6465]

Will do Arpaio, but fuck you.

[AngryCanadian]

This will only cause only more harm.

[kcchiefs6465]

This will only cause only more harm.
Yeah?

Getting on your knees and fellating the gunman surely is more effective. Maybe crying. Or praying. Might sing kumbaya. Or is it the police that you expect to save you?

I wonder if you ever wonder why many Americans would like nothing more than keeping pacifist socialists from coming to the US?

[AngryCanadian]

Yeah?

Getting on your knees and fellating the gunman surely is more effective. Maybe crying. Or praying. Might sing kumbaya. Or is it the police that you expect to save you?

I wonder if you ever wonder why many Americans would like nothing more than keeping pacifist socialists from coming to the US?

Theres a reason why those two American soldiers deserted to Canada then.

[timosman]

I'm confused. How is Arpaio being "inept" in this? What he's talking about is the way things used to be. There would be one sheriff in town, paid, and he would deputize armed citizens when necessary to take care of threats. It worked pretty good for a long time. The alternative is what is likely to happen which is the hiring of more police, the militarization of the police, and the complete surveillance of the American people. Way to go sheriff Joe!

He is inept because he should have asked the FEDs for clarification on WTF is happening. He clearly has no idea what's going on and wants to be the leader everybody is looking up to. FAIL.

[jmdrake]

The concept of police 'protecting' is, by itself, inept.

Even with their M-16's, Bearcats, body armor and mass surveillance there's no way, regardless of the number of kops, that they can 'protect' everybody.

So in my opinion this serves to shine a light on their true function, revenue generation, well that and enhanced welfare for ex-foo-ball players and veterans. (Jobs as kops)

I wasn't accusing Arpaio of being inept in his position in this article, I was pointing out how the cost/concept of policing for protection is of itself inept...

I guess the counter point that I'm making is that having one paid law enforcement officer in an area to help train and organize everybody else isn't a bad thing. Or a small force, as long as that force is integrated with the rest of the community and everybody else is trained, self armed and equipped, and can be deputized when necessary. Near where I live there was recently a shooting at a state university party. In response the university organized "student patrols." That's the smartest thing I've heard done yet in response to a shooting. (Sadly these people aren't armed).

[jmdrake]

He is inept because he should have asked the FEDs for clarification on WTF is happening. He clearly has no idea what's going on and wants to be the leader everybody is looking up to. FAIL.

What needs to be clarified? The feds clearly have no idea of what they are doing so why ask them? And as someone else pointed out who cares what the motive of a mass shooter is? Just put him down! Seriously does it really matter while a shooting is going on if the shooter is ISIS or just another random crazy? The Virginia tech shooter killed 35 people by himself and these three terrorists killed 14. Who was the bigger threat? The terrorists or the random crazy?

[LibertyEagle]

I'm confused. How is Arpaio being "inept" in this? What he's talking about is the way things used to be. There would be one sheriff in town, paid, and he would deputize armed citizens when necessary to take care of threats. It worked pretty good for a long time. The alternative is what is likely to happen which is the hiring of more police, the militarization of the police, and the complete surveillance of the American people. Way to go sheriff Joe!

I agree.

[satchelmcqueen]

call me krazy...but i like it!!!

[jmdrake]

This will only cause only more harm.

Wrong! The one time in America where the victims were armed at a school shooting, the shooter was stopped without them having to fire a shot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting
The Appalachian School of Law shooting was a school shooting that occurred on January 16, 2002, at the Appalachian School of Law, an American Bar Association accredited private law school in Grundy, Virginia, United States. Three people were killed and three others were wounded when a former student, 43-year-old Nigerian immigrant Peter Odighizuwa, opened fire in the school with a handgun.

Contents [hide]
1 The shooting
2 Aftermath
3 References
4 External links
The shooting[edit]
On January 16, 2002, 43-year-old Nigerian former student Peter Odighizuwa[1][2] arrived on the Appalachian School of Law campus with a handgun.[3] Odighizuwa first discussed his academic problems with professor Dale Rubin, where he reportedly told Rubin to pray for him.[3] Odighizuwa returned to the school around 1 p.m. and proceeded to the offices of Dean Anthony Sutin and Professor Thomas Blackwell, where he opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun. According to a county coroner, powder burns indicated that both victims were shot at point blank range.[3] Also killed was student Angela Dales. Three students were wounded.

When Odighizuwa left the building where the shooting took place, he was approached by two students with personal firearms[4] and one unarmed student.[5] There are two versions of the events that transpired at that moment, one by Tracy Bridges and one by Ted Besen.

According to Bridges, at the first sound of gunfire, he and fellow student Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, ran to their vehicles to retrieve their personally-owned firearms[6] placed in their glove compartments. Mikael Gross, a police officer from Grifton, North Carolina retrieved a 9 mm pistol and body armor.[7] Bridges, a county sheriff's deputy from Asheville, North Carolina[8] retrieved his .357 Magnum pistol from beneath the driver's seat of his Chevrolet Tahoe.[9] Bridges and Gross approached Odighizuwa from different angles, with Bridges yelling at Odighizuwa to drop his gun.[10] Odighizuwa then dropped his firearm and was subdued by several other unarmed students, including Ted Besen and Todd Ross.[11]

According to Besen, before Odighizuwa saw Bridges and Gross with their weapons, Odighizuwa set down his gun and raised his arms like he was mocking people.[12] Besen, a Marine veteran and former police officer in Wilmington, North Carolina, engaged in a physical confrontation with Odighizuwa, and knocked him to the ground. Bridges and Gross then arrived with their guns once Odighizuwa was tackled.[5] Additional witnesses at the scene stated they did not see Bridges or Gross with their guns at the time Besen started subduing Odighizuwa.[13] Once Odighizuwa was securely held down, Gross went back to his vehicle and retrieved handcuffs to detain Odighizuwa until police could arrive.

Police reports later noted that two empty eight round magazines designed for Odighizuwa’s handgun were recovered. Most sources (including those quoting Virginia State Police spokesman Mike Stater) state that when Odighizuwa dropped the gun the magazine was empty.[14] A report by another witness's hometown newspaper, a month after the shooting, suggested that the gun still held three cartridges.[15]

Aftermath[edit]
Initially in 2002, Odighizuwa was found to be incompetent to stand trial and was referred for psychiatric treatment. After three years of treatment and monitoring, in 2005, Odighizuwa was found mentally competent and pleaded guilty to the murders to avoid the death penalty. Odighizuwa received three life sentences and an additional 28 years without the possibility of parole.

The shooting was cited by John Lott[16] and others[17] as an example of the media's bias against guns, describing how the use of a firearm in a defensive role was not reported in most news stories of the event.[18]

After the shooting, students at the law school planted trees in memory of Sutin, Blackwell, and Dales on the school's front lawn. The school's student services office and scholarship program were named for Dales, along with County Highway 624 in Buchanan County, Virginia. Faculty fellowships at the school were named for Sutin and Blackwell.[19] The school's Phi Alpha Delta chapter is named for Sutin[20] while the Phi Delta Phi chapter is named for Blackwell.[21]

It's a sin an a shame that everyone in this nation does not know about the school shooting where students with guns stopped the shooter without having to kill him!

[Zippyjuan]

"I'm concerned about what's going on. Just think about Colorado. If there was someone in there with a concealed weapon that guy would have been shot down," he said.

There were guns there in Colorado- the shooting started before he could even get inside. Didn't stop anything.

Just a week before that there was another shooting also in Colorado Springs (which did not make the national news) where response was slowed because when somebody called 911 about a person with a gun it was dismissed because Colorado was an "open carry" state. Three people were killed after the call was made. Did "open carry" prevent those events?

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_29064963/open-carry-becomes-focus-after-colorado-springs-shooting


An emergency call placed moments before Saturday's shooting rampage in Colorado Springs has sparked intense debate on how police should respond to armed people in public given Colorado's open carry law.

Naomi Bettis told The Denver Post she called 911 after spotting her neighbor, 33-year-old Noah Harpham, armed with a rifle on the street. She says a dispatcher explained Colorado allows public handling of firearms.

Harpham went on to kill three people.