# Heroes or Just Doing Their Job?



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

The 2 Capital police that were tasked to provide security for Rep Scalise are being hailed as heroes. It seems to me the word hero gets used way to much and cheapens its meaning.

I've never been in law enforcement, but I understand responsibility and doing your job. What was the job responsibility of the Capital police? Did they perform adequately? Did they provide an adequate level of security? Did they do an adequate job of threat assessment? 

So were they heroes or just doing their job?


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

I don't know if they are heroes are not but when the shooting starts and someone puts themselves between me or a loved one to protect them I kinda view them as a hero. IMHO


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I suspect it will be like the scully incident. After not doing their jobs right they steeped up and did what they were supposed to. 
For this they will be hailed as Heros.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

If they did nothing they would have been a coward. So either coward or hero. Somewhere in-between Well trained, good at his job. I think the body guard was already shot when he returned fire. Some people called heroes are just good Samaritans.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

ed/La said:


> If they did nothing they would have been a coward. So either coward or hero. Somewhere in-between Well trained, good at his job. I think the body guard was already shot when he returned fire. Some people called heroes are just good Samaritans.


They had 1 job. Protect Steve Scalise.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> They had 1 job. Protect Steve Scalise.


Then it would seem they failed in that "1 job"

More realistically, their job is to provide as much protection as possible, and in that one they excelled.

"Hero" is overused these days, but they likely saved some lives by being there are acting as they did, no matter what labels are applied.


----------



## Cabin Fever (May 10, 2002)

In my opinion, anyone whose job involves protecting another person at the risk of losing your own life, you're a hero. Doesn't make any difference to me if you are never harmed or if you have never actually saved the life of the person/people you're paid to protect, you're still a hero. This goes for police, fireman, military, etc. If you put your life in harm's way to protect another, you are a hero in my eyes.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

MoonRiver said:


> The 2 Capital police that were tasked to provide security for Rep Scalise are being hailed as heroes. It seems to me the word hero gets used way to much and cheapens its meaning.
> 
> I've never been in law enforcement, but I understand responsibility and doing your job. What was the job responsibility of the Capital police? Did they perform adequately? Did they provide an adequate level of security? Did they do an adequate job of threat assessment?
> 
> So were they heroes or just doing their job?


I would say both. Yes they are heroes and yes it was their job.


----------



## ed/La (Feb 26, 2009)

I do not consider police or firemen heroes unless they do something heroic. There is a lot of jobs more dangerous then police. These guys are borderline heroes, they were saving there own buts as much as the congressmen. Anyone with a gun would have shot back.


----------



## cfuhrer (Jun 11, 2013)

Terri said:


> I would say both. Yes they are heroes and yes it was their job.


I agree. I don't see them as being mutually exclusive.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

If a possible assassin has an IQ north of warm water, there is no possible way anyone in public venues can be protected completely, not if the assassin is willing to die in the act.

The best security can hope to do, is to deter any attack to the best of their ability. If and when one does occur, they must protect the principal as best they can and make sure the threat is eliminated as quickly as possible.

To be seriously hurt or killed while doing your job, is not for the faint of heart. People who work such jobs are not simply performing job tasks when they lay their life on the line.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

Police

...I have pulled dead,mangled bodies from cars..
I have lied to people as they were dying.
I said you are going to be fine as I held their hand and watched the
life fade out.
I have held dying babies. Bought lunch for people who were mentally 
ill and have'nt eaten in a while.
I have had people try to stab me. Fought with men trying to shoot me.
Ben attacked by who,en who have had the **** kicked out of them by their
husband as I was arresting him.
I have held towels over bullet wounds.
Done CPR when I knew it wouldn't help just to make the family members
feel better.
I have torn down doors, fought in drug houses.
Chased fugitives through the woods.
I have been in high speed car chases.
Foot chases across an interstate during rush hour traffic.
I have been in crashes. Been squeezing the trigger about to kill a man when
they came to their senses and stopped.
Waded through large angry crowds by myself. Drove like a madman to help a 
fellow officer.
Let little kids who don't have much sit in my patrol car and pretend they are
a cop for their birthday.
I have taken a lot of people to jail. Given many breaks. Prayed for people I didn't 
even know. Yes, and at times I have been "violent" when I had to be. I have
been kind when I could.
I admit I have drove to some dark place and cried by myself when I was 
overwhelmed.
I have missed Christmas and other holidays more than I wanted to.
Every cop I know has done all these things and more for lousy pay, suckie 
hours, and a short life expectancy. We don't want your pity, I don't care
care for your respect. Just let us do our jobs without killing us..please
Thank you....

Author unknown. Sent to me by a friend.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Short life expectancy and lousy pay ?
Really ? Can you show any proof of that ?
Is anyone forcing them to take lousy pay ?


----------



## Yellowsnow (May 11, 2016)

Heroes are subjective and a Frame of Mind. People doing their job can be heroes, but context is needed. The best big Mac ever stacker could be my hero.

In this case, those guys were doing their job and are heroes. Hope I could clear this up.


----------



## [email protected] (Sep 16, 2009)

I agree, hero is overused and misused.
to a point where when someone does something heroic, it is diminished.

I don't tell anybody , anymore, that I was in the army. I get embarrassed when they say "thank you for your service."
I always answered, I didn't do anything special..

in most cases, cops and firemen are just doing their jobs.. just by being one does not make them a hero..
the true heroes are mostly dead ones.
..


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Most of them would never use the word 'hero' to describe themselves. The same goes for every TV interview I've seen where someone, private citizen or public employee alike, has been asked that question.
Even when they risked their lives and saved others from certain death, "Nope, I'm no hero."

Whether they are getting paid to do it or not, the old cliche is appropriate for my definition.............one who runs *toward* danger instead of running away from it.


----------



## CowPoke (Jul 31, 2014)

how do you block people on this site? or, is it possible?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

A couple of things I read/heard that shine some light on this.

I don't remember which Congressman it was, but he said when the shots started, he was able to get into the 1st base dugout. He said he felt helpless as shots were being fired at them, but they couldn't shoot back. Then, *a few minutes later* he heard shots being fired at the attacker.
The NYT published an article on government security which included this:
"When members of Congress practice in the early mornings in an Alexandria, Va., public park for their Congressional Baseball Game, plainclothes United States Capitol Police are *sitting there in a black S.U.V*."​If these are accurate, it seems to me the problem is with procedure rather than the 2 police being lax in their protection. Hindsight is 20/20, but it sure doesn't make sense to me that the police were in their SUV instead of near the person they were tasked to protect. It should not have taken minutes for the security detail to return fire.

It also seems to me that any public outing of multiple members of Congress should have a security analysis done and the appropriate level of security provided. I bet some of this is because Congressmen want to appear macho and not have security, but after yesterday that may change.

My op was not to denigrate the Capital Police that were onsite, but to question why a protective detail that failed should be praised as heroism. One Congressman had a protective detail and he was the only Congressman shot. As this post points out, it is likely this was a policy/procedural problem rather than an individual police failure.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

[email protected] said:


> I agree, hero is overused and misused.
> to a point where when someone does something heroic, it is diminished.
> 
> I don't tell anybody , anymore, that I was in the army. I get embarrassed when they say "thank you for your service."
> ...


I don't know the conditions of your service but let me embarrass you further. Thanks for your service. You did what most don't. That deserves thanks.

I met a young lady the other day who entered the AF after 9/11. Upon deployment to Iraq she developed severe asthma and was medically discharged. It bothers her to this day that she was unable to serve out her enlistment or transfer to the Coast Guard, which was her other choice when originally enlisting but as an Air Force brat she went with her history. Is she a hero? No. But that is mostly dependent on circumstance beyond ones control. Is she deserving of thanks for stepping up? Yes. She controlled that.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Short life expectancy and lousy pay ?
> Really ? Can you show any proof of that ?
> Is anyone forcing them to take lousy pay ?


They make less money than lots of other occupations, have a high suicide rate, and the hours can be terrible.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

CowPoke said:


> how do you block people on this site? or, is it possible?


Click on their name, then click on "ignore"


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

The claim is that farming is the most dangerous job on earth with all the machines and moving parts they deal with.

So is a farmer any less of a hero doing the job* they chose* to do, and provide food for us?

Should we also rule out the miners who work miles under ground mining coal to heat our homes and provide energy?

There are many others who do jobs where they could loose there life.

How many died last week in Wisconsin when the mill blew up?

 Al


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

QUOTE="MoonRiver, post: 7889105, member: 26976"]A couple of things I read/heard that shine some light on this.

I don't remember which Congressman it was, but he said when the shots started, he was able to get into the 1st base dugout. He said he felt helpless as shots were being fired at them, but they couldn't shoot back. Then, *a few minutes later* he heard shots being fired at the attacker.
The NYT published an article on government security which included this:
"When members of Congress practice in the early mornings in an Alexandria, Va., public park for their Congressional Baseball Game, plainclothes United States Capitol Police are *sitting there in a black S.U.V*."​If these are accurate, it seems to me the problem is with procedure rather than the 2 police being lax in their protection. Hindsight is 20/20, but it sure doesn't make sense to me that the police were in their SUV instead of near the person they were tasked to protect. It should not have taken minutes for the security detail to return fire.

It also seems to me that any public outing of multiple members of Congress should have a security analysis done and the appropriate level of security provided. I bet some of this is because Congressmen want to appear macho and not have security, but after yesterday that may change.

My op was not to denigrate the Capital Police that were onsite, but to question why a protective detail that failed should be praised as heroism. One Congressman had a protective detail and he was the only Congressman shot. As this post points out, it is likely this was a policy/procedural problem rather than an individual police failure.[/QUOTE]
It's my understanding there are a couple of officers who stay with the vehicle and a couple who accompany the "client" being protected.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...roes-after-baseball-practice-shooting-n772466


> According to witnesses on the scene, Griner and Bailey had been posted behind the first base dugout of Eugene Simpson Stadium Park — where the Republican congressmen were practicing a day ahead of a scheduled game against their Democratic colleagues — when the shooting started.












It's totally unrealistic to think they could have prevented this from happening given the circumstances.
Those who rate having their own security details are chosen by their rank in the Govt hierarchy, not by what they prefer.


----------



## MoBookworm1957 (Aug 24, 2015)

Doing their job.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

Police are not Heroes. There is a job that must be done. Most of us enjoy the job overall. There are those times you just want to crawl in a hole. Typically, we don't see those that complain about cops trying to get a police job. Not even a reserve officer job. Most agency's will allow ride alongs, etc. for those that want to learn.

We DO have bad police. Let's see, bad teachers, preachers,farmers, lawyers, garbage haulers, road crew, husbands, wives, the list goes on. 

A shooter will always know what he (yes sexist) is going to do. The folks on the other side do not have facts. This guy was a nut. It is hard to predict a nut. Its ok to hold a severed head of our president but this guys rants were Ok ???? What is the difference. While we have free speech we need to start limiting it when is encourages violence.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's my understanding there are a couple of officers who stay with the vehicle and a couple who accompany the "client" being protected.
> 
> http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...roes-after-baseball-practice-shooting-n772466
> 
> ...


While specific members of Congress are automatically given a protective detail, any member of Congress can request one. I was suggesting that they might want to review their policy. A large group of members of Congress such as this, should have had security assigned to them.

I never said they could have prevented it, but certainly they could have been better prepared. Why did it take minutes for the Capital Police to respond?


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

MoonRiver said:


> While specific members of Congress are automatically given a protective detail, any member of Congress can request one. I was suggesting that they might want to review their policy. A large group of members of Congress such as this, should have had security assigned to them.
> 
> I never said they could have prevented it, but certainly they could have been better prepared. Why did it take minutes for the Capital Police to respond?


Why should we make that kind of expenditure? You are talking at least a couple thousand officers to even slightly provide protection of all congress.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

coolrunnin said:


> Why should we make that kind of expenditure? You are talking at least a couple thousand officers to even slightly provide protection of all congress.


Not what I said.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> Why did it take *minutes for the Capital Police to respond*?


I've seen no real evidence that is true.

It took 3 minutes for the Alexandria PD to arrive on scene, and the Capitol Police were already engaged with the shooter. 

Just because someone said "minutes" doesn't mean it's accurate.

The whole incident only lasted about 5 minutes from the first 911 call until the shooter was down.

https://patch.com/virginia/clarendo...imeline-of-baseball-practice-turned-nightmare


> *7:09 a.m.* - Alexandria Police receive a call about an active shooter, Police Chief Michael Brown says.
> *7:12 a.m. *- Alexandria Police arrive on scene and join Capitol Police in an exchange of gunshots with the shooter, Brown said.
> *7:14 a.m. *- Police shoot the gunman, according to a joint statement from the FBI and Alexandria police.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

If they saved MY life, I would consider them a hero.

If they saved a certain recently retired politician's life, I wouldn't. 

I guess "heroism" is like beauty---it is a subjective term that only exists in the mind of the beholder.

I agree that the word is overused. But in today's world, finding someone who will do their job is getting more difficult.

And of course we recently had this story:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/s...uldnt-take-a-bullet-for-trump/article/2612814


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

MoonRiver said:


> It should not have taken minutes for the security detail to return fire.


I respectfully disagree. The situation has to be assessed as properly as they can BEFORE they return fire. With all the quick draw shootings we have had in the last few years I am sure they have learned that lesson well. They dont want to shoot the wrong man.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

mreynolds said:


> I respectfully disagree. The situation has to be assessed as properly as they can BEFORE they return fire. With all the quick draw shootings we have had in the last few years I am sure they have learned that lesson well. They dont want to shoot the wrong man.


It was the man with the gun shooting at them. I think that is rather self evident. Probably took about 2 seconds to figure that out.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> It was the man with the gun shooting at them. I think that is rather self evident. Probably took *about 2 seconds to figure that out*.


You don't know if they were in position to have a direct line of sight to the shooter when the first shots were fired. 

He was behind a dugout, and they were behind a dugout on the opposite side of the field.
There were people between them and the shooter, so they have to take that into account.

Then they have to think about what is behind the shooter as well, since bullets don't stop if you miss your intended target. They can't just run out in the open firing blindly. 

It was a dynamic situation with a lot of people moving around in a relatively small area. They would have to wait for a clear field of fire, and given the fact that the entire incident was over in less than 10 minutes with at least 3-4 LEO's returning fire, no one "waited for minutes" before taking action.

You seem to have a *very* *unrealistic* idea of how these things work.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You seem to have a *very* *unrealistic* idea of how these things work.


My gut is telling how this one worked.

7 am on a sunny day. Bunch of guys playing baseball in the park. Never had a problem in the past. Relaxed environment. 

Maybe security wasn't as prepared and vigilant as they should have been. I still can't get my head around it taking 5-10 minutes for a highly trained security team to take down 1 gunman. Shouldn't they have been placed strategically around the ball field. Shouldn't they have done a threat assessment and identified areas a shooter could take cover. Shouldn't they have been closer to their protectee?

I agree they acted bravely, but I still think they botched their mission. And as I posted earlier, I suspect it was Capital Police policy that was the problem rather than the individuals. Congress is already holding meetings on improving security for its members.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> *I still can't get my head around it taking 5-10 minutes* for a highly trained security team to take down 1 gunman. Shouldn't they have been placed strategically around the ball field. Shouldn't they have done a threat assessment and identified areas a shooter could take cover. Shouldn't they have been closer to their protectee?


You can't get your head around it because you're still being totally unrealistic.

As far as I know there were 3 Capitol Police officers there. The "client" was playing second base and 2 of them were likely within 100 feet of him at the first base dugout.

The other must have been in their vehicle, although he did manage to get in on the shooting according to a CBS report I heard this morning.

They couldn't be any closer without being on the field and in the way of the game.
As to "threat assessments" and "identifying where a shooter could take cover", none of that would have stopped what happened. It's an open, public area.

Look at the Google Earth pictures of the field and find "all the places a gunman could hide".
Then count how many LEO's it would take to cover them all the entire time.

The shooter was firing and changing positions, and the LEO's were doing the same while also telling people to stay down or directing them on where to move.

If you think you can arm yourself with a handgun and take out a shooter with both a rifle and the element of surprise in a similar setting and in under 5 minutes, you need to be training SWAT teams in combat tactics.



MoonRiver said:


> My gut is telling how this one worked.


Use your head, not your gut.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

It can take minutes to return fire. You have to be in a position so that others are not at risk from your weapons. The gunman does not. When you are getting shot at you must also figure out where the shooter is located. A " general" idea is not acceptable. Oh, is there another shooter(s). Gotta assume there are.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

FireMaker said:


> It can take minutes to return fire. You have to be in a position so that others are not at risk from your weapons. The gunman does not. When you are getting shot at you must also figure out where the shooter is located. A " general" idea is not acceptable. Oh, is there another shooter(s). Gotta assume there are.


So it is not standard practice to do a threat assessment and anticipate where a problem may occur and be prepared for it?

Of course it is. In business, it is basic strategic planning to perform a risk analysis and have contingency plans in place. In this particular case, their job was to protect Congressman Scalise. The Capital Police's security plan was a complete failure.

Three (or 4) police should have been in communication and actively policing the area; but, it seems they were acting as bodyguards, not police. That's why I say I think the problem lies with Capital Police procedures, rather than the individual officers.

Someone should have realized they had 20-30 Congressmen to protect, not just one, and adjusted the security plan appropriately.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> So it is not standard practice to do a threat assessment and anticipate where a problem may occur and be prepared for it?


How do you know they didn't?


MoonRiver said:


> Three (or 4) police should have been in communication and actively policing the area; but, *it seems they were acting as bodyguards*, not police.


Exactly.
That was their job assignment that day. 



MoonRiver said:


> Someone should have realized they had 20-30 Congressmen to protect, not just one, and adjusted the security plan appropriately.


The Capitol Police have no obligation to protect them all when they are outside the Capitol grounds.

That's you being unrealistic once more.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

MoonRiver said:


> .
> 
> I never said they could have prevented it, but certainly they could have been better prepared. Why did it take minutes for the Capital Police to respond?


 In my experience a few seconds under fire can feel like a lifetime. 
I would not expect a accurate estimate of time by someone untrained, inexperianced and unarmed in this situation.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

FireMaker said:


> It can take minutes to return fire. You have to be in a position so that others are not at risk from your weapons. The gunman does not. When you are getting shot at you must also figure out where the shooter is located. A " general" idea is not acceptable. Oh, is there another shooter(s). Gotta assume there are.


 Those reasons also seem like a good reason for the bodyguards to be in a secure remote overlook not standing between one congressman and the next.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

MoonRiver said:


> So it is not standard practice to do a threat assessment and anticipate where a problem may occur and be prepared for it?
> 
> Of course it is. In business, it is basic strategic planning to perform a risk analysis and have contingency plans in place. In this particular case, their job was to protect Congressman Scalise. The Capital Police's security plan was a complete failure.


The first assumption is, having a plan and everything going as planned as if it were a script, is not how it is in real life.
Maybe the gunman didn't get the memo on where he was supposed to be and go?



> Three (or 4) police should have been in communication and actively policing the area; but, it seems they were acting as bodyguards, not police. That's why I say I think the problem lies with Capital Police procedures, rather than the individual officers.
> 
> Someone should have realized they had 20-30 Congressmen to protect, not just one, and adjusted the security plan appropriately.


The 2nd assumption is, thinking that assassinations are to be expected.
Sure, they happen and it's certainly a possibility, but have we gotten to the point that we should all expect this as the new normal?
I hope not.




AmericanStand said:


> Those reasons also seem like a good reason for the bodyguards to be in a secure remote overlook not standing between one congressman and the next.


That kind of eliminates the whole purpose behind a "body - guard", doesn't it?


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

But, but, but on TV they shoot a handgun 200 yards and take the guy out in 5 seconds---once the commercials are over and they get near the end of the show.


----------



## FireMaker (Apr 3, 2014)

I still have not heard "Domestic Terrorism". It was, but not acknowledged.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

NRA_guy said:


> But, but, but on TV they shoot a handgun 200 yards and take the guy out in 5 seconds---once the commercials are over and they get near the end of the show.


You mean in those movies of my youth Hop a Long Cassidy couldn't use his trusty six shooter to pick off the guy with the Winchester up in the rocks while jumping from his rearing horse? Call me disillusioned.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

farmrbrown said:


> The first assumption is, having a plan and everything going as planned as if it were a script, is not how it is in real life.
> Maybe the gunman didn't get the memo on where he was supposed to be and go?


I didn't make that assumption. I said there should have been contingency plans. What was the Capital Police plan if there was a shooter?



> "The 2nd assumption is, thinking that assassinations are to be expected.
> Sure, they happen and it's certainly a possibility, but have we gotten to the point that we should all expect this as the new normal?
> I hope not."


The Capital Police train with the Secret Service. I thought assassinations were one of the things the Secret Service trained for. Again, my main point was there were 20-30 Congressman at the ball field and there was not an adequate security plan to protect them. If Scalise hadn't been there, there would have been no security at all. This is a major failing of the Capital Police and Congress.



> "That kind of eliminates the whole purpose behind a "body - guard", doesn't it?


I've been making that point. Is that all they were is bodyguards? Were they there just to stop someone from getting in Scalise's face?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

FireMaker said:


> I still have not heard "Domestic Terrorism". It was, but not acknowledged.


I believe they are differentiating between a political assassination and domestic terrorism. He wanted to kill them, not influence them to change their position.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Those reasons also seem like a good reason for the bodyguards to be in a secure remote overlook not standing between one congressman and the next.


Can you point out on the pictures any "secure remote overlooks" that could have prevented a shooter from approaching the field and firing? 
Wouldn't "behind a dugout" qualify as well as any other location short of an aircraft?


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

NRA_guy said:


> But, but, but on TV they shoot a handgun 200 yards and take the guy out in 5 seconds---once the commercials are over and they get near the end of the show.


The distance was more like 200 ft, not yards.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> I said there *should have been contingency plans*. *What was the Capital Police plan if there was a shooter?*


There are always contingency plans.
What makes you think there were none?

The actions they took are the answer to your last question.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

Bearfootfarm said:


> There are always contingency plans.
> What makes you think there were none?
> 
> The actions they took are the answer to your last question.


So the contingency plan was "after your protectee is shot and you are shot and 2 other people are shot, return fire?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MoonRiver said:


> So the contingency plan was "after your protectee is shot and you are shot and 2 other people are shot, return fire?


That's not what I said at all.
It's your assertion that because something went wrong there were no contingency plans.
That's simply not logical nor realistic.
Having a plan doesn't mean things will always be perfect.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> The 2nd assumption is, thinking that assassinations are to be expected.
> Sure, they happen and it's certainly a possibility, but have we gotten to the point that we should all expect this as the new normal?
> I hope not.
> 
> ...


 Preparing to prevent assassination isn't the same as Considering it normal. 
The congressmen seem like a very low threat to each other it would seem pointless for bodyguards to be amongst them. 
Better yet that they are in a location where they can observe the surroundings.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

There's an old maxim of the military that I think applies: no plan lasts past first contact.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Jolly said:


> If a possible assassin has an IQ north of warm water, there is no possible way anyone in public venues can be protected completely, not if the assassin is willing to die in the act.
> 
> The best security can hope to do, is to deter any attack to the best of their ability. If and when one does occur, they must protect the principal as best they can and make sure the threat is eliminated as quickly as possible.
> 
> To be seriously hurt or killed while doing your job, is not for the faint of heart. People who work such jobs are not simply performing job tasks when they lay their life on the line.


I hate to quote myself, but jeez, folks, THERE IS NO WAY TO PROTECT A PRINCIPAL IF THE ASSASSIN HAS TWO BRAIN CELLS TO PLAN WITH AND IS WILLING TO DIE WHILE COMMITTING THE ASSASSINATION.

Security can assess the threat as best they can and try to deter possible avenues of entrance, etc. But nobody can be everywhere.

And once the shooting starts, you do the best you can. I doff my hat to the capitol police - to take on a rifleman using just handguns is usually a losing proposition for the guy with the handgun.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> Preparing to prevent assassination isn't the same as Considering it normal.


That's correct.
Since we both agree an assassination attempt isn't a "normal" day at work (or play) but being prepared for that possibility IS still a good idea, I'm still trying to figure out the reasoning of the critics.
Wasn't the assassination attempt stopped quickly and no one killed but the would be assassin?
If the goal was, no one will ever be shot or hurt, then I could understand if that was called a failure.
But if the goal was to prevent an assassination, isn't that exactly what they did?



> The congressmen seem like a very low threat to each other it would seem pointless for bodyguards to be amongst them.
> Better yet that they are in a location where they can observe the surroundings.


Unless I heard the reports incorrectly, that's precisely where the officers assigned to this event were, stationed around the perimeter at different locations.








MoonRiver said:


> I didn't make that assumption. I said there should have been contingency plans. What was the Capital Police plan if there was a shooter?


All I can do is guess, without having access to any training or plans.

But the most common response is to engage suspect and thereby drawing fire, if he has to shoot back at you, he won't be shooting his intended target.
Isolate and pin him down away from innocent civilians.
Surround and either disarm and arrest or kill him if necessary.
Meanwhile, someone calls for backup and medical assistance.

Again, unless I'm mistaken, that's what happened within minutes.





> The Capital Police train with the Secret Service. I thought assassinations were one of the things the Secret Service trained for. Again, my main point was there were 20-30 Congressman at the ball field and there was not an adequate security plan to protect them. If Scalise hadn't been there, there would have been no security at all. This is a major failing of the Capital Police and Congress.


Well, you're half right.
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/alexandria/no-security-for-most-members-of-congress/449072118
The assignments probably have to do with the line of succession or something similar. I don't think the Party Whip makes that cut but it IS one of the offices that are provided protection under the law.
But legislation isn't the responsibility of the Capitol police.



> I've been making that point. Is that all they were is bodyguards? Were they there just to stop someone from getting in Scalise's face?


No, "getting in the face" of a Congressman is actually a constitutional right, the 1st Amendment.
Trying to kill one is what might get ya shot.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> Better yet that they are in a location where they can observe the surroundings.


That's where they were.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

A lot of things were disturbing about this encounter, from the hatred of someone they don't know because of their political beliefs to the fact that a large number of lawmakers were in one place with very little security. The part that I find inexplicable is how in a state like mine where it is simple and straightforward to have a permit to carry a weapon, none of these lawmakers that espouse the 2nd amendment had any means to defend themselves without relying on others. When seconds count, police are minutes away..................


----------



## gilberte (Sep 25, 2004)

I always liked to remove my hog leg prior to play'n ball. Didn't want to get any dirt on it slide'n into third.


----------



## alleyyooper (Apr 22, 2005)

Why you need to slide into 3d? You never even touched the bag at second so will have to go back any way.
Also because of the sliding part you should carry in the small of your back.

Didn't take long to get this thread out in la la land did it.

 Al


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hiro said:


> The part that I find inexplicable is how in a state like mine where it is simple and straightforward to have a permit to carry a weapon, none of these lawmakers that espouse the 2nd amendment had any means to defend themselves without relying on others.


They all work in DC and many probably live in DC or MD.


----------



## Declan (Jan 18, 2015)

AmericanStand said:


> I suspect it will be like the scully incident. After not doing their jobs right they steeped up and did what they were supposed to.
> For this they will be hailed as Heros.


Not sure that will be the case. They were not there to protect all the members from what I have heard. They were on the security detail for one.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Every time I read this thread name I'm seeing "herpes" instead of "heroes". 
It's disconcerting.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That's where they were.


 For future reference when you agree a simple "like" will be sufficient.


FarmerBrown your last quotes of my material seem as if you are surprised we are in agreement ?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> For future reference *when you agree* a simple "like" will be sufficient.


What makes you think I was agreeing with what you said?
I don't use the "like" button.
I don't "like" it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> It's disconcerting.


It's more disconcerting you told us.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What makes you think I was agreeing with what you said?
> I don't use the "like" button.
> I don't "like" it.


 I was endorsing their choice of location, you seem to be doing the same. 
It won't kill you if you admit to agreeing with me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> I was endorsing their choice of location, you *seem to be* doing the same.


I didn't "endorse" anything.
I simply stated where they were without any added comment.

I think it would have been better had they been on opposite sides of the field instead of being together as it appears was the case.



AmericanStand said:


> It won't kill you if you admit to agreeing with me.


If I ever do I'll be sure to let you know.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It's more disconcerting you told us.


I'm just saying what everyone else is thinking. 
Moonriver probably posted it just to see if anyone would say something.
Troublemaker.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> Troublemaker.


I resemble that remark


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I resemble that remark


Yes you do. 
Although I unfairly accused you when it was MR who started the thread. I e corrected that but stand by my original remark too.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AmericanStand said:


> For future reference when you agree a simple "like" will be sufficient.
> 
> 
> FarmerBrown your last quotes of my material seem as if you are surprised we are in agreement ?



I'm not sure, so I can't say.
I agree that the only one there with a security detail was Scalise and that was required by law.
I agree that's the way it should be, but don't know if you do, it seems not.
I don't think we agree on whether the Capitol police were successful in preventing an assassination, but so far, Scalise is still alive.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

This guy: total hero. 

http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iraq-mosul-eubank-20170616-story.html


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Lisa in WA said:


> This guy: total hero.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iraq-mosul-eubank-20170616-story.html


Yes, he is!! Watched the video earlier, a true hero.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

These are everyday people. Warning on the video, it's graphic.

As the war worsens, rescue workers risk their lives on the front lines.

All wars produce confusion—for chaos, nothing else comes close—but even the most brutal contests produce a glimmer of hope, or at least some sense of what is driving people to put their lives on the line. Yet to outsiders, 5½ years of revolution and war in Syria might appear to have produced mostly villains, along with refugees and numbing images of suffering on a blasted landscape that recalls Stalingrad.

Enter the White Helmets. Ordinary Syrians emerged from the dust that hangs over the rubble of cities like Aleppo, double-timing it into some of the most dangerous places on earth to do what the world has refused to do—save Syrian lives.
In a war that seemed to have no one to pull for, here was Khaled Omar retrieving a 10-day-old baby from the boulders that had been his mother’s home, still alive after hours beneath the rubble. (Omar would live only another year; he was killed by a mortar this August.)

http://time.com/syria-white-helmets/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> Although I unfairly accused you when it was MR who started the thread.


If you hadn't told me I would never have known since you changed it before I saw it. 
I'm not telling you any secrets


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If you hadn't told me I would never have known since you changed it before I saw it.
> I'm not telling you any secrets


This seems overly harsh.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

no really said:


> These are everyday people. Warning on the video, it's graphic.
> 
> As the war worsens, rescue workers risk their lives on the front lines.
> 
> ...


Just watched that too, on 60 Minutes.



Lisa in WA said:


> This guy: total hero.
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iraq-mosul-eubank-20170616-story.html


Amen to that.
Realizing there are people in the world whose goodness out-powers the hateful ones is refreshing and very humbling.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> This seems overly harsh.


OP/SEC regulations
Sorry 
Maybe if you behave I can upgrade your security clearance later.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> OP/SEC regulations
> Sorry
> Maybe if you behave I can upgrade your security clearance later.


----------



## melli (May 7, 2016)

I always thought the definition of a hero was someone who put themselves in harm's way (mortal) to help another. 
That is, a person has the option to stay safe or cross that line that puts their own safety in peril to help another. 
I don't know the story of the security detail, how it played out. A police officer can stay safe using their car/SUV as a shield as bullets fly (not a hero, not a coward, probably doing SOP). But if they make a decision, say, they see bodies piling up, so they put themselves in harm's way to stop it (leaving safety of shield), putting their life at risk, then I say they are a hero. 
Being a police officer or soldier does not automatically make one a hero. Police officers do not have entry in their manual to use their body as a shield when bullets fly. 
I agree with OP, that the word is over used and debases the efforts of the true heros in our midst.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They all work in DC and many probably live in DC or MD.


I do not doubt that it is inconvenient. But, VA offers a non-resident carry permit without a whole lot of difficulty. They drove or had a ride there, they had (by media accounts) a change of clothes, is it too much to expect them to have a weapon to defend themselves locked in the trunk with their change of clothes which they could carry to the dugout? I certainly would. There are interstate commerce laws that permit you to transport weapons through jurisdictions which preclude possession of those weapons, provided you have them secured in the state or jurisdiction that ban such possession. You are responsible for your own self defense, not the police, imho.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Hiro said:


> There are interstate commerce laws that permit you to transport weapons *through* jurisdictions which preclude possession of those weapons, provided you have them secured in the state or jurisdiction that ban such possession


Those laws only apply to travelers passing through.


----------

