> RichA
>
> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316

Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an employee to risk their life.
What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging inferno." Are you going to throw
him prison?

Also; Damn, retired cops get $100K per year pensions?

By Brandon Drenon
BBC News, Washington

Scot Peterson: Parkland officer on trial for failing to stop shooting

A former sheriff's deputy has gone on trial charged with failing to protect students when a gunman opened fire in 2018 at a school in Parkland, Florida.

Scot Peterson was the on-duty police officer during the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.

He is the first US officer charged with failing to respond to a school shooting, says the National Association of School Resource Officers.

The 60-year-old could receive up to 97 years in prison.

He faces 11 charges: seven of felony child neglect, three of culpable negligence and one of perjury.

Prosecutors say Mr Peterson, who was armed with a handgun but was not wearing a bullet-resistant vest, failed to follow his active-shooter training to minimise casualties during the six-minute attack.

He did not enter the building as shots were fired, according to video footage.

Seventeen people died and 17 others were injured in what was one of the deadliest school shooting in US history.

In opening statements on Wednesday, jurors heard from prosecutor Steven Klinger that Mr Peterson had been a school resource officer since 1991 and "received numerous trainings on school safety and active shooters, which direct officers to run toward the sound of gunfire".

Mr Klinger says Mr Peterson stayed in an alcove adjacent to the school for 30 or 40 minutes until the shooting stopped.

Defence attorney Mark Eiglarsh argued Mr Peterson "could not discern precisely where the shots were coming from".

His defence said it has 22 witnesses who will testify that they were also confused about the location of the gunfire.

"What we have here is a man with a decorated history of serving the community for 32 years, and in literally four minutes and 15 seconds, they're claiming he became a criminal," Mr Eiglarsh said.

Showing a photo of the gunman, Mr Eiglarsh asserts he was the "monster" to blame for that day.

To convict Mr Peterson, prosecutors must persuade the jury he knew the gunman was inside the building and that his alleged inaction endangered students. They must also show he was legally a caregiver to the students.

Mr Peterson has maintained he thought the shots were coming from a sniper outside, otherwise he has insisted he would have gone inside the building to confront the attacker.

Defence attorneys have said they will argue their client does not fall under the statutory definition of "caregiver". The neglect law is typically used to prosecute parents or daycare providers.

The misdemeanour perjury count Mr Peterson faces is for allegedly lying to investigators under oath about his actions that day.

David Weinstein, a Miami criminal defence lawyer and former prosecutor, told BBC the prosecution will have an "uphill battle" proving that Mr Peterson had the legal responsibility to be the caregiver of the children in this case.

"Just because somebody's job description contains the words 'school resource officer' doesn't mean he's defined under the statute as a caretaker of these children," Mr Weinstein said.

"Traditional law enforcement do not have that legal responsibility over a child."

Mr Peterson, who retired after 32 years as a deputy in the aftermath of the attack, was charged in June 2019.

If convicted, he also faces losing his $104,000 (£83,500) annual pension.

A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation found Mr Peterson "did absolutely nothing to mitigate" the shooting.

Their inquiry found the gunman discharged his weapon about 140 times, 75 times after Mr Peterson arrived on the scene.

Critics, including then-President Donald Trump, branded him a coward.

The attacker pleaded guilty to the killings and was sentenced last year to life in prison without parole.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>RichA

>>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316

>Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>employee to risk their life.
>What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>inferno." Are you going to throw
>him prison?

As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.

This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?

If he had appropriate gear available to him and chose not to wear it,
perhaps there is something to the child neglect charges.

If his department did not provide him with a bullet-proof vest, then I
don't see how he can be charged.

>. . .

On 6/8/2023 4:53 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> RichA
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>
> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an employee to risk their life.
> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging inferno." Are you going to throw
> him prison?
>
> Also; Damn, retired cops get $100K per year pensions?
>
> By Brandon Drenon
> BBC News, Washington
>
> Scot Peterson: Parkland officer on trial for failing to stop shooting
>
> A former sheriff's deputy has gone on trial charged with failing to protect students when a gunman opened fire in 2018 at a school in Parkland, Florida.
>
> Scot Peterson was the on-duty police officer during the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School.
>
> He is the first US officer charged with failing to respond to a school shooting, says the National Association of School Resource Officers.
>
> The 60-year-old could receive up to 97 years in prison.
>
> He faces 11 charges: seven of felony child neglect, three of culpable negligence and one of perjury.
>
> Prosecutors say Mr Peterson, who was armed with a handgun but was not wearing a bullet-resistant vest, failed to follow his active-shooter training to minimise casualties during the six-minute attack.
>
> He did not enter the building as shots were fired, according to video footage.
>
> Seventeen people died and 17 others were injured in what was one of the deadliest school shooting in US history.
>
> In opening statements on Wednesday, jurors heard from prosecutor Steven Klinger that Mr Peterson had been a school resource officer since 1991 and "received numerous trainings on school safety and active shooters, which direct officers to run toward the sound of gunfire".
>
> Mr Klinger says Mr Peterson stayed in an alcove adjacent to the school for 30 or 40 minutes until the shooting stopped.
>
> Defence attorney Mark Eiglarsh argued Mr Peterson "could not discern precisely where the shots were coming from".
>
> His defence said it has 22 witnesses who will testify that they were also confused about the location of the gunfire.
>
> "What we have here is a man with a decorated history of serving the community for 32 years, and in literally four minutes and 15 seconds, they're claiming he became a criminal," Mr Eiglarsh said.
>
> Showing a photo of the gunman, Mr Eiglarsh asserts he was the "monster" to blame for that day.
>
> To convict Mr Peterson, prosecutors must persuade the jury he knew the gunman was inside the building and that his alleged inaction endangered students. They must also show he was legally a caregiver to the students.
>
> Mr Peterson has maintained he thought the shots were coming from a sniper outside, otherwise he has insisted he would have gone inside the building to confront the attacker.
>
> Defence attorneys have said they will argue their client does not fall under the statutory definition of "caregiver". The neglect law is typically used to prosecute parents or daycare providers.
>
> The misdemeanour perjury count Mr Peterson faces is for allegedly lying to investigators under oath about his actions that day.
>
> David Weinstein, a Miami criminal defence lawyer and former prosecutor, told BBC the prosecution will have an "uphill battle" proving that Mr Peterson had the legal responsibility to be the caregiver of the children in this case.
>
> "Just because somebody's job description contains the words 'school resource officer' doesn't mean he's defined under the statute as a caretaker of these children," Mr Weinstein said.
>
> "Traditional law enforcement do not have that legal responsibility over a child."
>
> Mr Peterson, who retired after 32 years as a deputy in the aftermath of the attack, was charged in June 2019.
>
> If convicted, he also faces losing his $104,000 (£83,500) annual pension.
>
> A Florida Department of Law Enforcement investigation found Mr Peterson "did absolutely nothing to mitigate" the shooting.
>
> Their inquiry found the gunman discharged his weapon about 140 times, 75 times after Mr Peterson arrived on the scene.
>
> Critics, including then-President Donald Trump, branded him a coward.
>
> The attacker pleaded guilty to the killings and was sentenced last year to life in prison without parole.

I can't find anybody to root for, here.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>
> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
> employee to risk their life.
> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
> inferno." Are you going to throw
> him prison?
>
> Also; Damn, retired cops get $100K per year pensions?

That’s the kind of money they said Danny was going to get when he
considered going into private body guard work on Blue Bloods.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> RichA
>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>
>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>> employee to risk their life.
>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>> him prison?
>
> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>
> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?

Umm... because there's no such thing?

;-)

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>> RichA
>>
>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>
> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
> employee to risk their life.
> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
> inferno." Are you going to throw
> him prison?
>
> Also; Damn, retired cops get $100K per year pensions?

I do. More than that, actually.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>RichA

>>>>https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316

>>>Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>employee to risk their life.
>>>What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>him prison?

>>As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.

>>This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?

>Umm... because there's no such thing?

>;-)

Ok ok ok

A vest that politely asks a bullet to redirect its momentum.

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> RichA
>>
>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>
>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>> employee to risk their life.
>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>> him prison?
>>
>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>
>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>
> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>
> ;-)
>

Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> RichA
>>>
>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>>
>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>> employee to risk their life.
>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>> him prison?
>>>
>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>
>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>
>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>>
>> ;-)
>>
> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.

No! Just stop it!

BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> RichA
>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>>>
>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>>> employee to risk their life.
>>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>>> him prison?
>>>>
>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>>
>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>
>>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>>>
>>> ;-)
>>>
>> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.
>
> No! Just stop it!
>

It was a plot point! They said it! They introduced it! “This is your new
police cruiser, it’s got bulletproof doors!”!

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 June 2023 at 16:53:58 UTC-4, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> RichA
>>>
>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>
>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>> employee to risk their life.
>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>> him prison?
>>
>> Also; Damn, retired cops get $100K per year pensions?
>>
>
> Then I'd suggest we cut cop pay to $35,000 a year and write in their
> employment agreement "Is only responsible for writing parking tickets."
> They like to promote themselves as "heroes" but some of them should be
> put up against a wall for cowardice under (not even, in this case!!) fire.
>

Or we could let them start accepting free donuts again.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:24:17 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> RichA
>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>>>> employee to risk their life.
>>>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>>>> him prison?
>>>>>
>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>>>
>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>>
>>>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>>>>
>>>> ;-)
>>>>
>>> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.
>>
>> No! Just stop it!
>>
>
>It was a plot point! They said it! They introduced it! “This is your new
>police cruiser, it’s got bulletproof doors!”!

So they put titanium plates in the doors? And an upgrade to the
engine, transmission and suspension to handle the extra weight?

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:24:17 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> RichA
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>>>>> employee to risk their life.
>>>>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>>>>> him prison?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>>>
>>>>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>>>>>
>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.
>>>
>>> No! Just stop it!
>>>
>>
>> It was a plot point! They said it! They introduced it! “This is your new
>> police cruiser, it’s got bulletproof doors!”!
>
> So they put titanium plates in the doors? And an upgrade to the
> engine, transmission and suspension to handle the extra weight?
>

Yeah, they didn’t say how they made the doors bulletproof. And they
apparently didn’t do anything about the windows or the roof.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article <gcv58it5ea7qcnhh61pgb5rco12n8nb0at@4ax.com>,
shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:24:17 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
> >BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> RichA
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
> >>>>>> employee to risk their life.
> >>>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
> >>>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
> >>>>>> him prison?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
> >>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
> >>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
> >>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
> >>>>
> >>>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
> >>>>
> >>>> ;-)
> >>>>
> >>> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.
> >>
> >> No! Just stop it!
> >>
> >It was a plot point! They said it! They introduced it! “This is your new
> >police cruiser, it’s got bulletproof doors!”!
>
> So they put titanium plates in the doors? And an upgrade to the
> engine, transmission and suspension to handle the extra weight?

Depending on how "bulletproof" you want the car, it's possible to do it
without adding a lot of extra weight. You can slip Kevlar panels into
the doors that don't weigh much at all but will stop a normal pistol
round just as effectively as they do when you wear them as vests. But
that won't stop a high calibre rifle round, nor will it do much to
protect against explosions.

And that still would leave the windows vulnerable. Any kind of ballistic
glass will indeed increase the weight of the vehicle considerably.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <gcv58it5ea7qcnhh61pgb5rco12n8nb0at@4ax.com>,
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:24:17 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> RichA
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>>>>>> employee to risk their life.
>>>>>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>>>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>>>>>> him prison?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>
>>>>> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.
>>>>
>>>> No! Just stop it!
>>>>
>>> It was a plot point! They said it! They introduced it! “This is your new
>>> police cruiser, it’s got bulletproof doors!”!
>>
>> So they put titanium plates in the doors? And an upgrade to the
>> engine, transmission and suspension to handle the extra weight?
>
> Depending on how "bulletproof" you want the car, it's possible to do it
> without adding a lot of extra weight. You can slip Kevlar panels into
> the doors that don't weigh much at all but will stop a normal pistol
> round just as effectively as they do when you wear them as vests. But
> that won't stop a high calibre rifle round, nor will it do much to
> protect against explosions.
>
> And that still would leave the windows vulnerable. Any kind of ballistic
> glass will indeed increase the weight of the vehicle considerably.
>

The glass and Danny’s cruiser was invulnerable before they did the door
panels. In fact, as near as I can tell, the hole for the window is
invulnerable, even when the glass is rolled down.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 14:26:30 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> In article <gcv58it5ea7qcnhh61pgb5rco12n8nb0at@4ax.com>,
>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:24:17 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> RichA
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>>>>>>> employee to risk their life.
>>>>>>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>>>>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>>>>>>> him prison?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.
>>>>>
>>>>> No! Just stop it!
>>>>>
>>>> It was a plot point! They said it! They introduced it! â??This is your new
>>>> police cruiser, itâ??s got bulletproof doors!â??!
>>>
>>> So they put titanium plates in the doors? And an upgrade to the
>>> engine, transmission and suspension to handle the extra weight?
>>
>> Depending on how "bulletproof" you want the car, it's possible to do it
>> without adding a lot of extra weight. You can slip Kevlar panels into
>> the doors that don't weigh much at all but will stop a normal pistol
>> round just as effectively as they do when you wear them as vests. But
>> that won't stop a high calibre rifle round, nor will it do much to
>> protect against explosions.
>>
>> And that still would leave the windows vulnerable. Any kind of ballistic
>> glass will indeed increase the weight of the vehicle considerably.
>>
>
>The glass and Danny’s cruiser was invulnerable before they did the door
>panels. In fact, as near as I can tell, the hole for the window is
>invulnerable, even when the glass is rolled down.

He has plot armor. Which is the absolute best kind of armor to have.

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak
> >
> > Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
> > an employee to risk their life.
>
> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.

Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with it,
which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the World Trade
Center on 9/11?

Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?

> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?

It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
the situation is too dangerous?

Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.

On 6/9/2023 6:03 PM, shawn wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 14:26:30 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> In article <gcv58it5ea7qcnhh61pgb5rco12n8nb0at@4ax.com>,
>>> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 9 Jun 2023 01:24:17 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> BTR1701 <no_email@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> RichA
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65836316
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel an
>>>>>>>>>> employee to risk their life.
>>>>>>>>>> What if a fireman says "yeah nah, I ain't going into that raging
>>>>>>>>>> inferno." Are you going to throw
>>>>>>>>>> him prison?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>>>>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>>>>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>>>>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Umm... because there's no such thing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ;-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is why Danny Reagan has to hide behind his bulletproof car doors.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No! Just stop it!
>>>>>>
>>>>> It was a plot point! They said it! They introduced it! â??This is your new
>>>>> police cruiser, itâ??s got bulletproof doors!â??!
>>>>
>>>> So they put titanium plates in the doors? And an upgrade to the
>>>> engine, transmission and suspension to handle the extra weight?
>>>
>>> Depending on how "bulletproof" you want the car, it's possible to do it
>>> without adding a lot of extra weight. You can slip Kevlar panels into
>>> the doors that don't weigh much at all but will stop a normal pistol
>>> round just as effectively as they do when you wear them as vests. But
>>> that won't stop a high calibre rifle round, nor will it do much to
>>> protect against explosions.
>>>
>>> And that still would leave the windows vulnerable. Any kind of ballistic
>>> glass will indeed increase the weight of the vehicle considerably.
>>>
>>
>> The glass and Danny’s cruiser was invulnerable before they did the door
>> panels. In fact, as near as I can tell, the hole for the window is
>> invulnerable, even when the glass is rolled down.
>
> He has plot armor. Which is the absolute best kind of armor to have.

Doesn't even need to thicken.

On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
>>> an employee to risk their life.
>>
>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>
> Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with it,
> which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the World Trade
> Center on 9/11?
>
> Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
> had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
>
>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>
> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
> the situation is too dangerous?
>
> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.

The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...

In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >> Adam H. Kerman
> >>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>
> >>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
> >>> an employee to risk their life.
> >>
> >> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
> >> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
> >
> > Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with it,
> > which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the World Trade
> > Center on 9/11?
> >
> > Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
> > had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
> >
> >> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
> >> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
> >> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
> >
> > It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
> > you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
> > the situation is too dangerous?
> >
> > Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
>
> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...

But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>He has plot armor. Which is the absolute best kind of armor to have.

shawn, that's brilliant.

Ed Stasiak <edstasiak1067@gmail.com> wrote:

>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
>>>an employee to risk their life.

>>As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.

>Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with it,
>which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the World Trade
>Center on 9/11?

Truly bad command decisions, plus the more men you sent up the
stairways, the more it delayed bringing people out.

>Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
>had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?

If he had no gear like the cop in question, he absolutely should not
have gone in.

>>This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?

>It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>the situation is too dangerous?

>Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.

Tell that to all those soldiers who died in trench warfare or who were
being used as cannon fodder because they are ill equipped or don't even
have rifles and bullets. It happens to this day, why right now in the
Russo-Ukraine War.

Soldiers obey orders, no matter how bloody a war record the general has.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>>On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:

>>>>Adam H. Kerman
>>>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>>>Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
>>>>>an employee to risk their life.

>>>>As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>>that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.

>>>Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with it,
>>>which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the World Trade
>>>Center on 9/11?

>>>Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
>>>had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?

>>>>This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>>active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>>emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?

>>>It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>>>you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>>>the situation is too dangerous?

>>>Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.

>>The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
>>Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...

>But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.

moviePig contributed STOOPID. To make it work, let's say the protectee
is a child. If there were an emergency like a kidnapping attempt, and
the guard didn't take certain basic steps to safeguard the welfare of
teh child during the emergency, could child neglect charges be filed as
they were here?

On 6/9/2023 7:26 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <ZQNgM.17351$fZx2.3045@fx14.iad>,
> moviePig <pwallace@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
>> On 6/9/2023 6:17 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't see how they can convict the guy, you can't legally compel
>>>>> an employee to risk their life.
>>>>
>>>> As always, your analogy sucks. Firefighters have gear they must wear
>>>> that protects them from inhaling poisonous gases and getting burned.
>>>
>>> Nonsense, it's perfectly apt and protective gear has nothing to do with it,
>>> which didn't save all those firemen who went rushing into the World Trade
>>> Center on 9/11?
>>>
>>> Would you prosecute and imprison (for 97 years no less!) one of them,
>>> had they said "fuck that, I ain't going in!"?
>>>
>>>> This guy, for whatever reason, wasn't wearing his gear. He had
>>>> active-shooter training, so they were anticipating some sort of
>>>> emergency like this. Why wasn't he wearing a bullet-proof vest?
>>>
>>> It wouldn't have mattered if this cop had a vest or not, how can
>>> you imprison _an employee_ for not risking DEATH if he decides
>>> the situation is too dangerous?
>>>
>>> Even military personnel can refuse a suicidal order.
>>
>> The question is: what job have you accepted? Afaik, e.g., a Secret
>> Service agent is expected to take a bullet for the President...
>
> But if he/she refuses, they can be fired, but not criminally charged.

I'd think he could be criminally charged if it were somehow proven he
took a job with that requirement while he'd no intention of meeting it.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> He has plot armor. Which is the absolute best kind of armor to have.
>
> shawn, that's brilliant.
>

Yes

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.