Right wingnuts exploit Atlanta courthouse shooting.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 9:53 am

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001765.htm

http://timbayly.worldmagblog.com/timbay ... 13273.html

Bill Bennett's "Morning in America" show is starting in as well.

Basically, here's how it begins. Well, Nichols got the gun because the deputy was a woman. And there are woman deputies because of the encroachment of radical feminism. How dare women want to be law enforcement officers.

Bennett is taking different tacks which also break down to "Blame the Liberals."

It never ceases to amaze me, how low the right wingnuts will stoop in trying to blame liberals for everything.

Klast Brell · Post by **Klast Brell** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:32 am

I don't see this as a party politics issue. I see this as a failure to use safety holsters.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=la ... earch+News

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:32 am

It's not a "how dare a woman be a deputy" thing, but how dare they not take into consideration the physical reality of it.

That was not a "safe" situation from the start. An older courthouse + someone accused of a violent crime against a woman + escort 100 pds lighter than him = reckless disregard for safety.

That is why you have the liberal-blame game going on. People wonder why the hell she was escorting him alone. Frankly a man or woman 100 pounds lighter escorting someone accused of such a violent offense is extreme stupidity.I

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:35 am

And they flipped about a woman escorting him after his recapture, despite the fact that there are two male deputies as well AND he was cuffed from behind.

Try again, Harlowe, it -is- a shallow indictment of "feminism".

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:45 am

Everything that comes from political nuts like that is shallow, irrational and angry. It's a constant state of knee-jerk reactions brought on by fear.

I wouldn't have expected less. Look at the irrational war we are in. We love using dynamite to fish.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:46 am

Well, glad you agree, Harlowe.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 10:57 am

My point wasn't to support the sentiment, but to express what I think is a rational concern with regard to the physical reality of the situation.

The situation seems to have put many people into one extreme camp or the other. Either it's tip-toe around the whole "woman" thing or blow it into an indictment on feminism (as you pointed out).

I think viewing the situation from either of those perspectives is incredibly off-target and just a convenient scenario to pull out the soap box.

Which of course is their bread and butter isn't it.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:07 am

A dangerous criminal accused of rape should have been escorted by at least two deputies of either gender, yes. But that has nothing to do with her being a woman, now does it.

Embar Angylwrath · Post by **Embar Angylwrath** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:20 am

Relbeek Einre wrote:A dangerous criminal accused of rape should have been escorted by at least two deputies of either gender, yes. But that has nothing to do with her being a woman, now does it.

Well, sorta it does. I think the whack-jobs out there are using this an example to highlight some inequities in certain public service agencies, and they shouldn't, becuase it murks the picture.

However, being a woman puts you (on average) at a physical disadvantage to a man (on average). This is what happens when agencies have two different physical standards based on gender. Many firefighter and police departments have two different physical qualifications, and that shouldn't be the case. I don't know if having a 250 pound male guard in the courtroom who can press 400 pounds would have made a difference, but then again, I know who I'd have my money on in a confrontation between the two.

Beek - do you think that all physical qualifications should be the same between genders for those types of positions? Positions where strength does matter?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:24 am

Yes - but then I have concerns that they make strength "matter" where it really doesn't. For example, this case. He won because he got to the gun first, not because he was the strongest.

Kulaf · Post by **Kulaf** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:37 am

You don't think the fact that he felt he would have a good chance to overpower her in the struggle for the gun factored into his decesion making process?

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:42 am

Nope, I don't. He was in a frame of mind to kill. He went for the gun, not to simply overpower her.

Harlowe · Post by **Harlowe** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:44 am

I honestly don't think two women would have been the answer either (unless they were large, muscular women). Why disregard the physical reality of the situation - are we more concerned about percieved equality than the practical safety for all those involved?

Fetten · Post by **Fetten** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:48 am

safety holster wouldn't have done much good since reports indicate he was seen leaving with her gun belt and keys.
from what I read it was an exercise in stupidity.
Man was described as a former linebacker that was a physical specimen of regard, practiced martial arts and used it with intimidation, escorted by a 51 year old female guard solo, outwieghed and appears to be easy to overpower. 2 cameras caught the scene that were supposed to be monitored by 2 officers. Escort broke in control procedure by uncuffing one hand and turning the prisoner to face her to remove second cuff.

2 guard escort, IT/IC procedures followed, cameras monitored properly any of those or combination of those could have made a difference.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:07 pm

I honestly don't think two women would have been the answer either (unless they were large, muscular women).

I strongly disagree. He goes for one gun and gets shot by the other. It's not rocket science.

If you want to talk physical realities, include the guns, Harlowe.

SicTimMitchell · Post by **SicTimMitchell** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 12:30 pm

This is exactly why corrections officers are not permitted to carry guns.

vandir · Post by **vandir** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:26 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:I strongly disagree. He goes for one gun and gets shot by the other. It's not rocket science.

If you want to talk physical realities, include the guns, Harlowe.

This would be all well and good. Except for the fact that correction officers lock up their guns prior to releasing the criminal to get changed. He physically beat her to a pulp, then took her keys and unlocked the safe with her gun and belt.

Nichols -- accused of killing a judge, his court reporter and another deputy -- told authorities that on the way out of the holding cell, he used the deputy's keys to get her gun from a security lockbox.

http://www.accessnorthga.com/news/hall/ ... p?ID=90275

It was just a dumb idea to expect a 51 year old femlae to be able to restrain this guy if he got out of control.

vandir · Post by **vandir** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:28 pm

Relbeek Einre wrote:Yes - but then I have concerns that they make strength "matter" where it really doesn't. For example, this case. He won because he got to the gun first, not because he was the strongest.

Fark~, forgot to quote this part. Strength DID matter in this case since she didn't have the gun on her.

Post by **Relbeek Einre** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:33 pm

Oh ho. A detail I missed.

Good point. Still, a second trained deputy would have severely mitigated that. Any solo deputy would be at risk there.

Eidolon Faer · Post by **Eidolon Faer** » Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:50 pm

Agreed, Relbeek.

1. There should have been two deputies.

2. Either one of the two deputies should have been able to take down the prisoner alone. That's called redundancy.

3. Correct procedures should have been applied at all times.

Given this particular case, there should have been two escorts and NEITHER of them should have been this woman. Or there should have been four escorts of which one of them was this woman.

That's just a simple matter of what it takes to do the job.

As a side note, this woman should probably be disciplined for poor job performance. She should have realized how overmatched she was and both (1) requested a partner to assist her and (2) been ultra-careful to use correct protocol at all times. The fact that she got the crap kicked out of her is in large part her fault for getting careless and sloppy.