St. Louis School Shooting

noway2

Senior Member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Joined
Dec 16, 2016
Messages
21,626
Location
Onboard the mothership
Rating - 100%
5   0   0

Typical (poor) journalism, but the salient point is that a man, believed to be 20 years old, armed with a long gun, somehow got into the school and killed three and wounded six more before he was shot and killed by the responding cops. One girl said she was confronted by him, but his gun jammed enabling her to get away.

Speaking at a news conference, Police Commissioner Michael Sack said the shooter was about 20 years old but did not provide a name for him or his victims. He declined to say if the woman killed was a teacher.

St. Louis Schools Superintendent Kelvin Adams said seven security guards were in the school at the time, each at an entry point of the locked building. One of the guards noticed the man was trying to get in at a locked door, but couldn't. The guard notified school officials and ensured that police were contacted, Sack said.

“It was that timely response by that security officer, the fact that the door did cause pause for the suspect, that bought us some time,” Sack said.

Sack declined to say how the man eventually got inside, armed with what he described as a long gun.
 
So you have seven armed guards monitoring every locked entrance, who note that a guy is trying to get into the building, yet instead of confronting him, goes to "tell school officials", he still manages to get in, and then police officers, not the seven armed guards, are the ones that exchange fire with the shooter?

There isn't one aspect of this story that remotely passes the sniff test.
 
So you have seven armed guards monitoring every locked entrance, who note that a guy is trying to get into the building, yet instead of confronting him, goes to "tell school officials", he still manages to get in, and then police officers, not the seven armed guards, are the ones that exchange fire with the shooter?

There isn't one aspect of this story that remotely passes the sniff test.
Report said that the SRO's were unarmed. WTF???
 
Report said that the SRO's were unarmed. WTF???
Yep, you're right. This line says it all:

A reporter asked if the shooter got through the locked school door because security guards were not armed. The chief did not directly answer that question.

Those aren't security guards, any more than a kid wearing a hall monitor sash is a security guard. My bet is that one of the guards let him in the school after being threatened at gun point with no means to defend themselves.
 
So you have seven armed guards monitoring every locked entrance, who note that a guy is trying to get into the building, yet instead of confronting him, goes to "tell school officials", he still manages to get in, and then police officers, not the seven armed guards, are the ones that exchange fire with the shooter?

There isn't one aspect of this story that remotely passes the sniff test.

Here's the deal, it takes a special person to run to the guns. The type of person who runs to the fight normally is not a $13.00-$19.00 security officer. They are window dressing at best.

I was approached one time in 2013 to help be part of a security team for a hedge fund dude in Raliegh. This guy "lost" all the money in 2008-2010 timeframe and was in hiding from the investors. The guy who approached me to help with this cats security showed me a note. and I quote: "I found you Rick, I am on my way. I will kill you, your family and ///-rape your dog"

At that time, I realized no amount of money is worth standing between that guy and Rick.

I assume a lot of these "Security Officers" think the same way when they see a gunman bearing down on them.
 
Last edited:
Here's the deal, it takes a special person to run to the guns. The type of person who runs to the fight normally is normally a $13.00-$19.00 security officer. They are window dressing at best.

I was approached one time in 2013 to help be part of a security team for a hedge fund dude in Raliegh. This guy "lost" all the money in 2008-2010 timeframe and was in hiding from the investors. The guy who approached me to help with this cats security showed me a note. and I quote: "I found you Rick, I am on my way. I will kill you, your family and ///-rape your dog"

At that time, I realized no amount of money is worth standing between that guy and Rick.

I assume a lot of these "Security Officers" think the same way when they see a gunman bearing down on them.

While I understand not getting between that guy and Rick, it takes a special piece of **** to let a gunman into a school full of kids, which is what I surmise happened here.
 
Doesn’t “fit” the narrative of scary NRA white Christian conservative gun lovers..:will be forgotten by Friday.

How little faith you have in the narrative.... it's not about the shooter this time and all about the guns:

Screen Shot 2022-10-25 at 11.02.38 AM.png
 
old quote i can't locate right now
something along the lines of "never call an unarmed man security..." and then went on to explain why you shouldn't do it.
 
Still haven't seen that "Unarmed Security Breaches Policy, Allows Armed Gunman Into School" headline yet.

Ironically enough, this incident may actually prove that having NO security is actually more effective at preventing violent crime than requiring UNARMED security.
 
Last edited:
The rifle looks evil vs the standard assault AR.
 
He was denied at the FFL so he purchased it privately.
 
Back
Top Bottom