Saturday, February 24, 2018

The Children's Crusade Remake

What's more outrageous than *allowing* a vicious and well-armed punk to stroll into a school and proceed to murder, injure, and terrorize the helpless kids therein?  Why, exploiting and manipulating those dead, injured and terrorized kids in order to propagandize a political agenda, of course!

As the facts have trickled in over the past 10 days about the Parkland, Florida school shooting, a lot of nasty details have reared their heads.  Let's take them in consecutive order.

First, there was exactly *one* armed guard -- a Sheriff's deputy, assigned to protect the entire school.  He heard the shots starting, and the fire-alarm going off, hurried toward the building where the shooter was reported, and *did not go inside*.  He stayed out, talking to the sheriff's department on the radio, until the punk finished his rampage.  In his only press statement, the deputy claimed he was "following the active shooter protocol".  The Broward county sheriff later said that the guard/deputy, was being fired (keeping his pension) for his "failure to engage".  However, he wasn't the only one.  When town police from nearby Coral Springs arrived on the scene, they found the assigned guard *and three other sheriff's deputies* outside the building, hiding behind their cars with their weapons drawn -- and not going in.  It was the Coral Springs police who ran into the building to confront the shooter -- who had, by then, finished his fun and jettisoned his gun and hidden among the students evacuating the building.  

The question is, was it pre-established "protocol" or direct orders from the sheriff's department that made all four deputies "stand down", and "not engage"?  The deputy/guard's lack of response is peculiar, seeing that he was previously named "school resource officer of the year" nominated Sheriff's "deputy of the year", and had worked at the school for five years.  And what but direct orders from the sheriff's department could have restrained the other three deputies?  This would be odd enough if it were the only case, but local police were also ordered not to "interfere with the drill" at Sandy Hook, and the local police were also ordered to "stand down" -- until someone was killed -- during the Charlottesville clash-of-protesters riot.  There are too many coincidental cases of police being ordered *not to prevent the killing*.  What sort of police "protocol" would order this?

Second, during a tear-jerking "interview with a survivor" on MSNBC, a teacher told how she had heard the alarm and the shots, and hurried to do what the school's "active-shooter protocol" had told her to, which was to *turn out the classroom lights*.  While she was flicking switches, the shooter burst in through the doorway and fired several shots, killing two of the students and wounding the teacher before he scampered out and went looking for other prey.  The question nobody thought to ask, amid the teary sympathizing, was: *why wasn't the first step in the 'protocol' to LOCK THE CLASSROOM DOOR*?  For that matter, why was the classroom door unlocked in the first place?  Why weren't all the doors in the school locked as soon as the students arrived?  Wouldn't the "inconvenience" of locking and unlocking doors a half-dozen times a day be outweighed by the safety gained?  Why did nobody ask these questions?

Third, the surviving students claimed to have put together a protest organization, a march on their state capital, and a widespread media campaign with *remarkable* speed.  In less than a week, they had their organization spread to high schools across not only their state but the whole country, had their marches on the capitals set up, picket-signs printed (not hand-drawn), rides -- and rented busses -- arranged, and a national "town hall" program arranged on CNN -- all thoroughly and lovingly covered by the media (primarily CNN, secondarily MSNBC).  Now I've done my share of protest-organizing, marching in various capitals, and trying to get the attention of the media;  and believe me, it doesn't happen that fast, that easily, or that cheaply -- *not without rich and powerful patronage*.  For one thing, who paid for those thousands of printed signs and hundreds of charter-busses?  High school students don't have that kind of money lying around.  Hell, most college students don't.  Generally, neither do their parents.  And the media don't give special coverage for free.  And where did the kids learn about obtaining official "parade" and "assembly" permits?  Just who bankrolled -- and assisted -- those kids?  This whole campaign looks as if it were set up beforehand, like the usual gun-control boilerplate argument, a plot just waiting for an example to pounce on.    

Fourth, whoever did that organizing carefully picked the "protesters" it wanted, the questions they'd ask or answer, what they'd be allowed to say and what slogans they'd be allowed to chant (or carry on their picket-signs). A bunch of students in a gym, who heard the shots and alarm and guessed what was happening, quickly *locked the doors*, piled up wrestling-mats to make a bullet-proof barrier, grabbed various pieces of sports equipment to use for weapons, and waited -- ready to fight -- until the local police arrived, identified themselves by shoving their badges under the door, and told the boys they were safe;  and these quick-thinking boys had to tell their story on the Internet because the TV news media didn't want to talk to them.  A junior ROTC student, who shielded other students while they were evacuating, volunteered for the CNN Town Hall program, wanting to ask questions and give his opinion on armed guards and armed teachers -- and had his question ignored, was given scripted questions instead, and was told to "Stick to the script".  The nature of the scripted questions made him decide not to attend at all.  When he posted his complaint on the Internet, CNN hotly denied it.  CNN pundit Chris Cuomo also repeated as truth a false story about a 20-year-old with an expired ID buying an AR-15 at a gunstore -- but it was MSNBC anchors who persuaded one of the school-shooting survivors to repeat the story as if it were his own.  On the other hand, several of the surviving kids complained that it was MSNBC which ignored their statements and questions about mental health care in order to concentrate on "gun control" and to belittle Trump's response to the shooting -- but it was CNN that hyped the student protests as the new "Children's Crusade". 

I think we can guess who's been funding, organizing, and above all *advertising* the students' neatly-sculpted campaign.  

Somebody ought to tell those students what happened to the kids in those earlier Children's Crusades.  Gullibility, no matter how passionate, is not a survival characteristic.   




Spearcarrier said...

You could tell them, but they won't believe you.

Technomad said...

You've got a good point about those signs. The ones I've seen in pictures looked awfully professionally done to me. Although I will point out that with modern technology, that's easier to do than it used to be.

Leslie Fish said...

Did anyone else notice that the signs were the same size, with the same type-font, as the "Bernie" signs that Bill Ayres' protesters waved at that anti-Trump rally last year? They were printed on thick white cardboard, too -- which, AFAIK, no home-computer printer can take. No, those were professional jobs.