Israel Out As Broward Count Sheriff, Blames NRA As Per Usual

U

unclejack37

Moderator
Governor DeSantis fires this lowlife and he still thinks it's the NRAs fault for getting him fired. Here's the article, but also listen to his Twitter response highlighted in the article.
http://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/01/14/israel-broward-count-sheriff-blames-nra-per-usual/
I only know what I read in the news paper and saw on TV, but I would love to know the true story of what went on that led to what happen in Parkland and could it have really been prevented.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What happened was published previously. The school admin folks did not like the fact that their students (a decent number) wound up in prison. It gave the school a bad rep for having a large criminal base. So, they stopped reporting a lot of things, including the kid involved and his previous incidents. The Sheriff's department knew about him as well. Had both group actually done their job, the incident never would have happened in the first place. Add on top of that the failure of the deputies to go in while the shooting was going on, and it gave a lot of ammo (excuse the pun) to the Bloomberg antis et al.

Scott had to do SOMETHING (because he was planning on running for US Senate), and so we got new restrictions placed here in Florida.
 
When your department is unprepared, misses the warning signs, then fails utterly in responding to an active shooter at a school, and then you try to blame everyone else and politicize the tragedy...you don't get much sympathy from me.

They had almost two decades since Columbine to improve their training and TTPs. Failing to do so borders on criminal negligence, IMO.
 
When your department is unprepared, misses the warning signs, then fails utterly in responding to an active shooter at a school, and then you try to blame everyone else and politicize the tragedy...you don't get much sympathy from me.

They had almost two decades since Columbine to improve their training and TTPs. Failing to do so borders on criminal negligence, IMO.
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. They didn't ignore warning signs, they actively looked the other way. IMHO it was a conspiracy between the sheriff's office and the school superintendent to underreport juvenile crime to make the numbers look good. What do you think happens when you do that? Crime explodes and they didn't care; they just didn't expect it to end in a mass-murder. And when it did, they blamed you and me for it (the NRA.)

The cowardly cop on the scene was just following orders from Sheriff Israel himself. The sheriff should be in prison for RICO.
 
zxcvbob said:
It's worse than that. They didn't ignore warning signs, they actively looked the other way. IMHO it was a conspiracy between the sheriff's office and the school superintendent to underreport juvenile crime to make the numbers look good. What do you think happens when you do that? Crime explodes and they didn't care; they just didn't expect it to end in a mass-murder. And when it did, they blamed you and me for it (the NRA.)

The cowardly cop on the scene was just following orders from Sheriff Israel himself. The sheriff should be in prison for RICO.
Click to expand...
All of the above, but you left out the part about repeatedly claiming after the fact that his department's handling of the incident was outstanding.
 
zxcvbob said:
It's worse than that.
Click to expand...
BUT why then, are 'RedFlag' laws crapped on so vehemently? If the person was flagged, he couldn't have bought the rifle.
Federal law allows people 18 and older to legally purchase long guns, including this kind of assault weapon. With no criminal record, Cruz cleared an instant background check via the FBI criminal database.
Click to expand...
But mention 'Red Flag' laws, where a judge 'may' prevent somebody from buying or possessing a firearm..and you get a lot of 'OMG, slippery slope', type stuff BUT, considering Cruz's history, a law like that may have worked.
 
It's worse than that. They didn't ignore warning signs, they actively looked the other way. IMHO it was a conspiracy between the sheriff's office and the school superintendent to underreport juvenile crime to make the numbers look good.
Click to expand...

Sadly, this is nothing new at all. College Campuses were required to compile and report crime rates and statistics beginning in 1990 because of the Clery Act. College leaders had a strong interest and desire for their campus to look "safe," so there was a hayday of campus police reports being avoided at all costs. How do you do this? Well, it's no different than a small fender-bender car crash in many states. You call the cops and if the damage is under a certain amount, a police report isn't mandatory. You can still request one, and if there is clear evidence that shows you aren't at fault (or may suffer injuries) you should request one. If it's a scratch on the bumper? Eh, it's your car but you will likely save time and heartache just by buffing it out yourself. Some (not all, but some) cops spend a great deal of time talking motorists out of requesting a police report. Similarly, if a student had something stolen and there is almost no evidence to figure out who did it, some campus police were encouraged to inform the student that reporting it was a waste of time because nothing could be done (which honestly, is mostly true). This kept crime rate statistics down, and it didn't just occur with petty small offenses either.

College campuses aren't the only ones who do it. I know that understaffed, underpaid, and overworked law enforcement agencies, usually Sheriff Departments in rural counties, will often decline to take reports on small petty crimes. Even some more major crimes like burglaries, if not much was taken, would either go unreported or the official report narrative would be less than a paragraph.

Just an FYI I'm not excusing the behavior, or saying I agree with it. I detest it as much as the next guy. I'm just saying this is not a new behavior, it has gone on for years.
 
But mention 'Red Flag' laws, where a judge 'may' prevent somebody from buying or possessing a firearm..and you get a lot of 'OMG, slippery slope', type stuff BUT, considering Cruz's history, a law like that may have worked.
Click to expand...

No, it wouldn't have because the school and Sheriff already KNEW about him and covered it up to reduce their crime numbers. Red Flags don't work when the very folks responsible for alerting and then preventing are in cahoots to save their own butts with phony stats
 
Like a lot of things in this "Twitter World" that we now live in most people will miss any of the follow-up reports on these incidents. They obviously see the original posts blaming the NRA for the World's ills, but never see the follow-up stories where some criminal justice official, mental health professional, educational professional, etc. decided to ignore negative behaviors and existing laws/guidelines.
 
FITASC said:
No, it wouldn't have because the school and Sheriff already KNEW about him and covered it up to reduce their crime numbers. Red Flags don't work when the very folks responsible for alerting and then preventing are in cahoots to save their own butts with phony stats
Click to expand...
I agree there was a coverup but the FBI was involved, no? They knew of this guy and his 'issues'...BUt again, 'red Flag' laws get people really worked up. Plus not just the school ignored the warning signs.
“I know he’s going to explode,” a woman who knew Mr. Cruz said on the F.B.I.’s tip line on Jan. 5. Her big worry was that he might resort to slipping “into a school and just shooting the place up.” Forty days later, Mr. Cruz is accused of doing just that, barging into his former high school in Parkland, Fla., and shooting 17 people to death.

Three months before the Feb. 14 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, a family friend dialed 911 to tell the Palm Beach County sheriff’s office about Mr. Cruz’s personal arsenal. “I need someone here because I’m afraid he comes back and he has a lot of weapons,” the friend said.
Click to expand...
 
Not really an L and CR issue, so I moved it to General, folks.

It's kind of Harvey Weinstein Syndrome. IIRC, when he was caught, he dedicated himself to vent his anger on the NRA. Pretty cheap trick.
 
Sheriff Israel should have been fired immediately. The guy is unhinged and his officers were completely ineffective. How is that the NRA's fault?
 
Sheriff Israel should have been fired immediately. The guy is unhinged and his officers were completely ineffective. How is that the NRA's fault?
Click to expand...

In the eyes of the ignorant and misinformed public, (now at greater than 50% of the population) the NRA is evil, pure evil. The NRA wants to kill little babies, put big bad evil black rifles in the hands of every violent felon on parole. The NRA is the cause of every gun death across the country.
 
USNRet93 said:
BUT why then, are 'RedFlag' laws crapped on so vehemently? If the person was flagged, he couldn't have bought the rifle.

Federal law allows people 18 and older to legally purchase long guns, including this kind of assault weapon. With no criminal record, Cruz cleared an instant background check via the FBI criminal database.
Click to expand...
But mention 'Red Flag' laws, where a judge 'may' prevent somebody from buying or possessing a firearm..and you get a lot of 'OMG, slippery slope', type stuff BUT, considering Cruz's history, a law like that may have worked.
Click to expand...
The problem with "red flag" laws is that the threshhold for being flagged is typically so low. Many of them don't even provide for meaningful due process -- you can be red flagged because a former "intimate partner" or vengeful ex-wife says you did ___, and your guns are immediately confiscated and you are added to the prohibited roster. Then ... after-the-fact ... you can pay tons of money to have a lawyer try to clear your name, get your guns back, and get your name removed from the prohibited list. Your chances of success are slim.

THAT's the problem.
 
The threshold is lower than what we have in Florida called being Baker Acted. The Baker Act was designed so family members could have someone committed for psych evaluation against their will
The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971 (Florida Statute 394.451-394.47891[1] [2009 rev.]), commonly known as the "Baker Act," allows the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual.

The Baker Act allows for involuntary examination (what some call emergency or involuntary commitment). It can be initiated by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, or mental health professionals. There must be evidence that the person:

possibly has a mental illness (as defined in the Baker Act).
is in danger of becoming a harm to self, harm to others, or is self neglectful (as defined in the Baker Act).

Examinations may last up to 72 hours after a person is deemed medically stable and occur in over 100 Florida Department of Children and Families-designated receiving facilities statewide.[2]

There are many possible outcomes following examination of the patient. This includes the release of the individual to the community (or other community placement), a petition for involuntary inpatient placement (what some call civil commitment), involuntary outpatient placement (what some call outpatient commitment or assisted treatment orders), or voluntary treatment (if the person is competent to consent to voluntary treatment and consents to voluntary treatment). The involuntary outpatient placement language in the Baker Act took effect as part of the Baker Act reform in 2005.
Click to expand...

Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, which do not individually qualify an individual as meeting the criteria:

Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness;
The person refuses voluntary examination;
The person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary.

The decisive criterion, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. Criteria are not met simply because a person has a mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, has an emotional outburst, or refuses voluntary examination. Furthermore, if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm, the criteria for involuntary examination are also not met.

"Substantial likelihood" must involve evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not qualify the individual as meeting the criteria
Click to expand...

As you can see, this requires a little more than just some angry family member or ex spouse calling in on a Red Flag scenario where they come and confiscate your property.
 
Red flag laws can readily create penalties and denial of guaranteed rights over speech with little or no due process. This is not some "slippery slope" its a concise summary of the dangers. Now we can discuss if doing so is "worth it" but let's not deny what we are discussing by trying to place the fallacy of a "slippery slope" on the other party.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top