jkeel
Joined 16 years ago
Joined 16 years ago
Then all of a sudden the teenage boy (about 15-16 years old) runs out of the house over to her and starts talking to her. The mother runs out soon after. I walk over there and they are talking to her and looking concerned at me. I walk up and the mom is yelling at me about letting my daughter outside alone. I explain to her that I was here the whole time watching. She then says that some stranger could have come up to her in which I reply, "I know. It's a good thing I was here."
My daughter said she was afraid to go in the front yard after that because she said the creepy neighbors are probably watching her. Thank goodness they moved away a few months ago.
Anyways, I love the truck driver culture. Before my grandfather worked for USPS, I would go with him on trips and we would go to these truck stops that were more like diners. I'm not sure if a lot of those exist anymore but the waitress would always remember my grandfather and he would just say, "my usual". Fond memories.
Shouldn't there be maybe a simple check from a non-armed individual (I'm thinking a nice gentleman or lady in business attire - an investigator). Seems like most people will gladly help the police if they are kind and courteous. Then if that doesn't work out, bring in standard officers (no SWAT), to discuss matters but without breaking into a house. There still seems like there should be many levels of escalation before a SWAT is called.
Only if some sort of armed conflict occurs then a SWAT team is probably necessary and called in with proper escalation procedures. Why jump straight to armed conflict mode by bringing in a SWAT? Heck, I would even wager to say that RIGHT before a SWAT is called if you warn the individuals that if they don't comply, a SWAT will be called, then just the warning will be enough. Still I can't stress enough, that there should be escalation procedures. Long escalation procedures.
On the flip side, I would have found it more understandable that the police do a thorough investigation to decide if any laws have been broken. I fail to see the crime committed.
http://www.khou.com/news/texas-news/Texas-teen-charged-with-...
NPR version: "I think Ima shoot up a kindergarten / And watch the blood of the innocent rain down/ And eat the beating heart of one of them."
KHOU version: 'Oh you're insane, you're crazy, you're messed up in the head,’ to which he replied 'Oh yeah, I'm real messed up in the head, I'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still, beating hearts,’ and the next two lines were lol and jk.,"
The whole thing seems absurd. His statement is obviously making fun of the person calling him insane, not a threat. It's pretty bad when you have to be so careful with what you say, because it can be considered "terroristic". Who get's to make that determination and how long do you get to sit in jail for until it's decided regarding a crime that wasn't committed?