Suffice it to say that I’m quite calm. I calmly respond with plain-speaking when people attempt by artifice and implication what might get them in trouble if plainly said. I hear that some think such “straight talk” (or pretensions to it) is popular in the GOP lately, though my impression is that it’s just an effort to couch closet Liberalism in media-acceptable terms, an effort to put lipstick on a pig, if you will.

In any case, my point is that you fail to recognize WHERE the problem lies: the MAPS administration didn’t get truthful information upon reasonable inquiry to the PWCPD. And that’s a problem that they lack the authority or ability to “fix.”

[Ed note: comment edited.]

Try telling that to a kid in PWC. You will quickly be corrected, as I was. There are different expectations with ’shelter in place’ and lockdown. I had to hear about it in full detail yesterday. I guess that is a good thing that someone listens at that age. For the record, I agreed with your assessment of matters until my attitude was adjusted.

Patty, thanks for the support.

You have to understand that the [redacted] will take any opportunity to attack me, even when she is removing all doubt (you know the old saw, “Better to remain silent and though a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt”). It doesn’t matter whether I’ve satisfied any of her “standards,” because she has none. To the extent that she espouses any, they’re all of convenience, like any power-hungry political hack, to be discarded if no longer useful. Remember a few weeks ago, when Hitlary became the champion of gun owners and the faithful? Same principle at work.

Witness the contradiction: according to the [redacted], my “ego does not allow [me] to admit when [I am wrong about anything.” What does she quote to support this assertion? A quotation where I admit my error!?!?!

Witness her silence in the face of “Peter G.’s” name-calling. She has said in the past that she opposes it, yet engages in it herself and remains silent when others do it, so long as it is directed at the right target.

Witness her failure to recognize the difference between major and minor facts. She quibbles because I misidentified the shopping center (one in apparently close proximately to the site of the actual shooting) and the distance to the school (1/2 as opposed to a full mile). Now, I suppose that if I had identified the shopping center as Potomac Mills or Tysons Corner (what is that, 10 or 15 miles difference?), the [redacted] might have a point. The important facts are that: (1) there was a shooting; (2) it was in close proximity — a few minutes’ driving distance — to an unwarned school; and (3) the suspect remained at large.

‘Course, the bright side is, the [redacted] can print out and bring along a copy of her comment if she ever wants to get out of jury duty!

[Ed note: comment edited.]

Only force can defend against force, which is why folks call the police in these situations. If schools aren’t willing to train and certify teachers and administrators to use and deploy force in defense of their charges then your children will remain “soft targets” regardless of lock-down policy and any notification of nearby threat.

Schools in Israel had this lesson figured out 20+ years ago.

Don’t fall for “security theater.” Demand real security.

“OK officer, I’ll get my shotgun and put an end to this right now. Thanks for giving me the go-ahead on this.”

Then hang up. They’ll be there in thirty seconds.

Don’t be too quick to critize Mr. Young on this. I’ve experienced two occasions when the dispatcher gave me incorrect information. In one instance when I called in a domestic fight (out in the front lawn) I was concerned when no police came. I called back the dispatcher (45 minutes later) because the combatants were still at it. The dispatcher told me that the police were busy. I said the persons involved were still outside fighting. Then I asked her if she expected me to break it up. She then said, “If you don’t mind.”

Next day I called the Captain to complain about it.

I guess, therefore, by your standard, that the entire criminal justice system — police; prosecutors; judges; juries — are “losers.” After all, all that they do is “place blame” for wrong-doing.

One might more logically suspect that “losers” seize on minor errors to evade the issue when they don’t want to be perceived as defending a logically untenable position.

And the untenable position which you seek desperately to evade is the fact that the MAPS administration did “take steps to be sure they were notified” ON THIS OCCASION. The school did attempt to “take responsibility for the safety of the people” at the school (children on a playground) when someone noticed an unusual number of helicopters in the area. My point (and I do have one) is that members of the public — including private-school administrators and teachers — are entitled to truthful information from the government upon which to base their decisionmaking. That’s one reason why we receive mailed notices about the County’s gypsy-moth spraying program with our water bills well in advance of that activity. Those “steps” were frustrated when the individual inquiring was lied to by a government employee. It shouldn’t have taken the EXTRA step of flagging down a police car. That officer is to be commended for giving truthful information when asked. An analogous situation — individuals fleeing from police — arose in my neighborhood a few weeks ago, and while I wouldn’t have expected some general alarm to individual residences, I certainly expected and received truthful information from one of the officers involved. Before I did so, I directed my sons to stay in an upstairs room in the house while I sought the information.

The alternative is imposing a lock-down whenever anything unusual is observed, and frequently disrupting the activities of the school needlessly.

“Me” is of course correct. I maintain that it’s important to make a distinction between the failure to notify — a procedural deficiency which can and should be corrected in the future — and the misrepresentation made upon the MAPS teacher’s inquiry, for the reasons and with the consequences stated above.

Schools (public or private) don’t pay anyone to monitor police scanners. Only newspapers, and radio and television stations do so. That you suggest that schools do so is simply silly.

The important thing here is that a member in the public in a position to take a few security measures to protect children in a potentially dangerous situation was lied to by a government employee. You say that my rather minor errors “lead [you] to not believe [my] information about what was told to the teacher at the school.”

Believe it or not, as you see fit. Most people are sensible enough to know about the workings of government to have little doubt that it has the ring of veracity, and that I have known the lady who spoke to the officer and her husband for the better part of twenty years give me little doubt about its veracity.

That being said I can’t understand why the dispatcher didn’t put 2 and 2 together and give out the right information. There has got to be a way to notify private and public schools in an event of an emergency in the area. It is completely unacceptable that a private school can not receive updates just as the public school does. All of our children deserve the same protection!!

Time for inquiries to be made.

List the last instance where a gringo shot another gringo outside of a supermarket in the area. PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Seven out of the last nine murders in this area were comitted by illegal aliens.