There’s been a big story about the two New York doormen who closed the doors to their building’s apartment lobby while a 65-year-old Asian woman was punched and kicked outside. The security officers have been fired, according to the building’s owner. Had a conversation about this the other day. A young lady happened to comment on this saying “Good. They deserve it.” I suggested maybe it was a wrongful termination. She got offended. Then I explained that not knowing the building’s “rules of engagement”, this was a hard call. Most HOA’s say security is to protect the building and its occupants and are usually prohibited for engaging in any confrontations unless a building occupant is involved. I personally know of an incident where a security got involved in an event fronting his building but not involving an occupant, the initial antagonist responded, the security struck him once in self-defense, whereupon the aggressor fell, struck his head, and died. The Guard was fired, the HOA refused to provide any legal services or financing because the guard was “out of written policy”. The guard lost his house, family, and did 1 ½ years for involuntary manslaughter. I also handled a case where the security got involved, and got stabbed three times, damaging him permanently. This one was covered as he was assisting a building occupant. But he’s still disabled. Security officers are not paid to do a police officer’s job. They are not paid to protect anything but their property. They are not obligated to defend or help anyone not a building occupant. Firing them for following the HOA guidelines is wrong. They maybe not have been morally correct in not getting involved, every man has to make his own choice there, but they probably shouldn’t have been fired. I don’t know all the facts here, just my opinion.
So the WH has issued it’s first, and most assuredly not last, words on gun control. The actions were unveiled in the wake of a recent spate of mass shootings across the country, including a deadly attack Thursday in South Carolina. The House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, Chaired by Mike Thompson (D-CA), sent a letter to President Joe Biden asking for the president to take executive action on ;”Concealable assault-style firearms that fire rifle rounds pose an unreasonable threat to our communities and should be fully regulated under the National Firearms Act consistent with the intent and history of the law.” Common Sense” gun control seems to always be in response to an illegal action. Example, “bump stocks” came under they hue and cry of the left after the Las Vegas shooting. The shooter, Stephen Paddock, had 22 semi-automatic rifles and 14 of them were equipped with bump stocks. There has been no proof shown that the shooter had used any of those “equipped” weapons. Despite the facts that “KTW” ammunition had never been available to the general public and that no police officer has ever been killed by a handgun bullet penetrating their body armor, the media incorrectly reported that the Teflon coated bullets were designed to defeat the body armor that law enforcement officers were beginning to use. The myth of “Cop-killer” bullets was born. Following significant media hype and widespread misconceptions, Congress got into the act and thus the bullets were “outlawed”. It’s always a high knee jerk reaction. Now it’s on background checks, “ghost guns”, and stabilizing arm braces. Nobody has ever defined “assault weapon” correctly and now they want to do something about “concealable assault style” weapons. What the hell is that? Uncle Joe’s “executive actions”, which I guess are different than “executive orders” or “mandates”, will make no difference or stop a single crime. Biden also called for a national red-flag law. The “red flag” will be used as a revenge and control on people that speak up and criticize, or just pizz someone off. Just to top at all off., he says “We should also eliminate gun manufacturers from the immunity they receive from the Congress. If I get one thing on my list, Lord came down and said, ‘Joe, you get one of these,’ give me that one.” The sentence makes no sense, is really hypocritical, and will open a flood gate. If we can sue the gun manufacturers, why not the car makers after the dui? Why not the brewers and distillers after alcoholism? We sued the cigarette makers, why not everyone else? McDonalds for obesity? Where will it stop? Short answer, when everyone gets tired of it. Me, I’m already tired of it.