Skip to comments.Who rang the shooter into the schoolhouse? AND WHY?
Posted on 12/18/2012 6:31:24 AM PST by Chance Hart
Was the shooter (not going to mention his name because that is what he wanted) rang into the schoolhouse or did he blast his way in through a window? The supposed facts of the story change on an hourly basis it seems.
Just for the sake of my point, let's assume that someone on the school staff rang him in. From what I understand, there was a fairly new security (video) system installed that would have allowed the person or persons with the authority to "ring in" various people during the course of the school day - i.e. teachers, delivery people, maintenance, parents, etc. etc. etc.
What did the shooter use for a reason that he should be allowed into the building that housed the classrooms of small children in a "GUN FREE ZONE? What possible business could he have that would have seemed reasonable to the staff member that allowed him to enter? Were metal detectors part of the new security system? If not, why not, as they can be turned on and off at will if there might be any suspicion at all about the person at your front door.
Has anyone asked the "surviving" Nurse and Secretary if they in fact allowed him to enter and if so, what was their reasoning?
I live in a secured building and I can't tell you how many times over the years I have had to reeducate my neighbors about the policy of our building, which is that nobody comes into our building that is not known to the tenant or does not have a key or code to enter. So many times I have had them say that they didn't want to say anything, even when they were followed in by a complete stranger before the secure door was closed and locked behind them upon entry or exit. They have said that they did not want to offend anyone by questioning what their business was and tell them that they needed to stay in the outer area until allowed in by a tenant.
Although luckily, there has been little crime committed in our building over the years, the criminal acts that did happen were usually traced back to the illegal trespassing of perps that were allowed to enter because the tenant was too PC or too nervous to question them, or got the midnight call that someone had forgot their key and asked if they could ring them in. I am shocked at how many people let these strangers in without any knowledge as to who they are and what their intentions are.
I guess my point is that you can have all the security in the world, but it is meaningless if your neighbors or in this case coworkers fail to follow the policy put forth to make the system work.
Anyways, just rambling and hope some of you can comment on the issue.
As most of us know - Guns, Knives, baseball bats, etc. are not the problem. CRAZY PEOPLE, PC INTIMIDATED PEOPLE, STUPID PEOPLE, AND MOST OF THE LEFT AND THE RINO #SS KISSERS ARE THE PROBLEM!!
Got that off my chest - Now back to my coffee. :-)
Nobody. He shot the glass out and walked through.
The story has always been that he shot throught the viewing glass, stuck his arm through and opened the door from the inside.
Did this change?
Why make that assumption when the latest reports show it false?
Initial reports gave many conflicting pieces of information from "un-named sources".
Official reports state he shot his way in, breaking the glass.
When Lanza arrived at the school, he forcibly entered, according to Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy.
"What we know is he shot his way into the building. He was not buzzed in," Malloy told ABC's "This Week" on Sunday. "He penetrated the building by literally shooting an entrance into the building."
I know when I went to my kids school there was a door with an electronic lock and a video camera. You’d ring the buzzer and one of two things would happen: They’d either buzz you in without saying a word, or some horribly distorted voice like a fast-food drive thru speaker came on, I suppose asking me to state my business. The audio was so bad maybe I could have said I was a terrorist bomber and been buzzed thru.
Yes, it was first reported he was buzzed in.
In fact he shot his way in by blowing out the glass.
You can make your own assumptions to answer all of your questions.
I would like to see the video of that if there is one. I find it difficult anymore to believe what the MSM tells me is the official story. ANY OF THEM INCLUDING FOX, as even they are confused as to whether he came in with Mom’s Bushmaster of if it was left in the vehicle. Trust nobody that has to “Tow The Line” in order to keep their job. Seen too many of those that I once trusted take a “180” as of late.
Their official story is that he forced or broke his way into the school, if someone buzzed him in - we will never know about it.
I have always said locks only stop the honest.
No matter if some one really wants in they get in.
Some buildings are just harder.
Can you find a single report from Monday or Today that still confuses the issue? Not a blog regurgitating old news but a news report from past the weekend using named, not un-named sources?
Chance, please start paying attention.
To who? ABC - NBC - CBS - MSNBC - No Thanks - Will leave that to you tx :-)
Locks only keep an honest man honest. Remember what happened to the locked police facility in the first Terminator movie after Arnold said “I’ll be back”?
I suspicion that school "lock down" drills are like the school fire drills that I had as a kid. The fire drills were often announced in advance, there were no attempts to add reality like some exits being blocked or having to get down and crawl to exits due to smoke like might occur in a real fire and not once was the drill coordinated with the local fire department to test whether their system worked in conjunction with the school's. The principal just timed the exercise with a watch to see if everyone got out in the mandated time. I worked many years in developing regional EMS systems and the only way you know if your system works is to conduct a realistic exercise. I wonder how many schools have tested their "lock down" plans realistically or are they just paper exercises created by some school bureaucrats.
My kids school recently sent me an e-mail stating they do everything to protect my children.
So I fired an e-mail back asking when they allowed teachers and staff to have firearms.
Of course I got the standard reply “We are a gun free zone”
My reply “then your NOT doing everything you can to protect my child. Signs only stop people like me from carrying my legal weapon on to school grounds. They do not stop shooters intent on killing my kid”
I half expected a visit from the Sheriff. Either they didn’t call or they got the deputy that lives next door who would have said “well, he’s right!”
“Was the shooter (not going to mention his name because that is what he wanted)...”
I understand and agree with you about mentioning his name, but I don’t like the use of the term “shooter” here.
In the case of a similar situation, several on this forum would also be “shooters”, they might even be “active shooters”.
But they would be lawful shooters trying to stop and unlawful shooter.
Associating the term “shooter” only with maniacs or other people who do bad things will be detrimental to those on the pro gun side.
Simply plug the phrase “Adam Lanza blasted through the glass doors of the Sandy Hook Elementary School clutching a military-style Bushmaster rifle” or “fired approximately six shots into one of the school’s glass front doors” or “Lanza blasted his way into the Sandy Hook Elementary School, spraying bullets at the glass in one of the doors” into an Internet search engine.
But thankfully the secretary called 911 before locking herself and the nurse in the closet. I was stunned to find out that they were still in there 4 hours later in this age of cellphones everywhere.
Exactly. First it was reported that he was buzzed in. Then the next day, it was changed to "breaking the glass and entering". Now it's "shot his way in, spraying bullets..."
While one scenario isn't much more likely than the others, it's tough NOT to notice the drift from "Oops, our minimal security measures failed" to "Nope, we're blameless - it's all the shooter's fault" and finally to "It was all the GUN's fault!".
I wonder who Obama sent to manage this in CT?