Don't know if you've seen the news, but in Panama City, Florida at a school board meeting, a man pulls a gun. He ends up firing it at the Superintendent, and eventually dies on scene.
He lets people leave. It's all on video.
My question is..WHERE ARE THE MEN? Oh yeah, they're sitting RIGHT THERE letting a pitiful old woman defend them!!!!
In this video you see a big black man is one of the first to leave. Women are the last to leave, and the ones who tempt the gunman's ire....
It is a sad sad day when an overweight nut job with a gun can freeze grown men in their tracks, or make them run like little girls, and women are left to defend everyone.
Don’t know how long they’ll keep this video up…but it was public access so shouldn’t be an issue at YT.
Gah.
Gah!!!
That old woman with the purse, the one who hit him? Her name is Ginger. And that woman and her "may I help her" friend have more courage than any of the men in that room imo.
She was willing to lay down her life for them.
And they watched. Something I am not wholly unfamiliar with...though it was nothing near this.....http://lifehappens.joeuser.com/article/91671/And_they_WATCHED
You are correct about the ladies. They are true heroes. But in retrospect - and given the outcome, I think the Superintendent was accurate in his statement. The guy was just looking to commit suicide. That is the only way he could have fired at and missed everyone.
I don't care how he rationalizes not acting to protect a woman who was trying to save his life. All those men are weak in my eyes. Every single one of them. (I know, like they care...lol)
Come on Really? I've heard the saying "never bring a knife to a gun fight". I'll go one step further and include a purse. This lady, good intentions and all (I'll give her that), could have potentially exasperated the situation further. The gun could have went off killing someone (IMO this guy wanted to die and if he really wanted to kill everyone in the room he could have...easily). So I'm going to go against the grain of everyone here and call BS on this woman channeling Ruth Buzzi in an Artie Johnson "dirty old man" sketch.
Ruth Buzzi sitting on the park bench, Artie comes shuffling up and takes a seat.
Artie -"Do you believe in the hereafter?
Ruth - "Yes I do"
Artie scooching closer - "Then you know what I'm here after"
Ruth hits Artie with her purse.
Ok, I will give you the other men. But not the superintendent! He was in the cross hairs and trying to defuse the situation. He had no chance to help the ladies as he was the focus (so in a way, he was the canary) of the gunman.
When someone is bore-sighting on your forehead, logic goes out the window and all that is left is training...the fellows behind the counter were at a tactical disadvantage...and psychological disadvantage, too. In order to move when the purse struck, they would have to come out from the shelter of the counter they were behind. Yeah, days and several viewings of the video later we can second guess what they should have done, but at the point of impact, even realizing that the man could very shortly walk around the end of the counter and drill everyone, it would be a hard thing to come out from what little cover was there. Having said all that, I agree that when the lady hit him, it provided enough of a distraction that the fellas could have yelled, "let's git him"...and maybe they would have succeeded and maybe they would have caused him to blast away in earnest. I think he was a confused individual and maybe all he wanted was someone to punch his ticket. In the end, he was the only one who died...as it should be. Politically motivated question here: How would this whole thing panned out if a couple of the board members had been carrying concealed weapons?
CAll it what you like. The fact is, that woman went back in and hit a man with a gun. She didn't have any previous training...she left, she came back, she ACTED.
The gunman had his BACK to the men for several seconds while struggling with her....long enough for them to do SOMETHING.....
I'm sorry. I think there is something wrong, at the root of our culture, that makes men act like such pussies.
4 planes on 911. Only one we know of where the passengers decided to ACT. Doesn't make their failure any less painful, but at least they went fighting.
I thought the Superintendent was going to talk him to death, or debate him about taxes....someone points a gun at me and mine, they better kill me first. Purse, toilet seat, whatever....I'm fighting.
I'm not arguing his sanity. If you ask me it takes a total nut job to do what he did. But nut job or not....he had a gun, he terrorized people with it...he got exactly what he deserved.
Wonder where Ginger got her training? lol
As for the political question. I dunno. I kinda wish Ginger was packin. You can bet he wouldn't have slapped her to the floor, and the whole thing woulda been over in the first 90 seconds.
ya, but her actions could have very well got her killed. I don't think what she did was smart. Brave, yes, but not smart. He was waving a gun over her. She was darn lucky to be walking out of there vertical.
if the men had rushed him with his back turned it probably would have turned ugly. Somebody would have been shot since it's clear there were bullets in that gun he was waving around. As it was all the men survived but the gunman.
I agree with BFD..it's much easier to second guess after the situation. I've been in a very scary situation when time stands still (when I was attacked) and had to think quickly. None of us really know what we would do in a particular situation until we are faced with it.
My son who is here said he would have run out the door also. They were asked to leave by a man waving a gun around. When that happens you leave. There were five men sitting at the table. There didn't need to be six or seven hanging around.
The only thing I saw that was cowardly really was that first guy who ran out leaving the women behind. But in a way we've asked for this type of response from our men when we stared with the sissyfying of them years ago. We're trying to make our men to be more like women and then when they act like it we don't like it. For the most part, men stopped being men some time ago. You can thank your woman libbers for that.
#1 - it was not a failure. It was not a total success, but they did accomplish part of their goal. The plane never found the hijackers target.
#2 - there was no reference for the other 3 planes. We had had countless hijackings prior to 9-11 where almost no one was killed (except the hijackers). I cannot fault someone for not acting when they had no reference to what was going to go down. I think BFD said it best - Hindsight. it is always 20/20
You know the cliche - there are loves and fighters. Well, there are talkers and doers as well. But think a moment. What is this guy's occupation? Remember the old cliche - "Those who can, do. Those who cannot, teach". He was a talker not a fighter. But at least he gave his best shot at defusing the situation. I will not say "if I was in his shoes" as I have long ago learned that what I SHOULD do is not always what I DO in a crises. But yes, in hindsight, his talking did not amount to much.
And that's the point. She had none. It all turned out good, but it could easily have gone horribly wrong because of her actions. This article would have a different tone if he squeezed the trigger when struck and shot someone or if Ginger got killed. I'm all for people trying to assist, but in this case it accomplished nothing and luckily did no further harm. If she had a brick in her purse and knocked him out, I'd say then she thought it through. The woman definitely has courage, but action for the sake of acting is not very bright IMO. I'm glad her children are not attending her funeral this weekend. Sorry I can't get behind this woman being a hero of any sort.
Come on Tova, isn't that a little harsh? The first planes that hit the passengers most likely thought it was a hijacking. To my knowledge, the PA plane passengers were the only ones to learn the fate of the other three aircraft. If they had known perhaps none would have reached their targets.
They knew they would die regardless, but were going to do it on their terms not the hijackers. Ginger didn't know the fate of the assemblymen. She was not in danger until after she acted. Again, luck was on everyones side except the shooter.
Yes it is. Sorry I get a little militant (ie emotional) when I don't feel well, heh. But the point I was attempting to make is simple and isn't limited to 9-11. When a bad guy tells you to do something, like 'be still and no one will be hurt', it is not worth the risk in the end to trust them to do the right thing.
Someone with a box cutter on a plane full of people could be overwhelmed with sheer numbers and a little planning. Like, "Hey, when that guy passes, I'm gonna jump on his head, stick your leg out and trip him and the guy across the aisle will punch him in the balls." (Knowing of course that someone may get cut, someone may die...but the odds of that happening are pretty high anyway...)
The alternative of sitting quietly and waiting for a man who obviously has every intention of harming (ie gun, knife) is crazy imo. It seems so sheeple. And some Americans are busting out of the mentality as we've seen in a couple cases since 9-11 like the underwear bomber.
Women are taught in self-defense classes to never ever ever "let" someone abduct them (ie, do as they're told by a bad guy with a weapon). Don't let them take you to another location. Fight, die where they try to grab you. Never totallly capitulate to the bad guy.
That makes sense to me, and while not the same, has some of the same implications about making things hard for someone bent on harming people. That guy stated flat out he was gonna die there. A School Board Kamikaze. Would you just sit in the back seat of one of their planes and wait to die? Hope they'd change their mind? Be rescued??
Again, I know it is not the same....not saying it is, but the "wait and see" reaction is not appropriate.
It's all good. We'll just agree to disagree. Technically she doesn't fit my idea of a "hero" because she didn't save anyone....but I prefer action over in-action any day, even if it turns out badly. But that's just part of my personality.
I believe a repeat of the 9-11 hijackings could not successfully be undertaken today, now that people know what's in store. Like I said I'm not opposed to someone taking action, just that they believe their actions might be successful. I don't believe Ginger gave much thought on what she hoped to accomplish.
No one can say who will act bravely in a scene of violence until that scene unfolds. Anyone who has experienced violence first hand can really know and appreciate the heroism of those who act bravely.
I found it interesting looking back after I was attacked, that when I was on the ground and he was standing over me I had a very very hard time kicking him "you know where." I don't know why other than the fact that I'm not a physically abusive person towards another. I'm a very physical person when it comes to my well-being most of the time but that manifests itself in disciplining my body or exercise; not attacking another. It's foregin to me. It was very hard for me to take those kicks. I believe they were not nearly as hard as I was capable of. In the end it did nothing, because he managed to get me to my feet and into a headlock.
In my mind I would agree with you and would have said I would bite off his ear, kick him, twist a finger breaking it etc, but when it came down to it my only goal was to get out of there by running away from the situation as fast as I could.
If my children were there...now we're talking a whole nuther ball game.
I'm sorry but that's the most retarded quote I have ever read. I don't know if I would consider my self a womens libber, but I am for equality. That being said I like my men and men in general to be men. There isn't a one way or the other and I'm pretty sure it isn't why those men were pussies. They just were.
Who knows why Ginger acted and the men didn't. I would want to go out fighting too.
I kicked a guy who attacked me in the jewels. He laughed in my face, and I used my strongest kick. Who knows maybe he was ball-less...lol, that's probably why he was picking on a girl...it's not the cure all most women think, the eyes are probably the most vulnerable place, but while he was strangling me, I didn't have the arm reach to scratch the eyes. Sometimes, even fighting, you lose. But like Kelly, I'd rather fight and lose than sit and wait to die.
I've been violently attacked twice, both times I fought, even though I knew there wasn't much chance of winning. I've also seen sheeple watch as an old man was beaten while I screamed and screamed for people to help him, and finally ran to find help since no one watching wanted to get involved.
The old "no one knows until it happpens to them" is true, but not absolute. I always figured I fight, and when I was attacked, I did.
I agree.
One thing I learned over the years training young soldiers...most folks who grow up in civilized neighborhoods and never experience the kind of street violence that is common in some of our urban areas, or who have never had any training in a dojo, ring, or mat will have the kind of aversion that KFC mentioned built into them. It is that reluctance and hesitation that the bad boys count on to stay on top of a situation. I have witnessed bullies harass and cow fellas lots bigger than themselves by sheer aggression and willingness to get it on.
As for the reaction under fire...a lot of it has to do with mindset and environment. But again, I have seen brave men cower and wimps get mad and get with it. Some folks, like purse-lady in FLA, are just naturally "do it" kind of people. I salute it but prefer a little thought. The "hero" of the story went out to his car and donned his vest and armed up before he ran in to harms way...
There may be an article up-coming related to this...thanks for the mental shove, T.
Well Ginger just lost a little bit more credibility in my eyes today. She is selling her "weapon", the infamous hand bag, on e-Bay. Opening bid $500 (mow over 9K). I guess that's the price she puts on her "bravery".
http://www.11alive.com/news/national/story.aspx?storyid=169056&catid=166
She's selling it for charity. She's not keeping the $. Now THAT makes her a hero imo.
My pleasure! Can't wait to read it.
Maybe it's just my disdain for eBay. I also take issue with the importance places on objects. I'm happy for the charity, but would she have done better to ask everyone interested just to donate to that cause? I believe it would have been better if everyone that bid would have just sent their money to that charity (perhaps some will) in her name. Did they really need to get an ol lady purse as a consolation prize? I can almost bet someone bidding on this believes it has some value. Oh well only, I suppose only the winning bid is what matters. Maybe now I'm being too harsh in these days of minor celebrity status "cash ins" (For good or bad). At least the kids win.
Lol, I dunno....it is an ugly purse, but I think it is the symbolic nature that makes it valuable. I think focusing on an object is kind of a human nature type thing. Look at all the iconic symbols around us...
This purse symbolizes something to people, and each person would probably have their own twist. (As we've seen here.)
For me it is kinda funny that something so ugly, so clunky, so woman-ish, was used to try and bring down a man with a gun in a room full of sitting ducks.
And then there is the charity. It's a double wammy. Lots of people can't resist that.
Interesting concept. Guess this throws the whole equality argument out the window. I am curious, in a society where some believe men and women are equal how come men are the ones still expected to give up their lives for women? I thought women made a big deal out of them doing what would normally be expected of men yet this arguments seems to points to the contrary.
I don't know how I would really react in that kind of situation but I am not ashamed to admit I would be totally scared. That I may risk my life to save others is possible but I won't discount the idea that I too may make a run for my life too. I don't think my manhood should be defined by the amount of women I am willing to give my life for. I would risk my life if need be if it were a man, woman or child.
BTW, in my opinion, a hero is a person who risks their lives to save others not to make a dumb decision that could not only put their lives at risk but everyone else's even more. This lady's actions may seem heroic but considering the odds of her succeeding were slim at best of stopping him (the whole knife to a gun fight thing or in this case a purse) it was more of a stupid decision where she did not take other peoples lives into consideration when she acted. That is how I see it.
I don't disagree totally. I believe a hero needs to actually accomplish something (besides making a bunch of men look like wimps), but not always. For instance, I would call a firefighter who knows a building is gonna go any minute, but runs into the fire (not away from it) and ends up dying, a hero. The intent to save someone was there. Though some might argue it isn't too bright to run into a burning building, even with training.
I'm not sure how she did anything worse than the guy (John) who shot the shooter. He winged the guy in the friggin leg. Watch the video. So what does the shooter do? He turns and shoots toward the youngest guy (who by this time is hiding under the desk) and lets off a couple rounds determined not to go down alone. Why aren't you calling John stupid for winging him and not going for a kill shot?
Technically John boy didn't exactly take the other lives into account either, since he winged the gunman, leaving him free to kill.
The only person who can define that for you is you, and maybe your wife.
And that's good because Ginger wasn't willing to give her life for women either. She was the only one in the room, remember? She was trying to help her friends.
We'll agree to disagree. I absolutely judge one aspect of manhood in terms of protection. If I can't count on my man to protect my family then I cannot see him as a man. That doesn't mean he has to act stupid, but he does have to act.
I think you'd be crazy not to be scared. No one said she wasn't scared. Maybe she was scared and acted anyway. She was scared and acted. The men were scared and froze.
Charles, equality does not equate to physiology. It equates to rights and freedoms.
Men are generally made larger, with more muscle mass, larger lungs and heart etc. It is why women race women in the Olympics, not men. The male runners have a physiological advantage over the women. It is also why the military adapts different standards for men than women, like how much one must lift, height, weight, etc. Come on, you know this. No one (sane) believes men and women are physiologically "equal."
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
