Armed Citizen Shoots, Kills Active Shooter At Tulsa Shopping Center

A woman was shot and killed at a Tulsa, Oklahoma shopping center Friday night after she opened fire on customers. While police are still investigating a possible motive and haven’t released the woman’s identify, the Tulsa World reports that the woman’s rampage was apparently stopped by a concealed carry holder before she was able to inflict any injuries.

Video reportedly showed the woman was involved in an earlier altercation in the parking lot. The woman left the shopping center and returned about three minutes later, when she pulled a gun and opened fire, according to the news release.

The concealed carry permit holder reportedly returned fire and was later questioned and released at the department’s detective division.

Who knows how bad this could have been had an armed citizen not been around to stop the shooter before she actually hit anyone? Sadly, because she didn’t actually kill or injure anyone, this story isn’t of nearly as much interest to the media as it would be otherwise, and this story will get virtually no national news coverage because there wasn’t enough carnage inflicted. The media would much rather talk about lives lost than lives saved.

Even locally, the story isn’t really getting a lot of attention. There was a brief writeup in the local paper and a short segment on local news channels, but that’s about it. Granted, this wasn’t a situation that called for hours of live, uninterrupted coverage, but to me this story is just as important as it would be if the suspect had actually taken any innocent lives, and it’s worth far more attention than what its received so far.

In fact, one Tulsa news station managed to report on the story and completely miss the fact that an armed citizen saved lives. From KTUL-TV:

Tulsa police say a woman has died after a shooting in north Tulsa Friday evening.

According to investigators a man shot and killed the woman near East 54th Street North and North Peoria Avenue.

Police say it was all caught on security footage outside a local store in the area and that’s why they now have the suspect in custody.

KTUL’s story makes it sound like this guy just walked up to the woman and shot her, and was then taken into custody. There’s no mention of the fact that the woman was shooting at customers, the man was a concealed carry holder, or that he was questioned and released by police with no expectation of an arrest.

This is journalistic malpractice at best, and an outright deception at worst. From what the Tulsa Police are saying, it sounds like this armed citizen deserves a medal. KTUL’s reporting makes it sound like he deserves to be locked up. Hopefully the station will update their story, but for now their report stands a stark reminder of the media’s failure to treat stories of armed self-defense with the same attention they give stories of murder and mayhem.

SOURCE 





Mercedes breathing device to keep coronavirus patients out of intensive care

A non-invasive breathing aid that can help to keep coronavirus patients from needing intensive care has been developed and approved in a matter of a few days.



The device, known as continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), was created by a partnership between the Mercedes Formula One team, University College London (UCL) and University College London Hospital (UCLH).

CPAP devices work by pushing a mix of oxygen and air into the mouth and nose at a continuous rate, thereby increasing the amount of oxygen that gets into the lungs. They bridge the gap between an oxygen mask and the need for full mechanical ventilation, during which the patient must be sedated.

SOURCE 






Fake photo



As countries go into lockdown to stem infection rates, a Facebook post has highlighted Italy to emphasise the importance of staying home, using a photo of multiple coffins to reinforce the message.

The March 22 post from a Queensland-based Facebook user reads: “In case you’re still not convinced to stay home for you & ur beloved ones … Here’s a picture from Italy!”

The post has been viewed more than 21,000 times and shared at least 200 times.

The post urges people to stay home, which is in line with official advice in Australia and New Zealand on minimising social interactions to limit the spread of the coronavirus.

However, the problem is the photograph of an aircraft hangar filled with coffins is unrelated to COVID-19. The picture by news agency AFP was first published on October 5, 2013, following the sinking two days earlier of a boat carrying hundreds of African asylum-seekers off the Italian island of Lampedusa. The boat had left Libya 13 days before, carrying up to 500 people, according to survivors.

A UNHCR report on the tragedy says that when the boat’s engine stopped off the Italian coast, asylum seekers set fire to clothing in their attempts to be seen, but “fishing boats passed without helping”. Only 155 people survived and 366 were killed. The AFP photo shows the coffins of some of the victims in a hangar of Lampedusa airport.

SOURCE 






A civil liberties pandemic

by Jeff Jacoby

OUR HEALTH CARE system will eventually recover from the strain of the coronavirus pandemic. Our economy will recover too, notwithstanding the beating it is taking now.

Will our civil liberties recover?

Countless Americans are rightly alarmed by COVID-19 and the threat it poses to public health. Tens of millions are stunned by the abrupt wreckage of their businesses, livelihoods, and financial plans. An important debate is underway about how much economic pain can be justified by the need to suppress the infection. But where is the debate about the toll being taken on Americans' freedom and constitutional liberties by the unprecedented strictures that have been imposed to keep people apart?

Extraordinary threats often call for extraordinary measures. Under the Constitution, government officials, especially at the state and local level, have considerable latitude to protect public health. In the landmark 1905 case of Jacobson v. Massachusetts, the US Supreme Court ruled that states could compel residents to get vaccinated against smallpox, overriding objections from some who resented the temporary infringement on their personal liberty.

But are we sure that all the infringements in the current crisis will remain temporary?

Around the world, rulers are taking advantage of the pandemic to enlarge their authority, warns historian and journalist Anne Applebaum in an essay in The Atlantic. They're not only doing so in authoritarian countries, but even in liberal democracies like Israel, where the government has ordered a round-the-clock curfew and deployed anti-terrorist technology to track down people suspected of violating the coronavirus restrictions. Or like Norway, where anyone caught violating isolation rules can be fined $2,000 or jailed for 15 days. Or like the United Kingdom, where London Mayor Sadiq Khan unabashedly announces that "liberties and human rights need to be changed, curtailed, infringed — use whatever word you want."

The willing self-curtailment of human rights might seem unthinkable in a democratic culture. But in times of panic people "go along with measures that they believe, rightly or wrongly, will save them — even if that means a loss of freedom," writes Applebaum. "Such measures have been popular in the past. . . . They will be popular now too."

I'm not sure I would call the unsettling restrictions that have been imposed on Americans in the last two weeks popular. But they have been vigorously endorsed and defended — in some cases with considerable vehemence. Understandably, most Americans have been far too consumed with the health and economic impacts of the pandemic to be fretting about the civil liberties implications.

Will that change if the government goes even further?

Politico reported last weekend that the Justice Department is asking Congress for the ability to petition judges "to detain people indefinitely without trial during emergencies." That would wipe out the right of habeas corpus — the essential constitutional guarantee that anyone who has been arrested has the right to challenge the legality of his arrest in court. It would mean, explained Norman Reimer of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, that "you could be arrested and never brought before a judge until they decide that the emergency . . . is over." The Justice Department also wants judges to have the authority in an emergency to halt all court proceedings at any point.

These are horrendous proposals, but opposition to them has been muted at best. Nor is the Trump administration alone in believing America should dispense with civil liberties if that's what fighting COVID-19 requires. Law professor Michael Dorf, a noted progressive commentator, has called for a "national lockdown" in the United States, with habeas corpus suspended for the duration.

To repeat: This extraordinary menace may well require an extraordinary response. Yet a month ago, could anyone have imagined that we would see the complete cessation of all church and synagogue worship in the United States? Or a total halt to citizens' First Amendment right "peaceably to assemble and to petition the government"? Or the wholesale shutdown of entire industries and cultural events nationwide by unilateral decree? By and large, Americans have taken these restraints in stride.

Maybe they shouldn't be so sanguine.

It is daunting to realize just how much absolute authority is entrusted to governors and the president once an emergency has been declared. In Massachusetts, Governor Charlie Baker is empowered by state law to "exercise any and all authority over persons and property" in whatever way he deems necessary to cope with the crisis. The law allows him to do virtually anything — from banning weddings to prohibiting travel to commandeering utilities to closing schools to throwing innumerable people out of work by declaring their jobs nonessential. Legislative approval is not required. Nor is a public vote. Nor is there any fixed date on which those godlike powers must be surrendered.

Similarly sweeping emergency powers are available to governors in other states. Many similar powers are available to the president.

To be sure, these laws have been on the books for many years. But never have those powers been invoked so extensively across the entire country. Perhaps the governors and the president can be trusted to relinquish their authority to rule by decree the moment the end of the crisis is in sight. But power can be very addicting. Government officials are not always in a hurry to give it back. Especially when it was surrendered so unquestioningly in the first place.

This epidemic may leave the economy in tatters, but economies grow back. Let us hope it doesn't shred our civil liberties and democratic norms before it runs its course. Those aren't so easy to regrow.

SOURCE 

******************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 


************************************