Lifetime

No, what is remarkable is your flippancy toward the loss of life and the failure to even think about whether the procedure that was used was necessary or flawed or even, god forbid, misused.  

 

"Neutralized"  I'll never forget that one.  Just incredible.

LOL! wow MT. I was never flippant toward the loss of life. That's ridiculous and you know it. I also have never claimed that the procedure was absolutely necessary or that there were no flaws or abuse. Let me know when there is ANY evidence to support that and we can discuss it.

Neutralized is a tactical term but you go on insisting it was some sort of flippant or disrespectful comment. Just incredible indeed.

It's completely illogical and has no place in this discussion MT. The fact that you insist on continuing to trumpet it is remarkable.

That's a fast trial.  Who was the judge and jury? 

 

That's right, the executioner.  

that's right, irrelevant argument 

repeating irrelevant arguments does not make them relevant. The absense of a trial is not germane to this discussion.

more spin. Neutralizing the threat resulted in death. No one is ignoring that or trying to soften the tragedy of it as you seem to be implying. You're really reaching MT.

ya, it's spin. You conveniently lead with partial facts, then spin your execution by cop conclusion. The teenager was carrying an undescernable replica assault rifle in public and when confronted by police refused to heed a lawful order to drop the gun. Instead, he turned toward police while still holding the weapon and the police neutralized the logically perceived threat. There is no right to trial, that's just a silly canard (and a strawman). As it turned out, the gun was not real, but under the circumstances, there was no way for the police to make that determination. It's an extremely unfortunate tragedy. Calling the police executioners is ridiculous nonsense.

kudos for continuing to prop up the strawman MT

pretty irrational thinking mt.

Nothing like arguing hyperbole to counter hyperbole.

Yes for the better. Threats shift and in this day  and age, they have be much more vigilant in their procedures.Like I said, at the time there was no way of knowing whether it was a lone gunman with his own agenda or whether he was working in concert with others. I'd prefer they err on the side of caution even if after the fact it turns out to be unnecessary. Can you imagine the crap that would be levied if they had assumed that he was alone and the threat was isolated and it turned out to be a bigger incident? 

They didn't shut down the whole airport when someone shot and killed people at the El Al counter. They only closed that specific terminal.

Yes, and after that event, they revised their protocols. 

Ok so the entirerty of the country's third largest airport should be shut down for nearly the whole day because of one guy with a gun. I guess the terrorists won.

I guess you're missing or choosing to ignore that they didn't know if it was one guy with a gun. And the fact that it's the third largest airport and therefore a greater potential for casualties, damn right they should shut it down for however long it takes to confirm security. 

These kind of events are always scrutinized and examined. They always look at what was done right, what was done wrong,  and what they can do better. But this article is more about the lack of information to the displaced travelers and evacuation processes than anything else. It's not questioning closing down the entire airport or even how long it was closed down for. When you don't know the motives of the shooter or whether he was acting alone, you exercise extreme caution until you are able to rule things out. If they hadn't acted in such a manner and this had been an orchestrated attack that continued either in that terminal or somewhere else in the airport, the fit would hit the shan. 

You might want to look that up vladdylonglegs

Bullpen catchers and BP pitchers do not coach. 

I wouldn't call 5 years in the majors extensive and majors is really all that matters. IMO

I still don't see why this is awesome. 

They have to perform a complete sweep before they open things back up. What if this guy wasn't actin alone? What if he was a diversion? There are scenarios that have to be carefully considered and examined and in a place that large, that takes a considerable amount of time. 

One year with TB (1999), two years with the Twins (2000-2001), and five years with the Nats (2009-2013), and that doesn't include any minor league experience.

He was a bullpen catcher and batting practice pitcher for the rays and twins 

Looks like he was a hitting coach for the Nationals, an Olympic Team, a WBC team.  He also coached four different minor league teams.  Oh and he is also the assistant hitting coach and least that is what I am assuming.  I have no problem with it, but if you'd like to argue the definition of extensive, by all means. 

 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/bullpen/Rick_Eckstein

LOL wtf. 

Extensive? 

Why is this awesome? 

That's original

Of course, we are supposed to see flowers and blue skies when talking about a guy who has had exactly 4 good months out of 12 months so far.

I reiterate, ONLY when he has a DL free season AND a .900 OPS will I be truly satisfied.

Uh no. Way to argue the point from the opposing extreme though. So unlike you. 

Curmudgeon 

No. The term referred to those who hang from Nap's sack

Where do you get that from ALB?