Deconstructing Obama’s Workplace Violence Model

Obama is assiduously avoiding the obvious truth about yesterday’s massacre in San Bernardino, Calif.

 

Here’s the problem with his “workplace violence” theory:

 

  • The typical workplace shooting happens in a workplace, not an off-campus location
  • The typical disgruntled employee is usually a white male aged 40 or over, although as black men find themselves in white collar jobs, this demographic is changing somewhat
  • The non-romantic workplace shooter generally targets the supervisor who fired him and only shoots others who happen to be at hand, in the way. Those victims are collateral casualties
  • Having a small, selected target, the workplace shooter doesn’t need heavy armament
  • The workplace shooter is generally someone who missed the management boat and feels frustrated at being “supervised” at such an advanced “workplace” age
  • The workplace shooter often figures on being one of the casualties, since he is depressed at his lack of career advancement
  • Workplace shooters don’t often have access to or means to purchase military-grade weapons

 

Obama declared the Fort Hood shooting a “workplace” incident.  However, your average disgruntled employee doesn’t shout, “Allahu Akbar!” before firing on his co-workers (which the workplace shooter doesn’t normally; his target is the supervisor and perhaps a handful of adversarial co-workers).

 

The average workplace shooter wouldn’t don military-style clothing (much less the black uniform of ISIS) including a mask.  He’d never get past fellow employees, much less company security.  At most, he might wear a trench coat to hide a heavy weapon.  But that’s about it.  The workplace shooter wants to get to his target as inconspicuously and unhindered as possible.

 

So, can we stop with this politically correct nonsense about not wanting to discriminate against Muslims?  Farook’s father took his son’s daily devotions at the local mosque as normal; his brother-in-law did not (apparently).  For Muslims, the deviation is non-devotion.  The less devout regard observant Muslims not as dangerous but more admirable, the same way we lapsed Christians admire the neighbor who attends church regularly; they’re better than we are.

 

Evidently, this group tried to disguise the fact that they were holding a Christmas party, initially, when they first registered for it at the Inland Regional Center, which speaks volumes in itself about the invidious nature of political correctness.  Would the IRC have granted them permission to hold a Christmas party, as such, had they known about it, being a public facility?

 

Just to speculate about the alleged argument one witness claims occurred just before the shooting, it sounds like some supervisor may have insisted that Farook join the photograph and he refused.   What was a devout Muslim doing at a Christmas party, incidentally?  But that’s strictly arm-chair detective speculation, thrown in with a little experience as a group photographer.  Supervisors have been known to order reluctant employees (at my request) to join the group photo.

 

Obama urged that we wait for the “evidence” before concluding that this was a terrorist attack, not a workplace violence incident.

 

So far, his paradigm just doesn’t fit the current picture, incomplete though it might seem.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements
Published in: on December 3, 2015 at 12:27 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://belleofliberty.wordpress.com/2015/12/03/deconstructing-obamas-workplace-violence-model/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: