Protect and Serve

Watching the living nightmare unfold Friday, we couldn’t stop wondering why police were not going into the Bataclan club.

There were reports of a tweet from someone inside, begging authorities to launch an assault because people in the club were being slaughtered.

Still, police made no move to rescue the innocent, unarmed people inside.

The killers simply fired into the people laying on the floor, re-loaded and went on shooting.

Watching the coverage, we were upset and disgusted by the lack of movement on the part of authorities. Has there been an explanation as to why none of the well-armed officers standing outside bothered to try to rescue the victims inside?

Don’t police feel some responsibility for the terrible number of people killed so casually inside? Aren’t the families of the 90 victims demanding answers – why didn’t police attack sooner?

The armed terrorists pulled up in a black car outside the club at 9:40PM Paris time and police only stormed the place at 12:20AM. How is that not criminal?

I’ve had arguments with police acquaintances before, telling them they have a responsibility to protect the innocent and unarmed in dire situations. I was told by one officer I know, his first responsibility is self-preservation.

Were police too afraid to go in to rescue the helpless Bataclan concert-goers?

Police have guns so they can protect people who do not have guns from evil individuals using guns to kill.

Where were the cowboys and overzealous macho cops as people were dying inside?

I want to believe police officers would assume the terrible risk in the name of the innocent and unarmed who are being targeted by violence; I was under the impression that’s their job.

Montreal police officer Denis Cote made all the difference back in September 2006 when he went into Dawson College and took down a deranged shooter.

If police can’t do the job, then make it easier for citizens to protect themselves and their fellow citizens.

Don’t just stand back and let innocent people die.

Avoid Asterisk

Forget that.

I certainly don’t think they should change the nets in the NHL.

There’s talk of making the nets bigger in order to allow more goals and increase the entertainment value of the game.

I’m entertained by brilliant saves and close shots. I really don’t see the problem. Players will find ways to score with more tic-tac-toes and breathtaking, pinpoint sniping.

Last night’s game between my consistently inconsistent Senators and the Predators had plenty of goals with a final score of 7-5!

Some say goalies are too big. The 12 goals scored in the game last night were against Ottawa’s Craig Anderson at 6’2’ and Pekka Rinne for Nashville at 6’5”. They were not too big.

There have been plenty of changes to goalie equipment; blockers, sticks, helmets, trappers and pads. There have been changes to crease size and crease accessibility.

Smaller equipment may be an answer, as long as protection of goalies is not compromised.

Even the role of goalies in the game has been changed. At one time, NHL goalies had to immediately drop any pucks they caught and were not allowed to fall down to stop a shot.

It was Perce LeSuer, a goalie with the Senators, who came up with the first crossbar on an NHL net in 1912. His proposal kept the 6 foot by 4 foot opening but added a webbed top 17 inches deep at the top and his design made the net 22 inches deep at the base. Before that, nets were open at the top.

Go ahead, make changes if you must, but don’t touch net size or angle the posts. The stats earned by the great players who make up the legacy of the NHL should stand against the numbers collected by modern players, just as they always have. 

Avoiding an asterisk situation, that should be the goal.