Police say the three London terrorists were shot dead within eight minutes of the attack, which may seem fairly quick — unless you were one of those running for your life. The London Bridge is always under watch and had plenty of manpower — but without the needed firepower.
Mike Broomhead, host of The Mike Broomhead Show, filled in for Glenn on radio Monday and shared a perspective that many Americans likely hold as well.
“I wonder how long that would take American police? Remember the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the pictures? One of the most startling pictures to me was watching a police car reverse away from somebody with a gun because these were unarmed police officers — and that seemed so strange in America.”
How many more times will the world watch innocent citizens mowed down without the ability to protect themselves?
Enjoy the complimentary clip or read the transcript for details.
Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images
This is a rush transcript and may contain errors.
MIKE: All right. Thanks for being here. It is the Glenn Beck Program. And we’ve got a lot to talk about. The London attackers, there were — the attack began at about 10:08 time in London. 10:08 p.m. 5:08 Eastern Standard Time. And we learned more about the men that meted out this attack, that delivered these attacks.
Police say the three attackers were shot dead within eight minutes of the attack, which may seem fairly quick. But I wonder how long that would take American police. Remember the Charlie Hebdo shootings and the pictures — one of the most — one of the most startling pictures to me was watching a police car reverse away from somebody with a gun because these were unarmed police officers. And that seemed so strange in America. We fight over gun control. And I don’t want to make this about gun control or the Second Amendment here in the United States. It’s too easy of a conversation. We should be focused on how we’re fighting terrorism. But at a time in this world where there are people that are just running people over on a bridge, how many times do we have to see this?
You know, the Champs Elysees in Paris, how many times we saw it in that Christmas market in Germany. We’re watching people now, finding new ways to do that. Even here at Ohio State University, that guy that ran people over and then jumped out with knives, they have a new M.O. because they can quick hit. They don’t have to have guns that they’re sneaking around. It’s not about bombs. They are just able to jump in a vehicle and start running people over.
But the unarmed police officers are what I don’t understand. And the unarmed citizenry.
I’ve mentioned many times before, when I’ve been on this show, that I come from a law enforcement family. My brother is a police lieutenant with the sheriff’s office in my hometown in Florida. And he does a fantastic job. And it’s a difficult job.
And when he was early in his career, he was working midnights. And I remember riding along with him and pulling cars over.
Imagine, in the middle of the night, your backup is miles and miles away, and you approach a strange car. You don’t know what you’re going to find. You don’t know who you’re going to find. You don’t know what you’re going to encounter.
But that’s just a part of the dangers of being a police officer. But now with being a public servant, now your job is to protect the public. The citizens aren’t armed. Let’s just consider everybody innocent. They’re not armed.
They can’t protect themselves. And now you’ve got police officers that can’t protect them. In this day and age. The reaction from the — from the prime minister, is — said enough is enough. But when pushed a little further on what to do, they were going to just, let’s control the internet. It’s the way that they’re radicalizing. No, let’s eradicate the bad behavior. I know it sounds harsh. I’m not bloodthirsty. I don’t wish war. But we’re at war.
There are people that hate our way of life. They don’t care about who you are or who I am. Who we are as people. They don’t like the western way of life. They’ve taken a religious book that they say tells them to murder anybody that doesn’t agree with them.
And I don’t know how anybody thinks we’re going to reason with that. One of the attackers here — it says one of the three attackers had been reported to the anti-terror police on at least two occasions. A former friend of the terrorist who was shot dead by the police, along with two accomplices, claimed he had been radicalized while watching YouTube videos and said he contacted the authorities after becoming concerned over his friend’s extremist views.
The funny thing about this, the reaction is, of course, going to be, we’ve got to control the internet. We’ve got to restrict what people can see.
I’ll be honest, I don’t play violent video games, it’s not my thing. But you can’t blame it on — you can’t blame bad behavior on that because millions of people play video games and it doesn’t affect them.
I can watch a YouTube video, and when it gets to be that extremely violent or the views are extremist one way or the other, I’ll just change it or go watch something else. It’s not going to affect me.
These people are affected because they want to be affected. This is what they’re drawn to.
In many cases, with the mass shootings we’ve seen, it’s mental illness. And not all mental illness leads to violence. But there are people that are mentally ill to a point that they’re dangerous to themselves and other people.
So you can’t hold YouTube accountable. So we’re going to restrict what people watch because some of the people watching are going to become violent because of it.
It makes absolutely no sense. And what you’re doing is carrying what you think is a problem. And it’s not even a symptom of the problem. It’s gun control. But now it’s what you view. It’s internet control. What’s next?