Another gunman, another elementary school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a LO or a SRO you are signing up to sacrifice yourself if need be. They absolutely should have went in after him. Especially if there was more than one of them

Unfortunately, that's not what their training tells them to do:

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

That’s why more children have been killed by gunfire this year than police officers. It was reported in the post.

There have been approximately 80 incidents this year with a shooting in a school campus.

[Anonymous]

Ultimately I don't think it matters what police did or didn't do.

The problem is guns, plain and simple. People should not have them.

Texas tried the experiment of "give civilians guns to fight the bad guys" and it has failed horribly. The idea being that if someone starts shooting, dozens of civilians will respond with their firearms. We now know for certain that doesn't happen. Where were the neighbors with firearms who fought for their right to defend? It doesn't work, and children have paid the price.

I lived in TX and have heard them talk big about seceding because they don't want to give up their firearms. I tell them go ahead. The very next day, they'll be invaded by Mexico, and I'm sorry but Fat Bob who hasn't ran a mile since high school isn't going to be able to do sh!t against an army with his shotgun and .45. This whole idea that we need firearms to defend ourselves against governments is crazy, these idiots would be useless in the face of an army.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a LO or a SRO you are signing up to sacrifice yourself if need be. They absolutely should have went in after him.

Nope.

DP. Then what good are they? If you're not signing up to either protect or serve what are you signing up to do exactly? Why have a special class designated, armed, and trained to protect us from violence if, we the violence actually starts, they're worth less than the unarmed parents ready to die for the kids?

Protect and serve is not synonymous with signing up to sacrifice your life for a $40000 salary.

They bravely prevented parents from entering and tying to do something. Maybe the motto should be changed to 'establish a perimeter and wait'

Maybe establishing a secure perimeter and not allowing parents to run around a building with an active shooter in of itself isn’t a bad thing?

It’s not best practice (and that is widely known.) if they were too scared to do it they should have let parents go to their childrens aid.

Dead parents isn’t an optimal outcome ftom a public safety perspective. There are reports of law enforcement breaking windows to evacuate other classrooms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a LO or a SRO you are signing up to sacrifice yourself if need be. They absolutely should have went in after him.

Nope.

DP. Then what good are they? If you're not signing up to either protect or serve what are you signing up to do exactly? Why have a special class designated, armed, and trained to protect us from violence if, we the violence actually starts, they're worth less than the unarmed parents ready to die for the kids?

Protect and serve is not synonymous with signing up to sacrifice your life for a $40000 salary.

They bravely prevented parents from entering and tying to do something. Maybe the motto should be changed to 'establish a perimeter and wait'

Maybe establishing a secure perimeter and not allowing parents to run around a building with an active shooter in of itself isn’t a bad thing?

It’s not best practice (and that is widely known.) if they were too scared to do it they should have let parents go to their childrens aid.

Dead parents isn’t an optimal outcome ftom a public safety perspective. There are reports of law enforcement breaking windows to evacuate other classrooms.

Those reports are of cops evacuating their own kids

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SRO did not even try. Any normally constituted adult would have risked their lives to try to prevent the certain death of many kids. Also the shooter had already shot his grandma. Local schools should have been on lock-down and the SROs should have been ready when he arrived and crashed the truck. Those poor kids died alone hoping someone would come to their rescue.

But even apart from that, the police were right on him, correct? And waited an hour and a half? If that is now established fact, there needs to be some kind of federal investigation, public Congressional hearings, and I’d support - with family consent - blurred face photos of the deceased to show AR damage to the victims. This is insane. I’m not aware of this kind of pussy-footing in the response to active shooter scenes. The Uvalde victims were sacrificed in part BY the law enforcement officers on the scene because of their cowardice. Call it what it is!

You don’t need blurred face photos of the victims. Their faces have been mangled beyond recognition by high velocity automatic gunfire. That’s why they have needed DNA to match each pile of blood and mangled flesh to a set a of parents - they are UNRECOGNIZABLE.

Law enforcement support for an assault weapons ban - at least at the leadership level - has been very strong for decades. They lobbied to have the ban renewed when it was set to expire in 2003. Law enforcement officers know better than anyone the devastating effects of these weapons and that they are no match for them carrying their standard issue 9mm handguns.

People are outraged about the delay in LEOs entering the school. Those kids and teachers were dead within minutes of his entering that classroom. There are articles on the internet by trauma surgeons describing the damage to the human body caused by high velocity bullets from assault weapons. These wounds are nearly always unsurvivable, even with immediate medical attention.

WAKE UP PEOPLE. GET OFF THE INTERNET AND GET INTO THE FIGHT FOR GUN SAFETY LEGISLATION. I live in a state where these weapons are still banned, as well as high capacity magazines. The relief is real. Go out there and get involved and make it happen for your kids, too.

Bold may very well be true, however, this father's interview is heartbreaking. He is a medic and was called to the school. He collected a young girl alive, hysterical, and covered in blood. She may have been in that classroom the entire time. He asked if she was injured and she sobbed that she watched him shoot her best friend. Assume the blood she was covered in was that of her best friend, Amerie. That is how this poor man learned his daughter was dead. God have mercy.

In an interview with CNN’s Anderson Cooper, Angel Garza broke down while describing the moment he learned his daughter, 10-year-old Amerie Jo Garza, was dead after responding to the incident at Robb Elementary School as a med aide.
“One little girl was just covered in blood head to toe. Like, I thought she was injured. I asked her what was wrong and she said, she is OK. She was hysterical saying that they shot her best friend. They killed her best friend and she is not breathing. She was trying to call the cops and I asked the little girl the name … and she said, ‘Amerie,’ ” Angel Garza said.

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/3502302-father-says-he-learned-of-daughters-death-in-texas-school-shooting-from-classmate/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately I don't think it matters what police did or didn't do.

The problem is guns, plain and simple. People should not have them.

Texas tried the experiment of "give civilians guns to fight the bad guys" and it has failed horribly. The idea being that if someone starts shooting, dozens of civilians will respond with their firearms. We now know for certain that doesn't happen. Where were the neighbors with firearms who fought for their right to defend? It doesn't work, and children have paid the price.

I lived in TX and have heard them talk big about seceding because they don't want to give up their firearms. I tell them go ahead. The very next day, they'll be invaded by Mexico, and I'm sorry but Fat Bob who hasn't ran a mile since high school isn't going to be able to do sh!t against an army with his shotgun and .45. This whole idea that we need firearms to defend ourselves against governments is crazy, these idiots would be useless in the face of an army.

Ummmm … Mexico isn’t invading Texas in the event it was to secede.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately I don't think it matters what police did or didn't do.

The problem is guns, plain and simple. People should not have them.

Texas tried the experiment of "give civilians guns to fight the bad guys" and it has failed horribly. The idea being that if someone starts shooting, dozens of civilians will respond with their firearms. We now know for certain that doesn't happen. Where were the neighbors with firearms who fought for their right to defend? It doesn't work, and children have paid the price.

I lived in TX and have heard them talk big about seceding because they don't want to give up their firearms. I tell them go ahead. The very next day, they'll be invaded by Mexico, and I'm sorry but Fat Bob who hasn't ran a mile since high school isn't going to be able to do sh!t against an army with his shotgun and .45. This whole idea that we need firearms to defend ourselves against governments is crazy, these idiots would be useless in the face of an army.

+100 to all of this and yes, it would be wonderful if TX seceded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a LO or a SRO you are signing up to sacrifice yourself if need be. They absolutely should have went in after him. Especially if there was more than one of them

Unfortunately, that's not what their training tells them to do:

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

Sorry, this is applicable when rooms full of 9 and 10 yr olds are getting slaughtered. You don’t just stand outside and wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a LO or a SRO you are signing up to sacrifice yourself if need be. They absolutely should have went in after him. Especially if there was more than one of them

Unfortunately, that's not what their training tells them to do:

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

Sorry, this is applicable when rooms full of 9 and 10 yr olds are getting slaughtered. You don’t just stand outside and wait.

It's inapplicable to any active shooter post Columbine. The thinking used to be that you want to calm and negotiate with a gunman to save lives, but now it's go in fast and search out the shooter before they can kill more people. These cops decided to wait

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-shooting-columbine-lessons/index.html

[Anonymous]

The city spends 2/5 of its annual budget on police and they couldn’t engage the shooter until someone got the key to unlock the classroom? Peak Trumpism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a LO or a SRO you are signing up to sacrifice yourself if need be. They absolutely should have went in after him. Especially if there was more than one of them

Unfortunately, that's not what their training tells them to do:

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

Sorry, this is applicable when rooms full of 9 and 10 yr olds are getting slaughtered. You don’t just stand outside and wait.

It's inapplicable to any active shooter post Columbine. The thinking used to be that you want to calm and negotiate with a gunman to save lives, but now it's go in fast and search out the shooter before they can kill more people. These cops decided to wait

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-shooting-columbine-lessons/index.html

I'm not going to sit in judgement of cops who made choices under difficult circumstances. We'd all like to think that we would have done better when faced with the prospect of dying kids, but half of DC has had the luxury of working of been sitting at home because of COVID. Most of us are hardly the warriors for the public good (with the exception of frontline workers).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SRO did not even try. Any normally constituted adult would have risked their lives to try to prevent the certain death of many kids. Also the shooter had already shot his grandma. Local schools should have been on lock-down and the SROs should have been ready when he arrived and crashed the truck. Those poor kids died alone hoping someone would come to their rescue.

But even apart from that, the police were right on him, correct? And waited an hour and a half? If that is now established fact, there needs to be some kind of federal investigation, public Congressional hearings, and I’d support - with family consent - blurred face photos of the deceased to show AR damage to the victims. This is insane. I’m not aware of this kind of pussy-footing in the response to active shooter scenes. The Uvalde victims were sacrificed in part BY the law enforcement officers on the scene because of their cowardice. Call it what it is!

I’m pretty sure I would not be willing to release a photo of my dead 10 year old after they had been shot with an assault rifle. The image would stay in the web forever and be used for the most horrible of purposes.

Sure, I understand that. I have a 7 year old, I don’t know what I’d do. What about the rest of this? What is going on with this comment thread — does anyone else feel shocked at the lack of engagement of on-scene officers? Anyone else willing to call cowardice out as plain, bald, cowardice?

I’m willing to withhold judgement until much more is known and verified. There are conflicting accounts. If the shooter was confronted by the resource officer after he entered the building — which is one scenario that has been reported — then it’s possible the presence of other children prevented a firefight. The officer had something like 9 bullets. The shooter at least 210.

Watch the video linked. I’m tired of this “I’m sooo reasonable and calm and lets all just wait” shit, because I think it’s an impediment to actual discussion, and to more people actually understanding the limitations of ‘good guy’ theory.

Can you repost the link? I didn’t see it in the hidden quotes and I’m not reading through 20 pages to find it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately I don't think it matters what police did or didn't do.

The problem is guns, plain and simple. People should not have them.

Texas tried the experiment of "give civilians guns to fight the bad guys" and it has failed horribly. The idea being that if someone starts shooting, dozens of civilians will respond with their firearms. We now know for certain that doesn't happen. Where were the neighbors with firearms who fought for their right to defend? It doesn't work, and children have paid the price.

I lived in TX and have heard them talk big about seceding because they don't want to give up their firearms. I tell them go ahead. The very next day, they'll be invaded by Mexico, and I'm sorry but Fat Bob who hasn't ran a mile since high school isn't going to be able to do sh!t against an army with his shotgun and .45. This whole idea that we need firearms to defend ourselves against governments is crazy, these idiots would be useless in the face of an army.

Ummmm … Mexico isn’t invading Texas in the event it was to secede.

They absolutely would. Texas was part of Mexico, and if TX doesn't have the federal government to protect them, they'd be invaded right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you are a LO or a SRO you are signing up to sacrifice yourself if need be. They absolutely should have went in after him. Especially if there was more than one of them

Unfortunately, that's not what their training tells them to do:

Police training starts in the academy, where the concept of officer safety is so heavily emphasized that it takes on almost religious significance. Rookie officers are taught what is widely known as the “first rule of law enforcement”: An officer’s overriding goal every day is to go home at the end of their shift.

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/police-gun-shooting-training-ferguson/383681/

Sorry, this is applicable when rooms full of 9 and 10 yr olds are getting slaughtered. You don’t just stand outside and wait.

It's inapplicable to any active shooter post Columbine. The thinking used to be that you want to calm and negotiate with a gunman to save lives, but now it's go in fast and search out the shooter before they can kill more people. These cops decided to wait

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/15/us/florida-school-shooting-columbine-lessons/index.html

I'm not going to sit in judgement of cops who made choices under difficult circumstances. We'd all like to think that we would have done better when faced with the prospect of dying kids, but half of DC has had the luxury of working of been sitting at home because of COVID. Most of us are hardly the warriors for the public good (with the exception of frontline workers).

A sniper fired more than 200 high velocity rounds at my kid’s school in DC using four fully automatic assault rifles and a high capacity drum magazine. Four people were shot. This happened last month.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ultimately I don't think it matters what police did or didn't do.

The problem is guns, plain and simple. People should not have them.

Texas tried the experiment of "give civilians guns to fight the bad guys" and it has failed horribly. The idea being that if someone starts shooting, dozens of civilians will respond with their firearms. We now know for certain that doesn't happen. Where were the neighbors with firearms who fought for their right to defend? It doesn't work, and children have paid the price.

I lived in TX and have heard them talk big about seceding because they don't want to give up their firearms. I tell them go ahead. The very next day, they'll be invaded by Mexico, and I'm sorry but Fat Bob who hasn't ran a mile since high school isn't going to be able to do sh!t against an army with his shotgun and .45. This whole idea that we need firearms to defend ourselves against governments is crazy, these idiots would be useless in the face of an army.

Ummmm … Mexico isn’t invading Texas in the event it was to secede.

They absolutely would. Texas was part of Mexico, and if TX doesn't have the federal government to protect them, they'd be invaded right away.

Cool.