Cops in TX tackle & block desperate parents, while they let shooter rampage thru the school

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely despicable.

So you actually think they should have let her go in?

Ideally, the police keep the public out and then go into the building and deal with the shooter, that's current thinking on what to do in these situations. That's not DCUM experts, that's police experts. T his is easily Googleable, but here's a couple sources (https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/ActiveShooter2018-UpdatedFormat%2007.16.2021_0.pdf, https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/10-18_ActiveShooter.pdf, https://mcp.maryland.gov/Directive%20Manual/13-100.pdf).

In the absence of police doing what they should do, then yes, parents should go in and try. As a father, my duty is to keep my child safe. If my kid is in a building where someone is shooting kids and no one better trained or equipped than I am is able or willing to help, then I go in and do what I can. Same as a burning building. That's the job when you're a parent, even if it might get you killed.

Do we know that there was no law enforcement inside the building as these officers were keeping parents out? Serious question. I'm not trying to stir things up, I just haven't heard anything clear on that point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I’m for defunding the police. If they are going to be heartless and weak bastards who stand around while a lunatic is killing kids.

But... they established... a... perimeter. #SquadGoals #Heroic

Because I’m sure that letting scores of unarmed parents run into a building with an active shooter would have turned out super well! Are some of you really this stupid? There would have been 50 dead instead of 20, but hey, the iphone experts are never wrong.

Doubt that. Shooting 9 year olds in an enclosed space is a lot easier that shooting a mob of twenty attcking you. Each and every one of those parents would have gladly exchanged their lives for those kids. Those 21 victims were sacrificied.

If one cop's bullet had struck a child during the attempt to take down the terrorist, it would bankrupt the town. "You should have established a perimeter and attempted to reason with the criminal," would be what the plaintiff's attorney would argue to the jury. And the same people here demanding, in hindsight, that the cops storm the classroom would lose their shit if the cops didn't have to pay the child's family on account of qualified immunity.

The lawsuits are going to bankrupt the town anyway. At least some children might have lived, if the parents (or anyone) had rushed the shooter.

Or we'd just have that many more dead people. You might be right about the town being bankrupted anyway. But, the way the law is structured, the cops doing nothing while bad people cause injury is usually a lot cheaper than the cops trying to do something and accidentally hurting an innocent person in the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I’m for defunding the police. If they are going to be heartless and weak bastards who stand around while a lunatic is killing kids.

But... they established... a... perimeter. #SquadGoals #Heroic

Because I’m sure that letting scores of unarmed parents run into a building with an active shooter would have turned out super well! Are some of you really this stupid? There would have been 50 dead instead of 20, but hey, the iphone experts are never wrong.

Doubt that. Shooting 9 year olds in an enclosed space is a lot easier that shooting a mob of twenty attcking you. Each and every one of those parents would have gladly exchanged their lives for those kids. Those 21 victims were sacrificied.

If one cop's bullet had struck a child during the attempt to take down the terrorist, it would bankrupt the town. "You should have established a perimeter and attempted to reason with the criminal," would be what the plaintiff's attorney would argue to the jury. And the same people here demanding, in hindsight, that the cops storm the classroom would lose their shit if the cops didn't have to pay the child's family on account of qualified immunity.

The lawsuits are going to bankrupt the town anyway. At least some children might have lived, if the parents (or anyone) had rushed the shooter.

Or we'd just have that many more dead people. You might be right about the town being bankrupted anyway. But, the way the law is structured, the cops doing nothing while bad people cause injury is usually a lot cheaper than the cops trying to do something and accidentally hurting an innocent person in the process.

Their own children were in the school building. Some of the police snuck in and rescued their own children, bringing them to safety.

They didn't sneak in and save the children who were with the shooter, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is why I’m for defunding the police. If they are going to be heartless and weak bastards who stand around while a lunatic is killing kids.

But... they established... a... perimeter. #SquadGoals #Heroic

Because I’m sure that letting scores of unarmed parents run into a building with an active shooter would have turned out super well! Are some of you really this stupid? There would have been 50 dead instead of 20, but hey, the iphone experts are never wrong.

Doubt that. Shooting 9 year olds in an enclosed space is a lot easier that shooting a mob of twenty attcking you. Each and every one of those parents would have gladly exchanged their lives for those kids. Those 21 victims were sacrificied.

If one cop's bullet had struck a child during the attempt to take down the terrorist, it would bankrupt the town. "You should have established a perimeter and attempted to reason with the criminal," would be what the plaintiff's attorney would argue to the jury. And the same people here demanding, in hindsight, that the cops storm the classroom would lose their shit if the cops didn't have to pay the child's family on account of qualified immunity.

The lawsuits are going to bankrupt the town anyway. At least some children might have lived, if the parents (or anyone) had rushed the shooter.

Or we'd just have that many more dead people. You might be right about the town being bankrupted anyway. But, the way the law is structured, the cops doing nothing while bad people cause injury is usually a lot cheaper than the cops trying to do something and accidentally hurting an innocent person in the process.

I could stand around and do nothing. Why were the cops even there? Just to stop the parents from trying to save their children?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Damn, that's harsh.

[Anonymous]

Damn, that's f'ing accurate.

[Anonymous]

Is there anyone that doesn't believe our culture expects our teachers to lay down and die to protect students, if they can?

Is there anyone that DOESN'T expect a town cop, if isolated alone with a killer and students inside, to survive it by hiding out "per protocol," waiting for backup or whatever?


For Fs sake. These small town police departments got extra money so they could militarize themselves with freaking tanks, some of them And they cower while teachers and children die.

Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Wow, the cops are really doing their best to circle wagons.

The gunman behind the mass shooting at an elementary school here lingered outside the building for 12 minutes firing shots before walking into the school and barricading in a classroom where he killed 19 children and two teachers, authorities said in a news conference Thursday laying out a new timeline of events.
....
DPS officials previously said an armed school officer confronted Ramos as he arrived at the school. Mr. Escalon said Thursday that information was incorrect and no one encountered Ramos as he arrived at the school. “There was not an officer readily available and armed,” Mr. Escalon said.

Ramos shot his grandmother Tuesday morning and then used her truck to drive to Robb Elementary School, crashing the truck into a nearby ditch at 11:28 a.m., according to the timeline laid out by Mr. Escalon. The gunman then began shooting at people at a funeral home across the street, prompting a 911 call reporting a gunman at the school at 11:30. Ramos then climbed a fence onto school grounds and began firing before walking inside, unimpeded, at 11:40. The first police arrived on the scene at 11:44 and exchanged gunfire with Ramos, who barricaded himself in a fourth-grade classroom. There, he killed the students and teachers.

It seems that some officers are afraid to speak out about what happened:

Texas state trooper Juan Maldonado said he went to the school with a friend whose wife was one of the teachers slain in the shooting.

He said police were already on the scene, indicating a fast response time, and that it appeared they had set up a perimeter around the building.

Mr. Maldonado said he and the friend were able to enter the building to get students out and showed cuts on his forearms that he said were from breaking windows to assist in that effort.

“I don’t want to critique anything; we’re here to be supportive of the community,” he said.

The WSJ is really doing some great reporting on this debacle.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/uvalde-residents-voice-frustration-over-shooting-response-11653588161

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely despicable.

So you actually think they should have let her go in?

One mom actually rescued her kid from another classroom!

Wow. Do not mess with mom. Moms should take charge of this country for a while.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a mom. No thanks.

Not that brain dead insurrectionist.

Talking about hero moms that get things done

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely despicable.

So you actually think they should have let her go in?

One mom actually rescued her kid from another classroom!

Wow. Do not mess with mom. Moms should take charge of this country for a while.

Marjorie Taylor Greene is a mom. No thanks.

Not that brain dead insurrectionist.

Talking about hero moms that get things done

#NotAllMoms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely despicable.

So you actually think they should have let her go in?

Ideally, the police keep the public out and then go into the building and deal with the shooter, that's current thinking on what to do in these situations. That's not DCUM experts, that's police experts. T his is easily Googleable, but here's a couple sources (https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/ActiveShooter2018-UpdatedFormat%2007.16.2021_0.pdf, https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/10-18_ActiveShooter.pdf, https://mcp.maryland.gov/Directive%20Manual/13-100.pdf).

In the absence of police doing what they should do, then yes, parents should go in and try. As a father, my duty is to keep my child safe. If my kid is in a building where someone is shooting kids and no one better trained or equipped than I am is able or willing to help, then I go in and do what I can. Same as a burning building. That's the job when you're a parent, even if it might get you killed.

Do we know that there was no law enforcement inside the building as these officers were keeping parents out? Serious question. I'm not trying to stir things up, I just haven't heard anything clear on that point.

Anyone? This whole part of the incident turns on that question. If some cops are outside, keeping civilians out while other cops are on the inside; it's a *completely* different scenario than if cops are outside keeping civilians out while nobody is even trying to do anything about the shooter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely despicable.

So you actually think they should have let her go in?

Ideally, the police keep the public out and then go into the building and deal with the shooter, that's current thinking on what to do in these situations. That's not DCUM experts, that's police experts. T his is easily Googleable, but here's a couple sources (https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/ActiveShooter2018-UpdatedFormat%2007.16.2021_0.pdf, https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/10-18_ActiveShooter.pdf, https://mcp.maryland.gov/Directive%20Manual/13-100.pdf).

In the absence of police doing what they should do, then yes, parents should go in and try. As a father, my duty is to keep my child safe. If my kid is in a building where someone is shooting kids and no one better trained or equipped than I am is able or willing to help, then I go in and do what I can. Same as a burning building. That's the job when you're a parent, even if it might get you killed.

Do we know that there was no law enforcement inside the building as these officers were keeping parents out? Serious question. I'm not trying to stir things up, I just haven't heard anything clear on that point.

Anyone? This whole part of the incident turns on that question. If some cops are outside, keeping civilians out while other cops are on the inside; it's a *completely* different scenario than if cops are outside keeping civilians out while nobody is even trying to do anything about the shooter.

We know at least on state trooper was inside rescuing family friends

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Absolutely despicable.

So you actually think they should have let her go in?

Ideally, the police keep the public out and then go into the building and deal with the shooter, that's current thinking on what to do in these situations. That's not DCUM experts, that's police experts. T his is easily Googleable, but here's a couple sources (https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/2021-07/ActiveShooter2018-UpdatedFormat%2007.16.2021_0.pdf, https://www.baltimorecityschools.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/10-18_ActiveShooter.pdf, https://mcp.maryland.gov/Directive%20Manual/13-100.pdf).

In the absence of police doing what they should do, then yes, parents should go in and try. As a father, my duty is to keep my child safe. If my kid is in a building where someone is shooting kids and no one better trained or equipped than I am is able or willing to help, then I go in and do what I can. Same as a burning building. That's the job when you're a parent, even if it might get you killed.

Do we know that there was no law enforcement inside the building as these officers were keeping parents out? Serious question. I'm not trying to stir things up, I just haven't heard anything clear on that point.

Anyone? This whole part of the incident turns on that question. If some cops are outside, keeping civilians out while other cops are on the inside; it's a *completely* different scenario than if cops are outside keeping civilians out while nobody is even trying to do anything about the shooter.

DP. I would also like clarification -- if there were cops inside -- whether they were hiding under a mop in a broom closet. Thanks in advance.

[Anonymous]

^^Oh, right! They were sneaking through and saving their kids.