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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sickening.

[Anonymous]

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.

Wait, is this an argument that it's not a good thing to have a shootout? That arming teachers to protect students might lead to teachers shooting students? It seems that this argument makes clear the danger in having too many people with guns.

[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.

I do not know if you can believe anything the cops are saying. They change their story every hour. There were no police in the building(except for the one getting their own kids out by themselves ie not an organization effort?) … the cops were trying to negotiate with him for an hour. Post Columbine standard practice(ie they train to this) as soon as you have 2-4 officers you go in. If you wait people die.

[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.

Wait, is this an argument that it's not a good thing to have a shootout? That arming teachers to protect students might lead to teachers shooting students? It seems that this argument makes clear the danger in having too many people with guns.

The Republican argument for more guns falls apart with the merest whisper of consideration.

[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.

Wait, is this an argument that it's not a good thing to have a shootout? That arming teachers to protect students might lead to teachers shooting students? It seems that this argument makes clear the danger in having too many people with guns.

It’s a bullsh#t republican answer. Let see the lawsuits against the police who sat outside and arrested mothers while the gunman was actively killing kids and other kids were bleeding out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

I will take a few good moms over whatever that is they have running Texas right now any day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In the schools where I work, you cannot enter without a badge or being buzzed in after you ID yourself through an intercom/camera (after school starts). Don't all schools have this system now? At the very least, the door should have been locked and there would be time to put the school on lockdown with all classroom doors locked, lights out, etc. (as in the drills). Why didn't this happen?

That only works in campuses with centralized building(s) and very few entrances.

Most campus out west are a number of spread out, one-story buildings where all classrooms have doors that lead outside.

So no, not all schools are the same.

Locks slow people down. So do perimeter fences. So do alarms on perimeter doors.

"Set up a perimeter! That'll do it!" MAGA minds in action.

The goal is deterrence, to slow someone down. Putting in a garden because it’s soothing does nothing.

[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?

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

I'm not sure we do. I've seen one clip where a reporter makes that assertion and the police spokesperson kind of ambiguously glides by it. I'm not sure if he confirmed that fact or not. (Or if he did "confirm" that fact whether he was really comprehending what the reporter was alleging.) Are there other sources that confirm this?

[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.

Wait, is this an argument that it's not a good thing to have a shootout? That arming teachers to protect students might lead to teachers shooting students? It seems that this argument makes clear the danger in having too many people with guns.

And also by that logic, cops shouldn’t have guns, right? There’s always a risk that they hit an innocent person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How did he get in to begin with??

He ran past armed officers .

They didnt/couldn’t stop him.

Did he shoot out the lock?

He didn’t run past armed officers nor was the back door locked. Watch the news conference from today.

Thank you. I was trying to get the “I know what happened” people to give more detail. This place is full of speculation all the time.

[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?

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

What does that even look like? He comes into your classroom and says hey Sally come with me while the other kids and teacher just sit there?? WTF

[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?

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.

I do not know if you can believe anything the cops are saying. They change their story every hour. There were no police in the building(except for the one getting their own kids out by themselves ie not an organization effort?) … the cops were trying to negotiate with him for an hour. Post Columbine standard practice(ie they train to this) as soon as you have 2-4 officers you go in. If you wait people die.

Mass shooters should be treated as terrorist and we don't negotiate with terrorists We kill them

[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.

Wait, is this an argument that it's not a good thing to have a shootout? That arming teachers to protect students might lead to teachers shooting students? It seems that this argument makes clear the danger in having too many people with guns.

I'm the PP, and I absolutely agree with this. Arming teachers is a horrible idea. Having our country awash in guns is another horrible idea.

[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.

Wait, is this an argument that it's not a good thing to have a shootout? That arming teachers to protect students might lead to teachers shooting students? It seems that this argument makes clear the danger in having too many people with guns.

And also by that logic, cops shouldn’t have guns, right? There’s always a risk that they hit an innocent person.

At least cops go through firearms training in our regularly tested on their accuracy and threat assessment. To expect teachers to go from teaching third grade to all of a sudden needing to be a law enforcement agent is not realistic, safe or helpful

[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.

Wait, is this an argument that it's not a good thing to have a shootout? That arming teachers to protect students might lead to teachers shooting students? It seems that this argument makes clear the danger in having too many people with guns.

And also by that logic, cops shouldn’t have guns, right? There’s always a risk that they hit an innocent person.

Government should insist on a monopoly on force. The alternative is warlordism. So, no.