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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids should not go to school in a prison. That’s completely f**ked up. Who are you monsters?!


Ban guns! It’s so easy to fix.

+1

As someone who taught in a school that was fashioned like a prison I 100% agree. That does something to a child’s psyche that I would not want children to experience. Stop putting all of our burdens on our most vulnerable population. Adults don’t seem to want to make change or sacrifice anything for children.

Make those changes, but they take time. But in the meantime? Save the children. The door, according to MSN who referenced video, was left propped open. Teacher went out, got his/her phone to call authorities after the shooter crashed his truck and shot at funeral home personnel, went back in and sadly didn't shut the door. Not his/her fault, just an unfortunate circumstance.

Just think if he didn’t have a gun, we wouldn’t be having this discussion and burying a bunch of children.

If the teacher had a weapon in his/her car, got that instead of just a cell phone, shut the door and stood on the inside, or if there wa s an armed resource officer inside, it could have been different too.

We can both play the wish it was game. But that won't change a thing tomorrow. Again, even if there was a massive ban and buyback program, that takes time. There are things that can be changed today to protect kids tomorrow

How do you feel about "proper perimeter fences" that are "intended to deter"? Big fan?

I think anything you do to slow down someone is helpful. Ted Bundy got Kimberly Leach on school grounds. He would have had a hard time climbing a locked fence with a child in tow.

The gunman climbed an 8' fence to get in.

The police had a lot of time to act. They chose not to.

I'm confused. There were police inside the school area and outside the school area and not one of them shot a guy with a gun climbing the fence right in front of them? Or did he take off and they could not find him fast enough?

What about the door that was left propped open? Not a problem re: security?

They were 3-7 there almost immediately after he entered. He fired in their general direction and they ran away. 19 of them then waited 40 minutes in a hallway and told to stand down. Eventually the border patrol guys arrived and after 20 minutes arguing with the Uvalde police they decided to go in themselves.

Response time was not a problem. They had it. They were there.

At the school, agree. I mean after the truck crashed and before he breached the fence and entered through the open door.

It took him at least 12 minutes to get inside the building. He shot at people outside too. The police station is 1.5 miles away. The 911 calls started within 2 minutes of the crash. A patrol car drove past him.

Only two things could have prevented this. Banning AR-15s or having uncowardly cops. Lower capacity magazines and ammo purchase limits would have helped reduce the death toll.

There’s an old joke “why do you carry a gun?” Answer: “Because a policeman is too heavy.” Response time can be dreadful. Even if they are there in a timely matter, it often still is too late. Again, the door was left wide open AFTER someone saw the guy shooting across the street. Once he got in, sadly, he controlled the scene. You and I don’t know whether or not an armed resource officer or a few volunteer armed teachers would have made a difference. It sure would have helped change the trajectory though, because the perp would be engaged with those individual(s). We’ve seen this again and again, most recently in Charlestown WV, where a woman killed a man with her hand gun who opened fire on a party with his AR-15. He’s the only one who was hit and died. There are many other instances in the news. When you want to take ALL guns away, you won’t get ALL guns. And there lies the problem.

Your rationalizing this. Response time was good. Why a school resource officer and some teachers be better than cops? The cops were there and ran away. I mean I guess you're correct that people in the school might not have been so willing to abandon 10 year olds to fate but it can't be stated enough. The cops responded in time. Unfortunately, they ran away. If the very people that are trained to respond are too afraid. If the very people most heavily armed and equipped are too afraid. If the very people that are supposed to protect and serve are too afraid. Then what good is more weapons? In California, last week - omg, an unarmed middle aged doctor sacrificed his life and saved the day. In Schanksville, unarmed people sacrificied their lives and saved the day. Guns don't save the day. People save the day. If the Uvalde police had a mini-gun it wouldn't have changed a single thing. Since people being selfless instead of selfish is the determining factor then shouldn't we give them a fighting chance by banning military grade assault weapons?

Because they are in the building already and know the building's layout.

You missed the Uvalde Police’s Facebook post where they said they spent time in all the schools learning the layout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

What does the background check entail?

NP here. I want a background check like the kind conducted for high security clearances in the government, not just “are they a felon”. I’m not a fed so not super familiar with them but I know they’re involved. Mandatory reference checks. It should take a few weeks.

Not much, because he was living with his convicted felon grandfather who wasn’t allowed to have firearms in his home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

How about just not letting pissed off teenaged boys ( that would be all of them) to buy guns? Seems a bit easier and more effective.

So your suggestion is what exactly? Raise the minimum age of purchase for all guns to what minimum? Keep in mind these mass shooters are often 17-21 and recent graduates of whatever school system or university they're targeting. So you want a minimum of 23-25 to be safe?

21, like it is in Florida. And was in Texas until like a year ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Now Republicans are saying because of police ineptitude everyone should open carry.
Why police unions keep backing these people who now aren't even supporting them

Boggles the mind. And Abbot throwing them right under the bus while advocating a culture of violence and vigilantism. Makes no sense!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like cops should support all of this stuff.

Police chiefs have absolutely stuck out their necks against permitless open/concealed carry and the sunset of the assault weapons ban. They are ignored by the gun culture warriors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

Why wouldn't he have passed? 18-year-olds have clear records that are sealed from juvenile offenses which starts the day they turn 18. He waited and he pounced. Stupidity.

EXACTLY. Do we really want the records sealed of cold blooded killers and crazies just because they hit a magic age?

The kid didn't have a record...neither did the shooters of Majory Stoneman Douglas or Sandy Hook or Las Vegas Mandalay Bay or Isla Vista or Charleston.

What EXACTLY do you plan to do to combat these teen boys with with no state or federal prison records, no prior arrests, and not even a parking ticket that are snapping and getting weapons of mass war from parents or grandparents?

Here’s his record, though.

Uvalde gunman threatened rapes, school shootings on Yubo app in lead up to the massacre, users say
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/yubo-app-salvador-ramos-threats-invs/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

How about just not letting pissed off teenaged boys ( that would be all of them) to buy guns? Seems a bit easier and more effective.

So your suggestion is what exactly? Raise the minimum age of purchase for all guns to what minimum? Keep in mind these mass shooters are often 17-21 and recent graduates of whatever school system or university they're targeting. So you want a minimum of 23-25 to be safe?

21, like it is in Florida. And was in Texas until like a year ago.

One could make an evidence-based argument that it should be at least 25. The prefrontal cortex is not finished developing until around that age. Honestly there are several things we probably shouldn’t be allowed to do until we have better decision making abilities, such as driving. But we’ll never make this change as it would be too disruptive for society. Instead we’ll use backwards logic and say that kids should be able to buy guns because they are allowed to drive, vote, serve in the military, etc.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you're old enough to hold and fire a AR-15 you're old enough for prison. Reduce the minimum age for prison based on terrorist threats to 15 years. Youtube threat? Prison for three months. In-school threat? Same.

How about just not letting pissed off teenaged boys ( that would be all of them) to buy guns? Seems a bit easier and more effective.

So your suggestion is what exactly? Raise the minimum age of purchase for all guns to what minimum? Keep in mind these mass shooters are often 17-21 and recent graduates of whatever school system or university they're targeting. So you want a minimum of 23-25 to be safe?

Totally fine with that. At least 21. Also, I want mandatory liability insurance for very gun owner. And licensing. And maybe probationary periods for men under 25.

Let’s make it 30 and up to buy or possess any semi auto (rifle or handgun). 18 year olds can still buy bolt action rifles and pump shotguns (which are much slower to shoot and reload, and you can still defend your home with a shotgun). Plus if we limit the purchasing age to 30, a lot of the bad apples will have already committed other crimes that disqualify themselves from owning a gun. Allowing 18 year olds to buy AR15’s means that a lot of the crazies haven’t had enough time to show everyone how crazy they are so they slip through the cracks of the background check system.

Plus 18-year old boys really have nothing to lose. No job, career or family yet. At least by 21, many have gotten married and/or had children, which keeps them grounded. They’ve gained perspective, they have jobs or are in school pursuing a career. And most importantly, their brains are close to maturity. Honestly, I think the minimum age should be 25, but 18 is pure insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is pure dereliction of duty. They knew exactly what they were supposed to do - they had just done a school shooting simulation a few months ago.

[Anonymous]

I can't stop thinking about these poor parents, who were outside the school while all this was going on, watching the police do nothing. Did you all see the interview with the girl who covered herself in a dead classmates blood so she could play dead?

https://thehill.com/news/state-watch/3503824-uvalde-student-says-she-covered-herself-in-classmates-blood-played-dead-to-survive/

"According to CNN, Miah Cerrillo began crying as she talked about the police waiting outside the school, saying she didn’t understand why the officers did not come inside and rescue them."

Apparently they used their dead teachers phone to call 911 over and over again. It's just so heartbreaking.

[Anonymous]

" Father and off-duty Border Patrol agent Jacob Albarado was sitting in a barber’s chair when the Robb Elementary School attack commenced and he grabbed the barber’s shotgun and ran into the school to save his daughter.

The New York Post reports that Albarado was in the barber’s chair when his wife texted and told him there was an “active shooter” in the school.

Albarado grabbed the barber’s shotgun, entered the school and went to the wing of the building where his daughter was in class.

He told the New York Times, “I’m looking for my daughter, but I also know what wing she’s in, so I start clearing all the classes in her wing.”

Two officers, pistols drawn, provided cover for Albarado as he cleared the wing while two other officers “guided children out on the sidewalk.”

Albarado finally found his daughter. He said he hugged her and then kept helping other children move to safety."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This is pure dereliction of duty. They knew exactly what they were supposed to do - they had just done a school shooting simulation a few months ago.

They are cops. Nothing will happen to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:" Father and off-duty Border Patrol agent Jacob Albarado was sitting in a barber’s chair when the Robb Elementary School attack commenced and he grabbed the barber’s shotgun and ran into the school to save his daughter.

The New York Post reports that Albarado was in the barber’s chair when his wife texted and told him there was an “active shooter” in the school.

Albarado grabbed the barber’s shotgun, entered the school and went to the wing of the building where his daughter was in class.

He told the New York Times, “I’m looking for my daughter, but I also know what wing she’s in, so I start clearing all the classes in her wing.”

Two officers, pistols drawn, provided cover for Albarado as he cleared the wing while two other officers “guided children out on the sidewalk.”

Albarado finally found his daughter. He said he hugged her and then kept helping other children move to safety."

I thought something like this happened. Board Patrol(federal agents) do not just show up at a school shooting and take over. I bet he got in contact with the federal reaction team. Anyone give a reason why the towns swat team never showed up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know what would have made this less likely to happen? Age limits on guns. This is out of control. Teenagers should not be allowed to buy these weapons.

18 year olds who serve this country have guns placed in their hands. Minimum age to be a police officer is 18-21, depending on the state.

Those 18 year olds have extensive training drilled into them.

If you don't agree with age limits, do you think we should require 6 months of training before purchasing a gun? For everyone?

Not only that! They have to undergo background checks to get into service in e first place. I’m fine using that standard! If an 18 year old wants a gun he should be able to get security clearance first

This 18 year old had a background check. Sadly, he passed.

Why wouldn't he have passed? 18-year-olds have clear records that are sealed from juvenile offenses which starts the day they turn 18. He waited and he pounced. Stupidity.

EXACTLY. Do we really want the records sealed of cold blooded killers and crazies just because they hit a magic age?

The kid didn't have a record...neither did the shooters of Majory Stoneman Douglas or Sandy Hook or Las Vegas Mandalay Bay or Isla Vista or Charleston.

What EXACTLY do you plan to do to combat these teen boys with with no state or federal prison records, no prior arrests, and not even a parking ticket that are snapping and getting weapons of mass war from parents or grandparents?

Here’s his record, though.

Uvalde gunman threatened rapes, school shootings on Yubo app in lead up to the massacre, users say
https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/27/us/yubo-app-salvador-ramos-threats-invs/index.html

That is not a record you idiot. Its a social media history. Now if the GOP would stop standing in the way of a domestic terrorism bill it could be USED to arrest terrorists like this mass murderer the same way the Patriot Act went after Muslim Americans. But of course they won't do that.