Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I haven’t read all of the posts. Frankly, I can’t. When the news starts coverage about the shooting, I change the channel, so I only know bits and pieces. What I DO know is that there were armed men standing in the school hallways with guns.
So, I have questions about that:
1. WHY were they just standing there?
2. Are there rules that they can’t rush in to save people if they don’t have the okay from The Top Dog?
3. How do people listen to only one person - and allow that one person - to make decisions for them? (And, I mean in other areas of life, too.)
4. How do those guys sleep at night now?
One thing is for certain is that people have a false sense of security when it comes to the police. If they will let children get murdered in front of them then they will do nothing to protect you from your rights being violated or any other harm.
1. They were standing there because the on scene commander had not told them to enter the classroom
2. There are protocols and policies that the on scene commander has total control of the scene, and that if he says do not enter, they do not enter.
3. The officers are trained to do what the on scene commander says. Failing to do so has significant potential for teams to operate against each other, sort of a right hand/left hand situation. If an officer in this sort of situation acts against the commands of the on scene commander, they will probably be prosecuted and/or be fired. There's nothing wrong with this. You do not want two different groups of officers shooting each other because they did not know what the other team was doing. Nor do you want officers getting killed by rushing a room where they had no idea of what the layout, arrangement of people, etc was.
4. I doubt they sleep well at all. It will take a lot of therapy to get the officers to understand that they did what they were trained to do, and it was the on scene commander that failed.
One of the outcomes of this is that the "good guys with guns" mantra failed in a really bad way.
The government failed in a big way. There were no "good guys with guns" on the scene, only government employees. Good guys with guns aren't allowed in schools.
If anything, Uvalde should make people realize that trusting the government to protect you is a fool's game.
1. They were standing there because the on scene commander had not told them to enter the classroom
2. There are protocols and policies that the on scene commander has total control of the scene, and that if he says do not enter, they do not enter.
3. The officers are trained to do what the on scene commander says. Failing to do so has significant potential for teams to operate against each other, sort of a right hand/left hand situation. If an officer in this sort of situation acts against the commands of the on scene commander, they will probably be prosecuted and/or be fired. There's nothing wrong with this. You do not want two different groups of officers shooting each other because they did not know what the other team was doing. Nor do you want officers getting killed by rushing a room where they had no idea of what the layout, arrangement of people, etc was.
4. I doubt they sleep well at all. It will take a lot of therapy to get the officers to understand that they did what they were trained to do, and it was the on scene commander that failed.
One of the outcomes of this is that the "good guys with guns" mantra failed in a really bad way.
The government failed in a big way. There were no "good guys with guns" on the scene, only government employees. Good guys with guns aren't allowed in schools.
If anything, Uvalde should make people realize that trusting the government to protect you is a fool's game.
Not surprising at all this police department is refusing to release bodycam footage from the shooting. It's not like they haven't shown how morally bankrupt and corrupt they are with the lies and coverups from day 1. I can only imagine how damning the bodycam footage would be, just think of hearing gunshots going off in the background as those cowards stood there and did absolutely nothing (the police chief previously claimed that he thought it became a hostage/barricade situation, which is not applicable when there's gunfire).
As far at those who continue to minimize and excuse the cowardice of the police chief and those officers on site, here is an article from nearly 2 weeks ago. Multiple things in the article have since been found to be lies, but the reason why the article is of interest is because what the police chief claimed:
Quote:
However, Arredondo denied to the Texas Tribune that that was his role and that those were his actions. “My mind was to get there as fast as possible, eliminate any threats, and protect the students and staff,” he said. He said he never issued direction to other officers on the scene to not attempt to breach the building.
“I didn’t issue any orders,” Arredondo told the Tribune. “I called for assistance and asked for an extraction tool to open the door.”
George Hyde, Arredondo’s lawyer, supported this explanation.
“It’s not that someone said stand down,” he said. “It was, ‘Right now, we can’t get in until we get the tools. So we’re going to do what we can do to save lives.’ And what was that? It was to evacuate the students and the parents and the teachers out of the rooms.
So he was on record saying he didn't order any officers to stand down. So much for the excuse that those officers were only "following orders" of the on site commander. And of course it was a lie about waiting for tactical equipment to breach the door. The door was actually unlocked, meaning no one even tried to open it (despite the multiple narratives about officers frantically trying multiple keys to the doors to get in).
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 2 days ago)
35,596 posts, read 17,927,273 times
Reputation: 50623
Well, there is something to desiring to contain him in one room while they evacuate the school. Very early on, someone in the chain of command said that if he got past the row of cops outside the room (possible, but not most likely) the school was at his mercy.
It is just very tragic. Seems like there's a lot of keyboard warriors out there with advice on how a crazed person with a powerful automatic rifle should have been taken out.
I still wonder how no one reacted more on the 9-11 planes. How did hundreds of people just sit there and let a few terrorists with box cutters do all that? the world will never know. Those terrorists sure got lucky with the people on those planes.
The government failed in a big way. There were no "good guys with guns" on the scene, only government employees. Good guys with guns aren't allowed in schools.
If anything, Uvalde should make people realize that trusting the government to protect you is a fool's game.
One of the problems with having random citizens go into a school that has an active shooter is that the police will likely shoot the "good guy", since they have no idea that he is, in fact, a good guy. All they see is an armed person who is not a law enforcement officer, which means they will shoot that person. As has happened on several occasions.
It is just very tragic. Seems like there's a lot of keyboard warriors out there with advice on how a crazed person with a powerful automatic rifle should have been taken out.
Well the NRA has always said there's only one way to stop a bad guy with a gun. And that's a good guy with gun.
Turns out you need loads of "good guys" with guns and bullet proof vests standing in a corridor listening to kids being slaughtered first.
One of the problems with having random citizens go into a school that has an active shooter is that the police will likely shoot the "good guy", since they have no idea that he is, in fact, a good guy. All they see is an armed person who is not a law enforcement officer, which means they will shoot that person. As has happened on several occasions.
As long as the good guy is in and out in an hour he was going to be fine.
I still wonder how no one reacted more on the 9-11 planes. How did hundreds of people just sit there and let a few terrorists with box cutters do all that? the world will never know. Those terrorists sure got lucky with the people on those planes.
That was what you did back then. Hijackings weren't invented on 9/11. Using hijacked planes as terrorist weapons was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
