Uvalde Texas Killing

[Creedmoor]

Regardless, it’s not their job to prevent people from protecting their own families when the police refuse to do it.

I understand that, but that is not my question my friend.

 

[duanewade]

I actually questioned some of our local PDs and asked them what their policy was in regards to school shooting and one of the local police chiefs said he would fire ANY officer that would not confront and attempt to eliminate a school shooter. There was one county sheriff depth that hasn't responded yet.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

 

[KG1]

Regardless, it’s not their job to prevent people from protecting their own families when the police refuse to do it.

Yep. If it's not your job or duty by oath, then step aside. If you don't want people to go in and protect their families then nut up and go in. It's my family. I have a stake in it. That's MY oath to try and protect/save them. If I should die in the process, then I died trying to fulfill MY oath to them when no one else will.

 

[chipbennett]

Not all departments take an oath to run towards danger. Some do, some don't.
What say ingo, Is it their job?

Whether it is or it isn't (SCOTUS has sided with the latter), or whether it should or shouldn't be (debatable, either way), if they are going to choose not to act, then it is abhorrent that they would prevent people from doing what they have chosen not to do, especially while children are being slaughtered.

 

[chipbennett]

I understand that, but that is not my question my friend.

I'm not LEO, and I haven't ever signed up to fill their shoes. So, I'm not certain it is my place to say whether it is or isn't their job/responsibility to run into danger.

All I ask is that I not be denied the agency to act in their stead, when my life or the life of my loved ones is in danger.

 

[jamil]

I understand that, but that is not my question my friend.

It's why I said regardless.

I think the answer to the question doesn't matter. Whether police have a legal/civil/moral responsibility to protect citizens or not, if they don't, they should not prevent people from protecting themselves or family or others. If they do, then do your ****ing job so that scared, pissed off, worried, determined mom doesn't have to break loose and do it anyway.

 

[KG1]

I have to believe that if an officer's kids were in there they would not hesitate to go in and try to save their own children. Why should I not be permitted to do the same for my children if they fail to take the initiative on my behalf? If they don't want to put their lives on the line to protect/save my children or it's not their sworn duty to do so, then it falls to me to respond.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I have to believe that if an officer's kids were in there they would not hesitate to go in and try to save their own children. Why should I not be permitted to do the same for my children if they fail to take the initiative on my behalf? If they don't want to put their lives on the line to protect/save my children or it's not their sworn duty to do so, then it falls to me.

and obviously, these officers only take the obligation to protect when they feel like it. They felt obligated to protect the parents trying to enter, but not protect the kids being shot.

To be clear this is not a blanket statement against all LEOs.Im addressing these incompetent cowards directly.

 

[KG1]

Spot on.

 

[HoughMade]

and obviously, these officers only take the obligation to protect when they feel like it. They felt obligated to protect the parents trying to enter, but not protect the kids being shot.

To be clear this is not a blanket statement against all LEOs.Im addressing these incompetent cowards directly.

I would say that in this one department, there was a severe lack of training and initiative.

After Columbine, my understanding was that standard doctrine pivoted away from "set up a perimeter" to "engage ASAP" because the lesson learned at Columbine was that school shooters are not people who can be bargained with and more time just means more death.

I do not begrudge anyone attempting to formulate a plan that is believed to have a higher chance of success than simply running in without a plan, but that's one place where training comes in, big time. You've got seconds to a minute to make some critical decisions in life and just about every police officer you know will confirm that. This was one of those times when indecision was a decision and cost lives.

I have never been a police officer, so I am cognizant of my ignorance of what it takes to do that job, but as discussed obliquely in another thread, you don't have to be one to know what's necessary. I was, once upon a time, a soldier (yes, big difference) and we trained on breaching doors with as few as 2 people. There are no guarantees of personnel safety when one undertakes that operation...but then again, personal safety is not why you are breaching.

I have difficulty understanding the multiple levels of failure in this situation.

I see this situation as no reflection, whatsoever, on law enforcement as a whole as there are plenty of anecdotes and reports of police officers taking aggressive initiative at great personal risk to save others. However, this department....whatever they had going on there, or didn't have going on there deserves the close examination courts and juries are sure to give it.

 

[KG1]

I would say that in this one department, there was a severe lack of training and initiative.

After Columbine, my understanding was that standard doctrine pivoted away from "set up a perimeter" to "engage ASAP" because the lesson learned at Columbine was that school shooters are not people who can be bargained with and more time just means more death.

I do not begrudge anyone attempting to formulate a plan that is believed to have a higher chance of success than simply running in without a plan, but that's one place where training comes in, big time. You've got seconds to a minute to make some critical decisions in life and just about every police officer you know will confirm that. This was one of those times when indecision was a decision and cost lives.

I have never been a police officer, so I am cognizant of my ignorance of what it takes to do that job, but as discussed obliquely in another thread, you don't have to be one to know what's necessary. I was, once upon a time, a soldier (yes, big difference) and we trained on breaching doors with as few as 2 people. There are no guarantees of personnel safety when one undertakes that operation...but then again, personal safety is not why you are breaching.

I have difficulty understanding the multiple levels of failure in this situation.

I see this situation as no reflection, whatsoever, on law enforcement as a whole as there are plenty of anecdotes and reports of police officers taking aggressive initiative at great personal risk to save others. However, this department....whatever they had going on there, or didn't have going on there deserves the close examination courts and juries are sure to give it.

I would say in this case hesitation to act contributed to the cost of lives. From the very beginning an Uvalde officer reportedly had a chance to take a shot at the perp before he entered the school but was waiting for a green light from higher ups to take the shot. By that time, it was too late. Then once inside the classroom where the carnage took place no action was taken for over 40 mins to breach the classroom and engage.

I agree with your last paragraph. I'm strictly commenting about this particular incident and not all LE as a whole.

 

[TheGrumpyGuy]

 

[HoughMade]

I don't know what her farm work pays, but Uvalde is going to need some new police officers.

 

[MCgrease08]

Not all departments take an oath to run towards danger. Some do, some don't.
What say ingo, Is it their job?

There are almost 1200 posts in this thread and the topic has come up a few times already. I'm sure you can get some insight on your question if you go back and read through it.

 

[Shadow01]

True. But actively preventing good Samaritans (especially, parents) from acting to protect/save those who are in danger - and then intimidating and harassing them afterward is beyond the pale.

If true (and existing evidence seems to indicate that it is), none of those cowards should ever wear a badge again, and the Uvalde PD should face federal charges of deprivation of rights under color of law.

I don’t disagree. My point is your safety is on your shoulders just as mine is on my shoulders. I know that police will not protect me in my time of need.

 

[Shadow01]

Not all departments take an oath to run towards danger. Some do, some don't.
What say ingo, Is it their job?

If the side of the car has the words protect on them…

 

[BigRed]

More spine and guts in that little lady than any of those clows standing around with their thumbs up their ***.

Mark it down as yet another failure of state.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

I don't know what her farm work pays, but Uvalde is going to need some new police officers.

I believe they need a new Chief. If any of the other officers hesitate all she would have to do is take off a sandal and tap it against her hand. I know I'd rather face bullets than my Mom when she picked up one of her wooden Dr. Sholl sandals...

 

[Cameramonkey]

Give that mom The Chief's job. AND what's in his pension.
You dont mess with Mamma Bear.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Uvalde school's classrooms lacked a basic security feature — and it’s missing across America
The classroom doors at Robb Elementary could not be locked from the inside. That's a vulnerability school safety experts have been warning about for decades.

Apparently, the classroom doors could only be locked from the outside, and the only way to verify they were locked was from the hallway side.