Shooting at a Texas elementary school

[ktgrok]

32 minutes ago, Idalou said:

19. 19 cops standing in the hall outside the classroom. Doing nothing, impeded by the door. ( another door problem, Senator!) A janitor comes and unlocks the door. 19 cops. One cop for each dead child.

That NONE Of them were brave enough to go in..I just can't even. I mean, 19 against 1? And there were two entrances - one for each of the connecting classrooms. Why not split up? The gunman couldn't possibly defend both doorways at once! If half went either way, someone would take the guy out.

Yes, some of them would likely be shot, but not all of them. And that's why they have vests. I'm assuming that EMTs were on scene by this point to treat any injured officers as well. 

If our cops are unwilling to go in en masse to save kids, I'm done with armed police. 

16 minutes ago, happi duck said:

I would never call 911 because I don't trust cops not to kill.  That said, I can't believe that for children in mortal danger, calling 911 was completely worthless.  Cops won't trust their training and rush in to save children?!???!  Children!

Yup. Again, why do we arm police? If not for this kind of thing?

14 minutes ago, Mrs Tiggywinkle said:

 

I am hoping more and accurate information comes out, because I cannot fathom why they didn’t go in or why they needed a janitor’s key. As a paramedic, we force entry all the time and LE does it frequently too. Nobody needs keys. I’m 5’2” , 130 pounds, and kicked a door in last week(long story, it was necessary but not exactly what we’re supposed to do as EMS). I’m positive 19 policemen could have taken that door.

I read the 11 year old’s account that they were watching Lilo and Stitch when the gunman entered. .  My(almost) 10 year old DD loves that movie. I’m not sure I can ever view it the same now.

And that 11 yr old said the shooter had already shot out the window!!! 

12 minutes ago, Idalou said:

People keep talking about how the military is ready for this but not our LEOs. Except 20-22 percent of our police force are ex-military, as of 2019. It would be interesting to know what percentage of this bunch were former members.

If they can't handle these kinds of situations because they are not military, then they need to stop having military style weapons. 

[AmandaVT]

7 hours ago, Farrar said:

Is it also actually best practice for kids to hide in locked down rooms? Like, seriously. Way back thread somewhere, people were talking about how the safest thing you can do is get OUT of the building. Is that true? Are there links for that? And if that's true, why don't we run shooter drills that way? Like a fire drill that involves getting out the building and literally leave the campus? (I mean, if we're going to run shooter drills at all, which I don't know that we even should.)

And because I'm just musing... I can't help but think about the deep disconnect... that in a state where teachers are allowed to carry in schools and where guns are widely lauded as a way to stop other guns... that when there was a literal bad guy shooting actual small children, everyone just stood around for well over and hour doing nothing and waiting for the experts. 

No - we've all been told to run as fast and as far as we can into the woods. We have drills every month, either fire drills, clear the halls (usually if a medical event is happening), or lockdown (if there is a possible situation that is not in the school). We do not practice the run to the woods plan, but all teachers know that is what we are to do if we get signaled. We try to keep the drills as non-scary as possible. No rattling doorknobs or piping in scary sounds like I've read about thankfully. I don't think I could handle that kind of anxiety!

[mathnerd]

9 hours ago, Carrie12345 said:

I’m a few pages behind, so this may have already been said but,

How in the world is it that we train our children and school staff to handle school shootings, but not our law enforcement officers?

I am as puzzled about how they responded as you are. One parent of a child who died says they go into frequent lockdowns in that school because of people outrunning police at border crossings and getting pursued by LE. They seem to be familiar with pursuit of armed and dangerous people, they seemed to be armed to the teeth in pictures, they seem to outnumber that one shooter by a multiple of 50 at the very least, kids of their coworkers were inside that school. But they did not act when the shooter was outside the campus with his rifle for 10 minutes or after he was inside for over an hour and it makes me think that there was no urgency to save kids’ lives or value placed on the lives of the people in that room.

How can a school admin or a teacher or a paraprofessional teacher be expected to carry a powerful gun and think better and faster than the LE in this situation in Uvalde   and protect and defend against crazy shooters (always assuming that the parties involved are willing to bear that responsibility in addition to teaching kids?). My 5th grade teacher was in a wheelchair because she was born with spinal defects. I cannot imagine how she would hide under a table or protect her students (with or without a gun) if this had happened decades ago in her classroom.

Edited May 27, 2022 by mathnerd

[Faith-manor]

2 hours ago, Farrar said:

Oh. I think they said the quiet part loud.

Police slow to engage with gunman because "they could've been shot" official says.

Bingo.

[Sneezyone]

2 hours ago, Katy said:

Retired cops who used to work with my dad are asking how that kid afforded a minimum of $5500 of purchases on a Wendy's salary.

The responses WRT everything else coming out... this is clearly already a bigger conspiracy theory thing than anything since 9/11.  And with redundant levels of incompetence at every level I understand it.

And if cops were using the back door to go in and get their kids out... why the hell didn't they shoot the guy then?  They weren't afraid to go past the broken door but they were afraid to kill him? How is that even possible?

YEP. It's what I said early on too. How'd he accumulate that much? I cannot fathom that he told NO ONE that he planned to purchase guns and ammo with his savings. Emptying his accounts to buy military weaponry is a big, red flag.

[Happy2BaMom]

3 hours ago, chiguirre said:

Actually, that's happened (at my old high school). A kid couldn't get a gun so he brought 2 butcher knives to school and stabbed 20 people. Everyone survived.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Regional_High_School_stabbing

I remember reading an editorial written by an ER physician who was debunking the "well, anything can be a weapon!" bullsh*t argument by relating his 25+ years of experience in an inner city hospital....he'd treated thousands of both knife wounds/attacks and thousands of shooting victims, and the statistics were clear...it's a LOT easier to survive most knife attacks. *Especially* if there are multiple people in the room who can participate in the defense.

[Carrie12345]

Again, I’m kind of just skimming posts as I try to preserve some sanity, so it may have been said already. And I’ve had this thought in the past, but was only just reminded of it…

Young men of typical school shooter age range have been raised their whole lives with shooter drills. They know the “rules” and procedures. So how are those rules and procedures ANY good at all, even if they ever were.

[Innisfree]

Just now, Happy2BaMom said:

I remember reading an editorial written by an ER physician who was debunking the "well, anything can be a weapon!" bullsh*t argument by relating his 25+ years of experience in an inner city hospital....he'd treated thousands of both knife wounds/attacks and thousands of shooting victims, and the statistics were clear...it's a LOT easier to survive most knife attacks. *Especially* if there are multiple people in the room who can participate in the defense.

My father was in charge of two downtown emergency rooms for years. He said the same thing: that when people came in after knife fights, the surgeons could patch them up. Once handguns became common, they couldn’t. The guns just did too much damage. And this was before the AR15s and AK47s came on the scene.

[73349]

15 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

YEP. It's what I said early on too. How'd he accumulate that much? I cannot fathom that he told NO ONE that he planned to purchase guns and ammo with his savings. Emptying his accounts to buy military weaponry is a big, red flag.

What I saw on Twitter today is that there are businesses that finance weapons purchases, basically an adjunct to the gun manufacturing and sales. 0% down, even. (Sample Google result: Shoot Now Pay Later) So he might have put very little into the weapons and only paid in full for the ammunition. If you don't plan to live to pay it off... 🤷‍♂️

Saving up to buy a gun, which he could legally do, probably didn't cause anybody to bat an eye in small-town Texas.

Edited May 27, 2022 by 73349

[mommyoffive]

We can reduce gun violence in the U.S. (substack.com)

[Tenaj]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

YEP. It's what I said early on too. How'd he accumulate that much? I cannot fathom that he told NO ONE that he planned to purchase guns and ammo with his savings. Emptying his accounts to buy military weaponry is a big, red flag.

My 16 year old is making over $1000 a month working part time at a local ice cream place.  It would be easy for him to accumulate that much in his checking account.  Unfortunately he was over 18 and it was completely legal for him to use his money to buy weapons (not saying that it was right).  There is nothing in our system that would trigger any kind of alarm in this situation.  I'm not even able to see my 18yods's bank account.

[Murphy101]

9 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Has anyone read about law enforcement having no duty to protect us?   I haven’t deeply researched any of this, but just a quick search says courts have affirmed they don’t, even though they take an oath.  Yikes. 

Okay. I’ll bite. Devil’s advocate. Why should they (or anyone else) have a duty to risk getting themselves killed for people?

 

[KSera]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay. I’ll bite. Devil’s advocate. Why should they (or anyone else) have a duty to risk getting themselves killed for people?

 

Because it’s the job they took? I don’t blame anyone for not wanting or taking that job, but once you do, it seems like you’re signing up for being willing to do that. 

[Carrie12345]

2 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay. I’ll bite. Devil’s advocate. Why should they (or anyone else) have a duty to risk getting themselves killed for people?

 

Well, if we accept that they don’t, then I suppose they don’t need guns. And they’d have no “reason” to murder “suspects”, so extra bonus!

[mathnerd]

5 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay. I’ll bite. Devil’s advocate. Why should they (or anyone else) have a duty to risk getting themselves killed for people?

 

I always thought that a LE’s job is to risk their lives to protect the citizens: just like soldiers and people on the frontline who work for the military who protect our country and people by risking their own lives. This is just my understanding of what the job description is, though I only know about these things because I watched a lot of Law and Order a very long time ago, so, please correct me if I am wrong.

[Murphy101]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

Because it’s the job they took? I don’t blame anyone for not wanting or taking that job, but once you do, it seems like you’re signing up for being willing to do that. 

I do not know if I agree.

Again. Devil advocate. Is taking a job to protect people the same as demanding they risk getting themselves killed?

[KSera]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I do not know if I agree.

Again. Devil advocate. Is taking a job to protect people the same as demanding they risk getting themselves killed?

They were actively preventing people who were willing to risk their lives from going in to do so. If they aren’t willing to risk their lives by taking on the job, then I don’t think they have any authority at all to stop others from acting to do that which they won’t do. 

[Murphy101]

4 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

I always thought that a LE’s job is to risk their lives to protect the citizens: just like soldiers and people on the frontline who work for the military who protect our country and people by risking their own lives. This is just my understanding of what the job description is, though I only know about these things because I watched a lot of Law and Order a very long time ago, so, please correct me if I am wrong.

Hmm JUST like soldiers/military? if that’s true how do we avoid a police state where the police are an extension of the military?

 

[Wheres Toto]

If they aren't expected to enter dangerous situations, why are they provided weapons and bullet proof vests?

What is the expectation of police in other countries?  In Britain most police don't carry guns, right?   What are they expected to do in dangerous situations?

[Elona]

9 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I do not know if I agree.

Again. Devil advocate. Is taking a job to protect people the same as demanding they risk getting themselves killed?

Asking people to protect, which they agree to by accepting a job is completely different than demanding that people risk and giving them no other options. In the first case, the person accepts the risk based on the promise that they will be well trained and can mitigate the inherent risk. So no, it is completely different. (Assuming that the employer provides the promised training and equipment, of course.)

Edited May 27, 2022 by Elona

[Wheres Toto]

3 minutes ago, KSera said:

They were actively preventing people who were willing to risk their lives from going in to do so. If they aren’t willing to risk their lives by taking on the job, then I don’t think they have any authority at all to stop others from acting to do that which they won’t do. 

This is what makes it so much worse.  Why would they possibly feel the need to stop the BP officers from going in?

I wondered at one point if they knew the shooter and weren't engaging for some weird reason.

[Murphy101]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

They were actively preventing people who were willing to risk their lives from going in to do so. If they aren’t willing to risk their lives by taking on the job, then I don’t think they have any authority at all to stop others from acting to do that which they won’t do. 

Do you feel the same if a firefighter restrains people from rushing back into a burning building?

Idk. I think all this is distraction.

I am totally willing to believe that sometimes cowards wear uniforms and guns. I am totally willing to believe that this was a cluster from tragic start to tragic end. Whatever. Do a third party internal investigation later. 

But none of those people are dead because of the cops.

Bottom line is none of this would have happened if that 18 year old hadn’t been able to by those guns and ammo like a pack of gum. 

Quit losing focus, people. 

[mommyoffive]

Official provides detailed timeline of school shooting, police response (msn.com)

[WildflowerMom]

18 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I do not know if I agree.

Again. Devil advocate. Is taking a job to protect people the same as demanding they risk getting themselves killed?

Sure.  My dad is retired LEO.  He's been shot at pursing armed suspects.  He kept pursuing them, bullets kept flying, miraculously he wasn't shot.  🤷🏻‍♀️  That was his job.  His job was to keep citizens safe from armed suspects, whatever the cost to him. I don't think that's a foreign concept, tbh.    That's what you sign up for.  

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Do you feel the same if a firefighter restrains people from rushing back into a burning building?

But the analogy here would be firefighters from one company preventing firefighters from another company from running into a burning building to rescue children, and instead insisting that all firefighters on site just stand there for an hour and watch it burn. It's inexplicable and unforgivable. 

[Carrie12345]

8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Do you feel the same if a firefighter restrains people from rushing back into a burning building?

People running into fires endanger the firefighters and the operation. 
A non-factor in the given situation. 

[Elona]

7 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Quit losing focus, people. 

I can see how the myriad threads of discussion could seem like losing focus. But we aren't. We are days out from a major, heartbreaking tragedy, and we are processing everything that happened - ALL of the things that make us feel frustrated and powerless. But don't worry, gun legislation is still the most important. I think most of the people on this discussion thread have made their stance clear. No one who has supported gun legislation for the last ten years is going to get sidetracked because some police couldn't get their sh** together.

[WildflowerMom]

15 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Do you feel the same if a firefighter restrains people from rushing back into a burning building?

Idk. I think all this is distraction.

I am totally willing to believe that sometimes cowards wear uniforms and guns. I am totally willing to believe that this was a cluster from tragic start to tragic end. Whatever. Do a third party internal investigation later. 

But none of those people are dead because of the cops.

Bottom line is none of this would have happened if that 18 year old hadn’t been able to by those guns and ammo like a pack of gum. 

Quit losing focus, people. 

We're grown ups.  We can discuss multiple things at once.    We're not losing focus.   There were multiple failures.   We don't want to see any of them happen again.  

[Matryoshka]

26 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Hmm JUST like soldiers/military? if that’s true how do we avoid a police state where the police are an extension of the military?

Protect and Serve. That is the job description.  Protect.  Serve.   

That is indeed different from the military, but still includes putting the lives of others before your own, as do, say, firefighters. Are we now going to be cool if firefighters hang out outside a burning building because they might get burned?

If they are unwilling to do those two things, then what are they even for?  Writing speeding tickets? 

[Grace Hopper]

6 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

re the things that matter shrink, in proportion to things that ought not to

 

A society that kills its children, and also...

...maligns teachers as entitled unionizers who can't be trusted to choose developmentally appropriate picture books; and also

...maligns nurses as entitled unionizers determined to implant Soros microchips through injection..

...maligns women as too selfish to be trusted to make their own reproductive choices

 

but

which VALORIZES law enforcement, even as we 

simultanteously cede any cultural expectation that LE serve and protect communities. Even the children.

 

It is overwhelming.

We cannot allow ourselves the luxury of retreating into overwhelmed paralysis.

The kids in our society DO deserve a future. They do. THEY DO.

THEY DO.

The lives of the kids in our society matter.

The futures of the kids in our society matter.

The education of the kids in our society matter.

The physical and mental health of the kids in our society matter.

The ability of the kids in our society to resolve conflict without violence, to navigate difference, to delay gratification, to sometimes put the interests of others above their individual wishes, matters.

 

Law enforcement is not obligated, as a matter of law or culture, to serve and protect the kids in our society.

BUT

WE

ARE.

 

 

Please come to my red state and run for public office. You can stay at my house and use my address. We need wise voices like yours!

5 hours ago, Terabith said:

I have no anger about him being off premises.  I'm concerned that they initially LIED and said that he engaged the shooter and called him a hero.  That's not just confusion about what went on in a chaotic situation, which would be completely understandable.  That is MAKING UP A STORY.  

I think this is what makes me mad about the SRO - it’s like no one really knows where he was or was supposed to be. Buncha cya is what it sounds like. 

4 hours ago, Ting Tang said:

Apparently, a few years ago, two younger teens plotted to bomb and then shoot children in the same community.  They were arrested and taken to a juvenile facility.  I am not sure that has been mentioned in this thread.  The cases are not linked.  

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18689505/uvalde-texas-second-school-shooting-plot-columbine

 

This is a reason they should have had a dedicated SRO. 

3 hours ago, Katy said:

Retired cops who used to work with my dad are asking how that kid afforded a minimum of $5500 of purchases on a Wendy's salary.

The responses WRT everything else coming out... this is clearly already a bigger conspiracy theory thing than anything since 9/11.  And with redundant levels of incompetence at every level I understand it.

And if cops were using the back door to go in and get their kids out... why the hell didn't they shoot the guy then?  They weren't afraid to go past the broken door but they were afraid to kill him? How is that even possible?

A kid who is not attending school and with no social life or living expenses could easily save that amount in 6 months. 

49 minutes ago, KSera said:

Because it’s the job they took? I don’t blame anyone for not wanting or taking that job, but once you do, it seems like you’re signing up for being willing to do that. 

It is thought - at least by me - that the character of one wanting to take on a vocation whose very motto is “to protect and to serve” would make them want to do so. I think of firefighters and EMTs having this same spirit. I guess I’m just an idealist. 
 

ETA I understand it takes a hot minute to assess a situation. But with those 911 calls? Lotta blood on a lotta hands. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Grace Hopper

[mathnerd]

31 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Hmm JUST like soldiers/military? if that’s true how do we avoid a police state where the police are an extension of the military?

 

Can these these facts be extrapolated to that extent and say that since job descriptions to "protect and serve" mostly match, then the police are an extension of the military? I don't think so. For one, the paycheck for the LE probably comes from the state government or county and then they have Unions to protect themselves etc etc. Then there is the whole accountability structure built into the military (court martial, disciplinary hearings) which is lacking in a PD's structure (e.g. I have read about many police officer being placed on "leave"  for cases involving heavy media coverage and then that person goes back to work). There could be many other differences as well, of which I am ignorant. So, I am not qualified to speak on them.

[mathnerd]

8 minutes ago, Matryoshka said:

If they are unwilling to do those two things, then what are they even for?  Writing speeding tickets? 

I was trying not to explicitly say this when I made the comparison between the similarity of the LE to the military when it comes to risking their lives for the safety of the citizens!

If my job description is to do "xyz" and when the time came, I was standing around doing nothing because doing xyz is not worth the risk for me, I will be fired, no questions asked. But, wait and watch this story unfold: there will be mayors, sheriffs, governors etc covering for people who did not do the jobs that they get their paychecks for. Their paycheck comes from taxation and those poor families contributed to it.

[Tanaqui]

Mathnerd, their paycheck only partially comes from taxation. A lot of it also comes from speeding tickets and civil asset forfeiture!

[Murphy101]

I’m not excusing the cops.  But it’s starting more and more often to sound like being a cop or an EMT or a teacher is a suicide by thankless society job.

The same rational for why an under trained cop should have a gun and run pellmell into bullets is the same rational for why a teacher should have a gun in class and be willing to not just take a bullet for a kid but also shoot some teenager.  And none of them will get the medical benefits to cope with this daily life expectation or the inevitable failures they will face.  If the violence doesn’t get to them, the mental damage from the job will.  The rational seems to be because “it’s the job.”

If it is. Then it is.

But the hazard of that is people who want to live an emotionally stable life are going to leave in droves.

[Wheres Toto]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m not excusing the cops.  But it’s starting more and more often to sound like being a cop or an EMT or a teacher is a suicide by thankless society job.

The same rational for why an under trained cop should have a gun and run pellmell into bullets is the same rational for why a teacher should have a gun in class and be willing to not just take a bullet for a kid but also shoot some teenager.  And none of them will get the medical benefits to cope with this daily life expectation or the inevitable failures they will face.  If the violence doesn’t get to them, the mental damage from the job will.  The rational seems to be because “it’s the job.”

If it is. Then it is.

But the hazard of that is people who want to live an emotionally stable life are going to leave in droves.

But if that's not their job, what they signed up to do under "Serve and Protect", what IS their job?  

A teacher's job is to teach children.

What is a police officer's job if it's not to protect people?

[mathnerd]

23 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Mathnerd, their paycheck only partially comes from taxation. A lot of it also comes from speeding tickets and civil asset forfeiture!

I know! In my area, the cops spend a majority of their time writing tickets. There are a lot of Asian immigrant people living in my neighborhood, so they are targeted (especially Asian women) because they have a reputation of never fighting a speeding ticket.

Edited May 27, 2022 by mathnerd

[Ting Tang]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

Okay. I’ll bite. Devil’s advocate. Why should they (or anyone else) have a duty to risk getting themselves killed for people?

 

Yep, so many do get killed in the line of duty as it is.  But there is certainly a perception that they are supposed to "save us."   😞  From a legal standpoint, I didn''t know this was affirmed in the courts.  Or maybe I just sort quit paying attention after the time this happened during another shooting (Parkland?)  😞  

[hshibley]

8 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

I’m not excusing the cops.  But it’s starting more and more often to sound like being a cop or an EMT or a teacher is a suicide by thankless society job.

The same rational for why an under trained cop should have a gun and run pellmell into bullets is the same rational for why a teacher should have a gun in class and be willing to not just take a bullet for a kid but also shoot some teenager.  And none of them will get the medical benefits to cope with this daily life expectation or the inevitable failures they will face.  If the violence doesn’t get to them, the mental damage from the job will.  The rational seems to be because “it’s the job.”

If it is. Then it is.

But the hazard of that is people who want to live an emotionally stable life are going to leave in droves.

If it’s not their job then get out of the way and let others save the children. There were 19 police officers in the hall while children in the classroom were calling 911 begging for help for over a half hour. There were 150 police officers guarding the perimeter stopping parents  who were willing to die to save their children. They prevented border control officers who wanted to go in immediately and rescue children and take down the killer from entering the building for half an hour. 
 

If it’s not their job get out of the way. 

[Murphy101]

2 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

But if that's not their job, what they signed up to do under "Serve and Protect", what IS their job?  

A teacher's job is to teach children.

What is a police officer's job if it's not to protect people?

But many people have said teachers are also supposed to protect the children.

I don’t disagree that they are supposed to protect.  But I don’t think that looks as seen on tv either.

The timeline is tragic.  I’m just not ready to presume that all those cops were all inept cowards okay with letting children be shot to death.  I would be interested to know what was going on that the timeline doesn’t delve in to.

[Terabith]

Honestly, I think a big part of the problem was that there were too many police officers, and too many different departments.  In an emergency, your chances of someone intervening are WAY higher if there is one person there than if there is a crowd.  The sheer number of police officers diffused responsibility.  

I suspect there was a great deal of confusion, too, because of the different groups there.  Maybe they were out of communication and didn't know about the 911 calls?  

I'm in no way excusing the officers that acted both incompetently and cowardly.  But I think it is a sociological EXPLANATION.  

[Garga]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Honestly, I think a big part of the problem was that there were too many police officers, and too many different departments.  In an emergency, your chances of someone intervening are WAY higher if there is one person there than if there is a crowd.  The sheer number of police officers diffused responsibility.  

I suspect there was a great deal of confusion, too, because of the different groups there.  Maybe they were out of communication and didn't know about the 911 calls?  

I'm in no way excusing the officers that acted both incompetently and cowardly.  But I think it is a sociological EXPLANATION.  

I’ve been wondering too, if they were out of communication about the 911 calls and didn’t realize there were still children alive in the room. Not looking for excuses for them because that’s just another horrible mistake in a long line of mistakes (if they were out of communication with 911). I’m just wondering if that’s what happened.

[mathnerd]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Honestly, I think a big part of the problem was that there were too many police officers, and too many different departments.  In an emergency, your chances of someone intervening are WAY higher if there is one person there than if there is a crowd.  The sheer number of police officers diffused responsibility.  

I suspect there was a great deal of confusion, too, because of the different groups there.  Maybe they were out of communication and didn't know about the 911 calls?  

I'm in no way excusing the officers that acted both incompetently and cowardly.  But I think it is a sociological EXPLANATION.  

I am way too cynical than you. My theory is that it was not worth it to risk their lives for those responding officers. I wonder if a Governor or a Senator or a Congressman's child or grandchild were to be in that campus, what the response might have been?

[Terabith]

Just now, mathnerd said:

I am way too cynical than you. My theory is that it was not worth it to risk their lives for those responding officers. I wonder if a Governor or a Senator or a Congressman's child or grandchild were to be in that campus, what the response might have been?

I mean, it's possible, but I think it's dumb to attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence.  

And while individuals are often smart, groups are almost always really dumb.  They just are.  

[WildflowerMom]

3 minutes ago, mathnerd said:

I am way too cynical than you. My theory is that it was not worth it to risk their lives for those responding officers. I wonder if a Governor or a Senator or a Congressman's child or grandchild were to be in that campus, what the response might have been?

I'm way too cynical, as well, I guess.   I'm not willing to give anyone a pass.   Idc if they thought the kids were dead, it doesn't matter.   They wouldn't know that unless they checked for a pulse.  Some of those kids could possibly have been saved, maybe an adult.  We'll never know, unfortunately.   They stood outside the dang door.  19 of them.  
 

edit: sorry, language. 

Edited May 27, 2022 by WildflowerMom

[teachermom2834]

Yeah if it’s not the cops job then just get out of the way and let everyone take their chances fighting. If there is a gunman in a locked room with my child sitting duck I’d rather take my chances with chaos and go down fighting. I’d rather my kid try to run. I’d rather die trying to save her. What parent wants to live after their child got shot point blank hiding under a desk for an hour?

I get the protocols and that chaos is dangerous but if the alternative to chaos is sitting ducks in a locked room with a homicidal maniac taunting them while they watch their friends and teachers bleed out then bring on chaos. Some will make it out and we’ll go down fighting. 

The agony of those parents outside while their babies are trapped inside with a killer and no one acting. OMG. It is beyond imagination.

[ktgrok]

30 minutes ago, Garga said:

I’ve been wondering too, if they were out of communication about the 911 calls and didn’t realize there were still children alive in the room. Not looking for excuses for them because that’s just another horrible mistake in a long line of mistakes (if they were out of communication with 911). I’m just wondering if that’s what happened.

But even if they knew the kids had been shot, they couldn't know they were dead. Some could be bleeding out. No way to know without getting in there. So no, that doesn't explain anything. 

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Murphy101 said:

Do you feel the same if a firefighter restrains people from rushing back into a burning building?

Idk. I think all this is distraction.

I am totally willing to believe that sometimes cowards wear uniforms and guns. I am totally willing to believe that this was a cluster from tragic start to tragic end. Whatever. Do a third party internal investigation later. 

But none of those people are dead because of the cops.

Bottom line is none of this would have happened if that 18 year old hadn’t been able to by those guns and ammo like a pack of gum. 

Quit losing focus, people. 

Actually, some of them are dead because of cops. A one hour delay in engagement allowed people to bleed to death. A one hour delay allowed him to kill more.

So yes, they really did have a direct hand in the deaths because they had a SWAT team whose job IS to engage, break the door, shoot the damn perp. On top of which these same bastards allowed fellow cops to go in and evacuate their own kids, but prevented other parents from taking this action.

 

Edited May 27, 2022 by Faith-manor

[WildflowerMom]

And cops know exactly what they are expected to do.  There is no excusing them standing around not wanting to get shot.  Nobody wants to get shot.  But they applied, trained for, and accepted a position in which they were handed a gun, handcuffs, taught target practice, possibly sprayed in the face with mace and possibly tasered (if they carry one, you have to be tasered and maced in my dad's old dept).   You don't get handcuffs and a gun if your job is standing around waiting for something less dangerous to happen.   It's for the dangerous shit.  Like a school shooting, dv situation, etc.  

[Murphy101]

Do we know the delay is because none of them wanted to risk getting shot?  Why do we jump to that reason?

I know cowards exist.  But the timeline alone does not give such insights. 

[Corraleno]

1 minute ago, Murphy101 said:

Do we know the delay is because none of them wanted to risk getting shot?  Why do we jump to that reason?

Because one of the cops literally said that in an interview