Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread 2

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by bigtmac19

https://twitter.com/miriam2626/statu...s8GAYTfijePL9A

Ex prosecutor from Uvalde.

Could post that for any police force in North America. And I don't say that as some kind of ACAB or defund the police guy. They just are all in the business of covering for each other rather than admitting when they screwed up.

Even if they did everything by the book (which despite what one poster here says - they didn't) - the book should probably change.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

I get it if they gave the kid a gun knowing he was ill but in this case what did they do, he was 18 and bought the guns legally, they should charge the state of Texas with manslaughter, they are way way more culpable

I have no information about what they did, if anything. He didn't do this on a sudden whim as an adult though, so the parents and their interactions with him seem possibly quite relevant in the situation. Were there signs that they consciously ignored or purposely covered up? Did they contribute to the development and worsening of his mental/emotional state? Did they enable his violence in some other way? He was 18 y/o for less than a week. Manslaughter seems an odd charge to me, but criminal negligence causing death? Maybe that would be justified depending on their actions and circumstances. However it works out, it's an interesting case to put on trial the responsibility of parents in the violent actions of their children. It seems more odd to look at someone who is murdering 20+ people a few days past his 18th birthday and not question the role and responsibilities of the parents in it.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Wormius

I don’t really agree with how this is shifting a lot of focus away from the real problem of gun violence. Making the police response the issue isn’t really progress, it is just pushing things further along that “arm the teachers” path.

In my opinion - the only thing that could possible change things in the US is if someone leaks photos of the crime scene and people see 19 kids riddled with bullets. We all know the score of how this is going to go. It will be a story for 2-3 weeks and then the pro-gun side will come out with more lenient gun laws in the states you'd expect.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

In my opinion - the only thing that could possible change things in the US is if someone leaks photos of the crime scene and people see 19 kids riddled with bullets.

As vile a thought as it is... it would move the needle.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

This scumbag can't/won't answer the tough questions. Blames something else and walks away. The level of cowardice Ted Cruz has shown in the last 10 years is amazing.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1529851537790476288

“Why is it that people from all over the world come to America? Because it’s the freest, most prosperous, safest country earth. Stop being a propagandist”……

You can’t make this stuff up.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Royle9

Yep.

Pretty sad that Police looked to out number parents/on-lookers about 5-1 in the video I watched briefly and did nothing.

Then to hear the Sheriff/Chief come out and say that the "brave men and women of the force prevailed" just an absolute joke.

Best comment I saw on reddit:
Apparently in Texas SWAT stands for “Sit, Wait, Act Tough”

So just to get this straight.

They do have a special tactics division on the police force, but they refused to go in, but a single border patrol guy went in alone and killed the shooter?

If you have 4 cops, you have to go in. You can't wait at that point.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Also - according to the school board safety measures:



https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZF2...NQwNyVsV0/view

The fact that this document exists in the first places shows how prevalent this issue is.

But isn't this common all over? Canadian schools had precautions in place to prevent unauthorized access as well. Especially after Columbine.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Yes, but this is a question of the Senate. Is it fair for each state to have two, when one state has a population that is 80 times larger than another?

The Senate is what is making the slaughter in the USA continue.

It was regarded as fair when the U.S. was constituted. If each state wasn’t given equal representation in the senate, the country never would have been created in the first place.

The U.S. is strange in that it's still bound by a 200 year old founding constitution drafted when the country was a completely different place. But the makeup of the senate is not going to change. Half the states in the union would secede before they’d acquiesce to that.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It was regarded as fair when the U.S. was constituted. If each state wasn’t given equal representation in the senate, the country never would have been created in the first place.

The U.S. is strange in that it's still bound by a 200 year old founding constitution drafted when the country was a completely different place. But the makeup of the senate is not going to change. Half the states in the union would secede before they’d acquiesce to that.

There was 11 states or something like that when the constitution came into play. Most of the empty states came along like 100 years later.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

There was 11 states or something like that when the constitution came into play. Most of the empty states came along like 100 years later.

At the founding there were already huge population disparities between states like Delaware (59k) and Virginia (747k). And Montana had a tiny fraction of the population of New York when it joined. They still got two senators.

It’s not an accident of history that the senate isn’t representative of the population. The founders deliberately set it up that way.

[midniteowl]

Originally Posted by Azure

So just to get this straight.

They do have a special tactics division on the police force, but they refused to go in, but a single border patrol guy went in alone and killed the shooter?

If you have 4 cops, you have to go in. You can't wait at that point.

Will this border patrol guy be charged with something, I wonder.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Could post that for any police force in North America. And I don't say that as some kind of ACAB or defund the police guy. They just are all in the business of covering for each other rather than admitting when they screwed up.

Even if they did everything by the book (which despite what one poster here says - they didn't) - the book should probably change.

Which is funny because I am some kind of ACAB and defund the police guy. I also have read "the book" (well several different training manuals), and the thing about the book is that there isn't one. You need to be fluid as situations change.

Again, we aren't talking about the first officers who engaged with him with IARD that failed for some reason. The shooter entered at 11:33 a.m., the three responding officers entered at 11:35 a.m.. That's IARD. The execution of it somehow failed, the responding officers may be to blame for that, but that's what IARD is. Immediately engaging with the active shooter instead of waiting for backup and setting up a perimeter.

But IARD is for active shooters. Active is a keyword. The cops on video waiting for the proper resources were, by all accounts, not dealing with an active shooter. You can easily prove me wrong if you provide a video of them waiting outside while shots are heard and victims cry. Maybe that's the case, I don't have the stomach to watch many of the videos, but from what I read and saw that wasn't the case.

In fact, the new information is, like I said originally, is that the officers waiting did not believe there was any living children in the class rooms. 100+ rounds had been fired into the classroom before they got there, and now it was quiet. It was assessed as barricaded shooter situation at this point and you don't use IARD for that.

Depending on exact situation which we may never know truly, there's potential that the first responding officers failed. I don't know if I could blame cowardice on that seeing as they immediately entered a building to confront an active shooter but the end result was a failure.

You could potentially blame the person who decided to treat it as a barricaded shooter depending on the information provided to him. Alleged 911 calls from students inside classroom would work against him but the scene (a man with a gun inside a barricaded room and not actively shooting) works in his favour.

[#-3]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Nothing serious will ever get enacted the way the Senate is structured. So that's not a concern. But don't something like 80% of Americans support some of the measures being proposed, like background checks? It'd be like the freedom convoy, where they THINK they have this massive amonut of support country wide, but it turned out it was only a fraction of Canadians supporting their dumb asses. The US Senate is basically this. Like, look at the 2018 Senate elections...

Spoiler!

The Republicans got almost 20% less of the popular vote, yet gained 2 seats. American "democracy" is a farce.

To be fair you picked a pretty bias sample that shows the opposite effect you are trying to demonstrate. In that election there were 33 seats up, the Ds won 66% of those seats with 58% of the vote, meaning it's actually the Rs that are underrepresented in on that particular date.

To get a fair representation of the effect you are trying to show you would need to combine any 3 consecutive senate elections together. I'm lazy, but fairly confident that you could grab any 3 consecutive election sample from the past 25 years and find the same effect you were looking for, so even though your numbers don't prove your point, I am sure you are correct.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It was regarded as fair when the U.S. was constituted. If each state wasn’t given equal representation in the senate, the country never would have been created in the first place.

The U.S. is strange in that it's still bound by a 200 year old founding constitution drafted when the country was a completely different place. But the makeup of the senate is not going to change. Half the states in the union would secede before they’d acquiesce to that.

There is no legal mechanism for states to secede. They would have to go to war.

And personally, I would not want to go to war with the US military.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

Which is funny because I am some kind of ACAB and defund the police guy. I also have read "the book" (well several different training manuals), and the thing about the book is that there isn't one. You need to be fluid as situations change.

Again, we aren't talking about the first officers who engaged with him with IARD that failed for some reason. The shooter entered at 11:33 a.m., the three responding officers entered at 11:35 a.m.. That's IARD. The execution of it somehow failed, the responding officers may be to blame for that, but that's what IARD is. Immediately engaging with the active shooter instead of waiting for backup and setting up a perimeter.

But IARD is for active shooters. Active is a keyword. The cops on video waiting for the proper resources were, by all accounts, not dealing with an active shooter. You can easily prove me wrong if you provide a video of them waiting outside while shots are heard and victims cry. Maybe that's the case, I don't have the stomach to watch many of the videos, but from what I read and saw that wasn't the case.

In fact, the new information is, like I said originally, is that the officers waiting did not believe there was any living children in the class rooms. 100+ rounds had been fired into the classroom before they got there, and now it was quiet. It was assessed as barricaded shooter situation at this point and you don't use IARD for that.

Depending on exact situation which we may never know truly, there's potential that the first responding officers failed. I don't know if I could blame cowardice on that seeing as they immediately entered a building to confront an active shooter but the end result was a failure.

You could potentially blame the person who decided to treat it as a barricaded shooter depending on the information provided to him. Alleged 911 calls from students inside classroom would work against him but the scene (a man with a gun inside a barricaded room and not actively shooting) works in his favour.

You'd agree their assessment was wrong (and also based on god knows what considering kids were calling 911 from the classroom during the time they were hanging out)?

[chedder]

Beyond comprehension: please forgive my son. He had his reasons?

https://twitter.com/DailyMail/status...U1yJqRI6g&s=09

[photon]

Originally Posted by CroFlames

There is no legal mechanism for states to secede. They would have to go to war.

I say just say they can have Mississippi and everyone who doesn't like the changes can move there. Then build a wall around it.

[photon]

Ouch.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1529863185292992513

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

You'd agree their assessment was wrong (and also based on god knows what considering kids were calling 911 from the classroom during the time they were hanging out)?

Yes. I'd agree their* assessment was wrong using hindsight for two reasons:

1) There were living kids in the classroom.
2) It did not appear that the shooter had any intention of using those kids for hostages purposes and had full intention of killing them all.

The use of "their" is an issue. There's one commanding officer, one person in charge, you need that for these situations. Which is why I also disagree with the cops doing wrong for waiting, they were following commands.

As for that commander though, again based on exactly what he knew and when, but finding out there are living children in the classroom some 30 minutes after the shooter entered could easily re-affirm that this was NOT an active shooting situation. Especially as the number was 10.

Sure it's a catch 22; if there's no living children, then it's not an active shooting situation, no point in forcing the issue until the police decide, and if there are living children, then it's not an active shooting situation as he hasn't killed them. But assuming that the shooter just hasn't found the kids in a half hour of being in the room would probably be the most unreasonable (though apparently correct) assumption in my opinion.

I'm sure I could easily find some links about the difference in response to active shooters and barricaded gunmen and how they can transition from one to the other but you might be conceding that point? and we're now discussing whether treating it as a barricaded gunman was reasonable/proper/right (which I have less opinion on).

In any case, I do think it's sad we have to debate their effectiveness though knowing that the next one is just around the corner.

[direwolf]

This press conference with Abbott is infuriating. Multiple questions being hurled his way regarding background checks and common sense gun legislation and how the majority of Americans would support that kind of thing. And he just continues to blame mental health and insists that Texas' ridiculous gun laws have no correlation whatsoever to the tragedy. Dude is such a smug, despicable piece of s***.