safetyfirst2125
NES Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 15,577
- Likes
- 40,184
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
It was Socratic question regarding a point of logic. Picton was inferring thatI'll bite. Why do you ask?
They took an oath to save lives yet let children die. I can think of at least 20 charges for each of them.
They should be publicsly executed while the screams of those dying children is played over loud speakers. Fking cowards.
Here he was trying to implicate BORTAC along with the local police for inaction. This may or may not be justified. I'm not arguing that point per se, but as a point of logic, to make the inference he was attempting, we require an additional premise...
Oh, FFS. What part of “I’m not arguing that point per se” didn’t you understand?And?
That's a complete non-answer. When was the last scream prior to the breach heard?
These guys had a moral obligation and they failed to perform.
If they can charge and get a murder conviction for a cop who just followed protocol arresting a violent piece of crap wife beater overdosing on fentanyl, they surely can do the same for these coward cops who let 19 children die.I am not defending them. At all. Going against a code or and oath can get you fired or disciplined on the job, possibly in trouble with a union.org or maybe even fired. Most are not tied into actual laws.
The Supreme Court has ruled - multiple times in fact if I remember correctly ........... that the police have no obligation to actually protect you.
4. One of the first cops on scene knew his wife was inside and shot. The reports say other cops ended up taking his gun from him. They would have had no reason to do that unless they also knew there were still victims inside like his wife.
^ 100% agreed. Even kinda sounds familiar re: torts and assumption of a duty.That's not quite accurate. What the Court actually ruled is:
"A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services."
The Due Process claim made was one of "substantive due process" and the court rejected it. Given Thomas's recent assertion that "any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous" I would expect the current court to rule the same way.
However, it also stated in the same case:
"It may well be that, by voluntarily undertaking to protect Joshua against a danger it concededly played no part in creating, the State acquired a duty under state tort law to provide him with adequate protection against that danger." and "The claim here is based on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which, as we have said many times, does not transform every tort committed by a state actor into a constitutional violation."
So the craven actions of Uvalde's police farce may still be actionable under tort, contract, or even criminal law. Just not under Section 1983.
There were also (a limited amount of) other shots during that hour plus. What did they think those were?I hate the keep bringing this back up, but since the last two pages were talking about it.
The suggestion that not every cop on scene knew their were potential victims still inside and therefore they didn’t know they needed to act immediately is completely meritless for so many reasons.
1. I’d have to go back and watch, but we know there were at least 7 cops in the school within minutes when he was still shooting.
2. We know there were 911 calls from victims.
3. After evacuating the rest of the school you’d know there are still students and teachers unaccounted for.
4. One of the first cops on scene knew his wife was inside and shot. The reports say other cops ended up taking his gun from him. They would have had no reason to do that unless they also knew there were still victims inside like his wife.
5. If they thought there wasn’t anyone left, there’d have been no reason for such a massive police response like there was. They OBVIOUSLY responded in masses as they did BECAUSE of the situation.
I forget who it was, but shortly after the massacre, law enforcement made a statement to the effect of “we didn’t think there were any victims left which is why we took so long”. I don’t think it was actually a lie. I think they meant “we assume we had waited long enough to ensure all the victims were finally dead”.
it is just how the ball runs now - his logic was very simple - no matter what happens he will not allow the situation where his department can be sued if any officer accidentally shoots down any of those kids there. so it is safer to wait over until hostages are dead - as he thinks they are already dead, and let somebody else to come to deal with it.guess it's Arredondo, who seems to me to have been the one who set the tone
hahahahaha. That was never a risk.it is just how the ball runs now - his logic was very simple - no matter what happens he will not allow the situation where his department can be sued if any officer accidentally shoots down any of those kids there. so it is safer to wait over until hostages are dead - as he thinks they are already dead, and let somebody else to come to deal with it.
so inaction is the best action.
it is just how the ball runs now - his logic was very simple - no matter what happens he will not allow the situation where his department can be sued if any officer accidentally shoots down any of those kids there. so it is safer to wait over until hostages are dead - as he thinks they are already dead, and let somebody else to come to deal with it.
so inaction is the best action.
The Supreme Court has ruled - multiple times in fact if I remember correctly ........... that the police have no obligation to actually protect you.
They might have a moral obligation , but I'm pretty sure most police officers - unless they're some small-town "peace" officer - don't have the opportunity to put their morals first above all of the other shit they have to do on a daily basis. So - by the time they show up at a situation like Uvelde , their decision process has been hopelessly corrupted by all those other influences.
I can't argue with that. I think, however, if I were some sinister deep state chess player, I wouldn't entrust anyone in the Uvalde PD with a plan like that. I'd trust, rather, that incompetence, confusion, cowardice, etc. would produce the approximate result.As I said earlier in this thread, if I were a conspiracy theorist I might say that was the point of the police inaction, to ensure everyone was dead before they did anything. Can’t scream when you’ve already bled out.
Which is why the answer to your philosophical question is as equally irrelevant as the answer.
The best patsy is someone who doesn’t even know he’s a patsy.I can't argue with that. I think, however, if I were some sinister deep state chess player, I wouldn't entrust anyone in the Uvalde PD with a plan like that. I'd trust, rather, that incompetence, confusion, cowardice, etc. would produce the approximate result.
The One Cop Who Wanted to Confront the Uvalde Shooter More Than an Hour Before Officers Finally Did
City of Uvalde Police Department/ReutersMore than an hour before law-enforcement officials finally confronted Salvador Ramos, a Texas SWAT team chief urged officers to storm the classroom he was in, newly released body-camera footage shows.Uvalde officials published the footage on Sunday evening...www.yahoo.com
For almost 20 years now ."Hey. We're here. What's up?"
"Guy with a gun in a classroom."
There's only one response to that, according to EVERY LE playbook since Columbine. Only one. You go in and get the shooter.