• 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.

21 killed, 18 injured in shooting at elementary school in Uvalde, Texas

safetyfirst2125 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
meh said:
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...
Click to expand...

And?

That incident mentioned in general down here in the 02780, with the father who suicided in the house with his infant child- it took the regional SWAT group over an hour after arriving on-site to attempt entry with no contact.

I'm sorry- they have ballistic shields. Body armor. Superior firepower. There's a child of unknown disposition on the premises. Go. Get in there. It's not simply what they swore to do, but what they told themselves they would do.

Same applies here. The instant BORTAC arrives- with the shooter still unchecked, it's time to show them the building plan and go. The fact that the clusterf*** on the ground was accepted *in an elementary school where shots had been fired* goes in complete and utter disregard to the SOP. It doesn't matter whether or not the district CoP knew he was in command of the incident or not, nor whatever load of bullshit investigators want to pile on; as far as the timeline shows, the shooter was firing at 11:41. BORTAC was on scene at 12:15.

And he started shooting again at 12:21.

The last time BORTAC had an excuse was one minute before that timestamp. Everything else is bullshit.

www.texastribune.org

What we know, minute by minute, about how the Uvalde shooting and police response unfolded

State officials provided a timeline of the massacre and have corrected crucial details amid public demands for information on how authorities handled the situation.
www.texastribune.org www.texastribune.org
 
meh said:
That's a complete non-answer. When was the last scream prior to the breach heard?
Click to expand...

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.
 
TLB said:
These guys had a moral obligation and they failed to perform.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Matt_SERE said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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”.
 
calsdad said:
The Supreme Court has ruled - multiple times in fact if I remember correctly ........... that the police have no obligation to actually protect you.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Bonesinium said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's even worse: the reports are that they took away his gun BECAUSE he wouldn't stop trying to go in and save his wife.

Think of that. Let that sink in.

There's a lot of finger-pointing about who was and wasn't in charge. Both Arredondo and the acting town chief are now on administrative leave, and probably won't have jobs much longer, but whoever specifically made the decision to take Ruiz' gun and stop him from trying to go in and get the shooter needs to be outed. I'd guess it's Arredondo, who seems to me to have been the one who set the tone as far as lack of agression was concerned.
 
Parker Schreiber said:
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.
Click to expand...
^ 100% agreed. Even kinda sounds familiar re: torts and assumption of a duty. ;)

www.northeastshooters.com

21 killed, 18 injured in shooting at elementary school in Uvalde, Texas

Of course. They're underfunded, overworked, and the pay attracts the least capable. There are many reasons why the social work system is broken. As I said, I'd never want to work within that structure. I doubt you would, either. It's an impossible job to do well. BTW, the ENTIRE system of...
www.northeastshooters.com www.northeastshooters.com
 
Bonesinium said:
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”.
Click to expand...
There were also (a limited amount of) other shots during that hour plus. What did they think those were?
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Picton said:
guess it's Arredondo, who seems to me to have been the one who set the tone
Click to expand...
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.
 
www.wsj.com

Texas Report Finds Police Failures in Uvalde School Shooting

Although 376 officers from local, state and federal agencies rushed to the shooting at Robb Elementary, none took command, effectively leaving the inexperienced local school district police department to lead the response, a report said.
www.wsj.com www.wsj.com

“Although 376 officers from local, state and federal agencies rushed to the May shooting at Uvalde’s Robb Elementary, none took command of the chaotic scene, effectively leaving the inexperienced local school district police department to lead the response, according to the preliminary findings by a commit-tee of the Texas House of Representatives.”

FEMA - Emergency Management Institute (EMI) Course | IS-100.C: Introduction to the Incident Command System, ICS 100

training.fema.gov training.fema.gov
 
paul73 said:
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.
Click to expand...
hahahahaha. That was never a risk.

At the Pulse Nightclub event, the police breached through a solid wall. There were numerous holes going inward from rifle fire.


There was (at the time) pretty significant assumption that additional people were injured by police action...and crickets from the world.

The most that will ever happen - from a legal standpoint - when a cop shoots a bystander, is that the attacker gets extra felony murder charges if he survives to stand trial. "But for his lawless action, this would not have happened."
 
paul73 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, he's wrong. And he blows.

This incident was the polar opposite as to the 2019 UPS guy getting hosed.

In TX, the police were just to incompetent/afraid to act.

In the FL incident, the police were so over the top that they killed the hostage and another random person in what may be one of the most incompetent shootouts in memory. 2019 Miramar shootout - Wikipedia

Both cases are packed with retards. The only difference is one group is a bunch of useless hacks and the other thinks they are in Iraq.

Would be nice to find some middle ground.
 
Just watched the first 10 minutes of the video, what a bunch of fat, out of shape, disgusting cowards. Standing in the friggen hallway hiding like cowards as children are shot. Guys with AR's sitting 30 yards down the hallway while he keeps shooting in the classroom.

376 cowards responded, while 1 mother said the hell with all of them and went in and got her kids. They'd have been better off leaving their equipment on the ground and going home to watch NASCAR on the couch while the parents went and saved their children.

The fat old guy who keeps grabbing his head, what a f***ing idiot, "ER MA GERD DEBRIS IN ME IN DA HEAD!!!" Yeah, you f***ing tool, debris hit you in the head from the guy who's in there killing children while your fat ass cowers in fear.
 
calsdad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you say that this is the exception to the rule? Your a cop you see someone being murdered right in front of you, so what happens next? Stand by and wait for the criminal to complete the murder and then pull out the chalk and tape? Or do you stop someone from committing a vicious crime and deal with the consequences of who is the criminal and who is the victim back at the station? If there is a standard that 'a crime must be committed first as opposed to in the process of being committed in plain sight' before law enforcement can act, isn't that kind of self defeating? I mean would police even be necessary? Any special officer Doofy can come up and draw chalk lines around the victims and put up the plastic do not cross - police line tape. If police take an oath for their job I would think there should be a corresponding expectation of stopping active crimes happening right in front of their eyes including active shooting incidents. Otherwise we are paying for what amounts to casual disinterested observers. That is a pathetic place to be.

Yeah I'm as pro 2A as it can get, but if we allow 'sensitive places' as a loophole around gun carrying then who assumes the burden in that case? Are we going to say that it's open season on every school/campus/courthouse/post office/etc in the country? Someone has infinite liability here and it's not the person who is being disarmed against his/her will.
 
Bonesinium said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
meh said:
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.
Click to expand...
The best patsy is someone who doesn’t even know he’s a patsy.

It’s an interesting theory.
 
Palladin said:
www.yahoo.com

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 www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

Well then why didn’t he? Or did he want someone else to go in after he had already ran away?

He was a SWAT guy?

I do believe he wanted them to go back in. I also believe the reason he and they didn’t is because they were too afraid.
 
Bonesinium said:
I do believe he wanted them to go back in. I also believe the reason he and they didn’t is because they were too afraid.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm hearing. He was giving off a pretty strong "beta" vibe when he said it. That's probably why it had no effect. They're all followers, no leaders.

BTW, if we needed any more confirmation on Ruis, cellphone guy actually says "That's my wife's classroom."
 
meh said:
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.
Click to expand...

Picton said:
The best patsy is someone who doesn’t even know he’s a patsy.

It’s an interesting theory.
Click to expand...
This would be a pretty good explanation for the state of the Federal Government. Install a bunch of morons, trannies and incompetents and just sit back and wait
 

Similar threads

Washington school shooting: Students in lockdown at William Wiley Elementary as police rush to the scene
Replies
8
Views
353
CMEBoston
CMEBoston
BREAKING NEWS: Scores Killed, Hundreds Injured as Extremists Riot in Boston Area
Replies
16
Views
930
Bfatz
Bfatz
At least 3 injured in shooting at Southern California dental office
Replies
9
Views
242
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
One dead, four injured in shooting at Nashville coffee shop as police launch manhunt for suspect
Replies
18
Views
469
Reptile
Reptile
SD shooting in Chicopee, MA
Replies
1
Views
208
VTski4x4
VTski4x4
Back
Top Bottom