|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 28 2022 04:51 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it.
According to the latest reports, the people who are equipped to deal with it were there since 12:10 and they didn't let them in for 40 minutes. Also the town is supposed to have a SWAT team, it was unclear to the border agents who intervened why those guys didn't.
|
On May 28 2022 04:52 StasisField wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. It is literally police policy to immediately engage an active shooter and has been since the fallout of Columbine. Show nested quote +
"First responders to the active shooter scene will usually be required to place themselves in harm's way," according to a lengthy course description posted online by the Texas agency that developed the training. "Time is the number-one enemy during active shooter response. ... The best hope that innocent victims have is that officers immediately move into action to isolate, distract or neutralize the threat, even if that means one officer acting alone."
Show nested quote +
At a press conference on Friday, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steven McCraw acknowledged that officers on the scene miscalculated what was unfolding, failing to go after the gunman sooner.
"From the benefit of hindsight where I'm sitting now, of course it wasn't the right decision. It was the wrong decision, period," he said.
Show nested quote +
ABC News contributor John Cohen, formerly the top counterterrorism official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and himself a former police officer, said that response "would seem to be inconsistent with accepted practice."
"What we are hearing from Texas law enforcement officials seems to be inconsistent with the operational philosophy that has guided the response to active shooter situations for well over a decade," Cohen said. "Having been a police officer, it's a scary job -- but what the public expects is that when confronted with those situations, the officer is going to do what they need to do in order to protect the public."
Show nested quote +
In the wake of the 1999 high school shooting in Columbine, Colorado, where twelve students and one teacher were killed, federal and state law enforcement officials developed new practices for equipping and training first responders. As a result, Cohen said, it has become "generally accepted" that the first officers on-scene must find and "engage" the shooter as soon as possible, even if that means putting their own lives at risk.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/time-number-enemy-police-uvalde-ignore-training/story?id=85020134Please stop spewing bullshit.
To elaborate on this because this isn't the first person talking about a hostage situation and even some of the cops seem to be under the delusion. A hostage situation is when a person robs a bank. Their motive is to acquire cash and their violence is secondary and can be avoided. A school shooter is there to kill children. There is no hostage negotiation that can happen from that point as a hostage must be healthy and in no further immediate danger. The bank robber is willing to not hurt anyone because hurting hostages doesn't further their motive of acquiring money. In the school shooter situation, there are already children who are shot and bleeding out in the school who need immediate assistance and waiting is the wrong call.
|
|
|
On May 28 2022 04:51 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it.
Firstly it's not very easy for an non trained person to accuratly shoot a gun. Those officers signed for this, were wearing body armor. It's literally their job. You can't siphon 40% of the budget and then be ill equipped to deal with a situation.
Parents without guns or body armor were willing and tried to enter the school. jfc
After how many dead kids should a cop be held responsible for his inaction ?
|
Edited by KwarK because it was dumb
|
On May 28 2022 05:44 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 04:51 Vivax wrote:On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it. Firstly it's not very easy for an non trained person to accuratly shoot a gun. Those officers signed for this, were wearing body armor. It's literally their job. You can't siphon 40% of the budget and then be ill equipped to deal with a situation. Parents without guns or body armor were willing and tried to enter the school. jfc After how many dead kids should a cop be held responsible for his inaction ?
The amount doesn’t matter, ideally 0. What matters is that they put their own safety above everything else, which is outrageous but rational at the same time.
You could probably spin an entire philosophical discussion out of what to prioritize (irrational heroism vs cowardly rationalism), but that type of job favours the rational approach.
If they ran in, lost 3 cops and decided to wait again, the outrage would be directed at the missing SWATs and the cops would look incompetent regardless.
|
On May 28 2022 06:01 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 05:44 Erasme wrote:On May 28 2022 04:51 Vivax wrote:On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it. Firstly it's not very easy for an non trained person to accuratly shoot a gun. Those officers signed for this, were wearing body armor. It's literally their job. You can't siphon 40% of the budget and then be ill equipped to deal with a situation. Parents without guns or body armor were willing and tried to enter the school. jfc After how many dead kids should a cop be held responsible for his inaction ? The amount doesn’t matter, ideally 0. What matters is that they put their own safety above everything else, which is outrageous but rational at the same time. You could probably spin an entire philosophical discussion out of what to prioritize (irrational heroism vs cowardly rationalism), but that type of job favours the rational approach. If they ran in, lost 3 cops and decided to wait again, the outrage would be directed at the missing SWATs and the cops would look incompetent regardless.
The risk analysis was completed decades ago and the decision is out. It is rational to want to engage immediately even at a disadvantage because then the shooter isn't killing children. The entire notion that this is an irrational heroism driving people to want to intervene into saving children is nonsense. Read any of the active shooter protocols people have linked that discuss this at length.
|
On May 28 2022 06:01 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 05:44 Erasme wrote:On May 28 2022 04:51 Vivax wrote:On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it. Firstly it's not very easy for an non trained person to accuratly shoot a gun. Those officers signed for this, were wearing body armor. It's literally their job. You can't siphon 40% of the budget and then be ill equipped to deal with a situation. Parents without guns or body armor were willing and tried to enter the school. jfc After how many dead kids should a cop be held responsible for his inaction ? The amount doesn’t matter, ideally 0. What matters is that they put their own safety above everything else, which is outrageous but rational at the same time. You could probably spin an entire philosophical discussion out of what to prioritize (irrational heroism vs cowardly rationalism), but that type of job favours the rational approach. If they ran in, lost 3 cops and decided to wait again, the outrage would be directed at the missing SWATs and the cops would look incompetent regardless.
Four people responded to you. Three of them posted excerpts from police protocol demonstrating that the police themselves disagree with the nonsense you are posting. You don't get to ignore those and quote the one person who didn't.
Respond to the evidence, accept that you are wrong, or go away.
|
On May 28 2022 06:01 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 05:44 Erasme wrote:On May 28 2022 04:51 Vivax wrote:On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it. Firstly it's not very easy for an non trained person to accuratly shoot a gun. Those officers signed for this, were wearing body armor. It's literally their job. You can't siphon 40% of the budget and then be ill equipped to deal with a situation. Parents without guns or body armor were willing and tried to enter the school. jfc After how many dead kids should a cop be held responsible for his inaction ? The amount doesn’t matter, ideally 0. What matters is that they put their own safety above everything else, which is outrageous but rational at the same time. You could probably spin an entire philosophical discussion out of what to prioritize (irrational heroism vs cowardly rationalism), but that type of job favours the rational approach. If they ran in, lost 3 cops and decided to wait again, the outrage would be directed at the missing SWATs and the cops would look incompetent regardless.
By the rationnal approach, you are wrong. When you said that noone would act in that situation, you were wrong. Just accept that you're the one spining around and maybe stop defending the indefensible.
|
Has anyone mentioned the fact that the only witness statements about this that we absolutely can't trust at all are those of police?
Surely that is damning.
|
On May 28 2022 07:53 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 06:01 Vivax wrote:On May 28 2022 05:44 Erasme wrote:On May 28 2022 04:51 Vivax wrote:On May 28 2022 04:46 Nebuchad wrote:On May 28 2022 04:41 Vivax wrote:
In most cases the police can only act after the deed is done.
The exception being hostage situations or similar where the culprit doesn’t go through with the threat on purpose.
They can act immediately when the threat is low, not high. Unarmed burglars for example.
In this case they had no idea what they were dealing with. Maybe it was more than one guy or the building was trapped. Either way no sane person would rush in. It would be heroic but also stupid. They were in. 19 of them were in the hallway. And you would be the lucky guy peeking around the corner into the room where the guy was hiding? Or would you rather wait for him to come out which is always the correct choice if all you got is a handgun. To me it sounds like they were ill equipped to deal with it. One can criticize cops for many things but wanting to stay alive is probably not it. Firstly it's not very easy for an non trained person to accuratly shoot a gun. Those officers signed for this, were wearing body armor. It's literally their job. You can't siphon 40% of the budget and then be ill equipped to deal with a situation. Parents without guns or body armor were willing and tried to enter the school. jfc After how many dead kids should a cop be held responsible for his inaction ? The amount doesn’t matter, ideally 0. What matters is that they put their own safety above everything else, which is outrageous but rational at the same time. You could probably spin an entire philosophical discussion out of what to prioritize (irrational heroism vs cowardly rationalism), but that type of job favours the rational approach. If they ran in, lost 3 cops and decided to wait again, the outrage would be directed at the missing SWATs and the cops would look incompetent regardless. By the rationnal approach, you are wrong. When you said that noone would act in that situation, you were wrong. Just accept that you're the one spining around and maybe stop defending the indefensible.
I wasn't aware that in the US apparently the protocol for cops is to take more risks during school shootings, though I think it's not as clear cut as it's made out to be. I don't believe a judge would say 'why didn't you risk your own life more'.
I know the first responder protocol in my country, it's simple in descending priority: Protect yourself, help people, mitigate material damage.
When Nebuchad tells me there's a row of cops guarding the door to the classroom, I assume that they already contained the damage to that classroom and chose not to go in because they were prioritizing their own safety or waited for the special unit to do the job.
In which case, the blame in my opinion goes to the special unit in particular for not acting in time or at all, and behind that is either their leadership or the squad itself.
Unless it's the SWAT team that was sitting in front of that door for such a time while having all tools at their disposal. Then I'll admit I was wrong and say that the outrage is warranted.
Regardless, with cops it's always going to be a hate/love relationship no matter the country. You'll love them when you need them while in danger but much of the time they're looking at ways to fine people, ways defined by the legislative body. I'll still take that over vigilantes.
+ Show Spoiler +PS: I'll answer to polite posts.
|
Regardless, with cops it's always going to be a hate/love relationship no matter the country. You'll love them when you need them while in danger but much of the time they're looking at ways to fine people, ways defined by the legislative body. I'll still take that over vigilantes.
I think this incident proves that isnt necessarily correct at all.
|
On May 28 2022 16:03 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +Regardless, with cops it's always going to be a hate/love relationship no matter the country. You'll love them when you need them while in danger but much of the time they're looking at ways to fine people, ways defined by the legislative body. I'll still take that over vigilantes. I think this incident proves that isnt necessarily correct at all.
Then pretend that they didn't show up at all?
Also worth noting that the relatives of the shooter and the lack of social support and mental care contributed more to the primary outcome while the entire focus lies on the first responders. Prevention is a thing.
|
Okay, Im in my head, Im using my imagination, Im imagining the situation without police doing fuck all but saving their own children and keeping other parents from saving their children, utilizing my imagination I imagine a world where the parents got in there and got their kids out and the external teams the police kept from going in went in and we have fewer dead children.
The police in the US are worthless spineless cowards, they murder with nigh impunity, they're terrified of their own shadows and use their chronic piss pants fear to justify the most bizarre and awful combination of inaction and overreaction.
The police did fuck all to help the situation, they are a fuck awful institution and thats been shown so, so, so fucking often.
But you're right, social support and mental health care, lets fund that by defunding the piss out of the worthless corrupt piss pants police force.
|
Why do you think we give them guns and qualified immunity? Do you think that the cops who get away with killing black people on camera getting medical retirement and full pensions is for shits and giggles we give for all up jumped security?
|
The rules of engagement for the police at the time was to engage the possibly active gunman, shoot to kill. They terribly misjudged and admitted to that in the press conferences.
It's the same over here (became law after the Erfurt shooting in 2002): Don't wait for a SWAT team, as it's not a reasonable response to someone who just wants to kill as many people as possible.
Even with regard for their own safety: How did they know everyone was beyond saving in the room? I'm aware it's a small local police force, but there was no equipment to deal with the situation? 19 good guys with guns with decades of training combined against a distressed 18yo? There is no excuse.
|
I'm guessing this is what Republicans imagine when they think more guns will solve the mass shooting problem.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
A West Virginia woman has shot dead a gunman who was told off for driving too fast around kids and came back and started shooting with an AR-15.
Unfortunately, this is an exception, not the rule.
|
On May 28 2022 16:16 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 16:03 Zambrah wrote:Regardless, with cops it's always going to be a hate/love relationship no matter the country. You'll love them when you need them while in danger but much of the time they're looking at ways to fine people, ways defined by the legislative body. I'll still take that over vigilantes. I think this incident proves that isnt necessarily correct at all. Then pretend that they didn't show up at all? Also worth noting that the relatives of the shooter and the lack of social support and mental care contributed more to the primary outcome while the entire focus lies on the first responders. Prevention is a thing.
I can think of one other thing that contributed more to the outcome.
|
Cops have access to equipment they could have used to enter the room. They have shotguns they have machine guns they have body armor they have flashbangs they literally have access to everything the military has and can get it for cheap.
Cops get paid a lot of overtime to "train" with this equipment.
We militarized the police's gear and assumed that they ever have a shit about even white kids.
|
On May 28 2022 16:16 Vivax wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2022 16:03 Zambrah wrote:Regardless, with cops it's always going to be a hate/love relationship no matter the country. You'll love them when you need them while in danger but much of the time they're looking at ways to fine people, ways defined by the legislative body. I'll still take that over vigilantes. I think this incident proves that isnt necessarily correct at all. Then pretend that they didn't show up at all? Also worth noting that the relatives of the shooter and the lack of social support and mental care contributed more to the primary outcome while the entire focus lies on the first responders. Prevention is a thing.
They might as well ?
The one who stopped the shooter wasn't a cop, afaik he was at the hairdresser when his wife called him
Literally the cops could have not showed up, and the situation wouldve ended up the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
