Here we go again. Texas school shooting

[FriedPotatoes]

They did train to handle this situation, however, there are two rules of engagement.

1)If it is a active shooter, they go in.

2)If the shooter is no longer active, treat it as a hostage situation.

The problem is that when you have two sets of rules, then the rules are subject to confusion and misinterpretation. The cops pulled up, heard no shots, went into hostage mode.

There needs to be one rule.

1)Go in and take out the hostile. No matter what. While he is fighting cops, he is not killing kids.

There were at least three bursts of gunfire after cops arrived

 

[API]

For sure the purpose for rules and training is not to compensate for poor leadership.

 

[tripper]

This is very troubling behavior that is coming to light. I have always, and still do, support our police officers but this is absolutely the worst case of poor leadership and incompetence I have ever heard of. Kids died because of their actions (and lack of) that day.

 

[Steelshot Scott]

There were at least three bursts of gunfire after cops arrived

I agree, the Border Patrol guy was told to wait and he told them to go to heck(to get by the filter). But there were 2 rules of engagement and through poor judgment, the wrong one was engaged.

There needs to be one set of rules. You always go in, while the hostile is fighting cops, he is not killing children.

 

[Damian Wiening]

They did train to handle this situation, however, there are two rules of engagement.

1)If it is a active shooter, they go in.

2)If the shooter is no longer active, treat it as a hostage situation.

The problem is that when you have two sets of rules, then the rules are subject to confusion and misinterpretation. The cops pulled up, heard no shots, went into hostage mode.

There needs to be one rule.

1)Go in and take out the hostile. No matter what. While he is fighting cops, he is not killing kids.

Please provide where it’s written that a shooter in a school that’s shot people and stopped is now a hostage situation, that’s foolishness to plan that, just stand around talking while people bleed out and die, really, then it’s Clown World now.

 

[Steelshot Scott]

Please provide where it’s written that a shooter in a school that’s shot people and stopped is now a hostage situation, that’s foolishness to plan that, just stand around talking while people bleed out and die, really, then it’s Clown World now.

I was watching the news and the police guys were saying that there were two protocols. Active shooter or hostage. Surely, you have heard those terms. It is a active shooter situation, it is a hostage situation. I thought everyone knew that the police respond differently to a hostage situation than they do a active shooter.

I can't pull up a website because I saw it on FOX news.

Some loser barricades himself in his house with his wife. The police don't launch the tear gas and go in, they negotiate. Loser starts shooting kids, you go in.

I saw an interview with the Border Patrol guy. He was the one that said when he arrived, he was told to stand by, it was a hostage situation and he went in anyway.

 

[Ruination]

Wonder why they won't release the body cams. Shot a teacher? A kid?

 

[Steelshot Scott]

Wonder why they won't release the body cams. Shot a teacher? A kid?

My guess(and that is all we can do on this issue at this time)is that the body cam footage will show the cops standing around outside the door, arguing about whether it was a active shooter or a hostage situation. It would likely show the commander on the scene telling the men to stand down. I bet there is audio of cops arguing with the commander about it.

You have to adhere to the chain of command in any type of martial action or it is chaos. This COC has to be followed, without exception. It is the only way that war(or law enforcement) can be conducted with any control. You are not allowed to decide the commander has it wrong and act on your own unless the orders are blatantly incompetent, and even then, you better win the action or it is your butt later when the armchair quarterbacks get involved. Which is why people don't break the chain of command. If you do it and you are wrong, you go to prison, lose your job and your pension.

In this case, having two sets of Rules of Engagement created confusion in the field and mistakes were made.

I do not think the cops are cowards. I don't think that they purposefully allowed children to die. They were following their training(which was to follow the chain of command)and the commander miscalculated the situation(which happens when decisions are made open to discretionary calls). I don't think any of it was intentional.

One set of rules would solve this. Mass shooter, go in. School shooter, go in. Man opens fire in a theater? Go in. Guy pulls out a gun and takes a clerk hostage, go in. After the criminals see the cops go in and smoke a couple of cowards, they would stop seeing taking hostages as a solution to their problem.

Now the cover up by the Uvalde Police? That is reprehensible in my opinion and they are squandering the opportunity to correct this problem as everyone scampers to CYA. It is this same CYA mentality that led the lawyers to set up overly cautious Rules of Engagement.

The prevention of parents going in to save their children, now that would be criminal if it were my call.

 

[Damian Wiening]

I was watching the news and the police guys were saying that there were two protocols. Active shooter or hostage. Surely, you have heard those terms. It is a active shooter situation, it is a hostage situation. I thought everyone knew that the police respond differently to a hostage situation than they do a active shooter.

I can't pull up a website because I saw it on FOX news.

Some loser barricades himself in his house with his wife. The police don't launch the tear gas and go in, they negotiate. Loser starts shooting kids, you go in.

I saw an interview with the Border Patrol guy. He was the one that said when he arrived, he was told to stand by, it was a hostage situation and he went in anyway.

But it never was a hostage situation, never, the coward school chief called that because he is not a leader, just a life loser getting by on a supposed cushy job, then the real world knocked at his door.

I know the difference between active shooter and hostage action, this never was and NO situation where someone enters a school with a gun / shooting should be treated as such, a knife is a very effective tool to kill with when not shooting.

The chief never confirmed anything other than a failure to command and accessory to murder on his part, they never looked into the room.

I was asking you to site where that was the written policy not to stop / end the shooter for a school shooter situation not somebody speaking on TV as this whole event is a giant cluster and the only truth being seen is going to be thru a FOIA request.

 

[Steelshot Scott]

But it never was a hostage situation, never, the coward school chief called that because he is not a leader, just a life loser getting by on a supposed cushy job, then the real world knocked at his door.

I know the difference between active shooter and hostage action, this never was and NO situation where someone enters a school with a gun / shooting should be treated as such, a knife is a very effective tool to kill with when not shooting.

The chief never confirmed anything other than a failure to command and accessory to murder on his part, they never looked into the room.

I was asking you to site where that was the written policy not to stop / end the shooter for a school shooter situation not somebody speaking on TV as this whole event is a giant cluster and the only truth being seen is going to be thru a FOIA request.

You are right, it was never a hostage situation. But the commander interpreted it as a hostage situation and that is where the whole thing went off the rails. In combat(or in this case, a police action), you have to have a commanding officer that makes decisions and the men follow them, without question. Without that, it would be utter chaos.

It doesn't matter that it wasn't a hostage situation if the commander interpreted it as one.

If you have two sets of rules, then there is the possibility of misinterpretation,mistakes and just the possibility of just picking the wrong protocol to follow(just like in this case).

I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

Cops have two sets of rules: active shooters and hostage situations. Both have drastically different strategies and execution. By having two sets of rules of engagement, if the wrong path is chosen, tragedy follows.

If the commander calls it a hostage situation and it works out favorably, we would not be discussing it now. We are only discussing it because he made the wrong call. If you take the discretion out of it, then there is no possibility of it making the wrong decision because there is only one choice when it comes to decisions.

In the case of mass shootings, whether the shooter has ceased fire or not, there needs to be one set of rules. For a mass shooter, you go in. First man on the scene goes in and engages the shooter. For while the shooter is fighting the police, he is not shooting children/citizens.


This is not hard to understand. Remove the uncertainty. Remove the ambiguity. Remove the conflicting rules of engagement.

Mass shooters, engage the shooter as soon as possible.