Here we go again. Texas school shooting

tripper

Senior Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2014
Messages
874
Reaction score
1,799
Location
NC
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.
Could not agree more. He should be criminally charged.
 

Damian Wiening

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2002
Messages
4,273
Reaction score
3,235
Location
Hammond, IN.
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.

Do some reading,
 

Attachments

  • Active Shooter - SBLE 2195 course Final 1-30-20 (4).pdf
    435.4 KB · Views: 7

Grif

Elite Refuge Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
13,622
Reaction score
32,421
What is a well regulated militia anyway.

It's what will be formed, if needed, to fight a tyrannical govt. It will be formed by the people who keep and bear arms. You either can't comprehend simple English, or you have not read the SCOTUS decision and have no idea what you are talking about, or both.

I'll go with both. :l:l:l
 

Steelshot Scott

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
4,107
Location
NC
I can't get it to work.

You are right. Just because the Border Patrol guy says he was told to stand down because it was a hostage situation doesn't mean that the cops are not all a bunch of cowards that let children die because they were too afraid to go in.

I don't believe that personally, but I don't want to argue about it any more.

Having two sets of rules couldn't have factored into this. It must be cowardice.
 

slimm21

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
4,849
Reaction score
1,198
Location
WI
I can't get it to work.

You are right. Just because the Border Patrol guy says he was told to stand down because it was a hostage situation doesn't mean that the cops are not all a bunch of cowards that let children die because they were too afraid to go in.

I don't believe that personally, but I don't want to argue about it any more.

Having two sets of rules couldn't have factored into this. It must be cowardice.
It could be some of both.
 

Lawrence1

Senior Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2021
Messages
117
Reaction score
108
Location
Howard, Ohio
On a related note, the Supreme Court has previously ruled the job of Law Enforcement is to arrest criminals. They don't have to protect and serve anybody. When pushed in to a corner you will see them cite the SCOTUS ruling as their defense. "Protect and Serve" is a farce perpetuated by their Unions.

Continue.
 

stevena198301

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
26,143
Reaction score
25,776
Location
HSV, Alabama
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.
This article may clarify some of the incorrect information “you heard on the news” and you are regurgitating hereabouts: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...27/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-timeline/amp/

It’s a Texas Tribune article from Google.

This was never a hostage situation. Someone mentioned that about 40 minutes into them being there (as a question, not an order or directive). Shots were fired immediately before and after that was asked. Never, was this a hostage situation, no matter what any news agency or any of their hosts/guests say.

This guy was firing before and after LEOs arrived. LEOs were shot at by him. Entry and re-entry were made (they retreated the first time after taking grazing shots). What they didn’t seem to do, was advance once inside. And there lies the rub. “We got him contained” don’t mean “hostage situation” when the shooter is still smoking teachers and kids. It means he’s contained to one location. Pushing forward to apprehend is the next logical step. Or, “contain him” for maybe another 70 minutes while he’s shooting the kids and teachers.

That police chief shouldn’t need to be removed, because he should have already resigned out of shame. His actions are indefensible.
 

Steelshot Scott

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2012
Messages
3,245
Reaction score
4,107
Location
NC
This article may clarify some of the incorrect information “you heard on the news” and you are regurgitating hereabouts: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.te...27/uvalde-texas-school-shooting-timeline/amp/

It’s a Texas Tribune article from Google.

This was never a hostage situation. Someone mentioned that about 40 minutes into them being there (as a question, not an order or directive). Shots were fired immediately before and after that was asked. Never, was this a hostage situation, no matter what any news agency or any of their hosts/guests say.

This guy was firing before and after LEOs arrived. LEOs were shot at by him. Entry and re-entry were made (they retreated the first time after taking grazing shots). What they didn’t seem to do, was advance once inside. And there lies the rub. “We got him contained” don’t mean “hostage situation” when the shooter is still smoking teachers and kids. It means he’s contained to one location. Pushing forward to apprehend is the next logical step. Or, “contain him” for maybe another 70 minutes while he’s shooting the kids and teachers.

That police chief shouldn’t need to be removed, because he should have already resigned out of shame. His actions are indefensible.
I never said it was a hostage situation.

Do y'all understand English? I said they treated it like one. They have two protocols, one for hostage, one for active shooter. This was obviously was a active shooter situation. But because there were two options for response, the wrong one was picked. Yes, through incompetence. But if there was only one choice, always go in on a mass shooter, then there would be no COC issues, no chance to get it wrong,no lost time "deciding what to do".

Mass shooter, especially at a school, every man goes in, as soon as they arrive and the problem is solved.

Sending the cops to prison might make you feel better, but it won't help next time this comes up. If you fix the malfunction, it won't come up again.

As far as charging the cops go, I would not have a problem with that. Because I would have gone in without orders. But I also understand some people's compliance to the rules is absolute. So I find myself ambivalent towards charging them.

So I am only concerning myself with how to prevent this from happening again. Not punishing people for what has already happened.

At least right now. There will be time for all that later.
 

stevena198301

Elite Refuge Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2015
Messages
26,143
Reaction score
25,776
Location
HSV, Alabama
I never said it was a hostage situation.

Do y'all understand English? I said they treated it like one. They have two protocols, one for hostage, one for active shooter. This was obviously was a active shooter situation. But because there were two options for response, the wrong one was picked. Yes, through incompetence. But if there was only one choice, always go in on a mass shooter, then there would be no COC issues, no chance to get it wrong,no lost time "deciding what to do".

Mass shooter, especially at a school, every man goes in, as soon as they arrive and the problem is solved.

Sending the cops to prison might make you feel better, but it won't help next time this comes up. If you fix the malfunction, it won't come up again.

As far as charging the cops go, I would not have a problem with that. Because I would have gone in without orders. But I also understand some people's compliance to the rules is absolute. So I find myself ambivalent towards charging them.

So I am only concerning myself with how to prevent this from happening again. Not punishing people for what has already happened.

At least right now. There will be time for all that later.
I know of no situations where a person inside a school actively shooting, there being an option of hang out for 74 minutes, or everyone go in. Just because that’s the “option” these Jerry’s Kids picked, doesn’t mean it is any form or flavor of a protocol. This response was not protocol. Anytime. Ever. You are the one giving this “second protocol” thing a run. Your perpetuation of it comes off as if it’s a defense for their inaction. You keep reiterating you aren’t defending them, and then keep giving credence to a hostage situation (their actions). Nowhere EVER should (or was here) an incident like this treated like a hostage situation. This was pure ineptitude and a lack of testicular fortitude by leadership on the ground. It had zero to do with the protocol they were following, because they WEREN’T FOLLOWING PROTOCOL at all. They got in and broke nervous. It’s a common occurrence. It’s why we have things like SWAT (professional militarized police). Not every cop is cut out (or even outfitted) to deal with dodging lead and CQB. It’s why organic defenses at the schools will always be the real answer to this problem. Give them a fighting chance, if they are willing to volunteer for it. But no, long story short, they weren’t treating this as a hostage situation protocol. They were going with the “what do we do now” protocol, and now they are playing CYA protocol. Don’t fall for it.
 

Top