What We Know About the Police Response to the Uvalde Shooting

Uncategorized 1 Minute

https://www.thecut.com/2022/06/what-did-police-actually-do-in-the-uvalde-shooting.html

As the locals keep getting caught in lie after lie about their version of events, “what we know” is what we should have known for years–that cops do not exist to “protect and serve,” but to harass and terrorize us in order to maintain power and control.

Also, we may have to concede to Don’s claims about carrying. If the cops presume you to be unarmed, they are more than happy to beat and murder you; however, if they *know* you are armed, they will not intervene to stop you from doing anything–up to and including the massacre of school children. Cowards.

Published by rssllchndlr

Published

76 thoughts on “What We Know About the Police Response to the Uvalde Shooting”

  1. I was just about to post on this myself.

    Everything that could be done wrong, was.

    One thing that stands out for me that hasn’t been really addressed is the doors. Now, after initial incorrect reports, both the exterior and classroom doors were supposed to be self locking when closed, but neither did. I am not a fan of coincidence.

    I’m going to speculate that had they been checked on the day of the shooting, NONE of the classroom doors would have self locked. Someone got tired of finding the keys to unlock accidentally locked doors and disabled that feature.

    Like

    Reply

    1. Let’s try blaming the maniac with the guns and the out-of-control industry that supplied them instead of dead teachers.

      As for your speculation, it does not fit the evidence. The door had been propped with a rock which one would not do if the locking feature had been deliberately disabled.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. That would be true if it was that teacher and not the maintenance staff, that disabled the automatic locking feature.

        Remember, the shooter tried 2 doors and both did not lock automatically.

        That is a lot to ask fo coincidence.

        Like

        Reply

    2. Regardless of the door situation, it seems the cops were on the scene almost immediately and spent the whole time cowering outside the classroom until the shooter ran out of ammo…or targets.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

        1. Right. I must, begrudgingly, agree that the border patrol were the good guys here.

          Good thing the Supreme Court just granted them immunity from being sued for constitutional violations. And they have jurisdiction over nearly 2/3 of the country. 😉

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    3. Speculation aside, isn’t it wonderful that we have devolved into turning schools into fortresses. Kids now have backpacks with built in body armor.

      We lose more Americans to gun shots in 2 years than we did in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq…combined over decades.

      You got your wish about virtually unfettered gun access to save us against another Obama, so here we are.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. People who want to strike out at humanity are drawn to children as targets. We put a bunch of them in one place and of course it will be a target, and thus needs effectice security.

        Like

        Reply

        1. I went to public schools in NYC. We got along fine except for duck and cover drills.

          Those for for our earlier Red enemy.

          We have been bamboozled by the right. An armed society is not a polite one. Just one with a lot more dead people and very wealthy gun store owners.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          3. It seems so comforting to know our gun violence rate is better than Jamaica’s or Guatemala’s.

            I’m just happy VA is not as bad as the Deep South.

            Liked by 2 people

        3. Except when they don’t. Walmart, synagogues, churches, malls, concerts, businesses, movie theater, army bases…I think child victims in our country are just more fodder for bullets, but not necessarily the only ones.

          Unless a civil war, which some folks are itching for, takes a million lives, the annual toll of gun deaths is not a worthwhile trade off.

          It took countless mass shootings, culminating in one in which children were shredded beyond recognition by guns as easily available as flat screen TV’s, to decide that maybe we can faintly beef up background checks. And we make a big deal out of that effort.

          Guns are an American sickness and they are killing us as sure as cancer.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. All of whom can arm themselves for their own protection.(met some great guys from the Pink Pistols at the LP convention) Children cannot.

            Like

    4. ” Someone got tired of finding the keys to unlock accidentally locked doors and disabled that feature.”

      You do know that the classroom door was NOT locked?

      Like

      Reply

      1. Yes, That is the point.

        Uvalde’s schools are equipped with internal and external doors that are supposed to lock when closed.

        That feature was not active on either of the doors the shooter used.

        Like

        Reply

        1. Yet the cops were waiting for a key they did NOT need.

          You ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS find a way to blame the victims in situations like this. The cops FAILED, abjectly. And you keep beating on doors.

          Like

          Reply

          1. The cops did fail.

            But that does not exclude the door issue.

            And the victims were not the school staff responsible for those doors working as intended, they were the children.

            Had the doors functioned as intended, the cops would have found the shooter in the hall way or outside the school.

            Like

    2. Moronic?

      A little hyperbolic maybe.

      Slogans (e.g., “protect and serve”) ain’t reality. Look at history to see what the role of the police has been in the struggle for civil and economic rights. I’ll save you the trouble – agents of the privileged.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. RE: “cops do not exist to ‘protect and serve,’ but to harass and terrorize us in order to maintain power and control.”

    Putting aside harassment and terror, is there anything wrong with maintaining power and control? I mean, if you like the government under which you live, shouldn’t you want it to maintain power and control?

    Like

    Reply

    1. “is there anything wrong with maintaining power and control?”

      If you’re acknowledging that is the function of the police, then fine. My beef is all the “Thin Blue Line” theatrics and their insistence that they deserve our reverence for the brave, honorable service they selflessly provide. They want unlimited power with zero accountability, and they expect us to thank them for it. Pick one.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  4. “… shouldn’t you want it to maintain power and control?”

    Depends upon the details. If the power and control come at a price of losing basic freedoms like Poland, Philippines, Hungary, Turkey, then we are no longer a free nation with free people.

    Some conservatives would prefer a stronger president than the Constitution permits.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

  5. I agree with Len. It’s Texas. Worse than that, it’s a small town in Texas. It’s as if a demented shooter came to town while Andy was away and Barney Fife was in charge. I don’t think it was so much cowardness as incompetence. They had obviously never given any thought about what to do in an active shooter situation. They never thought it could happen in their town. Nobody ever does. The smart ones prepare for it anyway. But, again, it’s Texas.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. Uvaldi is not Mayberry. Its school system had a police force of 7

      The school was equipped with self locking doors that were to be closed at all times. They had prepared, and then somehow defeated their own precautions.

      Like

      Reply

        1. Again, if the precautions in place, including the doors, had been followed the cowardice of the police would have been far less harmful.

          You’ve been on ships, what happens to a sailor who disables a bulkhead door?

          Safety precautions only work if they are followed, every time.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Doors. Not hardened, could have been shot through by the perp. A door could have been opened and ended the situation much sooner, and possibly, with much less death.

            Like

          2. The doors are pretty formidable. Yes you can shoot through them, but you can’t see through them. And you can’t get past them.

            Maybe if he brought an axe he could have chopped through but not in the time it would take for the police to arrive.

            Like

  6. Two words keep resonating in my mind concerning the police response: “abject failure.” Words used by the head of the state DPS. And now the mayor of Uvalde is upset with him because, well transparency is not the “Texas way”.

    Good guys with guns? They were there. And for 50-plus minutes, they did nothing.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

        1. yes, DOORS DOORS DOORS

          The doors are there long before the police are.

          Would it have been a success if the police had saved the last 4 or 5 children to die by acting faster?

          The doors could have saved all of them.

          We can’t save lives if we refuse to learn the lessons we are given.

          What is insane is to use the tragedy to advance a preexisting agenda instead of finding the failure points and learning how to fix them.

          Fixating on what kind of firearm he used does really change the outcome. That just brings us back to that shotgun and shoulder bag of shells.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Don, people are human. When safety precautions are a pain and threats fade into history, things can get relaxed and even sloppy. The military enforced its regs with discipline, penalties and the brig if necessary.

            School are not the military.

            We wouldn’t even have to listen to all the blame going around if that killer hadn’t been able to arm himself to the teeth, no questions asked.

            This will happen again. And again, and again again. Most Americans are tired of watching fellow citizens getting mowed down and the listen to thoughts, prayers and the price of freedom from 2nd Amendment purists.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. So, protecting children is important enough to make useless infringements on my rights, but not for the simple precaution of closing a door.

            For all the wailing about AR rifles, I have had no answer to the simple point of that pump shotgun and shoulder bag of shells. and you will never get shotguns banned.

            Like

          3. There are NO infringements on your rights being suggested, except by one person. Little hurdles that any legal gun owner, one who is responsible, can overcome with a small amount of time and patience.

            But wrt to the guns in question, I have NEVER seen a legitimate game hunter use a semi-automatic long gun, such as the AR-15. My brother-in-law could make his lever action .30-.30 SOUND like a semi, but he had in his younger days, quick reaction and ability to pump that lever.

            The AR-15 is NOT a tool for hunting anything, except PEOPLE.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. A round for the .30 .30 costs about the same as 5 rounds for a AR. so for recreational shooting the AR has the advantage. You can’t afford to shoot most center fire rifles enough to get good with them.

            Like

          6. Don’t worry Don. Nothing will happen besides a mild effort. You can keep all your toys and fantasize shooting the mailman when you decide the government is pissing you off too much.

            You are so siloed and I feel kind of sorry for you. Your are happy with the current mess, and who am I to burst that deadly bubble.

            You have yet to offer a real life scenario where your guns will prevent government overreach. And the irony is that the only government that has come close to overreach was the last one and I doubt you would have done anything but cheerlead. In fact you sort of have already.

            IMO

            Liked by 2 people

          7. My firearms, and those of millions of others, prevent government overreach every day.

            The concept of deterrence seems to escape you. Tyranny is deterred because the thought of making war on lur own people is daunting, but if they are no longer able to resist, it’s not so large a step.

            And of course, criminals are deterred as well. You will sleep soundly tonight in part because criminals don’t know where I, and others like me, might be living.

            It would really be more helpful if you put your efforts into supporting the compromise working its way through the Senate to keep arms out of the hands of those who do commit acts of violence instead of fixating on particular firearms that look scary.

            Like

          8. “My firearms, and those of millions of others, prevent government overreach every day.”

            Childish nonsense.

            The Constitutional purpose of the “well-regulated militia” is to protect the government. Not to threaten it.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. I will ask again. Can you describe a scenario in our country in which you would need to confront a government, local, state or federal. Who would you shoot and why?

            Liked by 2 people

          10. Sure, a President who refused to give up his office after losing an election and then refused to submit to the judgment of the courts.

            Of course, that will not happen but part of the reason it won’t is the knowledge that if all else fails, the people can assert their authority over any President.

            Like

          11. Dodging. We just went through the scenario of a president who refuses to this day to concede. And he sent armed gangs to subvert the election.

            So, how would you have prevented that with your gun?

            “Asserting authority over the president”? How?

            Liked by 2 people

          12. We did ultimately prevent it.

            The idea of an armed citizenry is deterrence. There is always that knowledge in the background that the citizens themselves will enforce the Rule of Law.

            If you actually have to use your firearm, deterrence has failed, but so far it has prevailed.

            Like

          13. We did ultimately prevent it. Because you had a gun? Or because the gangs had just a few guns with them due to strong laws in DC?

            Liked by 2 people

          14. Jan 6 was not an organized coup. If it had been, they would have shown up prepared.

            But in other countries coups actually happen. They don’t here because the people ultimately hold sovereignty.

            Like

          15. The gangs had caches stored not far from the Capitol. The only reason was gun laws that made the gangs hedge their bets about risking being caught with guns in DC and the Capitol.

            You still have not described the hows of defying a government with guns. Or when?

            My point is that our government, and country, is so huge and so well integrated with the public, that defining the “enemy” is impossible. In other words, the deterrence factor in exchange for countless gun deaths and injuries is ludicrous.

            Unless you want to do what Trump tried. He failed because of the size and scope of our elections required way too many variables in states and localities. Plus we still had people with integrity running critical institutions.

            That is why laws are being overhauled to allow another attempt with quasi legal methods of overturning an election.

            How does your owning guns prevent that? And what would you do?

            Liked by 2 people

          16. “Jan 6 was not an organized coup.”

            The Hell it wasn’t.

            Your claim is based on the idea that they would have to be armed with guns. Wrong. They brought just the level of violence they thought they needed to stop the counting of the votes and create a Constitutional crisis. They left their guns in their hotel rooms not because they feared you and your trusty revolver. They rightly understood that the U.S. Military was not part of the seditious conspiracy, and they would be crushed if they escalated the violence to gun fire.

            If they had triggered a civil war to keep the defeated Mr. Trump in power, it is not at all clear which side you and your arsenal of war weapons would be on.

            Liked by 2 people

          17. “Jan 6 was not an organized coup”

            You want to tell that to the “partriots” who have been charged with conspiracy to commit sedition?

            The organization of what happened on 1/6 is coming to light more and more each day.

            But, trespassers ….

            Liked by 1 person

          18. I wrote this once before, but I will repeat the old worn joke.

            A man is walking down the street and every few steps he stops and claps his hands. Asked why he was doing this, he said it keeps the elephants away.

            “But there are no elephants here.”

            “See, it works.”

            If those gangs had started shooting on the way to hanging Pence, it would have been a bloody disaster. And yet, they felt they were trying to usurp a rigged election. So in your logic, they should have all been armed with guns, not just knives, clubs, bear spray, spears, etc.

            Liked by 2 people

          19. Why weren’t they?

            Even if they thought Trump could control the police and defy the courts, they knew that the people would support the Rule of Law.

            This isn’t Venezuela, where the people have no recourse.

            Like

          20. Now you are catching on. We aren’t a Third World dictatorship.

            Not that it wasn’t tried. But the lack of guns saved lives, not the opposite.

            Your saying that the gangs respected the Rule of Law? Are you serious?

            Liked by 2 people

          21. By your logic, there should be no crime in the US because we have 400 million guns circulating and no one knows who has them.

            Liked by 1 person

          24. Have I said one thing about gun safety measures concerning this tragedy?

            You focus on failures of staff, not the failure of the police. You cocis on doors and not the ease with which this shooter purchased TWO long guns on his 18th birthday.

            Your zealotry for guns blinds you to the other aspects of these things.

            Liked by 1 person

          25. Certainly the police response was, I can’t think if a word that combines cowardice and incompetence, but awful.

            But that is only one layer of the defense.

            Like

  7. Yeah, the typical loony left teenager derision against the police sure makes you feel real big but I am willing to bet you will cry like a widdle baby when you need one. I would hope they don’t show up for your problem…but, being dedicated public servants, they will anyway. Having been ridiculed numerous times as a member of the armed forces by the loony left, my typical reply was you’re welcome….

    Like

    Reply

    1. …”derision against the police “…

      By that comment you are saying the police response in Uvalde was appropriate. I wasn’t the one who used the phrase “abject failure”; it was the head of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

      Your comment is not well thought out, coherent, or logical. Thus, I conclude, you’re an idiot.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Perhaps you need to read or reread the first paragraph of Russell’s childish liberal rant above. I don’t need to think it over, I know you are an idiot.

        Like

        Reply

        1. You don’t THINK. Period.

          For someone who acts repeatedly like a childhood bully, you sure do throw around the word “childish” quite a bit. You have referred to me as “boy” in the past. I can honestly say your ability to project yourself on to others is remarkably idiotic.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Constant personal attacks yet again. If you don’t want to be referred to as a child, don’t act like one. Ciao…

            Like

Leave a comment