Active Shooter Uvalde TX Elementary School

[Wake27]

Everything you described in your training example is part of a conscious decision process.

You didn’t just skip all that and say YOLO go for it which is what letting that Officer go as you suggest would amount to.

It might be worth reminding you that the guys who did finally make entry did so as a result of a conscious and calculated decision contrary to the orders of the incident commander.

Mitigating and accepting risk is not the same thing as ignoring it or hiding from it.

Choosing to let the guy go could’ve been a conscious decision too. The lack of critical thought inherent to YOLO is more easily seen in abiding by a generally accepted policy that maybe wasn’t best suited for this situation. By all accounts, there needed to be some YOLO there because everyone else was suffering from paralysis through analysis.

The guys that did enter probably had a bit of YOLO. Sending someone that is so emotionally close to the situation doesn’t guarantee that they won’t be able to process any information and will absolutely be a detriment. Unless you have lots of examples of similar situations where that was proven, but I’ve asked for those examples twice already and have seen nothing.

I never advocated to hide from or ignore risk. I advocated weighing it differently.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RoyGBiv]

Mitigating and accepting risk is not the same thing as ignoring it (YOLO) or hiding from it (your LTC).

Quick thanks for your contributions here.... Lots of things to think about. Learning a lot.

[UNM1136]

I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase “This ain’t the movies and you ain’t John Wayne”

Add best he will be distraction and his judgment is compromised.

They’re understanding at the time was the door was locked and the gunman was shooting through the door when the door was disturbed. He runs with his door destroyer get shots into the door and now you’ve just complicated your situation.

Knowing will be known now let’s say he runs up finds the door unlocked and charges in the classroom, the weekly outcomes are he gets killed in the shooter kill each other with the former being most likely. Again you’re just making a bad situation worse.

I believe the scenario Feudist is talking about is, If he charges than like LeRoy Jenkins, the suspect suddenly dropped the gun and the officer takes him out anyway after seeing his wife shot on the ground. While most of us could certainly understand, it would still technically be a murderer and the civil rights violation.

Them pulling his gun was probably more about concern about him harming himself there anything else. It’s not exactly unheard of one in Ofc’s family member is the victim of a violent crime they responded to.

If my wife was shot by some filthy child murderer, I would not have any intention to take him alive, or accept his surrender, or allow him the possibility of surviving his wounds, or let him make his peace with God.
Not the frame of mind the legal system approves.

I would happily take his judgment and distraction over what ever the fuck was actually going on here.

If this was a movie, someone would have put two in the back of that dipstick chief's head and done something in maybe a useful time frame.

Almost all of these guys end up dead by their own hand or when the police finally punch their ticket.

Respecting that shooter's potential civil rights is way the fuck down the list of priorities in a situation like this.

Actually using force to stop one of his own officers from doing something useful to potentially save a victim is yet another damnably inexcusable action by this fuckstick chief and his department. At a certain point you start to believe that the outcome was intentional because even cowardice and stupidity have their limits.

Let's remember that at least one unarmed civilian and an off-duty federal agent (who had to borrow a gun) got into the building, looked for their loved ones, and got them and a number of other innocents out with them.

This was made necessary by the total lack of appropriate response of the people who had a duty to act.

Any policy or decision that obligates a man to let his wife bleed to death while the cops fucking sit there is indefensible. As is pretty much everything about the response in this incident.

I'll remind everyone that the vast majority of the loss of life in the Aurora theater shooting happened as people bled to death inside the building after the shooter was no longer a factor. Officers inside were pleading for medical assistance while dithering dipshits outside prevented appropriate medical response, finishing the shooter's work for him.

Yeah, yeah...you don't want to create more casualties. But there's a point at which you're fucking guaranteeing more casualties by not taking obviously appropriate actions.

If police decision makers who produce these sorts of outcomes aren't called out for their disastrously bad decisions then this shit will keep happening.

While action in the hallway outside the classroom where the gunman was holed up with stalled, there were dozens of other law enforcement officers evacuating the rest of the school. There’s nothing unique in that regard about the two individuals you referenced.

Everything you described in your training example is part of a conscious decision process.

You didn’t just skip all that and say YOLO go for it which is what letting that Officer go as you suggest would amount to.

It’s not just about his safety- There’s rightful criticism about officers in that hallway not making the situation better, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t things that can make it worse. You could absolutely make it worse.

It might be worth reminding you that the guys who did finally make entry did so as a result of a conscious and calculated decision contrary to the orders of the incident commander.

Mitigating and accepting risk is not the same thing as ignoring it (YOLO) or hiding from it (your LTC).

All YES!

And let us remember the standard by which these things are (and should be) decided- would an officer of similar expiernce and training have made the same decision at that time??? Remove the MMQB shit, pare it down to the facts known at the time and what do you come up with?

It is super easy to look back and feel justified saying something based on facts revealed, what? A week later? A month? But what did the officers know at the time? Several posts in this thread are "oh shit, why do that when..."

Again, there was some screwed up shit going on, and it needs to be addressed and people need to be held accountable.

Like so many other situations, why not let the investigation run its course, before drawing conclusions???

pat

[UNM1136]

Like so many other situations, why not let the investigation run its course, before drawing conclusions???

pat

Nevermind, I have seen the results in my own investigations. People tend to draw conclusions when they feel their pretextural beliefs have been validated, whether they have been, or not..

pat

[Beast17]

Regarding Halligan’s, we’ve already discussed that you need both a Halligan and a sledgehammer to open an outward opening door and be the time required to open those type door with a Halligan and a sledge would be problematic.

Of course you don’t need any of that for an unlocked door….

Agreed on both points. As an additional consideration, having a Halligan and having the angle to utilize a Halligan are two different things. Depending on the length of the Halligan you may not have the angle to pry something open if the door is in a recessed alcove. I've seen many schools where the classroom doors were recessed for whatever design reason. I've been on entries where the team had to move to an alternate breach point because the outward opening security screen door was in a recessed alcove and the site survey missed that detail. I have no idea what the interior of that school looks like or the length of the available Halligan. I'm just pointing out that having the tool doesn't necessarily mean it can be deployed effectively.

Given the chaotic way info is dribbling out in this case, I'm holding off on believing classroom doors were generally unlockable from the inside and none of the local cops, including spouses of teachers, knew that.

[Caballoflaco]

Nevermind, I have seen the results in my own investigations. People tend to draw conclusions when they feel their pretextural beliefs have been validated, whether they have been, or not..

pat

If they’d charged in and there were 2-4 cops killed or injured going through the door and “only” 13 or 14 students killed we would still have a 100 page thread on what the cops could have done to not fuck things up.

[TCinVA]

All YES!
Remove the MMQB shit, pare it down to the facts known at the time and what do you come up with?

“If there is, then they just need to go in,” the [Texas DPS]agent said.


Another officer answered, “It is unknown at this time.”


The agent shot back, “Y’all don’t know if there’s kids in there?” He added, “If there’s kids in there we need to go in there.”


“Whoever is in charge will determine that,” came the reply.

[UNM1136]

The main reason I tend discount the ICS stuff for active shooter. The Rules say senior guy on the scene responds and sets up ICS. I can do one or the other, as a lowly patrol cop. Based on my observations of my peers, many of them are better off going in than trying to run the scene. Would I rather them sort the problem out, or coordinate triage and media relations?

Mutual aid and second wave responders can take care of incident command. I want my guys taking care of the incident.

Priority of life, immediacy...etc. When in doubt, decide on the side of stopping the killing, and stopping the dying.

If there can be victims, there probably are victims. Kinda hard to argue that a classroom during a school day will only contain the bad guy.

pat

[RoyGBiv]

If there can be victims, there probably are victims. Kinda hard to argue that a classroom during a school day will only contain the bad guy.

pat

Thanks also to you for your thoughts here... Much appreciated.

[El Cid]

Whichever officer allowed him to go into an active shooting scene would then be responsible for the outcome. Whether it was the death of Ruiz, any innocent person accidentally injured by Ruiz or the Extra Judicial killing of the murderer if Ruiz violated deadly force law.
In a real inversion of the "Lawful order" dilemma, if the Incident commander okayed Ruiz' entry, it would be incumbent on other officers to prevent it.
Welcome to the Gray World, where Right can easily be illegal and Wrong may well insulate you from legal consequence.
Mustard, on your shit sandwich?

Perhaps in a more contained situation or true barricaded subject. But he wanted to do what the people who disarmed him should have been doing anyway. It's sickening that every time we get some new snippet of information it's more outlandish and pathetic than before. The level of cowardice in the CISD Police and City of Uvalde police is like something I never even through possible until now. Previously had you told me I could drive code 3 for an hour and get to an active shooter (especially at a school) before it was over, I'd have thought you were crazy. Try keeping me from my wife or kid in a situation like that and one of us is going to meet our maker.