Active Shooter Uvalde TX Elementary School

[breakingtime91]

I was looking for an Article and you corroborated what I was trying to find. Folks did nothing and died. My perspective is - if someone comes in the room with a gun. You need to do everything you can to resist.

https://www.police1.com/school-safet...5YCckv0Jm51iN/

The best I could do was find the point blank head shots, etc. cited here. You know… this Uvalde situation is reminiscent in some ways. People waiting for a solution to arrive or someone to save them. I just think the best decision one can come to practically is - nobody will be there in time to help and you’ll have to work with who’s there and what weapons you can find/improvise (if you have that much time).

ETA: What I was getting at is let folks conceal carry to defend themselves if able.

Won't happen. Most of the teachers I work with, like all of them, said they wanted me to have a gun but not them. It isn't in their mindset to take responsibility for themselves, they still think someone will save them.

[UNM1136]

I was looking for an Article and you corroborated what I was trying to find. Folks did nothing and died. My perspective is - if someone comes in the room with a gun. You need to do everything you can to resist.
P
https://www.police1.com/school-safet...5YCckv0Jm51iN/

The best I could do was find the point blank head shots, etc. cited here. You know… this Uvalde situation is reminiscent in some ways. People waiting for a solution to arrive or someone to save them. I just think the best decision one can come to practically is - nobody will be there in time to help and you’ll have to work with who’s there and what weapons you can find/improvise (if you have that much time).

ETA: What I was getting at is let folks conceal carry to defend themselves if able.

Ok, we agree for the most part.

pat

[Wake27]

Great way to take s**t out of context.

The failure of the officers in that hallway to act doesn’t = Leroy Jenkins was a correct answer either.

The DHS officers who made entry and killed the shooter did so in contravention of the incident commanders orders.

However, they were successful because they made an executed a plan in a deliberate manner as a team.

There is a significant difference between taking deliberate and effective action and a single emotionally distraught and individual with compromised judgement charging in at random. It is always possible to make a situation worse.

As already addressed up thread this isn’t the movies, in the real world an officer having close personal ties to an incident / investigation is always excluded from said action.

This is always the way it’s done doesn’t mean it’s always the right answer. How many kids were still alive in that classroom once it was all over? I haven’t seen that number released but I assume you know. Granted the officers couldn’t know at the time, but a reasonable assumption should’ve been many are dead, most living are wounded and bleeding out. How likely is the one officer who has the balls to go in to make that situation worse? After the amount of rounds fired and length of inactive time, a reasonable assumption should have been “not likely” because it probably can’t get too much worse.

I don’t think you ever contradicted my point about your Leeroy examples. All of the ones you cited ending in failure were met with similar sized or larger force and often some type of prepared defense. It’s possible psycho murder brought makeshift ballistic barricades but unlikely. So reasonable bet that it’d be one psycho asshole vs one adrenaline filled emotionally distraught cop. I’d take those odds. Especially if even one more cop grows a pair and follows the number one man.

It was the right decision. I was a supervisor when I left the local PD for my current agency, and there is no way I would have let someone go in under those circumstances (of course, I wouldn't have guys standing around in the hallway, either).

On the flip side, if I was in the officer's shoes, getting phone calls from my dying wife-- I'm not giving up my gun, and you'd have to kill me to keep me from going in.

What a screwed up mess.

That’s the problem with this debate though. Everyone who is saying that he shouldn’t have been allowed to go in, probably wouldn’t have been contributing to the overall issue of inaction in the first place. But given the actual situation, where nobody is solving the problem, if we assume that regular beat cop Joe isn’t changing the whole ICS/CoC (whatever LE terms that I don’t know) structure and taking over to send a team in, maybe that same beat cop Joe could’ve helped the husband slip past the other inactive cops and let him go. Shit maybe even go second.

Exactly. I realize it’s hard to say these dumbasses did anything right in such a terrible event where they failed in so many ways. But removing that officer was the right thing to do (one of the very, very few examples that day).

Obviously, we know that the suspect in this case shot it out at the end. But what if that distraught officer went in and smoked a surrendering suspect, avenging his wife? Yeah, dude deserves it, but the Constitution applies to even the worst of suspects.

I detest defending these dickheads, by the way.

What if he did, and his wife didn’t bleed out because of it? Or any other victim? I get how that may play out for him and it’s likely shitty on either end, but him not being allowed to enter resulted in very bad things because it’s not like they pulled him and then immediately made entry.

Honestly this is a big part of why I’d never want to be in LE so I understand how it looks arguing that the guy should’ve been able to smoke a potentially surrendering suspect and face criminal charges for that. Super MMQB. But I have to believe that he would’ve preferred doing that and his wife maybe living then every day for the rest of his life knowing that he didn’t even get that far. Kind of that whole lame judged by 12 vs carried six saying.

Guys, two things can be true at the same time. It is 100% true that it was a correct decision to remove an emotionally compromised officer from the scene, and it is also 100% true that every other decision made by the folks present appears to have been wrong. These things are not mutually exclusive. Saying "I don't see how it could get any worse!" demonstrates a lack of experience in just how fucked up things can get.

Everybody is somehow misconstruing support for that ONE correct decision for a defense of the overall LE response to this incident. I get that we're all emotional about this. I have kids in school, and until a few weeks ago my job included training officers in the skills they'd need to respond to such an incident. We're all heavily invested in getting this right. Some folks on here are adding nuance, and frankly trying to explain that the problem isn't simply 'cowardice', but is actually much worse and harder to address. Attacking those voices isn't gonna fix the problem.

ETA: and I agree with @TC125. You wouldn't take my gun, and you'd literally have to kill me to stop me going in.

TC is the only one that offered ways that it could be made worse. Sure, we can all assume one or two ways, primarily shooting a kid. But assuming what the officers knew at that time, does the risk calculus actually equal there being a high chance that it could be worse?

A lot of this goes back to what appears to me (through my SIGNIFICANT personal bias) of risk aversion. Just because it could make it worse, doesn’t mean it will. And it’s hard to see how anyone there thought there were lots of ways it could get worse since a likely assumption could’ve been that every victim inside is dead so the only way it’s getting worse is if the officer dies. Not that bad, considering.

I think everyone needs to take a breath and read what El Cid just wrote. This thread has devolved into an unhealthy self-aggrandizing dogpile. For both my fellow LEOs and the non-LEO members here, take a moment to breath and ask yourself what you would have done if you arrived on scene as a responding LEO, got into the hallway, and been told by the apparent officer in charge that the shooter is behind a locked steel door and we are unable to breach it. You, as the responding LEO, do not possess any specialized breaching skills or equipment. You are also told that a tactical team is on the way, or that a plan is being formed...something to that effect.

Take a breath and think about that. Often times, "I wUld HAv Tak3n caRe of BUSINESS bekuz I'm n0t a fucking pussy slackjaw f@gg0t COWARD like dem!" is not a terribly realistic assessment of a situation, regardless of however much it strokes your ego behind the keyboard with selective-memory on cherry picked facts to suit your viewpoint.

I’ve never been shot at so I really don’t know. But I have walked up to a line outside “locked doors” so many fucking times that were never actually locked that I’ve started just walking past people and trying it myself. I’m not saying that I would’ve done that when the likelihood of rounds coming at me is high but I am saying that we should all probably take note of just how deadly that herd mentality can be. Only way to make this situation less shorty is by learning from it and as you said, taking a breath to think.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BWT]

Won't happen. Most of the teachers I work with, like all of them, said they wanted me to have a gun but not them. It isn't in their mindset to take responsibility for themselves, they still think someone will save them.

You know - the other side of this is I do honestly believe it’s a deterrent as well. Ohio has been the first state to adopt this (that I know of). I’m interested to see how that goes.

I’d be preaching to the choir, but lots of these guys surrender / kill themselves when resistance arrives. There have been exceptions. But, anyway at this point I’ll be just repeating myself.

[idahojess]

I'm not talking shit. Asking for my own professional understanding brother

If you haven't, you should read the Alerrt AAR -- given your work, you'd would appreciate it -- particularly the discussion of doors, lack of locking, etc. There is also a discussion of breaching that was noteworthy.

https://alerrt.org/

The link is on a scrolling header on the page, or in the research, publications drop down.

[breakingtime91]

If you haven't, you should read the Alerrt AAR -- given your work, you'd would appreciate it -- particularly the discussion of doors, lack of locking, etc. There is also a discussion of breaching that was noteworthy.

https://alerrt.org/

The link is on a scrolling header on the page, or in the research, publications drop down.

I am going to do it before I go back to work. I'll end up giving a training on the findings on what the teachers could and should of done. I'll also contact local law enforcement and ask a liason to review it with me and find what we can do better as a team.

[wvincent]

Won't happen. Most of the teachers I work with, like all of them, said they wanted me to have a gun but not them. It isn't in their mindset to take responsibility for themselves, they still think someone will save them.

So, what are their expectations, that you leave your kids and go hunting for a shooter?
I thought arming teachers was so you could defend your classroom until the cops arrive on scene.

[Erik]

I think this is the last time I'm engaging this thread. Too easy to lose context and misconstrue intent.

I understand why but I hope it's not. I, and I think most of us, benefit from your perspective along with that of TGS, HCM and other LEOs. Literally everybody looks at this situation and says fuck me, somebody needed to do something. It's impossible not to. As TGS put it, it's your job (not you literally anymore but at the same time, in a different way, still you and every single one of us reading this thread) to take a dispassionate look at the facts and fucking learn from them. You've contributed to that and I hope you will continue to.

[UNM1136]

So, what are their expectations, that you leave your kids and go hunting for a shooter?
I thought arming teachers was so you could defend your classroom until the cops arrive on scene.

This is what I teach. Cops go hunting, Defenders defend. Anything else is an invitation to a gagglefuck.

pat

[breakingtime91]

Paul Howe picks it back up with some prescriptions to fix LE in Texas including Uvalde. He's Texas proud and this is evidently not pleasant for him.

Key points - AG Paxton's plan to buy $50 Million worth of shields for TX LE is stupid. Words to the effect, they can't shoot with two hands and now they're supposed to shoot with one carrying a heavy shield. Plus the shield emphasis is a defensive mindset which is 180 out from where you outta be. It takes a lot of time and training to get effective with a shield.

He breaks down where that $50 Million should be spent instead.

But AG Paxton will surely buy the shields (as @TC215 posted, "we", in this case Texans chose this)

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CfRI3BN..._web_copy_link

So, what are their expectations, that you leave your kids and go hunting for a shooter?
I thought arming teachers was so you could defend your classroom until the cops arrive on scene.

Not sure because it isn't our reality. I am on both sides of the fence. I know most teachers don't have my background or skill level. But for my skill level and personality, I would absolutely want to engage as soon as possible to end the threat. Other side of that is my students would have to be handed off to another teacher (we work in teams, our doors are 5 ft apart) or to leave my own students alone. There is no perfect answer. Throw in that my son goes to school in the place I teach, and ya. It will be really hard for me in a real world scenario not to secure my own son or at least try to neutralize the threat before anything could happen.