What went wrong in Texas?

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:19 pm

Imorethanamother, this is from the article I linked:

"Department of Safety Lt. Chris Olivarez made the astonishing comments during an appearance on CNN last night.

He was being challenged by Wolf Blitzer over why the first officers who responded to the shooting retreated after Salvador Ramos shot at them with his AR-15 and then waited an hour for tactical SWAT teams to take him out, leaving him alone in a classroom with the 19 fourth graders and two teachers who he slaughtered.

'Don’t current best practices, Lieutenant, call for officers to disable a shooter as quickly as possible, regardless of how many officers are actually on site?' Blitzer asked.

He replied: 'In the active shooter situation, you want to stop the killing, you want to preserve life. But also one thing that, of course, the American people need to understand is that officers are making entry into this building. They do not know where the gunman is. They are hearing gunshots. They are receiving gunshots.'
He then appeared to try to take credit for the gunman being locked in the classroom with the kids for an hour - including some he shot at the start of the rampage who later died in the hospital - claiming it saved other lives.

Police initially said that the gunman barricaded himself inside the classroom and that they had trouble gaining access to the room, and one unnamed law official anonymously spoke out to say SWAT teams had to wait for a different school staff member to bring them a key to the class.

'At that point, if they proceeded any further not knowing where the suspect was at, they could’ve been shot, they could've been killed, and at that point that gunman would have had an opportunity to kill other people inside that school.

'So they were able to contain that gunman inside that classroom so that he was not able to go to any other portions of the school to commit any other killings,' Lt. Olivarez said."

Last edited by gold21 on Fri, May 27 2022, 2:22 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ #BestBubby ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:21 pm

pause wrote:

It goes the other way. Assuming that potential gun owners would need to pass rigorous screening and training, the murderer in Texas wouldn't have owned a gun in the first place.

Riiiiiggghhht.

Because criminals don't know how to buy guns illegally, how to buy drugs illegally....

Democrats leave the borders wide open so illegal guns and drugs can pour into USA.

The More Gun Violence and School Shootings - the More the Democrats are able to
Disarm the people.

↑ exaustedmom ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:23 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

Is that my two choices?

Either I let no guns in the country and all the criminals have guns, or I have to let everyone over 21 have a gun?

If this is your argument, you don't know the details in the campaign for gun control measures. You're just repeated NRA talking points.

There is room for improvement and most importantly implementing the laws already passed. But getting rid of the 2nd amendment is not the answer.

↑ imorethanamother ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:24 pm

gold21 wrote:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10861681/Texas-cops-reveal-Uvalde-police-no-effort-enter-shooting-classroom.html

The Daily Fail (sorry, old joke) article contradicts itself in multiple places. The story sounds all over the place and highly speculative. It's a poorly written article.

At the very least, their "helpful" infographic shows at #6 that the gunman barricaded himself inside the classroom.

Another sentence from this same article:

Quote:

Ramos entered the classroom and locked the door at 11.34am. In the first few minutes, he fired more than 100 shots inside classrooms 111 and 112.

↑ imorethanamother ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:27 pm

gold21 wrote:

Literally this sentence is way before all these paragraphs:

Ramos entered the classroom and locked the door at 11.34am. In the first few minutes, he fired more than 100 shots inside classrooms 111 and 112.

It sounds like the police prevented the gunman from leaving the classroom by being outside of it. That's one way to "contain" the scene.

Again, it doesn't sound like the police deliberately locked the gunman in there. And notice how most of the killing happened in the first few minutes.

↑ exaustedmom ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:30 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

9 kids could've still been saved. They kept on calling for help which unfortunately didn't come. They should've gone in even for one child's life. The way they acted is not how we expect the police to act.

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:46 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

Oh, dear. C'mon.... I snipped a specific piece of the article that directly quotes from an interview given on a reputable (?) program.

You're listing the original official account, one that changes by the minute. You know that, right?

Go watch the interview yourself if you don't trust the "Daily Fail" as you call it.

Anyway... You call it the Daily Fail. But you read CNN. (You mention CNN upthread
..)

Girl.... What are you so passionate about here anyway? You're arguing in defense of a bunch of cops who totally screwed up. Why?

Sigh.

Last edited by gold21 on Fri, May 27 2022, 2:51 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ imorethanamother ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:51 pm

gold21 wrote:

Oh, dear. C'mon.... I snipped a specific piece from an interview given on a reputable (?) program. You're listing the original official account (one that changes by the minute). I'm quoting a source from an interview. You know that, right? Go watch the interview yourself if you don't trust the "Daily Fail" as you call it.

Anyway... You call it the Daily Fail. But you read CNN. Girl....

Sigh.

The line I mentioned is in the exact article you gave me, right before your snipped paragraphs. So is the one mentioned before the right one version of events or the one right after?

And the infographic in the same article - is that wrong too? Which sentence , listed in the same article, is correct?

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:55 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

Who are you quoting specifically in the article? Who made that statement?

(And why is this the hill you want to die on? What are you getting at anyway? That the cops did a great job and the parents were a bunch of hysterical lunatics? You're wrong.)

Last edited by gold21 on Fri, May 27 2022, 2:55 pm; edited 1 time in total

↑ imorethanamother ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:55 pm

I’m not in defense of anyone here. Not the parents, not the police, not the gunman. I don’t have an agenda. I don’t believe the police handled it well. I don’t believe the parents would have handled it well.

Someone with tactical experience should examine what happened and make procedural corrections. All of us untrained people on the internet are good at making a ruckus, but we aren’t sergeants with the IDF, for example.

I just don’t like sensationalizing lies to spur change. I want to be sure we understand facts.

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 2:56 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

You took a pretty strong position against the parents rights to get involved in the safety of their own children. I am pushing back at that. I think you're wrong.

↑ imorethanamother ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 3:08 pm

gold21 wrote:

I’m getting at the fact that “securing the scene” is literally the first thing police have to do in an emergency. It saves lives.

Just because police were wrong by not deploying more trained men inside doesn’t mean that we should leave active shooter scenarios to anybody who shows up to take part in.

And I’m just asking a lot of questions based on your specious statement taken incongruously from a poorly written article. If you insist that events happen the way you said, when all reports including the very same article say differently, then you can die on any hill you like.

↑ sushilover ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 3:09 pm

pause wrote:

It goes the other way. Assuming that potential gun owners would need to pass rigorous screening and training, the murderer in Texas wouldn't have owned a gun in the first place.

No one is against screening and background checks. We already have those except in the most rare circumstances, like a family member borrowing a gun. Even then, it is illegal to sell out lend a gun to anyone who is a felon or you wouldn't trust. Those rare circumstances are not a risk to you.

Enforced training will not make you safer.

If you are anxious about me having a gun because we don't have enforced training, that is an illogical fear.

Illogical fears can be discussed. They should not be the basis for our laws.

↑ gold21 ↓

Fri, May 27 2022, 3:12 pm

imorethanamother wrote:

The article contains direct quotes from an interview. I tend to follow direct quotes aka firsthand accounts, even when hidden within articles, as opposed to secondhand accounts. It doesn't matter what other outlets report. The only thing that matters is the truth.