how many times did I say shoot from outside the windows? That’s 3 police actively shooting from either room. And if you add in the broken door window you have 4 shooters aiming at the suspect. I’m no trick shooter but I can walk up 3 center shots from torso to head consistently at 30 feet. with a double stack semi-automatic that’s 5 sets of 3 shots times 3 officers. If they can’t take him down in a rain of 45 bullets then something’s wrong.
Fine, so you believe it’s inconceivable that just shooting through the windows wouldn’t work, so the question of climbing through the windows is moot.
So what were you really disputing here, when the underlying question under consideration was whether there was any conceivable justification for the mistaken decision to wait, based on physical barriers to engagement? You agree with the emerging consensus that there was no barrier to immediate engagement.
yes, they could have/should have engaged the shooter early on. It’s mind numbing to think the Janitor may have had the keys the whole time and nobody opened the door. the door was the best point of entry. The windows provided a line of fire for multiple people but a very poor point of entry.
Well, let’s see…I count zero. In fact, you chastised both @JaneDoe42 and @crowmanyclouds for suggesting just that.
But now
Honestly, I think you’re arguing just for the sake of arguing.
Thank you, it’s nice to see that someone was actually hearing me.
I think what happened at this shooting will not happen again. Of course many more school/mass shootings will happen but the police are going to remember their collective black eye over this and will now rush into the classrooms and shoot anyone with a gun. Hopefully it won’t be an armed teacher, but anything can happen.
Post 389 The police would have much more control over the situation by breaking out the window and trying to shoot their target.
Post 392 Now if he was actively shooting kids then they would have had a target to focus on from outside the window of the active room. that gives a 2nd team time to enter the unoccupied room and advance on him from a 2nd front.
Post 396 I disagree. Shooting from outside yes. Pulling yourself up and over the windowsill no. You would be completely vulnerable. You’ll get mowed down in the attempt. You have no way of defending yourself in the transition.
Post 398 The best bet would be 2 sets of 3 people shooting from outside. If one set engages the shooter then the other set can gain access to the other room.
We all know that a bullet can’t break a window. It’s best that the police just lean on the lockers in the hallway and wait for the thing to play itself out. Then go in, when it’s just the bad guy left, and you pop a cap in his ass.
It’s unreasonable (and probably unconstitutional) for you to expect law enforcement to risk exposure to residual cooties.
My mistake. I didn’t realize that you did a complete 180 on the idea of using the windows to engage the shooter.
But I’ll repeat the question that @Riemann asked:
No one expects a small-town police department, especially in Texas, to function the same as a New York City SWAT team. But even as far as small-town cops go, this was egregiously bad, even for fucking Texas. All Barney Fifes and not an Andy Taylor among them. Just a bunch of cowards who joined the PD for the doughnuts.
I would be interested in what kind of training they had for this kind of situation. I would expect the training for SWAT is significantly different from what they are normally trained for.
Yes, it would have been nice if Andy was there but how do you hire someone for their ability to think through a situation?
In my state we elect the County Sheriff. I believe city Mayors hire the Chief of police. How do you know if you get an Andy or a Barney?
You are just sooo cute! /Pinches your cheeks and kisses you on the forehead./
Uvalde is probably going to be doing some hiring in the near future.
This is my take as well. I suspect the available pool of applicants both brave enough and willing to take a security job is smaller than the number of positions that need to be filled. There are a lot of schools, theaters, churches, and grocery stores in this country.
Our society consists of a certain percentage of suicidal people that intend to commit mass murder as part of their suicide. Training, no matter how important, is a mitigation not a solution. Obviously we should review the failures and learn from them, but if that is all we do then the situation is hopeless.
It will stop him from ever holding a position where he is supposed to be protecting children. Same for the teacher that propped open the door but saved herself rather inform any of the classrooms that she had let a shooter in the building. She had two opportunities to save those kids and failed at both.
Part of figuring out what went wrong is assigning responsibility to people that fucked up the protocol. If you don’t do that, you don’t know where the failure point in the plan is.
And it’s bananas to throw the whole plan out, since the plan worked as soon as they followed it. They confronted the shooter and ended the situation in about a minute.
Look back at mass shootings. Many ended when police confronted the shooter, either by suicide or suicide by cop. The plan, when followed, works a great deal of the time. Until someone comes up with something better, this is a good plan.
If it’s a strawman it’s yours. You are the one that has the distinction between “lying” and “spinning things in your favor.” Lying is lying, no matter the reason behind it. Or did you think Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin Zone contained no lies? Spinning something is lying.
What do you require for an independent report? Dozens of news sources have reported on it. The only thing I have read that is any different is that one of the team may not have been Border Patrol. Have you heard anyone else claim that their officers were responsible? Has the officer in charge said he ordered the breach? If he had, why isn’t he shouting it from the rooftops in order to make his previous lack of action look better than the dismal failure it was.
Can you link to that? I haven’t read about that part.
This is simply not true. Four windows across two classrooms. The windows don’t need to be broken, they slide up. The shooter can only see one classroom at a time. Look in the windows to locate which room the shooter was in, enter from the other classroom. If you can’t see the shooter, he has to be either in the closet or the bathroom. Cover those and you are good to go. It’s not like this was a horror movie and the shooter was going to rise up from underneath a pile of corpses, firing AR15s with both hands in slow motion.
This wasn’t a security job, this was multiple law enforcement agencies. Many claimed to have training in the field. I don’t really expect a guard at the local grocery store to whip out a gun and confront someone, but I do expect it from LEO. If they were just going to hang out for an hour doing nothing, they could just as well been out manning radar guns and writing parking tickets.
I can’t make the link work, do a search for Angeli Gomez, you’ll find the photo and the story.
CMC, are you asking what a security hinge is? Of if silenus had them.
Thanks for the link - I added Uvalde and got the story.
If the doors have them.
This is a real problem with how too many folks approach physical security. They put a $500 “unpickable” deadbolt on a hollow-core door with an unreinforced jamb, and wonder why their building was burgled.
The question, and posting a picture, should indicate my state of knowledge on what a security hinge is!
The door on my classroom also has special hinges on it. But in my case, they’re the kind of hinge where, if you pull the door open too strongly, the hinge pulls off of the door entirely. Or the bottom hinge, at least: The middle hinge doesn’t have that problem, by virtue of missing the pin and all of the flanges on one side.
Granted, that’s a very old building, much older than the one here (I don’t know exactly how old this building is, but the architectural style is much more recent).