I’m starting to wonder if the police lined up nineteen kids and two teachers and gunned them down, what some people here would be saying.
Incidentally, I can think of another explanation for this one …
I think I already covered this. They would be exonerated for taking reasonable measures to protect themselves from cootie exposure.
@The_Librarian Suggest you read the NY Times op-ed: I Created the F.B.I.’s Active Shooter Program. The Officers in Uvalde Did Not Follow Their Training. I believe I can directly quote the following under fair use:
The day after the F.B.I. released its latest active shooter figures, Robb Elementary School was attacked. In the past two years, the Uvalde school district has hosted at least two active shooter trainings, according to reporting by The Times. One of them was two months ago. Current protocol and best practices say officers must persistently pursue efforts to neutralize a shooter when a shooting is underway. This is true even if only one officer is present. This is without question the right approach.
We need to understand why that protocol was not followed in Uvalde. I am still confident the F.B.I.’s focus on training to this standard was right, but I’m less confident in its execution. The officers who responded may have been unprepared for conflict, which can lead to fatal results. Law enforcement officers need to be mentally prepared before they arrive on the scene, so they can respond immediately.
Just piggybacking on this … though I believe this has already been covered:
There really isn’t a lot of grey area here.
While I acknowledge that it really doesn’t look good, I keep wondering how much of this training is in breaching doors or windows.
All the links you gave me do not mention anything about that.
Is it reasonable to assume that the first people on the scene were trained with, equipped with the tools to get past those doors/through the window?
Can we all agree that since cops never execute “no knock warrants” there’s no reasonable expectation that they are trained in door and window breaching?
I know this wasn’t the main thrust of your comment, but I don’t think it’s true. In situations where first responders have entered a horrific scene and done their best to engage an active shooter, putting themselves in harms way without adequate backup, I really can’t recall a lot of second guessing if the outcome isn’t ideal. I guess the exception might be if the first responder accidentally harms someone innocent. But given the degree of criticism of law enforcement in general, this seems notable to me as a situation where nobody usually has anything bad to say, and there is nothing but respect for their bravery.
IIRC, I addressed this exact question (of yours) in post #459.
What did the training consist of?
I have no idea.
I fail(ed) to get your point.
Did the room(s) have other point of entry? Is the school building actually a tent?
My cite in post #465 gives us some important visibility into the strategy if not the individual tactics.
If these officers were/are not trained to breach a locked door, that is another problem, not an excuse.
Please just link to the post. In my interface the post’ number is not easily found.
Try SHIFT-3, and then enter the post number.
Thanks, first time I saw that. I wonder how she managed to get in the school? I was thinking windows but the article says she was actually inside the school.
Yes, the arrival of police who take action ends the shooting in one way or another and allows medical care to begin. Standing outside doing nothing allowed the shooter to directly kill one student he found with a phone and allowed who knows how many to bleed out. Clearly the police engaging is the superior of the two options.
This is not true, this plan has worked many times over and is the best plan anyone has come up with. If not for the teacher who let the shooter into the building and the cop turned politician who didn’t follow his own safety doctrine, this wouldn’t have been such a clusterfuck.
Thinking there is a plan that doesn’t involve humans in it at some point is bananas. Humans make and execute the plans. Unless your referring to things that are out of bounds for talking about in this thread, there is no way to take humans out of this equation.
It’s worked many times, and no, it’s nothing like that.
Yes it is a really long time. They already had plans and doctrines on how to handle an active shooter. They had just had an active shooter drill two months ago, with “bodies” and everything. Active shooter protocols are probably one of the few things that every LEO branch across the country has the same rule: Immediately remove the shooter, even if you have to step over wounded to do it.
How would he do this? All the students were laying on bunches on the ground along with their dead and wounded classmates, not randomly walking around the room. Not to mention that elementary students make lousy shields for an adult who police are firing at with rifles from 30 feet away.
Man, why didn’t I think of that? Now that’s a well thought out plan, and it would work every single time! 
You seem to be expressing strong opinions without knowing a lot of factual information that has been discussed at some length in the thread. I’d recommend reading the thread at least from the point where @DavidNRockies posted clear photos of the windows, which is easy to find:
That’s exactly the situation where you don’t take a few minutes to figure out what to do.
When the media has incomplete information, that’s one thing. When the incorrect information is coming from the police department themselves, that’s another thing entirely. The statement by the police is the verification the media, and we, should be waiting for, and when it’s wrong, it makes it much harder to get the truth.
You need to wait for them to get their stories straight. In this case somehow the shit flowing downhill overwhelmed LE’s blue wall.