Because I’m a nutty bookworm with a special interest in the darker urges of humankind, I wound up reading “From a taller tower” by Seamus McGraw. It’s about the cultural and societal impact and influence regarding mass shootings, especially in the US. He has a couple of insights on the human psyche that are very interesting, including reactions of first responders. He has a lot of stuff on the myths surrounding the problem, including the “good guy with gun”.
This book was written before Uvalde, but the situation hasn’t really changed since the previous mass shooting AFAICT. For me as a European outsider this is a very enlightening read when it comes to the cultural background of this phenomenon. Not sure if anyone here is familiar with the work and/or author, if so I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Dear gods and little fishes. It’s been depressing and at times astounding, how the Uvalde narrative has morphed, how increasingly clear it’s become that the LEO response was incompetent, to put it mildly. And now this:
Police chief had no radio during the shooting.
The state agency investigating the mass shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde has determined that the commander facing criticism for the slow police response was not carrying a radio as the massacre unfolded, a Texas state senator said Friday.
…
Authorities have not said how other law enforcement officials were communicating with Arredondo on the scene. Arredondo heads the district’s small department and was in charge of the multi-agency response to the shooting.
…
Police radios are a crucial source of real-time communication during an emergency and, according to experts, often how information from 911 calls is relayed to officers on the ground. It’s unclear who at the scene was aware of the calls. Uvalde police did not respond to questions about the calls Thursday.
The first moves toward possible litigation against Daniel Defense (the manufacturer of the tacti-cool rifle(s) used in Uvalde):
The attorney for party #1 said:
Specifically, he added, when it comes to the Uvalde gunman, “we’re trying to investigate, did they market to this person? Did they do something that caused him to want to buy the gun, when he just shouldn’t have? And that’s what we’re really concerned about.”
And the attorney for party #2 said:
On Friday, attorneys representing the father of 10-year-old Uvalde victim Amerie Jo Garza said that they are also seeking information from Daniel Defense on the marketing of their AR-15 style rifles, according to Josh Koskoff of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, which sued the manufacturer of the weapon used at Sandy Hook.
The board meeting they had last night did not go well.
Why are they not taking action regarding Arredondo?!?
I understand why they might not immediately fire him, pending the outcome of investigations. But if they have the power to fire him, surely they have the power to suspend him and compel him to cooperate with investigations.
The .38 snub nosed was likely the most common, but yeah, the .32, and even the .22. The .25 pistol was sold cheaply also. Now, gangbangers want a 9mm with a double magazine.
Some??
Pretty much a big pile of texas longhorn bullshit.
Yep. Big time.
Absolutely agree with you on this; shooting to wound is just grossly inaccurate TV and movie stuff.
I have had exposure to special operations over a four year period. They are extremely accurate and precise but that’s based on a huge number of hours on a range. And in my former capacity as a military officer, I also know that accurate shooting with a handgun at anything other than short range at a stationary target isn’t quite what you see on TV or at a movie theatre.
So to create a “good guy with a gun” out of a teacher, or to create effective security guards (eg someone who must engage an active shooter, without taking out some kids) would be extremely costly.
One thing that seems to be getting lost in the discussion about what to do is, as Legal Eagle points out, that the Supreme Court has stated that the police have “no duty to protect” the public in hazardous situations.
And that’s when they’re on the clock. There’s no guarantee that a cop/retired cop/armed security guard is going to feel otherwise on a volunteer or being-paid-less-than-cops basis.
Not everything is in the Constitution. The Supreme Court was saying that the duties of the police are to be set out in the statutes which create them: federal, state and municipal. The duties of the FBI, for example, will be markedly different from the duties of police force in a small town. The legislature which creates the legal framework for a particular LEA will have the responsibility of defining its duties.
And the duties of the Uvalde police force to protect are set out rather unambiguously on the side of their vehicles, right underneath the word POLICE:
puffery on a vehicle is not a statutory duty. to determine the scope of a legal duty, you need to check the statute that governs that particular police force.
In terms of criminal culpability, maybe it’s irrelevant. But this isn’t just “puffery”. The police force chooses to portray itself in a prominent manner as having a duty to protect. That’s certainly relevant to public expectations, and I think would be relevant in a lawsuit.
Which creates an interesting thought (read: Nightmare Fuel).
Does that mean a cop could stand by while someone else is taking out a gun (assuming it’s open carry), point it at you (probably not illegal) and even pull the trigger - only to arrest the person AFTER you have been shot.
They don’t have to protect you, only avenge you (so to speak).
I have lived most of the last 30 years in a small Hispanic community in New Mexico. Political positions here are based the voting power of extended families. The school department is owned by a single family. Any teaching or administrative positions held by non-family members are temporary.
If a similar situation exists in Uvalde TX and Arredondo is the power center of an extended family, he will not be replaced.
I had a friend who was stabbed over a dozen times by her estranged husband in the same room as the cop who was supposed to be protecting her from said abusive husband (she was in a shelter and had come to their supposedly empty house to pick up her vital documents. How her estranged husband knew that she was coming is not known. After satisfying himself that the woman was dead, the killer put down the knife and surrendered.
This was the testimony of the cop himself at the murder trial.
The case filed on behalf of her kids was thrown on on the basis that the cop had no affirmative obligation to protect any specific person, including the specific person he was assigned to protect. The judge said this is a matter for the police disciplinary process. The cop retired from the same police department many years later, so this was not even a career ending incident.
So way worse than your hypothetical.
I doubt that. His failure to act is so egregious and so widely known that I don’t think that would save him.
Save him from whom? If he owns the school board and the extended family voters. Who will remove him?
At this point, I would not be surprised if the state abolishes the school district police force or even the town itself. There’s no way he keeps his job. At the very least, he’s going to be retired, though that won’t be quiet, given the attention on him and the town.
Again by whom? He is on the city council. He was elected by a very small voting base. Arredondo - 126 votes, next two were 36 and 12.
Sorry, I thought when I said “the state” it was clear that I meant that the state government would act.