Incomprehensible mass shooting happens again

Page 32 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,964
136
The cops in Texas displayed the most egregious dereliction of duty in Tuesday's episode in Uvelde. So did the higher ups in the Texas chain of command, all the way to the governor in his public actions subsequent. I can't imagine how much worse were his private actions. Apparently it WAS federal officers who finally broke into the room where the murderer was situated and killed him. Any and all of the officers there were obligated to charge in there from the very start, but only the border agents took their job obligations seriously. The others (at least 19, who loitered in the hallway next to the rooms of carnage for some 45 minutes) were cowards who refused to do their duty and covered themselves with shame.

Yes, well, as I regularly think with regard to our own dear "Metropolitan police" (another of whose number was just charged with rape), maybe the whole lot of them should be fired and replaced with new recruits more willing to actually do their jobs. But I'm just saying, using 'the army' to police the streets did _not_ go well in NI.



And maybe this should be the Uvalde police department's new official name, given it was effectively what they told the shooter.

1653754953442.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,273
10,777
136
In a active shooter situation you continue pressing until the shooter is eliminated. If the shooter is shooting at cops that means he isn't shooting at the kids.

Completely 100% agreed..... throwing rocks (or shooting freaking spitballs!) would have been better then standing around doing nothing and these sad-sack "cops" were armed to the teeth.

However is it the cops fault this happened? Of course not.

We learned the hard way from incidents like Ruby Ridge that "attack first" isn't always the best strategy however giving this kid all the time he needed to kill with impunity was VERY OBVIOUSLY the wrong choice.

We need to come down hard on the cops who were in charge here and make sure they'll never be a position to make important decisions again.

More importantly though we MUST finally learn our lesson and do something to both "harden" our schools and longer-term, limit who is allowed to buy these weapons with waiting-periods and effective background-checks/psych-evaluations.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Brovane

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,409
1,655
136
Yet, you are focused on what the police did, to t

No. He's pointing out that the police failure is one facet of the overall problem.

In fact the fucking post you quote specifically says guns are another aspect of the problem.


Why are you so anxious to defend the police?
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,273
10,777
136
Guns are the main aspect of this problem


Sadly it's PEOPLE that are the main aspect of the problem .... guns are a definite catalyst though and more importantly one we can control.

Moving forward schools need to be strictly limited-access and some EFFECTIVE restrictions must be placed on people who want to buy guns and on the type of guns they're allowed to own.

The "people" problem however is one I doubt we'll ever solve. :(
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
69,012
26,891
136
Timeline right now has 2-3 cops entering the building 2 minutes after the killer. I have to think that police aggressively going after the killer from the start would have saved many kids from being shot in the first place, plus very likely several if not many who were shot and died could have been saved with first aid, etc.
Yep, we’re going to have to update the active shooter training to account for what the cops will actually do instead of what they claim they will do. “The first objective is to stop the shooter; do not expect aid until the threat is removed.” I guess we should be sure to bring snacks to our next shooting as this is going to take awhile.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,072
651
126
Completely 100% agreed..... throwing rocks (or shooting freaking spitballs!) would have been better then standing around doing nothing and these sad-sack "cops" were armed to the teeth.

However is it the cops fault this happened? Of course not.

We learned the hard way from incidents like Ruby Ridge that "attack first" isn't always the best strategy however giving this kid all the time he needed to kill with impunity was VERY OBVIOUSLY the wrong choice.

We need to come down hard on the cops who were in charge here and make sure they'll never be a position to make important decisions again.

More importantly though we MUST finally learn our lesson and do something to both "harden" our schools and longer-term, limit who is allowed to buy these weapons with waiting-periods and effective background-checks/psych-evaluations.

This is in no way comparable to Ruby Ridge. The kid drove his car into a ditch and came out with guns heading into a school. Ruby Ridge was some agents going to some dudes home to arrest him.

How do you harden a school other than turning it into a prison? All the schools in my district are completely open air. The only way to harden them is to put a 12' fence around the entire campus. F' that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pmv

Fenixgoon

Lifer
Jun 30, 2003
31,549
9,907
136
Sadly it's PEOPLE that are the main aspect of the problem .... guns are a definite catalyst though and more importantly one we can control.

Moving forward schools need to be strictly limited-access and some EFFECTIVE restrictions must be placed on people who want to buy guns and on the type of guns they're allowed to own.

The "people" problem however is one I doubt we'll ever solve. :(


and yet most other countries seem to have solved this problem, mostly by removing the gun aspect.

then we can do things like universal healthcare (including increased access to mental healthcare), increased minimum wage or basic income, expanded federal child tax credit, or a million other options to improve outcomes for families, and especially those who are struggling financially.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,273
10,777
136
This is in no way comparable to Ruby Ridge. The kid drove his car into a ditch and came out with guns heading into a school. Ruby Ridge was some agents going to some dudes home to arrest him.

How do you harden a school other than turning it into a prison? All the schools in my district are completely open air. The only way to harden them is to put a 12' fence around the entire campus. F' that.


The only reason I even mentioned Ruby Ridge was to illustrate that going in "guns blazing" isn't always the right move not because it was "the same".

And I wish I saw an alternative to hardening schools to attack in the short-term but I just don't considering I HIGHLY doubt anything meaningful will change.

Feel free to enlighten us as to the specific alternatives you have in mind .... but only the realistic/practical ones please.

I'm SO glad I don't have school-age kids myself anymore!
 

Atari2600

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2016
1,409
1,655
136
But I'm just saying, using 'the army' to police the streets did _not_ go well in NI.

The overall situation in NI was far more complex than a relatively straightforward hostage situation.

The political considerations of any action - alongside the attitude of the communities they were operating in - made using the army for policing highly inappropriate. Yet, due to the incumbents, the British government had little real alternative. Their misstep was probably paying too much heed to the sectarian elements within Stormont at the time.



Did you know that the British army was actually welcomed with open arms by the nationalist communities in 1969 as a neutral counterbalance to the outright sectarian RUC?

However later actions by the army - under instruction from the unionist government of the time alienated them from the nationalist people.

Into the vaccume was born the PIRA.




Would using the US army as tactical response units work in US policing? Well, few things to consider:
Pros
- Your perhaps more likely to have soldiers from a black neighbourhood deployed to that neighbourhood from the army than from the police.
- The individuals and units will be of a far higher training standard than the police for violent actions.
- All individuals will be of a far higher physical standard than the average police force
- The army do not have a very large amount of negative baggage associated.

Cons
- The army will not be stopping to collect evidence.
- Only a few units will be well trained in hostage situation. You aren't gonna be able to deploy special forces across the country
- Funding question.
- Its only a matter of time before there is a fuckup - and it can happen through no fault of anyone involved. Intentions are irrelevant. At that point you'll have to defend the army's response - and you'll have to try to keep the army both apolitical and away from the negative connotations the police have gained themselves.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,036
7,964
136
Did you know that the British army was actually welcomed with open arms by the nationalist communities in 1969 as a neutral counterbalance to the outright sectarian RUC?

Oh yes, always been very aware of that. It gets referred to every time any military intervention anywhere is proposed - it's the paradigmatic example of how it can start off well but rapidly go horribly wrong (maybe Iraq now supplants it as an example?). I remember pictures of the troops being greeted by people from the Catholic community bringing them cups of tea. Then Bloody Sunday happened.

In the US I had the impression there were very specific Constitutional bans on domestic use of the military (to be honest am not really sure about all that stuff, or where the National Guard fit into it). And they just are intrinsically unsuited to the job, I think, which is part of what went wrong in NI.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,930
2,558
136
A clear example that we have a serous problem in this country.

It needs a gun propped up on top of the desk, with a sign pointing an arrow at the gun, stating "Protecting this gun is more important than the child scared they are going to die, under this desk".

It screams: guns have more rights to safety than our children.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,930
2,558
136
No. He's pointing out that the police failure is one facet of the overall problem.

In fact the fucking post you quote specifically says guns are another aspect of the problem.


Why are you so anxious to defend the police?
I am not defending the police, go back and read my comments. Yes, he stated guns are part of the problem once, long after he makes false claims, just as you are, that I am defending the police, missing what I actually am saying. But guns are not part of the problem, they are the THE PROBLEM! all though he states that guns are part of the problem, he does not discuss any further, and immediately shifts the focus back onto the police, which means that he is blaming the police failures more so than the actual guns, the actual problem, and his focus is on the police. Which confirms what I said about him doing exactly what those want people to do, steer the focus away from the actual problem: The gun crisis we have in this country.

To demonstrate that point (not just about him) Go back and read this thread, from the beginning, the discussion was geared towards the gun crisis, the actual problem, not the actions of the police, until information came to light about how the police didn't engage. Since then, this thread has been about the police, not the real problem, the gun crisis, The actual problem, the actual cause of the mass shootings that take place in this country, has for the most part been dropped and the focus is now on blaming the police..
 
Last edited:

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,428
7,489
136
How about this image
Crime has continued to trend down despite the demon internet.

Clearly not the data he used, nor what I responded to.
  • @HomerJS swaps out mass shootings for all gun deaths.
  • @dank69 swaps out his own mass shooting data for generic crime.
Regardless of your flawed argument in selling it, the Assault Weapons Ban is symbolic rather than practical. Virginia tech, anyone? It does NOT take an AR 15 to shoot multiple people or butcher entire class rooms. It sure as hell is NOT going to be the standard weapon of choice for the streets of Chicago either. Nor the one most utilized for suicide deaths. Handguns are by far the biggest problem.

You going to try and worm your way out of that one?

Really, "demon internet"? You just want to fight for the sake of it, regardless of the fact I clearly argued (for many years now) against normal gun ownership. Swear to god, if I told you NOT to jump off a bridge you'd trip over each other to be the first one over the edge.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,428
7,489
136
Conservatives are literally fucking murdering actual children, bragging about enabling that, and if ever called on it immediately go to threatening people, and liberals are just saying they want healthcare for people, less racism and bigotry, want to stop children being murdered in school by violent assholes, and in his mind they're equally bad.

Speaking of worms, no that's just you ya fucking parasite.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,526
9,898
136
Why not? One locked door stopped the police until they got the janitors keys.
You are comparing wusses afraid of getting a scratch to a suicidal maniac.

IIRC, Sandy Hook was "Hardened" didn't do shit for those kids.