Nov 12, 2017
254
Normally I try not to get too emotional when things like this happen. But...

That 11 year old girl that smeared her dead friend's blood on herself has more balls and brains than a police that is better funded than many militaries around the world.

No, our best source of information, and the most assertive actor in the entire situation, was not the police department that receives 40% of the town's budget every year. It was an 11 year old girl who risked her life to call them, because she believed she could rely on them to help. She was wrong.

They simply decided not to help the children that were calling and begging their heroes to do something - too risky. These are people that our kids have been taught and trained their whole lives to trust and look up to. I cannot imagine the hatred and anger and despair that must be surging through the parents' veins right now.
 
Last edited:

TrojanAg

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,968
They'll defend the police no matter what, but I get the feeling that this is only the beginning. The full truth will slowly come out and all of these people will be sued to hell and back for being the spineless fucks that they are.
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
22,091


I mean he may be on to something here. Apparently a door is a mechanism so secure, it can keep 19 police officers baffled on what to do next.

Wait until they design the one door school and either everyone dies in a fire or someone forgets to lock it and EVERYONE in a school dies because they can't get out.
 

III-V

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,845
Bulletproof doors with locks that way we can lock the shooter inside a class full of children.
 

RiOrius

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,221
In the Tuesday horror, 19 children and two teachers were killed, and another 17 were wounded.
Source.

Seventeen wounded. Hadn't heard that yet. When I only hear about the death toll, I'm just picturing the shooter locked in a room with the bodies for an hour, but no, there were kids hiding in there, bleeding.
 

mbpm

Member
Oct 25, 2017
26,583
Source.

Seventeen wounded. Hadn't heard that yet. When I only hear about the death toll, I'm just picturing the shooter locked in a room with the bodies for an hour, but no, there were kids hiding in there, bleeding.
This was something someone brought up but I forgot about. Headlines not including people still alive but still victims
 

sfedai0

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,912
Source.

Seventeen wounded. Hadn't heard that yet. When I only hear about the death toll, I'm just picturing the shooter locked in a room with the bodies for an hour, but no, there were kids hiding in there, bleeding.

Not to mention the emotional trauma that will follow them for years. Maybe forever. Its fucking tragic.
 
Oct 26, 2017
7,948
The whole door thing is silly.

Schools are schools. They're not medieval fortresses. Even with a single entrance 8 foot thick lead door, large volumes of kids have to enter and exit the school and that single point of entry can be compromised or overwhelmed with enough firepowr.

Nevermind there's also such a thing as climbing a fence, which several parents and off-duty cops did to rescue their own kids. "Hardening" schools is simply an arms race between the school's budget and what a potential active shooter can purchase at a gun store/show. It's hardly a solution and it's barely a deterrence.

And this massacre illustrates the major flaw of arming "good guys with guns". If there's a huge fire-power imbalance where the active shooter has an overwhelming advantage, an untrained teacher will easily be neutralized and even armed "professionals" aren't going to run into a hail of fire from a high-powered rifle without a strong protective barrier.

I just don't understand how certain people can justify making it extremely easy for someone to purchase an assault rifle where they can kill dozens of people within a minute and easily overwhelm low-level security / police squads where it basically requires SWAT/Tactical to take them down.

On Earth 2, even the police would be getting behind an assault rifle ban so they could avoid future embarrassments like this. And this WILL happen again when an active shooter outguns the cops and there's a slow response from tactical/SWAT.
 

Landy828

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,823
Clemson, SC
Earlier today my wife was commenting on/comparing the shooting that happened here a few weeks ago in her county.

The police were at the school in less than 5 minutes, in the school in less than 10 minutes from being contacted, and tracked down the kid that did the shooting (after he fled the school) faster than these police did anything of significance.

She said to me the "Police response in Texas makes zero sense." (In comparison)
 

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,442
America
Let's just say it out loud:

The police officers LET the gunman murder little kids in a school.

They were ARMED and TRAINED officers, and did NOTHING until 19 kids and 2 teachers were dead.

Don't they have a duty to protect citizens, including children?

Otherwise what's the point of them? Stopping you from saving your own child?
 

Ducarmel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,366
Don't they have a duty to protect citizens, including children?

Otherwise what's the point of them? Stopping you from saving your own child?

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again


"Neither the Constitution, nor state law, impose a general duty upon police officers or other governmental officials to protect individual persons from harm — even when they know the harm will occur," said Darren L. Hutchinson, a professor and associate dean at the University of Florida School of Law. "Police can watch someone attack you, refuse to intervene and not violate the Constitution."


The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government has only a duty to protect persons who are "in custody," he pointed out.

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Mises Institute

The "social contract" is a one-way street. You pay your taxes or go to jail. In return, the government may or may not provide some of those services you

there maybe better sources I just grapped this from google search

A relevant video

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

Its one of the reasons why I don't understand the hero worship cops get.
 
Last edited:

gozu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,442
America

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again

Its one of the reasons why I don't understand the hero worship cops get.

Now I may be ignorant of the fancy ways of the law, but it seems to me the police creed "To protect and to serve" would imply they would protect children from being slaughtered, as a service to society.

Maybe someone can explain where I went wrong in my reasoning. But if those conditions are not met, then I too fail to understand the hero worship.

Maybe we're just being selective with our memories of police response during mass shootings and we're forgetting about all the outstanding police interventions when they saved lives at great bodily risk? My own memories have me convinced that only about 5% of cops actually risk their lives in a mass shooting event.

The only logical explanation for why things haven't changed is GOP senators think their kids are safe in their private schools...and don't care if other people's children die.

Anybody here believes I am exaggerating? Because I don't think I am.
 

meowdi gras

Banned
Feb 24, 2018
12,684
Now I may be ignorant of the fancy ways of the law, but it seems to me the police creed "To protect and to serve" would imply they would protect children from being slaughtered, as a service to society.
As it turns out, "to protect and serve" is more a slogan than it is any sort of creed.
 

Ducarmel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,366
Now I may be ignorant of the fancy ways of the law, but it seems to me the police creed "To protect and to serve" would imply they would protect children from being slaughtered, as a service to society.
The creed would have to be legally binding in some way and I'm going to assume these creeds are not binding and just fancy solidarity pr bullshit cops say/promote. Many armies, enforcement agencies, and organized militias have creeds and they mean jack shit when it comes to their actual duties.
 

mAcOdIn

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,992
The only logical explanation for why things haven't changed is GOP senators think their kids are safe in their private schools...and don't care if other people's children die.
It isn't "just" the Senators, they're more at fault than the populace because I think when you're in a leadership position sometimes you have to make the hard decisions for the welfare of your constituents, whether they like it or not, but, this whole thing is classic conservative ideology and the conservative voters are very much purposefully voting for gun nuts. Conservatives are just incapable of seeing society as a whole thing rather than just a bunch of random people livings their lives separately just in the near vicinity of each other outside of abortion. The pace of school shootings would have to start hitting conservative communities at such a rate that it was more or less a given that at some point their children will be in a school shooting at some point in their life before it even becomes a real concern for most of them, otherwise most of these shootings might as well be happening in Afghanistan for all they feel.
 

julian

Member
Oct 27, 2017
17,864

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again



Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Mises Institute

The "social contract" is a one-way street. You pay your taxes or go to jail. In return, the government may or may not provide some of those services you

there maybe better sources I just grapped this from google search

A relevant video

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

Its one of the reasons why I don't understand the hero worship cops get.
But there's a difference between a refusal to intervene and actively preventing people from trying to help. Not just the parents, but trained professionals that were ready to go in. They took action which likely led to multiple deaths.

I just don't see how that can't be argued. What you quoted shouldn't apply.
 

Ducarmel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,366
But there's a difference between a refusal to intervene and actively preventing people from trying to help. Not just the parents, but trained professionals that were ready to go in. They took action which likely led to multiple deaths.

I just don't see how that can't be argued. What you quoted shouldn't apply.
I was responding to a person who think its a cops duty to help people in danger


As for what your describing the situation will never be viewed as the police prevented parents, they will hide behind laws and or general police procedures preventing the public from obstructing and interfering in an active crime scene.

The prevention of other officers going in I have no idea about that part of the story, were the other officers supposed to go in or did they need permission/chain of command thing?
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
28,976
The prevention of other officers going in I have no idea about that part of the story, were the other officers supposed to go in or did they need permission/chain of command thing?

It turns out the border patrol officers that eventually went in to confront the shooter actually arrived 30mins earlier but were told by the local officers not to go in.

EDIT:

 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,995
I was responding to a person who think its a cops duty to help people in danger


As for what your describing the situation will never be viewed as the police prevented parents, they will hide behind laws and or general police procedures preventing the public from obstructing and interfering in an active crime scene.

The prevention of other officers going in I have no idea about that part of the story, were the other officers supposed to go in or did they need permission/chain of command thing?

The U.S. Border Patrol tactical agents pressed local law enforcement to go into the school, but ultimately entered the building on their own initiative, federal law enforcement officials told CBS News Friday. The agents were backed up by law enforcement officials from several agencies.

The commanding officer, the school district's police chief, made the command to stay outside of the room.

www.cbsnews.com

Delay in breaching classroom during Texas school shooting was "wrong decision," official says

Nearly 20 officers were in a hallway for more than 45 minutes before agents used a master key to open a door and confront the gunman, authorities said.
 
Mar 7, 2020
3,481
USA
I was responding to a person who think its a cops duty to help people in danger


As for what your describing the situation will never be viewed as the police prevented parents, they will hide behind laws and or general police procedures preventing the public from obstructing and interfering in an active crime scene.

The prevention of other officers going in I have no idea about that part of the story, were the other officers supposed to go in or did they need permission/chain of command thing?

https://www.nationalreview.com/news...valde-police-orders-to-remain-outside-school/

The Border Patrol agents who killed the school shooter in Uvalde, Texas, on Tuesday entered the school on their own accord after local law enforcement requested that they hold back, two senior federal law enforcement sources told NBC News on Friday.

Local law enforcement asked the two teams to wait, and then tasked HSI agents with pulling schoolchildren out of classroom windows. BORTAC agents waited about 30 minutes and then decided to ignore local law enforcement's request to remain outside, entering the school and neutralizing the gunman.

McCraw said that the on-scene commander at the time of the shooting, police chief Peter Arredondo, believed that the gunman had barricaded himself without additional threat to children at the school, and that there was time to bring in more officers and equipment for a "tactical breach."


The police chief had 19 officers, and 2 swat teams from border patrol, but he wanted to "wait for more reinforcement"
 

lenovox1

Member
Oct 26, 2017
8,995
I was responding to a person who think its a cops duty to help people in danger

To this point, there's not a general duty to protect, but the police cannot knowingly place people in danger nor can they neglect their duty whenever there's an implied or specific promise to protect.

The judicial decisions on the subject show that law enforcement agencies should recognize that a duty to protect has been established when officers have reason to know that specific individuals are in a position of foreseeable danger, when implying a promise of protection through the publication of emergency numbers, when specific promises of protection are made, and when the police put individuals in a position of danger. 15 footnotes.


The school district police chief may have gotten his department in a lot of trouble, and will probably resign any day now.
 

Ducarmel

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,366
thanks for the reply, hindsight being 20/20 yeah the chief should of just let them in, but if he stopped them I have no idea what they could have done given a lawful order to their knowledge to stand down.
 

Chaos2Frozen

Member
Nov 3, 2017
28,976
thanks for the reply, hindsight being 20/20 yeah the chief should of just let them in, but if he stopped them I have no idea what they could have done given a lawful order to their knowledge to stand down.

I mean, in the end they had to ignore those orders to go in to neutralize the shooter.

There are two different groups here, the local police and the Border Patrol. The latter are the ones who wanted to go in immediately, the former are the ones who stopped them from doing it.

Hence why people are saying they actively prevented people from resolving the crisis.
 

TrueSloth

Member
Oct 27, 2017
6,270
Now I may be ignorant of the fancy ways of the law, but it seems to me the police creed "To protect and to serve" would imply they would protect children from being slaughtered, as a service to society.

Maybe someone can explain where I went wrong in my reasoning. But if those conditions are not met, then I too fail to understand the hero worship.

Maybe we're just being selective with our memories of police response during mass shootings and we're forgetting about all the outstanding police interventions when they saved lives at great bodily risk? My own memories have me convinced that only about 5% of cops actually risk their lives in a mass shooting event.

The only logical explanation for why things haven't changed is GOP senators think their kids are safe in their private schools...and don't care if other people's children die.

Anybody here believes I am exaggerating? Because I don't think I am.
Police exist to protect capital and keep the current power structures in place. They don't exist to protect and serve the community.
 

mrmoose

Member
Nov 13, 2017
22,091
Now I may be ignorant of the fancy ways of the law, but it seems to me the police creed "To protect and to serve" would imply they would protect children from being slaughtered, as a service to society.

Maybe someone can explain where I went wrong in my reasoning. But if those conditions are not met, then I too fail to understand the hero worship.

Maybe we're just being selective with our memories of police response during mass shootings and we're forgetting about all the outstanding police interventions when they saved lives at great bodily risk? My own memories have me convinced that only about 5% of cops actually risk their lives in a mass shooting event.

The only logical explanation for why things haven't changed is GOP senators think their kids are safe in their private schools...and don't care if other people's children die.

Anybody here believes I am exaggerating? Because I don't think I am.

I would hope that most (some) police do take the protect and serve part seriously and are not just running away whenever there is danger. However, I think this ruling is more so that they don't get sued for failing to protect and to serve. In this case, that's ridiculous because they absolutely deserve to get sued, of course.