Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Texas School Slaughter...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by seanD View Post
    We're well aware that it's incomprehensible a cop can be that evil to you.
    Not incompressible at all, Sean.

    You claimed malice, which is not the same as evil.
    No malice is shown through the event. Incompetence is glaring.
    It is afterwards that it's clear he goes from gross (and I even called it criminal) incompetence to what could easily be considered malice in trying to defend his incompetence.

    But, hey, hate away!


    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post

      There is zero evidence of malice up to and through his incompetence as "command", where he, apparently, didn't even know he was in command. (And, no, I don't buy that)
      Let's see if I have this straight. The person who gave the command to stand by was unaware that he had the authority to issue the command to stand by




      I'll buy your "I don't buy that."


      I don't think that the possibility of malice can be entirely ruled out, but as you say - on the available evidence, it stretches credibility beyond anything like a reasonable limit to assume that malice was involved.
      1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
      .
      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
      Scripture before Tradition:
      but that won't prevent others from
      taking it upon themselves to deprive you
      of the right to call yourself Christian.

      ⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

        Let's see if I have this straight. The person who gave the command to stand by was unaware that he had the authority to issue the command to stand by




        I'll buy your "I don't buy that."


        I don't think that the possibility of malice can be entirely ruled out, but as you say - on the available evidence, it stretches credibility beyond anything like a reasonable limit to assume that malice was involved.
        The guy is a total screw-up.

        I have said repeatedly (though I'll reword it a bit), I think he was far more interested in the prestige of being in a uniform and wearing a gun, and being the boss of something, than he was in doing actual police work.

        I think this is somewhat of The Peter Principle on steroids.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tabibito View Post

          Let's see if I have this straight. The person who gave the command to stand by was unaware that he had the authority to issue the command to stand by




          I'll buy your "I don't buy that."


          I don't think that the possibility of malice can be entirely ruled out, but as you say - on the available evidence, it stretches credibility beyond anything like a reasonable limit to assume that malice was involved.
          I disagree. The guy's apparently been on the force 20 years. IMO, it's far more implausible to assume he was THAT incompetent. I might buy the argument that he delayed because he was a coward, but then all he had to do as chief was step back and order others to respond instead. There's absolutely no good reason to explain why he delayed the response even if he was a coward. That he's unremorseful, a liar, uncooperative with investigators according to the investigators themselves, and apparently threatened witnesses, we all agree he's evil. It's therefore not that much of a leap between he's evil to he intentionally delayed response because he's evil.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seanD View Post

            I disagree. The guy's apparently been on the force 20 years. IMO, it's far more implausible to assume he was THAT incompetent. I might buy the argument that he delayed because he was a coward, but then all he had to do as chief was step back and order others to respond instead. There's absolutely no good reason to explain why he delayed the response even if he was a coward. That he's unremorseful, a liar, uncooperative with investigators according to the investigators themselves, and apparently threatened witnesses, we all agree he's evil. It's therefore not that much of a leap between he's evil to he intentionally delayed response because he's evil.
            If he has been in Administrative positions this entire time, especially in a small town, this might have been the first time that there was a real opportunity to see how big of a screw up this guy is.

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              If he has been in Administrative positions this entire time, especially in a small town, this might have been the first time that there was a real opportunity to see how big of a screw up this guy is.
              EGGzackly. Remember Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler's "Ballad of the Green Beret" album? He had a song called "the Garet Trooper" which nails guys like this "chief" to a T.

              A Garet Trooper

              This is dedicated to the parade field trooper
              Who never leaves that nice soft garrison
              And always looks real pretty

              Now in the war torn jungles of Vietnam
              You'll find a certain kind of man
              You'll see him everywhere
              He's a trooper, a garet trooper

              Yeah, he's five foot four, 220 pounds of blubber
              Got him a nickel plated 45 tied down low, quick draw holster
              Two bandoliers of brasso'ed ammo
              Yeah, he's a trooper, a garet trooper

              He's fought from Saigon to Ninh Thuan
              In every bar that is, and then only with the girls
              And he ain't won one yet
              But he's a trooper, a garet trooper (a garet trooper)

              He's got a hip knife, a side knife, a boot knife, a shoulder knife
              And a little bitty one that's a combination flare gun, dinner set,
              and genuine police whistle
              But he's a trooper, a garet trooper

              Now I run into one the other day, He told me a story,
              Said he'd just this minute come back from
              a fifteen day runnin' fight with the Cong
              Said he captured a lot of loot
              You know what I saw when I looked down? A spit-shined boot
              Yeah, he's a trooper, a garet trooper (garet trooper)

              Now poor ol' pilot come back today
              Half his crew was killed, aircraft shot to hell
              But he don't say much
              He's not a trooper, a garet trooper

              And out in the hills and the jungles and the swamps
              Living like a bunch of dogs
              Are some men wearing funny little green hats
              They stay out there and fight for months on end
              They don't say much 'cause they're not troopers,
              Garet troopers (garet troopers)

              And I bet finally, when I leave this war torn land
              The last thing I'll see will be,
              though I may be in a drunken stupor
              I'll bet it'll be a garet trooper (garet trooper)

              Yeah, they're all over the place
              Ain't hardly worth going to war no more
              https://lyricstranslate.com


              He wanted SO BADLY to be admired and respected, when all he was was "show".
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                If he has been in Administrative positions this entire time, especially in a small town, this might have been the first time that there was a real opportunity to see how big of a screw up this guy is.
                He had participated in school shooting training drills shortly before this incident.

                And again, I don't have a problem accepting he's incompetent. I have a problem with the fact he's evil and unremorseful about it.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seanD View Post

                  He had participated in school shooting training drills shortly before this incident.
                  So do those "parade field troopers." That doesn't make them fit to lead irl.



                  I'm always still in trouble again

                  "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                  "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                  "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                  Comment


                  • Let's go back to your actual accusation of malice, Sean, aside from your gracious expression of brotherly love...

                    Originally posted by seanD View Post
                    I know what malice is, dope. He intended the mass shooting to be worse than it had to be....
                    Now, if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence for the above claim, based on reason, not emotion, I'd really love for you to lay it out.

                    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      Let's go back to your actual accusation of malice, Sean, aside from your gracious expression of brotherly love...



                      Now, if you could produce ONE SHRED of evidence for the above claim, based on reason, not emotion, I'd really love for you to lay it out.
                      Nah, I'll pass. I'm bored with the discussion now. It's your thread. Enjoy.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seanD View Post

                        Nah, I'll pass. I'm bored with the discussion now. It's your thread. Enjoy.
                        Not surprised in the least.
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          If he has been in Administrative positions this entire time, especially in a small town, this might have been the first time that there was a real opportunity to see how big of a screw up this guy is.
                          And it wouldn't surprise me at all if the alleged "trainings" had been based on a much less complicated scenario.
                          I'm suspicious that any such trainings actually took place, based on all of the errors discovered after the fact.
                          One of the reasons we have "trainings" (or better - drills) is to look for the weaknesses and improve the plan.
                          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                          Comment


                          • They never even tried to open the doors to the classrooms

                            That whole thing about trying a bunch of keys out and waiting for more keys? Yeah, never once were the keys tried on the door to the classrooms where the shooter was. No, instead they were being tested on some other door in the school to try to find a 'master key'.

                            This all while the entire time having access to and possession of a halligan bar which could have easily allowed them to get through the door without any key.

                            https://www.dailywire.com/news/break...as-report-says

                            Law enforcement officials reportedly never tried to open the door at a Texas elementary school last month where a shooter murdered 19 children.

                            “Surveillance footage shows that police never tried to open a door to two classrooms at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde in the 77 minutes between the time a gunman entered the rooms and massacred 21 people and officers finally breached the door and killed him,” the San Antonio Express-News reported, noting that the information came from a law enforcement official who was involved in investigating law enforcement’s response to the tragedy. “Investigators believe the 18-year-old gunman who killed 19 children and two teachers at the school on May 24 could not have locked the door to the connected classrooms from the inside.”

                            The doors are reportedly designed so they can only be locked or unlocked from the outside, and police might have assumed that the door was locked. The report said that it is not known if the door to the classroom where the 18-year-old Hispanic male was holed up was even locked.

                            The source told the local newspaper that it didn’t even matter whether the door was locked because “officers had access the entire time to a ‘halligan’ — a crowbar-like tool that could have opened the door to the classrooms even if it was locked.”

                            The news comes as a report from The New York Times revealed that a law enforcement official with the city, not the school district, who was armed with an AR-15 style rifle had the opportunity to shoot the attacker before he entered the school but didn’t because he hesitated over fear that he might hit kids in the background.

                            “The chief deputy sheriff said that any attempt to shoot the moving gunman would have been difficult, and that the officer would undoubtedly have faced harsh criticism and possibly even a criminal investigation had he missed and hit a bystander in the distance, especially a child,” the report noted.

                            Uvalde CISD Police Chief Pete Arredondo arrived on scene without having a radio at 11:35 a.m. as at least two responding officers were already moving into the hallway outside the classroom door where the attacker was located. Arredondo used a cell phone to call the police department to ask for a radio, a rifle, and heavily-armed backup.

                            “The decision to establish a perimeter outside the classroom, a little over five minutes after the shooting began, shifted the police response from one in which every officer would try to confront the gunman as fast as possible to one where officers treated the gunman as barricaded and no longer killing,” The New York Times reported. “Instead of storming the classroom, a decision was made to deploy a negotiator and to muster a more heavily armed and shielded tactical entry force.”

                            Bill Francis, a former FBI agent who was a senior leader on the bureau’s hostage rescue team for 17 years, told the Times that officials “made a poor decision defining that as a hostage-barricade situation” because “the longer you delay in finding and eliminating that threat, the longer he has to continue to kill other victims.”
                            Oh, and apparently a CITY cop (yes, cowpoke, one of them 'real cops') had an AR-15 and a chance to shoot the gunman before he went in.... and didn't take it. (that's separate from the school resource officer who apparently drove right past the gunman in the parking lot)

                            https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/17/u...an-police.html


                            A city police officer armed with an AR-15-style rifle hesitated when he had a brief chance to shoot the gunman approaching a school in Uvalde, Texas, because he did not want to hit children, according to a senior sheriff’s deputy who spoke to the officer.

                            The fateful decision, which has not been previously reported, represented the second missed opportunity for officers arriving at Robb Elementary School to prevent a massacre by intervening while the gunman was still outside the school. Officials have said that an officer from a different department, the Uvalde school district police force, arrived early but drove past the gunman, not seeing him in the parking lot of the school.
                            The quick arrival of several officers on May 24 reflected the speed with which the initial response took place, and contrasted sharply with what would become a protracted delay in finally confronting the gunman after he began shooting inside a pair of connected fourth-grade classrooms.



                            It also made clear the agonizing decisions law enforcement officers had to make as they confronted the gunman, who was firing shots outside the school; the officer who arrived with a rifle had only seconds to make a decision, and feared that firing his weapon could have meant hitting children, the senior sheriff’s deputy said.



                            Two teachers and 19 children were fatally shot after the gunman entered the school, and 11 were wounded, including a teacher.
                            The police response is now the subject of at least three investigations by the Texas Rangers, the U.S. Justice Department and a special committee of the Texas Legislature. A local district attorney has also been involved in the state’s investigation and has been handling media inquiries; she did not respond to a request for comment on the new details about the earliest stages of the police response.


                            The Texas Department of Public Safety, which includes the Rangers, referred questions to the district attorney. The Uvalde Police Department, whose officer was said to have had line of sight on the gunman, did not respond to a request for comment.



                            The chair of the legislative committee, Dustin Burrows, said the department had not made any of its officers available to provide testimony but on Friday had promised to do so. The committee met in Uvalde on Thursday and Friday but heard from witnesses behind closed doors.



                            A central focus of the inquiries has been the one hour and 17 minutes that elapsed from the time the gunman entered the classrooms and began shooting at 11:33 a.m. until a team of Border Patrol agents and a sheriff’s deputy from Zavala County entered the rooms and killed the gunman at 12:50 p.m.
                            The investigations are now showing that several officers arrived at the school before the gunman ever went inside, rushing to the scene after the first 911 calls around 11:29 a.m. reported that a truck had crashed near the school and that its driver was outside shooting.
                            At least two law enforcement cars arrived in close succession at the school, according to investigatory documents reviewed by The New York Times. One was driven by an officer from the small police force that patrols Uvalde’s schools. Another arrived less than a minute later, at 11:32 a.m., with officers from the Uvalde Police Department.
                            At that point, the gunman was still shooting outside of the school.
                            Officials have said he was firing at the building and toward a nearby funeral home, but arriving officers believed in the moment that the gunfire was directed at them, said Chief Deputy Sheriff Ricardo Rios of Zavala County, who also responded to the shooting in the neighboring county.
                            “My understanding, after talking to several officers that were there, was that the gunman engaged two City of Uvalde officers when they got there, outside the building,” Chief Deputy Rios said.




                            He said the two officers, including one with the long gun, took cover behind a patrol car. They wanted to return fire, he said, but held off.

                            Chief Deputy Rios, recounting his conversation with one of the officers, said that he was surprised and replied with a blunt question.



                            “I asked him, ‘Why didn’t you shoot? Why didn’t you engage?’ And that’s when he told me about the background,” he said. “According to the officers, they didn’t engage back because in the background there was kids playing and they were scared of hitting the kids.”
                            In one of the initial 911 calls, at 11:29 a.m., a caller told dispatchers about the gunfire outside and also that there were children running, according to the documents. It was not clear where those children were or if there were others in the line of fire in those first minutes.
                            The chief deputy sheriff said that any attempt to shoot the moving gunman would have been difficult, and that the officer would undoubtedly have faced harsh criticism and possibly even a criminal investigation had he missed and hit a bystander in the distance, especially a child.






                            FUgWAsYXoAcmBBt.jpg
                            Last edited by Gondwanaland; 06-18-2022, 07:07 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Yes, sir - for whatever reason, cowardice seemed to reign supreme.

                              This will be a prime example for decades to come for Police Academies to teach how NOT to respond to school shootings, and how badly everything can (and did) go wrong.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • And now the city is trying to prevent the release of body cam footage and other records (like officer manuals, training guides, policies, etc.) to the public.
                                http://www.kvue.com/article/news/spe...XU4JZClJWS6XMw

                                https://www.vice.com/en/article/88q9...public-records
                                Uvalde Hires Private Law Firm to Argue It Doesn’t Have to Release School Shooting Public Records


                                Some of the records relating to the Robb Elementary School shooting could be “highly embarrassing,” involve “emotional/mental distress,” and are “not of legitimate concern to the public,” the lawyers argued.

                                The City of Uvalde and its police department are working with a private law firm to prevent the release of nearly any record related to the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in which 19 children and two teachers died, according to a letter obtained by Motherboard in response to a series of public information requests we made. The public records Uvalde is trying to suppress include body camera footage, photos, 911 calls, emails, text messages, criminal records, and more.

                                “The City has not voluntarily released any information to a member of the public,” the city’s lawyer, Cynthia Trevino, who works for the private law firm Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech, wrote in a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The city wrote the letter asking Paxton for a determination about what information it is required to release to the public, which is standard practice in Texas. Paxton's office will eventually rule which of the city's arguments have merit and will determine which, if any, public records it is required to release.

                                The letter makes clear, however, that the city and its police department want to be exempted from releasing a wide variety of records in part because it is being sued, in part because some of the records could include “highly embarrassing information,” in part because some of the information is “not of legitimate concern to the public,” in part because the information could reveal “methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and predicting crime,” in part because some of the information may cause or may "regard … emotional/mental distress," and in part because its response to the shooting is being investigated by the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and the Uvalde County District Attorney.

                                The letter explains that Uvalde has at least one in-house attorney (whose communications it is trying to prevent from public release), and yet, it is using outside private counsel to deal with a matter of extreme importance and public interest. Uvalde’s city government and its police department did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Motherboard.

                                The city says that it has received 148 separate public records requests (including several from Motherboard), and has lumped all of them together, making a broad legal argument as to why it should not be required to respond to many of them. Earlier this week, Motherboard reported on a similar letter sent to Paxton by the Texas Department of Public Safety, which wanted to suppress body-camera footage because it could expose “weaknesses” in police response to crimes that criminals could exploit. (The main seeming weakness in the Uvalde response was that police, in violation of standard policy and protocol, refused to risk their lives to protect children.)

                                For example, the city and its police department argue that it should be exempted from releasing “police officer training guides, policy and procedure manuals, shift change schedules, security details, and blueprints of secured facilities,” because these could be used to decipher “methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and predicting crime.” The Uvalde Police Department and Texas Department of Public Safety have been pilloried by the press and the public for standing in the hallway while a gunman killed children—against standard protocol—and for preventing parents from entering the building to save their children. The letter also argues that the department should be exempted from releasing body camera footage simply because it could be “information considered to be confidential by law, either constitutional, statutory, or by judicial decision.”

                                It is impossible to say what records, in particular, the city and the police are referring to in many parts of the letter. For example, it says it cannot release an individual's criminal history because it would be "not of legitimate concern to the public," because it could be "highly embarrassing," and because it would violate their common-law right to privacy. But the letter does not talk about who the records would be about, why they wouldn't be relevant to the public, or why they would be highly embarrassing.

                                “They claim that the compilation of individuals’ criminal history is highly embarrassing information, which is a strange cover. The embarrassing information is the inept police response,” Christopher Schneider, a professor of sociology at Brandon University who studies police body cameras and the disclosure of footage from them, told Motherboard, noting that suspects' criminal histories are released by the police all the time without anyone having requested them. “They have no problem using information like that against individuals of the public. The information disclosure needs to go both ways, if that’s the case.” Disciplinary or criminal records for members of the police, for example, would be obviously relevant public information in a case in which the police response has been highly criticized. "It’s rather ripe to say any of this is not of legitimate public concern," he added. "The whole country is trying to figure out how to not allow this to happen again."

                                This is a relatively common sort of argument, but it shows yet again that the deck is stacked against the public disclosure of public records when they are inconvenient or embarrassing to the police.

                                “The case that’s being made contains some particularly asinine stonewalling,” Schneider said. “It seems like the city is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks, and seeking a ruling to suppress this information from being released.”

                                Schneider says that lumping together all 148 public records requests, and asking for a legal ruling on everything at once, seems like a tactic to prevent the release of anything and everything.

                                “It appears that they’re conflating all of the information requests as a justification to not release the stuff we should be seeing. If it’s an officer’s email to his wife, yeah, we don’t need to see this. But the body-worn camera footage is of concern. They’re conflating all of this information together to suppress the legitimate stuff,” he said.

                                In his research, Schneider said that body-worn cameras often do not do what they’re supposed to do, which is hold police accountable to the public. This is because public records laws are often written in such a way as to provide wide latitude to police to decide what the public actually gets to see, and allows them to “regain control of the narrative” when it is convenient for them.



                                “It’s not a coincidence journalists run into this problem [of not being able to obtain body camera footage] over and over again,” Schneider said. “The law is by design, the privacy rules are by design to make it absolutely as difficult as possible to release the information.”
                                Last edited by Gondwanaland; 06-18-2022, 07:33 PM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                157 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                373 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X