When Seconds Count The Police are only minutes away

[Tennessee Gentleman]

With the release of the Texas House Committee Report https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/uva...ort/index.html on the Uvalde police response to the active shooter at Robb Elementary what tack do you think the gun community should take?

By that I mean, do we play up the failures of the police in these situations while pointing out the good Samaritan in Indiana who just recently took out a mall shooter and risk alienating the police by implying they are not ready for prime time? Or can we state that we are the best substitute when the police aren't there?

It seems the media is not linking the idea of a good guy with a gun (not police) to the police either not being able OR willing to engage a mass shooter.

This seems missing in the national conversation.

[zukiphile]

I wouldn't use police incompetence opportunistically. It's a fact of life, but building broad policy on it can be destructive as often as it's constructive.

I think the aphorism that is your thread title makes the point well. Given the best police with the best training and devotion to duty, they still aren't omnipresent.

A world in which government agents are so numerous that people think individuals don't need an effective method of self-defense is a world broken in several different ways.

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't think we should focus on Uvalde, where almost 400 LEOs responded by the time the incident was ended. I think the focus should be on all the incidents where the events were played out before the police even arrived. Sandy Hook is one example. Columbine is actually another. They had a police response within minutes, but the police didn't even enter the building until more than an hour after the two perps had committed suicide.

In fairness, though, it was Columbine that led to law enforcement revising their S.O.P. for active shooter situations. At Columbine the official tactic was to establish a perimeter and "contain" the shooter(s). This was revised following Columbine to today's standard, which calls for the first officer or officers on the scene to move immediately toward the gunfire and attempt to neutralize or at least distract the shooter(s).

But they can't do that until they arrive. Many mass shooting incidents see all the casualties within the first five minutes. Obviously, even if the first officer arrives in 5-1/2 minutes, he/she is 30 seconds too late.

If we don't limit the discussion specifically to schools, it can also mention the church shooting in Colorado, where the shooter was taken out by a former police woman who was acting as a civilian volunteer security team member. We can also mention the more recent church shooting (not Sutherland Springs), where a member of the church volunteer security team neutralized the shooter after he had shot (IIRC) just one member of the congregation (another member of the security team). I'm sure there have been other incidents where the incident was over before the cavalry arrived.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Good comments from both and just today I saw an article that sort of addresses this but not as I would like. https://lmtribune.com/editors_pick/r...8ed838683.html

However, it seems that Uvalde raises another point about the willingness of LEOs to engage a shooter even when they are there.

Here was an interesting take on police training and their psychology https://youtu.be/N4O8nJV6cHo

So, will police competence now become part of the narrative for justifying CCW? Should it?

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

I don't think we should focus on Uvalde

What about Marjorie Stoneman then? Is a pattern emerging? I'm aware of the training shift for active shooters. Some time back I participated as a role player in such training for our local police department (once I also drank alcohol for our city police training but I digress) and saw the changes. But if the police are not willing to execute it then what?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

What about Marjorie Stoneman then? Is a pattern emerging? I'm aware of the training shift for active shooters. Some time back I participated as a role player in such training for our local police department (once I also drank alcohol for our city police training but I digress) and saw the changes. But if the police are not willing to execute it then what?

That's a problem. The retired officers I have spoken with about Uvalde have uniformly and vociferously condemned the delayed response at Uvalde. But -- these are former officers who are a couple of thousand miles away and who are now relieved of any possibility of being in the situation of being the first responder to an active shooter, so it's easier to reiterate what the protocol is.

What I noticed is that the ALERRT after-action report, in discussing what the response is supposed to be, specifically comments that the proper response may result in one or more of the first responding officers being wounded or killed. That doesn't fit in with the current attitude of most cops that the most important thing is to go home at the end of the shift. That "go home at the end of the shift" attitude is obviously what caused the delayed engagement at Uvalde. The ALERRT report comments on that. The report points out that the officers entered the school and went to the classroom door -- but then they retreated rather than move forward (or even attempt to do so).

Police work can be dangerous. I freely admit that I wouldn't want to do it, even if I weren't far to old to consider it. My opinion is that those who think the first priority is to go home at the end of their shift should NOT be police officers.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

That's a problem. The retired officers I have spoken with about Uvalde have uniformly and vociferously condemned the delayed response at Uvalde. But -- these are former officers who are a couple of thousand miles away and who are now relieved of any possibility of being in the situation of being the first responder to an active shooter, so it's easier to reiterate what the protocol is.

You are getting at my point. The link I provided with the psychologist talks about that exactly. Police are trained to be defensive. They ain't soldiers and we don't want them to be. I think staff at that school are more inclined to intervene than police since they know these kids. Therefore, they should be armed since they would be the first responders. This would have to be coordinated with local PD but wouldn't that make more sense?

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

My opinion is that those who think the first priority is to go home at the end of their shift should NOT be police officers.

Aye there's the rub. Hard to find those types I believe. At the end of the day as many wiser than me have said. YOU are ultimately responsible for your own safety.

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

That "go home at the end of the shift" attitude is obviously what caused the delayed engagement at Uvalde.

My experience is mostly with northern municipal police departments, so there may be some regional differences that wouldn't translate. I wouldn't expect a sacrificial mindset from a municipal worker serving under a collective bargaining agreement.

A couple of things make this episode difficult to assess dispassionately. It involved children, and with hindsight we know that these men were just a few steps away from doing a lot of good, and chose a zero risk option for a long time while the children in the room bore the entire risk. I can write that we shouldn't charge these men with perfect knowledge of what was on the other side of the door (this school had no windows?), but it's still hard to believe.

If I were one of the POs captured on the interior video, I'd worry about retribution from a parent.


After Newtown, we heard about teachers who offered their bodies to soak up some bullets in protecting their students. People still snicker at the idea of allowing teachers to carry concealed, but it's difficult to imagine a teacher doing less for a longer time than the POs at Uvalde.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by zukiphile

A couple of things make this episode difficult to assess dispassionately. It involved children, and with hindsight we know that these men were just a few steps away from doing a lot of good, and chose a zero risk option for a long time while the children in the room bore the entire risk. I can write that we shouldn't charge these men with perfect knowledge of what was on the other side of the door (this school had no windows?), but it's still hard to believe.

The school had windows in each classroom. The ALERRT report discusses the fact that nobody thought of either going after the shooter through a window, or using the windows as a distraction while breaching the door.

Chief Arredondo made a big deal out of claiming that the door and frame were reinforced steel. In a school building that used sheetrock for the interior walls, I very much doubt that either the doors or the frames were in any way reinforced. I'm sure they were just standard, commercial doors and frames. They opened out toward the corridor because that's what building and fire codes require in schools -- egress doors must swing in the direction of egress traffic. I don't know how effective a Halligan would be on a door like that. What I haven't seen discussed at all is whether a standard 12-gauge breeching round would work on a classroom door lock in a hollow steel door. I rather expect that it (the breeching round) would have worked just as intended.

After Newtown, we heard about teachers who offered their bodies to soak up some bullets in protecting their students. People still snicker at the idea of allowing teachers to carry concealed, but it's difficult to imagine a teacher doing less for a longer time than the POs at Uvalde.

There was a school shooting more recently than Sandy Hook where a male teacher took one or two rounds while tackling a shooter in his classroom.

Here it is: https://uk.news.yahoo.com/hero-ind-t...MM2v1PMVUJaQJB

You want a hero? THIS guy is a hero. He ran at an armed shooter, and then called his wounded student a hero.

“I’m can’t say enough how proud of [the girl] I am, and how we all should be,” he said. “Her courage and strength at such a young age is nothing short of remarkable, and we should all continue to keep her in our minds as she continues to recover.”

[cdoc42]

The link offered by Tennessee Gentleman was a CNN report and I thought it was interesting (but not a surprise)that the overview presented started from a different page in the 77-page report by concentrating on Law Enforcement first when the real beginning started with a review of the school personnel failures which included WiFi connectivity problems which prevented adequate alert mechanisms to take place, and "chronic" failure to maintain doors and locks, and a school culture that ignored safety policies and locked doors. Most importantly, the west door to the west building and the doors to rooms 111 and 112 were unlocked, allowing the killer access.

The factual conclusions are on pages 70-75, not at the beginning as reported by CNN.
With respect to the police, the major issue was the responders immediately began to assess options to breach the classroom, but lost critical momentum by treating the situation as a "barricaded subject" rather than the more urgent "active shooter" situation.

The committee felt that "Chief Arredondo did not assume his preassigned responsibility of incident command" which led to an overall lackadaisical approach by law enforcement because they were given and relied upon inaccurate information.

So essentially one of 376 police personnel carries the major burden of irresponsibility with respect to law enforcement, but the shortcomings and failures of the school personnel were acknowledged as well, and in my opinion, if we should search for "core" problems, that's where it was and can be corrected, and should not be withheld from the public and replaced by focusing on the police alone.

A prominent statement at the very beginning of the report is rather all-inclusive:

"Other than the attacker, the Committee did not find any "villains" in the course of its investigation." There was no one with malice or ill motives, but they did find "systemic failures and egregious poor decision making."

[44 AMP]

Of course official reports and findings are "what really happened", but do consider what it LOOKS like happened in the eyes of the general public....

300+ ARMED POLICE vs ONE armed bad guy. Sure looks like they were scared to put themselves at risk....

I know this isn't the case, but it sure looks like that to us ignorant folks,.,

[csmsss]

Of course official reports and findings are "what really happened", but do consider what it LOOKS like happened in the eyes of the general public....

300+ ARMED POLICE vs ONE armed bad guy. Sure looks like they were scared to put themselves at risk....

I know this isn't the case, but it sure looks like that to us ignorant folks,.,

I find it impossible to consider the events in any other light. 376 officers on the scene and not one of them could assume any sort of leadership role for nearly an hour and a half? That's cowardice.

[raimius]

I don't think the firearms community should take any cheap shots at the LEO response. It was a tragedy, and it is very poor form to try to gain points off the death of grade schoolers. What is needed, with respect to the Uvalde attack, is accountability for those who failed and better preparation to do better in the future.
Both generally and specifically, armed citizens can and should have a role to play in mitigating such tragedies. At a minimum, people need to be allowed to defend themselves adequately.

[zukiphile]

It's worth repeating that we

should [not] take any cheap shots at the LEO response.

We are generally aware that police don't have a duty to protect anyone individually. That's counter to the intuition of many people, and an example that shows why it isn't wise to rely on them for protection is fair to use.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by raimius

I don't think the firearms community should take any cheap shots at the LEO response. It was a tragedy, and it is very poor form to try to gain points off the death of grade schoolers. What is needed, with respect to the Uvalde attack, is accountability for those who failed and better preparation to do better in the future.

I agree, but I don't think pointing out the egregiously fumbled response at Uvalde is in any way taking cheap shots. To use classic military terminology, they screwed the pooch, and no amount of tip-toeing around the issue can conceal that basic fact. It's a virtual certainty that some of the victims who bled out and died in that classroom could have been saved by prompt medical attention if the LEOs hadn't been dithering in the corridor for more than an hour. I don't regard mentioning that as a cheap shot.

[Mainah]

I don't think the firearms community should take any cheap shots at the LEO response. It was a tragedy, and it is very poor form to try to gain points off the death of grade schoolers. What is needed, with respect to the Uvalde attack, is accountability for those who failed and better preparation to do better in the future.
Both generally and specifically, armed citizens can and should have a role to play in mitigating such tragedies. At a minimum, people need to be allowed to defend themselves adequately.

Uvalde has a population of 15,000 and a police budget of over $4 million. Media reports were inaccurate in describing that as 40% of the town's total budget: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/ex...lice-spending/

Nonetheless that is a huge budget for a small town. It is not a "cheap shot" to point out that they failed when it counted, and failed to follow the post-Columbine protocols.

[thallub]

The Texas DPS announced an internal review of the actions (inactions) of the 90 state troopers who responded to the Uvalde massacre.

"Texas DPS said in a statement the review would "determine if any violations of policy, law, or doctrine occurred" during the response to the attack that killed 19 children and two teachers in a fourth-grade classroom. It said the review was launched last week."

https://www.fox7austin.com/news/texa...oting-response

[Spats McGee]

I agree that we should not take cheap shots at the LEOs present during the Uvalde incident. That said, I don't consider it a cheap shot to point out that they failed, and miserably.

[44 AMP]

Pointing out where someone made a mistake, either as individuals, or as part of a group is not a cheap shot.

IMPLYING that everyone in the group is a moron incapable of coherent thought because someone(s) in that group made mistakes, IS a cheap shot.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So, do we think that the Uvalde AND the Parkland (even though it was just one LEO) is going to be a pattern? In my area the police chief met with the Principals of our school district last week and assured them that his officers "were going in" if they got the call. That is remarkable given the history of our area.

Should we couple Uvalde to the Greenwood IN mall shooting and use that as a talking point to the public that "the police ain't gonna save you so you better look after your own self".

That point has been used before hence the title of my thread but do these incidents make it a stronger argument?

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Should we couple Uvalde to the Greenwood IN mall shooting and use that as a talking point to the public that "the police ain't gonna save you so you better look after your own self".

That point has been used before hence the title of my thread but do these incidents make it a stronger argument?

IMHO, Uvalde isn't a great argument. I don't think we're ever likely to see another school shooting at which FOUR HUNDRED LEOs stand around for over an hour before finally deciding to go after the shooter.

The problem is, that it takes time for police to respond, and it DOESN'T take a lot of time to kill people. The Sandy Hook shooting took just five minutes (9:35 a.m. to 9:40 a.m.). In those five minutes the shooter killed 27 people. The first responding police arrived at the school at 9:40 and head the suicide shot from outside the building.

That's actually a good response time. I don't think the police in my suburban community could respond to our grammar school within five minutes, unless by luck a patrol vehicle happened to be near the school. But five minutes wasn't good enough.

Look at the Greenwood mall. The shooter killed three and wounded two within fifteen SECONDS. The good Samaritan kid was right there in the food court and from all reports he reacted almost instantaneously, and still three people were killed and two others were wounded. That's probably as good as it's ever going to get.

[44 AMP]

That's probably as good as it's ever going to get.

Its not as good as it can possibly get, but you cannot reasonably expect the best possible outcomes as something possible to produce on demand.

Look at the mass shooting, that wasn't, in Charlotte at the end of May, this year. (about the 26th or so).

A guy with an AR-15 opened fire on a block party. A woman at the party, not a cop, not private security, just an armed citizen, drew her pistol and shot him, DRT. NO ONE ELSE was shot. Only the would be killer. Serendipity that the would be killer didn't hit anyone before being stopped, but it did happen.

Never forget that the bad guys ALWAYS have the element of surprise. THEY choose where, and when they open fire. The very best possible is that someone reacts and stops them before they actually harm anyone, it can, and has happened. But you can't count on it happening, only be thankful if it does.

[csmsss]

So, do we think that the Uvalde AND the Parkland (even though it was just one LEO) is going to be a pattern? In my area the police chief met with the Principals of our school district last week and assured them that his officers "were going in" if they got the call. That is remarkable given the history of our area.

Should we couple Uvalde to the Greenwood IN mall shooting and use that as a talking point to the public that "the police ain't gonna save you so you better look after your own self".

That point has been used before hence the title of my thread but do these incidents make it a stronger argument?

Words. Just words that may or may not be lived up to when the fur starts flying. I'm sure all of the agencies involved in the Uvalde shooting would have emitted precisely the same sort of statement in response to the same event happening in a different district. I for one, as much as I might personally like many of the LEO's in my area, take no comfort in their promise to go in harm's way to protect the lives of citizenry. Because in event after event after event, the law enforcement response (both in terms of their tactics/decision-making and effectiveness) to a shooting crisis varies wildly.