Elementary School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

Yes, I read your post and looked up the case @rgp. I doubt cops know it though, or have it in mind. Case said "protect" the community, though. The school was a community school. Case said "protect" the government--a school is a government entity.

Generally, people who become cops do so out of a desire to do good, not to do nothing. Don't become a cop if your heart isn't in the work. Ex cons would have stood their ground that day. Maybe hire protection from gangs instead, if cops won't do it. However, this has never been an issue in national attention. This kind of thing I don't think happened before. I don't know.

Yes, I had interesting times in my various careers!
 

Yes, I read your post and looked up the case @rgp. I doubt cops know it though, or have it in mind. Case said "protect" the community, though. The school was a community school. Case said "protect" the government--a school is a government entity.

Generally, people who become cops do so out of a desire to do good, not to do nothing. Don't become a cop if your heart isn't in the work. Ex cons would have stood their ground that day. Maybe hire protection from gangs instead, if cops won't do it. However, this has never been an issue in national attention. This kind of thing I don't think happened before. I don't know.

Yes, I had interesting times in my various careers!


" Case said "protect" the government--a school is a government entity."

The paragraph I posted said ......

"police agencies are not obligated to provide protection of citizens. In other words, police are well within their rights to pick and choose when to intervene to protect"

It never mentioned 'government'
 
"In particular, it reasoned that a provision that gave police officers qualified immunity in connection with their enforcement of restraining orders.......but rather examined the statute’s text and legislative history and distinguished arguably relevant Colorado case law."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278

It's been many years since I read legal documents. Perhaps @WheatenLover could see this and interpret it for me. I worked in Family Court as a Paralegal but I don't remember much. I'd have to study it. I wish I wanted to............
 

"In particular, it reasoned that a provision that gave police officers qualified immunity in connection with their enforcement of restraining orders.......but rather examined the statute’s text and legislative history and distinguished arguably relevant Colorado case law."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278

It's been many years since I read legal documents. Perhaps @WheatenLover could see this and interpret it for me. I worked in Family Court as a Paralegal but I don't remember much. I'd have to study it. I wish I wanted to............
The case cited is simply a recitation of law that there is no federal constitutional "Duty to protect", unless, as I have stated before, a "Special relationship" is established. The question is, is a SR established when police respond to a call, are on the premises, and are aware a shooter is inside? Does that create a "Duty to protect/rescue"? Lawyers will be analyzing this.

Now, that is federal constitutional law. A State is free to enact laws such as duty to protect, or like Ohio has, Dereliction of Duty.

This may help?

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/l...y-and-the-special-relationship-doctrine-38303
 
Just like "fake news" a few years ago,
"fake statistics" today. We learned decades ago in h.s. and college that statistics can be made to show whatever is wanted to be shown, instead of the truth. The governments and political, financial and medical powers in place refust the truth - they won't tell it, and they won't protect it, and they squish any one when they can who speaks truth to power.
And I taught the same lesson to my Year 8 maths classes, except that we looked at how statistical data can be misrepresented graphically. I am not so naive as to believe every bit of nonsense dressed up as statistics, but properly collected data by reputable agencies can be relied on to give a true picture of whatever is being studied.

By the way, your last sentence does sound just a tad paranoid.
 
If birds are killed for food, that's one thing. If birds are killed for no reason other than killing, well, that's something else, don't you think?

win231 said:
I don't hunt either. But actually, anyone who eats chicken or turkey contributes to killing birds. Not much difference, is there?
If birds are killed for food, that's one thing. If birds are killed for no reason other than killing, well, that's something else, don't you think?

This is a distraction but the reference to slaughter houses is pertinent. Slaughter of animals is subject to legislation and regulation to reduce pain and suffering of the animals. Slaughter of children in their classrooms is not.

If the 2nd Amendment prevents any action being taken to prevent such slaughter, could we please have some laws requiring humane killing of unarmed children and people at worship- e.g. a single shot to the temple?

Of course my question is rhetorical. No need to provide an answer but I posed it to bring the focus back to the real issue. What is going to be done about the problem of gun violence against human beings, in particular American children at school? I cannot get over the fact that one little girl could only be identified by the shoes she was wearing. Her face was blown to pieces by the semi automatic weapon. I cannot imagine the pain of the parents who had to bury their daughter in that condition.

Please don't tell me that once again nothing will change.
 
That may be a good point , and can you remember a good example where action was taken locally or nationally or in other country ?
I cannot remember a case where our police have ever needed to go in to rescue school children being murdered by a gunman. It isn't part of our culture to enter a school, church or office building with guns blazing.

Drive by shootings by criminal gangs are what our police have to deal with. Not sure what kind of guns they use though.
 
By the way, your last sentence does sound just a tad paranoid.
Look throughout all history. When anyone spoke against the ones in power, they very often, not always maybe, suffered retribution, often extinction. The 'victor' or the powerful is able to extinguish life with little or not consequence in this world, and it happens every day.
Here's the first, a mild one, example of what happens to whistle-blowers speaking the truth out ....
------------------------
“I feel sad to see how extremely corrupt Sweden has become today. Unfortunately, my lovely children pay the highest price again for this extreme pressure against them from Swedish authorities. My children lost their home, their friends, school, their father, and everything else important in life,” said Victor X.
"Lawrence Schoenbach, the famed New York attorney and one of Victor’s lawyers for the lawsuit, responded to the Swedish government’s actions.

“When truth speaks to power, the powerful react, as here, like a wounded animal,” he said.

"Whistleblowers come forward because they feel a sense of obligation to right a wrong. Those who do are often subject to far greater scrutiny. According to a $4.2 billion lawsuit Victor filed in New York, Swedish government authorities – accused of participating in a $150 billion money-laundering scheme – have harassed Victor and his companies almost immediately after he reported financial malfeasance by Swedish financial firms and government regulatory agencies."
 
"In particular, it reasoned that a provision that gave police officers qualified immunity in connection with their enforcement of restraining orders.......but rather examined the statute’s text and legislative history and distinguished arguably relevant Colorado case law."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278

It's been many years since I read legal documents. Perhaps @WheatenLover could see this and interpret it for me. I worked in Family Court as a Paralegal but I don't remember much. I'd have to study it. I wish I wanted to............


Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, a government actor is not subject to liability unless it is "sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would have understood that his conduct violated the right."

The statute details procedures in enforcing a restraining order, but those procedures are not mandatory. Therefore, the government is not subject to liability. Another issue is whether the children were property, which they were not, under the due process law. Part of the discussion centered around how the restraining order was issued in a civil case (divorce), not a criminal one. Part of the discussion was that the mother wanted the husband arrested for violating the order (not mandatory) and the police did not know where the husband was.

So when something like this case happens, sometimes the legislature changes the statute. It is worth noting that an issue was brought up about how the courts would be overrun with cases, and the police would have too many duties, to make having restraining orders offer personal protection ... something along those lines. This is probably true.

This is a very simplified discussion. If you have more questions, ask them. Otherwise I can write a short book on this, and get far afield from the case at hand. Believe me, you do not want that.

You likely realize this, but only facts and the law matter on appeal ... not emotions about the facts of the case. This case had horrific facts, as do many.

This is the actual court of appeals opinion: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3328550146402608786&q="366+F.3d+1093"&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
 
Last edited:
Look throughout all history. When anyone spoke against the ones in power, they very often, not always maybe, suffered retribution, often extinction. The 'victor' or the powerful is able to extinguish life with little or not consequence in this world, and it happens every day.
Here's the first, a mild one, example of what happens to whistle-blowers speaking the truth out ....
------------------------
“I feel sad to see how extremely corrupt Sweden has become today. Unfortunately, my lovely children pay the highest price again for this extreme pressure against them from Swedish authorities. My children lost their home, their friends, school, their father, and everything else important in life,” said Victor X.
"Lawrence Schoenbach, the famed New York attorney and one of Victor’s lawyers for the lawsuit, responded to the Swedish government’s actions.

“When truth speaks to power, the powerful react, as here, like a wounded animal,” he said.

"Whistleblowers come forward because they feel a sense of obligation to right a wrong. Those who do are often subject to far greater scrutiny. According to a $4.2 billion lawsuit Victor filed in New York, Swedish government authorities – accused of participating in a $150 billion money-laundering scheme – have harassed Victor and his companies almost immediately after he reported financial malfeasance by Swedish financial firms and government regulatory agencies."
I and neither Swedish not American. I presume that Victor is still alive but cannot draw any other conclusions from the scant details in your post. To what authority did he report his knowledge of financial malfeasance and what happened afterwards?

In second thought, belay that because this thread is about a massacre in an elementary school.
We should stick to the topic because it is a very important issue.
 
salvador-ramos-uvalde-suspect1.jpg

Salvador Ramos was named as the 18-year-old suspect in the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, that left 15 people dead – including 14 students and a teacher, according to the governor.


I detest this face with a passion. I am sorry. I've heard so much about how he carried out the killings and it breaks my heart more and more. His famous words, "Are you ready to die?" I kid you not. Children were hiding behind curtains and of course he saw their legs feet. 😭

I just hope he received a total of 21 gunshots himself for those 21 who lost their lives. This is so not me; I just can't forget how these children were killed.
 
Last edited:
I cannot remember a case where our police have ever needed to go in to rescue school children being murdered by a gunman. It isn't part of our culture to enter a school, church or office building with guns blazing.

Drive by shootings by criminal gangs are what our police have to deal with. Not sure what kind of guns they use though.
Bath, MI School Mass Murder - 1927
The Bath Consolidated School just outside East Lansing, Mich., was holding final exams, but before the morning bell rang on May 18, 1927, children ran and played outside. Peals of laughter could be heard.
“Little did their young minds, as the rest of ours, fancy their destiny was at hand … perhaps in half an hour they would rest in eternity with their playmates,” a 15-year-old student name Martha Hintz later recalled in an essay.

Later that morning, once students and teachers had settled into their classrooms, an explosion brought walls and ceilings down. The school had been dynamited by an angry school board member, but no one knew that yet. The only thing certain was that children and educators were hurt and others were dead or dying.
“We began to run screaming and crying in the same breath, some running for the door while others made for the windows,” Hintz, a ninth-grader, wrote in an essay published in a book titled, “The Bath School Disaster.” Once outside, she recalled: “From every direction, we could see people coming, some running at their utmost speed, and others driving machines, both hoping and praying that their children or friends were not among the dead.”
After each school killing, there is an urge to capture its magnitude in superlatives. That happened after the 2007 shooting at Virginia Tech, in which senior Seung Hui Cho killed 32 people and then himself. Media outlets at the time — and as recently as 2015 — described the event as the country’s “worst school massacre.” One Virginia newspaper ran a headline with the phrase: “Nation’s Worst Rampage.”

But they were wrong. As horrific and devastating as that April 16, 2007, day proved, it was not the worst mass killing on a school campus.
That distinction belongs to the mostly forgotten, harrowing explosion at Bath Consolidated School 95 years ago. That day, local farmer Andrew Kehoe, angry about taxes used to fund the school, killed his wife and then blew up the building before doing the same to his car as he sat inside it. In total, 45 people were killed, among them 38 children.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/24/bath-consolidated-school-massacre-uvalde/
 
1927 is nearly a century ago. It hasn't become a trend, or am I mistaken?

Note that I have edited the number of school shootings. The number is 27, not several hundred. The number of mass shootings is 246, hence the confusion.

I believe there have been 27 school shootings in just the first 5 months of 2022.
A lot of deaths have probably accumulated with so many shootings.
Even so, it isn't only the deaths that are important. I don't think I would be the same if I, or any of my loved ones, were to take a bullet or two while at work or in school. It is unthinkable in my mind.
 
Last edited:
The Wall Street Journal has an article today linking increased marijuana use and the increase in violent crime.

They mention a book I read a few years ago called, "Tell Your Children" that warns about violent episodes in some young people after using it. They say the Uvalde killer began his episode by shooting his grandmother because she was complaining about how much of it the used.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cannab...se-thc-shootings-psychosis-mental-11654540197
 
If birds are killed for food, that's one thing. If birds are killed for no reason other than killing, well, that's something else, don't you think?

This is a distraction but the reference to slaughter houses is pertinent. Slaughter of animals is subject to legislation and regulation to reduce pain and suffering of the animals. Slaughter of children in their classrooms is not.

If the 2nd Amendment prevents any action being taken to prevent such slaughter, could we please have some laws requiring humane killing of unarmed children and people at worship- e.g. a single shot to the temple?

Of course my question is rhetorical. No need to provide an answer but I posed it to bring the focus back to the real issue. What is going to be done about the problem of gun violence against human beings, in particular American children at school? I cannot get over the fact that one little girl could only be identified by the shoes she was wearing. Her face was blown to pieces by the semi automatic weapon. I cannot imagine the pain of the parents who had to bury their daughter in that condition.

Please don't tell me that once again nothing will change.
Every time I think locals can't come up with anything stupider, they prove me wrong:

“In terms of raising the age of semi-automatic rifles, at least what we see with our customer base, these are a lot of people who are using these things for hunting with their Dad or Grandpa in the state,” said Ethan Settle, the store manager at Crossroads Shooting Sports in Johnston. “So changing the law or any of these proposed changes I see as an infringement on the 2nd amendment.”
Settle added that he would be against any type of gun restrictions, saying that it attacks citizen’s unalienable rights
.
https://who13.com/news/iowa-leaders-divided-on-acting-to-curb-gun-violence/


18-year-olds (& 19&20) can no longer buy a pack of cigarettes, but can legally buy semi-automatic weapons...
 
The Wall Street Journal has an article today linking increased marijuana use and the increase in violent crime.

They mention a book I read a few years ago called, "Tell Your Children" that warns about violent episodes in some young people after using it. They say the Uvalde killer began his episode by shooting his grandmother because she was complaining about how much of it the used.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cannab...se-thc-shootings-psychosis-mental-11654540197

OK, first let me say I am not arguing with you ............ But ... in my younger years I was pretty much a bar-fly in that I was single & I just hung out . If not in my shop working on a project ....... I was up the street at my favorite place . I knew a lot of people that liked to get "high" Due to my job, I have never touched an illicit drug in my life. I was the drug "czar" at work ...... meaning I was the guy that took others for random test ..... as such I dare not break the rule.

I said I am not arguing , and I am not but ........ I just dissagree with the so called findings.

The bar folks that I knew back then that liked pot were some of the most laid back people I ever met.

Drunks ??? Yes, drunks will fight at the drop of the hat, and some just get mean. But again, every pot smoker that I knew was pertty mellow.

Maybe I'm wrong ? As I have no medical background , just sharing life experiences.
 
The mellow folks we knew @rgp were people in their twenties, right? I am not sure what kind of effect it may have on someone who starts at 12 or so, which more kids seem to today. It's also a hell of a lot better stuff out there today.
Image result for i learned it by watching you meme
 
My dad was a pheasant hunter and owned a semi-auto shotgun. Nice weapon, but a double barrel or pump would do. If that doesn't work for you, too bad. Personally, I feed birds, I don't hunt them.
As I said, those that don't hunt, do not understand what I am saying! You only proved my point!
 

Back
Top