Elementary School Shooting in Uvalde Texas

JaniceM said:
I had a relative who hunted pheasants, deer, etc., AND it was only for food... but all it took was one of his friends accidentally dying in a hunting accident (by the guy's own gun) that caused the relative and all of his hunting friends to start hunting by bow. Nobody needs those other types of guns to shoot birds, deer, etc., it's just plain idiotic.
Click to expand...
Bow & arrow has very limited range compared to a rifle.
And an animal suffers far more - by bleeding out slowly.
 

Raiders donate $1 million to Uvalde school district to fortify security.​

The Las Vegas Raiders made a $1 million donation to the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District in the wake of the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

Raiders owner Mark Davis presented a $1 million check over a Zoom meeting this week that included UCISD superintendent Hal Harrell, UCISD director of student services Kenneth Mueller and Vann McElroy, a member of the Super Bowl XVIII champion Raiders, who currently resides in Uvalde.

https://www.nfl.com/news/raiders-donate-1-million-to-uvalde-school-district-to-fortify-security
 
PamfromTx said:

Raiders donate $1 million to Uvalde school district to fortify security.​

The Las Vegas Raiders made a $1 million donation to the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District in the wake of the tragic school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

Raiders owner Mark Davis presented a $1 million check over a Zoom meeting this week that included UCISD superintendent Hal Harrell, UCISD director of student services Kenneth Mueller and Vann McElroy, a member of the Super Bowl XVIII champion Raiders, who currently resides in Uvalde.

https://www.nfl.com/news/raiders-donate-1-million-to-uvalde-school-district-to-fortify-security
Click to expand...
It would have been better if the Raiders PERSONALLY hired the people who were doing the work.
When money is indirectly donated, it often doesn't go where it's intended to go due to theft & corruption. Especially a large sum.

Garth Brooks learned that lesson. After his mother died of breast cancer, he donated $500,000.00 to a hospital to build a nice wing that specialized in cancer treatment. The hospital administrators pocketed the money & never built the center. Brooks sued & the judge awarded TWICE the amount to send a message to the thieves.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-suit-against-hospital-idINTRE80O0BS20120125
 
The police chief, Arredondo, has been placed on administrative leave, as his total failure during the crisis keeps coming to light. I don't know why they didn't just fire him. He should leave the area for his own safety, if I was one of the parents I'm not sure he would be safe from me.
 
Della said:
The police chief, Arredondo, has been placed on administrative leave, as his total failure during the crisis keeps coming to light. I don't know why they didn't just fire him. He should leave the area for his own safety, if I was one of the parents I'm not sure he would be safe from me.
Click to expand...

When in America did we decide that police officers should be/become sacrificial lambs ? Under law & oath they are not required to protect anyone.

See below:

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/

Who decided that a students life has more value than that of a police officer ?

Would you want an officer that might be a loved one, to just go in shooting? with no tactical approach ? How many kids might that have killed in the crossfire, not one of us knows, because none of us were there.

Those officers families wanted them to home at the end of that day .... just as much as those parents wanted their children to . There is no difference .... they are all human life. I for one do not wish to start trading one for the other.
 
Nobody wanted them to "just go in shooting." I expect police to be good enough shots not to kill kids in the crossfire, particularly when the kids were on the other side of the room from the shooter. Most of the police were wearing vests and a few had shields. They shouldn't need 77 minutes to form a tactical approach.

If they're just going to stand around saying, "Ooo it looks dangerous in there, I'm not going in," then they should find another job and quit collecting regular pay as police who tell us they aim to serve and protect citizens.

rgp said:
How many kids might that have killed in the crossfire, not one of us knows, because none of us were there.
Click to expand...


We know how many kids died when the police weren't there. In one classroom 100% of the children were shot to death, none of them had a tactical plan, a bullet proof vest, a shield or a gun.

rgp said:
Those officers families wanted them to home at the end of that day .... just as much as those parents wanted their children to .
Click to expand...
I doubt that.
 
Della said:
Nobody wanted them to "just go in shooting." I expect police to be good enough shots not to kill kids in the crossfire, particularly when the kids were on the other side of the room from the shooter. Most of the police were wearing vests and a few had shields. They shouldn't need 77 minutes to form a tactical approach.

If they're just going to stand around saying, "Ooo it looks dangerous in there, I'm not going in," then they should find another job and quit collecting regular pay as police who tell us they aim to serve and protect citizens.




We know how many kids died when the police weren't there. In one classroom 100% of the children were shot to death, none of them had a tactical plan, a bullet proof vest, a shield or a gun.


I doubt that.
Click to expand...

" I doubt that " ..... You doubt that the officers families wanted them to come home that day ?
 
rgp said:
When in America did we decide that police officers should be/become sacrificial lambs ? Under law & oath they are not required to protect anyone.

See below:

https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again

https://prospect.org/justice/police-have-no-duty-to-protect-the-public/

Who decided that a students life has more value than that of a police officer ?

Would you want an officer that might be a loved one, to just go in shooting? with no tactical approach ? How many kids might that have killed in the crossfire, not one of us knows, because none of us were there.

Those officers families wanted them to home at the end of that day .... just as much as those parents wanted their children to . There is no difference .... they are all human life. I for one do not wish to start trading one for the other.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can explain the sign on every police vehicle here that says "To Protect And Serve."
Perhaps you can also explain why police officers are thought of as heroes.
Perhaps you can explain what police officers are paid for.
 
win231 said:
Perhaps you can explain the sign on every police vehicle here that says "To Protect And Serve."
Perhaps you can also explain why police officers are thought of as heroes.
Perhaps you can explain what police officers are paid for.
Click to expand...
That's how it used to be before the police became militarized. Now they see the public as the enemy. We see that all over the country whenever there are protests — even peaceful protests.
 
win231 said:
Perhaps you can explain the sign on every police vehicle here that says "To Protect And Serve."
Perhaps you can also explain why police officers are thought of as heroes.
Perhaps you can explain what police officers are paid for.
Click to expand...

"Protect and Serve".......... is a broad brush slogan. Did you read the links I posted ?

I don't think of them as heroes ......... unless they do something heroic

They are paid to patrol ..... to deter crime by their presence , to enforce law , and to investigate when a law has been broken. And to arrest those that break those laws.

They are not paid to "take a bullet" for anyone.
 
Della said:
Nobody wanted them to "just go in shooting." I expect police to be good enough shots not to kill kids in the crossfire, particularly when the kids were on the other side of the room from the shooter. Most of the police were wearing vests and a few had shields. They shouldn't need 77 minutes to form a tactical approach.

If they're just going to stand around saying, "Ooo it looks dangerous in there, I'm not going in," then they should find another job and quit collecting regular pay as police who tell us they aim to serve and protect citizens.




We know how many kids died when the police weren't there. In one classroom 100% of the children were shot to death, none of them had a tactical plan, a bullet proof vest, a shield or a gun.


I doubt that.
Click to expand...

"I expect police to be good enough shots not to kill kids in the crossfire, particularly when the kids were on the other side of the room from the shooter. Most of the police were wearing vests and a few had shields. They shouldn't need 77 minutes to form a tactical approach."

So ...... You were there ? And know exactly how the situation should have been approached ?
 
rgp said:
" I doubt that " ..... You doubt that the officers families wanted them to come home that day ?
Click to expand...
You left out the last half of your own sentence, which ended with "just as much as those parents wanted their children to."

I don't doubt that the officers families love them and would be heartbroken if the didn't come home -- but probably not quite as devastated as the parents of young children. Many, many grieving parents have said it's the very worst pain. Individuals will vary of course.
rgp said:
They are paid to patrol ..... to deter crime by their presence , to enforce law , and to investigate when a law has been broken. And to arrest those that break those laws.
Click to expand...
How can they deter crime with their presence if criminals learn not to expect them to actually do anything? How can they enforce the law if they refuse to enter a room where someone is breaking the law?
rgp said:
So ...... You were there ? And know exactly how the situation should have been approached ?
Click to expand...
I've read quite a few detailed accounts by teachers and children who were there. I've also heard police experts say that the active shooter guidelines say that the first thing police should do is find and engage the shooter.
 
Della said:
You left out the last half of your own sentence, which ended with "just as much as those parents wanted their children to."

I don't doubt that the officers families love them and would be heartbroken if the didn't come home -- but probably not quite as devastated as the parents of young children. Many, many grieving parents have said it's the very worst pain. Individuals will vary of course.

How can they deter crime with their presence if criminals learn not to expect them to actually do anything? How can they enforce the law if they refuse to enter a room where someone is breaking the law?

I've read quite a few detailed accounts by teachers and children who were there. I've also heard police experts say that the active shooter guidelines say that the first thing police should do is find and engage the shooter.
Click to expand...

I do not pretend to know what the level of devastation is for anyone but myself. I can't feel your pain. A police officers wife/mother ..... family may indeed be just as devastated.

"How can they deter crime with their presence if criminals learn not to expect them to actually do anything? How can they enforce the law if they refuse to enter a room where someone is breaking the law?"

Hard to argue that actually but ......... When they do "do" something the public & the media vilify what they do . The criminals have no fear of police because they know the police are hobbled by the current state in our nation.

I'll say it again ..... police officers are not required to take a bullet for anyone ....child or not.
 
rgp said:
"Protect and Serve".......... is a broad brush slogan. Did you read the links I posted ?

I don't think of them as heroes ......... unless they do something heroic

They are paid to patrol ..... to deter crime by their presence , to enforce law , and to investigate when a law has been broken. And to arrest those that break those laws.

They are not paid to "take a bullet" for anyone.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are not paid to "Take a Bullet." They wouldn't have taken any bullets. Just an empty excuse for apathy & incompetence.
They have all the necessary equipment at their disposal (I posted previously about) to prevent them from "Taking a Bullet."
 
rgp said:
"I expect police to be good enough shots not to kill kids in the crossfire, particularly when the kids were on the other side of the room from the shooter. Most of the police were wearing vests and a few had shields. They shouldn't need 77 minutes to form a tactical approach."

So ...... You were there ? And know exactly how the situation should have been approached ?
Click to expand...
^^^^ Such desperation to justify apathy & incompetence.
 
win231 said:
Yes, they are not paid to "Take a Bullet." They wouldn't have taken any bullets. Just an empty excuse for apathy & incompetence.
They have all the necessary equipment at their disposal (I posted previously about) to prevent them from "Taking a Bullet."
Click to expand...

So .......... you are an expert in police tactics ? Again I''ll ask .... do you think the police should take/be prepared to take a bullet for you ? for anyone ?
 
Why on earth did so many law enforcement personnel show up if not to save lives/kill the shooter? That part confuses and angers me.

There were Uvalde policemen, DPS, DEA, Border Patrol and they stood and did nothing for all those minutes.

[The law enforcement sure didn't waste time or hesitate in killing the late George Floyd and many others.]

I am not defending Arredondo but am thinking they are using him as a scapegoat to cover up the inadequate actions of many law enforcement agencies.

Don't get annoyed with me. As I said earlier, I don't understand it at all.
 
Last edited:
PamfromTx said:
Why on earth did so many law enforcement personnel show up if not to save lives/kill the shooter?
Click to expand...
It is all part of the great plan and reset etc etc etc .

They get paid for showing up, a lot of them get paid overtime,

and their supervisors and up to the governor likely makes thousands more also.
 
rgp said:
So .......... you are an expert in police tactics ? Again I''ll ask .... do you think the police should take/be prepared to take a bullet for you ? for anyone ?
Click to expand...
Their primary concern should be to stop the massacre. There is the risk of taking a bullet, just like construction workers run the risk of falling off a roof, and truck drivers run the risk of getting into an accident.

Police work is far from the most dangerous occupation. If they aren't willing to risk getting hurt to save defenseless children, they should find another line of work.
 
SeniorBen said:
Their primary concern should be to stop the massacre. There is the risk of taking a bullet, just like construction workers run the risk of falling off a roof, and truck drivers run the risk of getting into an accident.

Police work is far from the most dangerous occupation. If they aren't willing to risk getting hurt to save defenseless children, they should find another line of work.
Click to expand...


Their [the cops] primary concern is to protect themselves ..... Then try to position themselves in a tactical position to shoot the gunman .

Truck drivers & construction workers take every precaution to "protect" themselves . They do not push it to the limit ....

They [cops] do not respond with a Dirty Harry mentality, that is Hollywood crap, that has in my opinion brainwashed a percentage of the masses.

And once again, they are not required to "protect" the public ..... see the links i posted earlier. And IMO trading one life for another , is not something I can support.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top