In my opinion, this school shooting shows that Police Dept.....

still by and large do not have a clue as to how to handle school shootings. The more we learn about the law enforcement response on Tuesday.

1) Police got there quickly enough.
2) No one seemed to be in charge though.
3) The police apparently stood around for the better part of an hour before killing the gunman while wounded children certainly bled out.
4) It sounds like police departments have adopted the equivalent of fire department strategies when fighting major structural fire. "Surround and drown". A strategy who goal is above all NOT to endanger any of the firefighters.
5) I think that the "police reform or defund the police" movements have resulted in police being extremely risk adverse.

Just my thoughts.

 

And they won't in Texas where the governor's ONLY solution is "thoughts and prayers".

 

What if that's all that can be done?

 

Lock the f'ing doors once school starts. This latest school shooting the shooter was able to walk right in like he belonged there.

 

It's not.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/how-to-ban-guns-without-firing-a-single-shot.600040/

 

I might be wrong but I heard them say the shootings began just after recess ended. I suspect the doors were unlocked so kids could come back in after recess ended and that the duty teacher (as most duty teachers do) came in directly so she could race the kids to her classroom and neglected to relock the door.

 

It was noted after Columbine that more than 90% of SWAT team call outs were to serve warrants on suspected drug traffickers. So it noted that "no policer is going to risk his/her life on behalf of a drug dealer".

 

You just got through whining about the police not doing enough!

Now, you're OK with the response being "thoughts and prayers"??

 

THERE you go!!! It's not the guns, it's the TEACHERS!

How come it took so long to come to that conclusion?

 

I can do both.

 

When I was a firefighter, we were drilled to always remember the following credo- "Its not my emergency." Meaning exactly what you said, 'dont risk your life for others' because then there wont be anyone to help the next emergency.

Of course, it really does just boil down to money. Injuries are expensive. So is training new emergency responders and so is keeping spare personel on staff to replace the injured. The lawyers and the bean counters are in charge of all our emergency services, including police, and they train with an emphasis on loss prevention for their agency, not the public at large. This equates to the 'surround and drown' policies you mentioned, which in law enforcement translate to 'surround and wait for SWAT.' Which is the smart call when the budget is the primary concern, which it always is for the people who make policy.

I dont think theres an easy answer. The alternative to these practices is spending a lot more money on police, which isnt popular in any demographic.

FTR, I would not have waited for SWAT while people were dying. Might be part of why Im not an emergency responder anymore...

 

True.

It's a general policy decision concerning how much protection a community, state, etc., chooses to afford.

And, decisions have to consider the full community budget and revenue.

 

That's not on the governor. That's sadly in this case on the local government. Governor's be the Republica or Democrats have exactly zero say so over local authorities.

 

Actually due to some quirks in the Texas State Govt. the governor of Texas actually has far less direct power than most governors. A lot of the power of the Texas Executive branch is centered in the Lt. Governors office.

 

That is simply inaccurate. The Governor can enact many actions to make law enforcement's job less difficult. Some of the proposals on the OP can also be enacted by governors. However, their impact is very limited if they are not enacted at a federal level.

 

Of course. Every school I ever taught in locked all the doors except for the main entry doors next to the office.

 

We need laws establishing a new tort. "“Failure to protect,” when those charged with public safety fail to reasonably do their jobs. Current case law says there’s no right to police protection, but that’s just case law. I’d hold cops and the municipalities that employ them jointly and severally liable for reckless or willful failure to protect. With triple damages when they stop others from doing so."

With that in place the loss control of their insurers will require and confirm that they have the right policies, training and disciplinary actions in place to ensure compliance.

 

40% of Uvalde's budget goes to police. How much more do they need to pay in order for them to professionally and proficiently manage an active shooter scene? At a school? They waited around because the shooter was behind a locked door - for which the principal had a key (that they finally figured out after an hour).

 

It appears as though someone was risk averse. Didn't any of the police have an urge to protect the children? Were they ordered to stand back?

When someone is undoubtedly killing children in a school? I can see police not taking chances under some circumstances given the catch-and-release approach our society has adopted for some crimes.

 

Individual teachers may not have a key to school entry doors.

 

"good guys with guns" in a school setting DO NOT think about killing a bad guy who is hurting children. "Good guys with guns"worry about killing a child by mistake. A mistake that would stick with them the rest of their lives.

 

That ain't is bogus. Governor's do not enact legislation. Even state legislators have only limited control. The best they can do is attach strings to funding from the state but if the locals tell them to take the money and shove it's pretty much over unless they can prove malfeasance, corruption or other serious law breaking. The constitution pretty much ties their hands.

 

If schools become untenable targets due to increased security, shooters will find other targets. There's no shortage of them. The fundamental problem is the proliferation and easy access to fire arms.

 

My post was not intended to be critical of police action.

There are limits that every municipality faces when it comes to safety and emergency. That's true for large cities as well.

 

I've asked women who decry violence... "What if they were hurting your child? Could you kill them?"

"That's different," they reply!

Humans have an urge to protect children. We're very careful not to drop and infant. School teachers get between a shooter and children they teach.

I'm truly shocked by what appears as almost inexplicable events at the Texas elementary school. How could the police let the sicko kill those kids?