When the shooting stops, it can be a hostage situation.
The shooting didn't stop
When the shooting stops, it can be a hostage situation.
No, the private doesn't know if any particular order is a good one or not.So are you telling me that a private in the military has a choice ?
So a private who is not privy to all the information is even in a position to know if his leadership is making a bad call or not?
Get realistic. Good leaders can also make bad calls.
And tell us, how would you breech that door as one of those patrol officers in that hallway ?
Also remember that a hostage negotiator is supposed to be talking/or attempting to the gunman. He is not doing this in the hallway but another location via phone. A SWAT team is there, but you are deciding an entry without them? Get realistic
I think the people of Uvdale would have been better off without a police department.I swear the cops could have been the ones that shot up the place and this guy would defend them.
It did stop. That’s confirmed. It’s the reason it stopped was because he ran out of victims ( or so he thought). But the police didn’t know that. The other shots were at the police or so they thought . There was a huge lull in the gunfire.The shooting didn't stop
That’s because you are believing the media when it comes to this incident. A woman DID NOT jump a fence and save her own kid. That kid was in a building different than the building the shooter was in.I think the people of Uvdale would have been better off without a police department.
If the cops in general don't get their shit straightened out soon, the right are going to be calling for defunding them too.
I doubt that milita idea would have worked any better. How fast could they have responded. The gunman would have moved to a second or third classroom by then. The first officers on the scene contained the gunman to one classroom.I think a well regulated militia, comprised only of local citizens, many of whom would be likely to have children in the school, and several members likely to be employed there, would have delivered a more effective and timely end to the murders than a non-traditional, school board sanctioned police force.
Why is a school district in the police business anyway?
An armed and trained group of parents fearing for the lives of their children, and other selfless community members, wouldn't have waited 45 minutes for someone else to go in. They all would have given their lives, without a second thought, in an attempt to stop the gunman and save their kids.I doubt that milita idea would have worked any better. How fast could they have responded. The gunman would have moved to a second or third classroom by then. The first officers on the scene contained the gunman to one classroom.
What does that milita train for ? Hostage rescue? Is that their primary duty? Then maybe. There is a reason the military leaves such things to tier 3 operators and above to do. And why police /feds use special weapons and tactics teams for such things.
This incident falls on one person. The guy who decided it was now a hostage situation and decided to his a hostage negotiator. A federal SWAT team was there and waiting .
Some of those parents were armed and ready on site and were prevented from going in by that police force.I doubt that milita idea would have worked any better. How fast could they have responded. The gunman would have moved to a second or third classroom by then. The first officers on the scene contained the gunman to one classroom.
What does that milita train for ? Hostage rescue? Is that their primary duty? Then maybe. There is a reason the military leaves such things to tier 3 operators and above to do. And why police /feds use special weapons and tactics teams for such things.
This incident falls on one person. The guy who decided it was now a hostage situation and decided to his a hostage negotiator. A federal SWAT team was there and waiting .
I doubt that milita idea would have worked any better. How fast could they have responded. The gunman would have moved to a second or third classroom by then. The first officers on the scene contained the gunman to one classroom.
What does that milita train for ? Hostage rescue? Is that their primary duty? Then maybe. There is a reason the military leaves such things to tier 3 operators and above to do. And why police /feds use special weapons and tactics teams for such things.
This incident falls on one person. The guy who decided it was now a hostage situation and decided to his a hostage negotiator. A federal SWAT team was there and waiting .
Absolutely incorrect.
Objective mortality always had been and always will be superior to dogma.
For sure, but if it was going to happen, whatever agencies were outside could have radioed the other team saying you have a shit storm coming in.Am I the only one that wonders what would happen if some parent shows up with a rifle and tries to storm in to save the children? I would think if seen they wouldn't even make it to an entrance of the school without being gunned down (think about why that is). If they somehow did make it inside it would be even trickier being that there was a team already near the classroom where the shooter was. I get the sentiment. You'd want to go in and save the children but I don't think it would turn out how you think it would.
They could. This would add even more chaos. Now you have the agencies outside possibly shooting at the school or storming in to get the "assailant with a gun". Now the team inside is on high alert for a "possible second gunman". Again. I get the sentiment of wanting to save people but saying you would rush in and save the kids could make an already shitty situation even worse.For sure, but if it was going to happen, whatever agencies were outside could have radioed the other team saying you have a shit storm coming in.
Again, I agree.But I will tell you if it was my kids in that room you're damn right I'd be going in regardless if nothing else was being done.They could. This would add even more chaos. Now you have the agencies outside possibly shooting at the school or storming in to get the "assailant with a gun". Now the team inside is on high alert for a "possible second gunman". Again. I get the sentiment of wanting to save people but saying you would rush in and save the kids could make an already shitty situation even worse.
As I said, absolutely incorrect.I may be incorrect, but not absolutely. To your point, objective morality may only exist in limited amounts. What I think is right, you may think is wrong. Or, what both of us think is right (or wrong) may be for completely different reasons. Therefore not everything can be filed into objective morality.
Maybe everyone can agree that killing someone that is in the middle of saving 20 drowning children is wrong, but killing someone that is trying to drown 20 children is not objectively moral. Probably not the best example. Maybe the Trolley Problem is a better one. Either way, I'm neither a theologian nor a philosopher, but I can't say there are universal truths (with regards to morality) with no source. It sounds like you're fringing on describing Moral Platonism, but there still must be an explanation as to how these truths came to be, and not just exist as abstractions.
Is the greater good moral, or are basic laws moral? They are mutually exclusive, I'm sure no one here will argue.
Not quite. When you sign that contract you're now government property. You can't just walk away, even if you have no confidence in your leadership. The only orders you're permitted to ignore are those that are unlawful.If a private in the military has no confidence in his leadership, then he needs to GTFO.
It's that simple.
Seek and destroy? There were children still alive in there. And not just the ones bleeding out on the ground. Your method would have gotten more killed unless they trained for it. And together.An armed and trained group of parents fearing for the lives of their children, and other selfless community members, wouldn't have waited 45 minutes for someone else to go in. They all would have given their lives, without a second thought, in an attempt to stop the gunman and save their kids.
The only reasonable response to a situation like this, being that safeguards were not in place, or they were and failed, is SEEK AND DESTROY. No debate, no delay, no mercy. Drag the killers lifeless body out to the street and burn it, without ever a mention of their name.
And a militia would likely include the children, also members of their community, in emergency training.
Communities are supposed to take care of their own. The militia is responsible for the community safety.
Did you even read what I wrote, or are you just going to wave a red flag because 'Seek and Destroy' sounds scary?Seek and destroy? There were children still alive in there. And not just the ones bleeding out on the ground. Your method would have gotten more killed unless they trained for it. And together.
Tell me exactly how you would breech and enter. How everyone in the stack would react and not shoot a kid in the background. Would you at least take 5 minutes to rehearse the entry because the shooting had stopped. And you didn’t have a key for the door yet?
Hell, an armed parent was there. And he could not do anything but wait. A cop’s child died in there.
The shooting stopped for awhile . You don’t know why. The gunman might have hostages. A hostage negotiator is in another building attempting to talk with him. And a SWAT team is outside waiting for the word to go in. Then the SWAT team goes against incident commander and decides to go in. Do you jump ahead of that a go in.
Explain your breeching method . Do you trust the FUDD next to you who just happened to show up to cover his sector. He could be great but you don’t know. There is a reason a SWAT team is there and do a lot of kill house hours together
Do we know with absolute certainty the first officers into the building didn't shoot anyone? I haven't seen anywhere, whether they did, or did not fire their weapons.Something else to consider, if a normal cop went in there against the Incident Commanders orders and a child was shot in the process, the media would be screaming that he didn’t give the hostage negotiator a chance, he isn’t trained to breech a door, and he got a kid killed. They would have him on criminal charges so fast if just to cover up their malfeasance. The Border Patrol doesn’t answer to the locals and were a SWAT team better trained and more experienced than the incident commander
Again, what breeching method would you use or even have available? On patrol as your edc . SWAT has the training and equipment. Patrol generally doesn’tDid you even read what I wrote, or are you just going to wave a red flag because 'Seek and Destroy' sounds scary?
How many people died there? Yeah, more could have, but less could have as well.
What other methods could have been more effective? Every second counts, and the clock is ticking. Better deploy the fancy mobile incident command bus so we have a comfy place to start calling everyone on the schools keyholder list.
We don’t even know if those officers shot at and wounded him either.Do we know with absolute certainty the first officers into the building didn't shoot anyone? I haven't seen anywhere, whether they did, or did not fire their weapons.
We will never know everything that happened that day. The facts that we do have indicate the response should have been very different.
Knowing its Texas, and many family of my own from NY as former LEOS, I would find it surprising if they weren't equipped with patrol rifles, and body armor is standard issue. The only difference is tactics and a willingness to run towards the the threat.Again, what breeching method would you use or even have available? On patrol as your edc . SWAT has the training and equipment. Patrol generally doesn’t