Active Shooter at Robb Elementary in Uvalde

[easy rider]

With the rifles and optics these days, there is no excuse.

The bigger question is, do you give in to a possibility over an inevitability? He was shooting at everyone he saw before entering the school.

 

[mongoose]

The bigger question is, do you give in to a possibility over an inevitability? He was shooting at everyone he saw before entering the school.

Agreed

 

[Havok1]

Having sufficient skill so that you're confident enough to take the shot is a pretty basic requirement for anyone who carries a firearm, LEO or otherwise. It's incredibly tragic that a police officer felt so incompetent that he allowed someone to remain on school grounds, moving and shooting, when the need to remove that person should have been the obvious and overriding priority.

Yes, it was a poor risk assessment in a high-pressure scenario. Conceptually, I could forgive that; people make mistakes.

But the fact that the risk assessment was informed by the officer knowing his skills were not up to snuff is hard, very hard, to take.

Why do you think that it was incompetence and not just a bad shot to take?

 

[easy rider]

Why do you think that it was incompetence and not just a bad shot to take?

Since I don't have a 'New York Times' account, I can only go off what was posted. It did say the police arrived as the gunman approached the school. So if they had time to grab an AR-15 style rifle and position themselves to take a shot, I would have to venture a guess that they witnessed the gunman shooting at the windows of the school before entering. Desperation to what seems to be an inevitability as to his intent should tell you to stop the situation before it unfolds at all costs. I have seen no reports that there were children outside the school in the proximity of the gunman.

 

[seeker_two]

I believe the controversy over should teachers be allowed to carry inside schools is that same fear. Never taking into account what the alternative could be.

Armed teachers and school employees don't need to be trained to breach doors and fight like SWAT teams. They will be the ones in the classroom covering the door and shooting any threat attempting to break in and harm students. This isn't a SEAL op....it's a home invasion. And we're smart enough to repel threats like that.....

....if we're legally allowed to defend ourselves with more than GFZ signs and cowardly cops.....

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

Armed teachers and school employees don't need to be trained to breach doors and fight like SWAT teams. They will be the ones in the classroom covering the door and shooting any threat attempting to break in and harm students. This isn't a SEAL op....it's a home invasion. And we're smart enough to repel threats like that.....

....if we're legally allowed to defend ourselves with more than GFZ signs and cowardly cops.....

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

That was what I was getting at. I keep hearing that teachers will be a danger to the children if allowed to be armed, but then who is a bigger danger? A teacher or a psychopathic killer?

 

[Havok1]

Since I don't have a 'New York Times' account, I can only go off what was posted. It did say the police arrived as the gunman approached the school. So if they had time to grab an AR-15 style rifle and position themselves to take a shot, I would have to venture a guess that they witnessed the gunman shooting at the windows of the school before entering. Desperation to what seems to be an inevitability as to his intent should tell you to stop the situation before it unfolds at all costs. I have seen no reports that there were children outside the school in the proximity of the gunman.

Maybe so. It would certainly be ideal to take the shot, but without knowing more, it’s possible that he was right.

Armed teachers and school employees don't need to be trained to breach doors and fight like SWAT teams. They will be the ones in the classroom covering the door and shooting any threat attempting to break in and harm students. This isn't a SEAL op....it's a home invasion. And we're smart enough to repel threats like that.....if we're legally allowed to defend ourselves with more than GFZ signs and cowardly cops.....

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

spot on!

 

[easy rider]

Maybe so. It would certainly be ideal to take the shot, but without knowing more, it’s possible that he was right.

It's possible that even if the police missed, the killer may have engaged the police instead. We won't know now.

 

[benenglish]

It would certainly be ideal to take the shot, but without knowing more, it’s possible that he was right.

In hindsight, we know that is not correct. Even if he had taken a bad shot or several, wounding or killing a few students in the school, the outcome would have been better than what we got.

The officer should have automatically understood that while in the moment.

A shooter on school grounds means that the potential for a massacre is very high, justifying taking almost any shot to stop the situation from developing further. The fact that the officer didn't think that way is a failure. It may be incompetence or bad training or wrong mindset or a lack of mental and spiritual preparedness, etc. It doesn't matter. For any of those reasons and others, it was an unjustifiable failure.

 

[oldag]

In hindsight, we know that is not correct. Even if he had taken a bad shot or several, wounding or killing a few students in the school, the outcome would have been better than what we got.

The officer should have automatically understood that while in the moment.

A shooter on school grounds means that the potential for a massacre is very high, justifying taking almost any shot to stop the situation from developing further. The fact that the officer didn't think that way is a failure. It may be incompetence or bad training or wrong mindset or a lack of mental and spiritual preparedness, etc. It doesn't matter. For any of those reasons and others, it was an unjustifiable failure.

Whoa. That is easy to say in hindsight, especially if you are not the one behind the trigger.

Shooting at a moving target, possibly with kids in classrooms as a backstop, is not necessarily an easy shot depending upon how fast the target is moving.

What if he had taken the shot, missed the shooter and killed a student, and then the shooter had gone up and found the door locked and was unable to get inside? Everyone would be howling that the LEO should never have taken that shot and killed a innocent student.

Too much Monday morning quarterbacking here.

If the LEO had a clear backstop, yes take the shot. But apparently he did not.

 

[Havok1]

In hindsight, we know that is not correct. Even if he had taken a bad shot or several, wounding or killing a few students in the school, the outcome would have been better than what we got.

The officer should have automatically understood that while in the moment.

A shooter on school grounds means that the potential for a massacre is very high, justifying taking almost any shot to stop the situation from developing further. The fact that the officer didn't think that way is a failure. It may be incompetence or bad training or wrong mindset or a lack of mental and spiritual preparedness, etc. It doesn't matter. For any of those reasons and others, it was an unjustifiable failure.

No. In hindsight you can’t say it’s not correct. Can you tell me the distance between the officer and the shooter, how much of the shooter was exposed, how fast the shooter was moving, how many people were in the background and how far back they were? If you can’t answer those questions then you can’t say whether it was the right choice or not. You may be 100% correct, or you may be 100% wrong.

 

[Axxe55]

No. In hindsight you can’t say it’s not correct. Can you tell me the distance between the officer and the shooter, how much of the shooter was exposed, how fast the shooter was moving, how many people were in the background and how far back they were? If you can’t answer those questions then you can’t say whether it was the right choice or not. You may be 100% correct, or you may be 100% wrong.

But in hindsight we do know exactly what inaction did. It got 21 people dead. There is always the risk of hitting an innocent bystander. In that situation, knowing now what the outcome was, I consider that an acceptable risk.

Even if you shot at the shooter, and didn't hit him, might have still kept him engaged and to not allow him entry into the school classrooms. Or until more officers were able to arrive and assist in taking him down.

 

[easy rider]

Whoa. That is easy to say in hindsight, especially if you are not the one behind the trigger.

Shooting at a moving target, possibly with kids in classrooms as a backstop, is not necessarily an easy shot depending upon how fast the target is moving.

What if he had taken the shot, missed the shooter and killed a student, and then the shooter had gone up and found the door locked and was unable to get inside? Everyone would be howling that the LEO should never have taken that shot and killed a innocent student.

Too much Monday morning quarterbacking here.

If the LEO had a clear backstop, yes take the shot. But apparently he did not.

From those that took a picture of him before he entered the building, said he was shooting at the school building (since there are windows, I would tend to believe it was in the direction of the windows) as he walked towards the entrance door. I haven't found anything saying he shot while running towards the door. The building, besides the windows, is cinderblock construction (not sure of any facade). From what I understand the children were instructed to get to the floor when the shooting outside started. Maybe not shoot if he was directly in front of a window, but looking at the school from ground level on Mapquest, there was plenty of spacing between windows. While I can understand the concern for children, you have to consider the risk of him going inside over the risk of possibilities of what can happen stopping him from going in.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Whoa. That is easy to say in hindsight, especially if you are not the one behind the trigger.

Shooting at a moving target, possibly with kids in classrooms as a backstop, is not necessarily an easy shot depending upon how fast the target is moving.

What if he had taken the shot, missed the shooter and killed a student, and then the shooter had gone up and found the door locked and was unable to get inside? Everyone would be howling that the LEO should never have taken that shot and killed a innocent student.

Too much Monday morning quarterbacking here.

If the LEO had a clear backstop, yes take the shot. But apparently he did not.

I’m with Ben. Backstop as an excuse is a clear tell the individual did not have the confidence the utilize a patrol rifle. That being said, the LEO should not have been armed with a rifle to begin with.

Even using iron sights, it’s fairly difficult to miss an adult-sized target at 300 yards. That’s generally the minimum marksmanship requirement for all the services.

 

[seeker_two]

But in hindsight we do know exactly what inaction did. It got 21 people dead. There is always the risk of hitting an innocent bystander. In that situation, knowing now what the outcome was, I consider that an acceptable risk.

Even if you shot at the shooter, and didn't hit him, might have still kept him engaged and to not allow him entry into the school classrooms. Or until more officers were able to arrive and assist in taking him down.

Easy question: Did the officer think that, if the perp gained entry to the school, the perp would NOT be a threat to the students inside?

The officer made the wrong choice. He should be called on the carpet for that.....

....and whatever happened to the employee who propped open the door? Even if that idiot tried to close it, it shouldn't have been open in the first place. If heads need to roll, let's start there.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

 

[Axxe55]

Easy question: Did the officer think that, if the perp gained entry to the school, the perp would NOT be a threat to the students inside?

The officer made the wrong choice. He should be called on the carpet for that.....

....and whatever happened to the employee who propped open the door? Even if that idiot tried to close it, it shouldn't have been open in the first place. If heads need to roll, let's start there.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

IF it were me in that situation, not knowing the shooter's intentions or motives, I'd have to err on the side of caution and automatically assume he's a threat. Even if the children were not killed, but were hostages. They become bargaining material for the shooter.

 

[easy rider]

Easy question: Did the officer think that, if the perp gained entry to the school, the perp would NOT be a threat to the students inside?

Really? He's shooting at the school before he enters, would anyone think he's there for drag queen story hour?

 

[seeker_two]

Really? He's shooting at the school before he enters, would anyone think he's there for drag queen story hour?

Beto & Blondie might....

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

 

[oldag]

But in hindsight we do know exactly what inaction did. It got 21 people dead. There is always the risk of hitting an innocent bystander. In that situation, knowing now what the outcome was, I consider that an acceptable risk.

Even if you shot at the shooter, and didn't hit him, might have still kept him engaged and to not allow him entry into the school classrooms. Or until more officers were able to arrive and assist in taking him down.

But the officer DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT!

 

[easy rider]

Beto & Blondie might....

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk

Well, seeing how Daniel Perry is being treated in Austin, they're not the only ones in Texas.