Active Shooter at Robb Elementary in Uvalde

[avvidclif]

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.

I would love to attend a range session with you and let you show me how easy it s to hit a target at 300 yds

 

[Havok1]

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.

You don’t know the likelihood of hitting the shooter vs hitting the kids so you can’t really asses the risk accurately. If we have video or any information that gives us a way to paint a mental picture of what the officer was seeing then my mind could be changed. But to say it was worth it to take the shot without any idea of what the sight picture looked like is just internet tough talk.

 

[oldag]

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.

Maybe he was running. Maybe he was walking fast. Maybe he was just strolling. We don't know for sure.

How would the LEO know the kids were on the floor (if they were)? What do kids often do when there are loud noises outside? Run to the window to look.

Do we know the angle or distance? Do we know the backstop? I don't think anyone here knows at this time.

Did the LEO assume the door was locked, as it was supposed to be? We don't know.

I will reserve judgement until the full facts and situation are known.

 

[oldag]

I would love to attend a range session with you and let you show me how easy it s to hit a target at 300 yds

A moving target.

For a LEO who probably has less range time than folks on this forum.

 

[Axxe55]

But the officer DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT!

That is true, but a reasonable person using common sense should be able to predict what bad things could have happened and that did happen.

 

[Axxe55]

You don’t know the likelihood of hitting the shooter vs hitting the kids so you can’t really asses the risk accurately. If we have video or any information that gives us a way to paint a mental picture of what the officer was seeing then my mind could be changed. But to say it was worth it to take the shot without any idea of what the sight picture looked like is just internet tough talk.

So pleased to be reduced to just an internet tough guy!

Thank you for your assessment.

My day is now complete.

 

[easy rider]

I on the other hand, think it was incompetence all around (except for some there not in an official capacity). Nothing has shown me anywhere it was handled as being competent.

 

[toddnjoyce]

But the officer DID NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HINDSIGHT!

That does not matter. The LEO saw a man with a gun attempting to enter a school. That satisfies use of force and deadly force and use of deadly force in defense a third person. The LEO was derelict in not engaging the threat.

A non-LEO citizen could have legally engaged the threat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

 

[Havok1]

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.

Remind me again how fast those targets are moving, and how many kids are between the shooter and that target, as well as behind the target.

 

[Havok1]

So pleased to be reduced to just an internet tough guy!

Thank you for your assessment.

My day is now complete.

lol. i was more referring to the discussion, not you personally.

 

[Axxe55]

lol. i was more referring to the discussion, not you personally.

Sorry, but however fleeting a glimpse of the shooter, I'd have taken the shot. I also laid out why it could have changed things even if those shots were misses or the shooter.

I think @toddnjoyce laid it out pretty simple as to why.

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.

 

[Havok1]

That does not matter. The LEO saw a man with a gun attempting to enter a school. That satisfies use of force and deadly force and use of deadly force in defense a third person. The LEO was derelict in not engaging the threat.

A non-LEO citizen could have legally engaged the threat.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

That’s all great if the person you shoot is who you intend to shoot. The issue here is whether the officer would have hit the shooter or a student.

 

[Havok1]

Sorry, but however fleeting a glimpse of the shooter, I'd have taken the shot. I also laid out why it could have changed things even if those shots were misses or the shooter.

I think @toddnjoyce laid it out pretty simple as to why.

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.

Do you know what it looked like from the officers perspective? if not, you don’t even know what kind of shot you’re saying you’d have taken.

 

[Axxe55]

Do you know what it looked like from the officers perspective? if not, you don’t even know what kind of shot you’re saying you’d have taken.

What says I would have to just stand in one spot?

The shooter was moving, so why wouldn't I move to gain a better shot if possible.

 

[Havok1]

What says I would have to just stand in one spot?

The shooter was moving, so why wouldn't I move to gain a better shot if possible.

that’s great if you can make that happen. But maybe that’s what the officer wanted to do but by that time the shooter got in the school. This is why I like watching bodycam footage instead of just imagining how it may or may not have happened.

 

[Axxe55]

that’s great if you can make that happen. But maybe that’s what the officer wanted to do but by that time the shooter got in the school. This is why I like watching bodycam footage instead of just imagining how it may or may not have happened.

Good luck getting that footage.

 

[Havok1]

Good luck getting that footage.

Yeah. I know there isn’t any. But it’s nice when there is because we can see exactly what scenario people are saying they would/wouldn’t take a shot in.

 

[easy rider]

Yeah. I know there isn’t any. But it’s nice when there is because we can see exactly what scenario people are saying they would/wouldn’t take a shot in.

Maybe they should have let the funeral worker take the shot.

 

[Havok1]

Maybe they should have let the funeral worker take the shot.

Im not supportive of how police handled this situation at all, but the decision to prevent the funeral worker from going inside has nothing to do with whether this officer could have killed the shooter at this moment. By the time the funeral home worker was stopped, I believe the shooter was already inside, so he wouldn’t have shot him before getting inside.

 

[benenglish]

Havok1 and oldag both make good points. Reasonable men may disagree and I acknowledge they may be right and I may be wrong.

But I know I've been shot at and I've been kidnapped and at no time did I lack the presence of mind to make good decisions, taking into account the totality of circumstances. I expect at least as much from police officers. It's going to be hard to convince me that a policeman who sees an active shooter on a school campus and fails to shoot can possibly be doing the right thing.