6 ms·

They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any

They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. This is extremely at odds with how the police want to be perceived, and managing that contradiction is certainly their biggest concern right now. From that perspective it's easy to understand why they want to suppress this information, and who benefits if they get to. These aren't unfortunate dolts who bumbled into a tragic response because they weren't equipped to deal with it. This sort of thing is a predictable result of the training and prioritization police act on every day.

Arrath 4y ago
Agreed on all points, and I absolutely abhor the cynical reality. Its why I'm not above calling for purges and complete overhauls of the approach to policing.
bongoman37 4y ago
jjulius 4y ago
>They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat immediately. "The official narrative has shifted from a story of swift response by the local police to one of hesitation and delay that deviated from two decades of training that instructs officers to quickly confront a gunman to save lives, even at a risk to their own."[1] >These aren't unfortunate dolts who bumbled into a tragic response because they weren't equipped to deal with it. Except that, from everything we've learned about this event in the weeks since, they literally were not equipped to deal with it. Police chief didn't bring a radio, their own radios didn't work in the school, they bungled getting a key to the room, they didn't have their tactical materials arrive in a timely manner, I can go on and on. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police-response.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police...
- banannaise 4y ago
  The literal text of their training and the perspectives of the people who train them and work with them have very little todo with each other. Furthermore, behavior like this is fairly consistent across departments. There is also a well-documented history of police coming up with convenient excuses to do whatever the hell benefits them most (see also: bodycam "malfunctions"). Don't want to get involved in a dangerous situation? Whoops, I forgot my radio! Whoops, we don't have the right gear! Guess we can't get involved for more than an hour!
- newaccount2021 4y ago
  > Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do trained to do, not compelled to do they won't be charged with a crime because they broke no law they probably won't be fired either because their union will sue and probably win if so they won't all be put on desk duty because the local govt cannot afford to hire replacement better-cops while also paying all of the worse-cops to sit at a desk
  - jjulius 4y ago
    >trained to do, not compelled to do Right, and it's pretty fucking sad that "kids getting shot" isn't enough to compel them to do their jobs.
- emmelaich 4y ago
  For a fair assessment, also read the interview with the police chief: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/uvalde-chief-pete-arredondo-interview/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/uvalde-chief-pete-ar... In particular he did bring a radio but decided to remove it. Read the article for why.
  - ukd1 4y ago
    "To Arredondo, the choice was logical. An armed killer was loose on the campus of the elementary school. Every second mattered. He wanted both hands free to hold his gun, ready to aim and fire quickly and accurately if he encountered the gunman."
ALittleLight 4y ago
- CogitoCogito 4y ago
  I frankly don’t think deserves to be flagged.
Animats 4y ago
Charging in against someone with an AR-15 and some cover is suicide. It's hard to fault the cops on this one. The 2012 Florida nightclub shooting was a roughly comparable situation - barricaded shooter, substantial firepower, hostage situation.[1] It took three hours to stop that guy, and the cops had to punch a hole in a wall with explosives and an armored vehicle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting
- jjav 4y ago
  > Charging in against someone with an AR-15 and some cover is suicide. If so, that is a clear cut case for banning it completely.
  - throwaway193948 4y ago
    only the police are competent and trustworthy enough for these weapons?
- Arrath 4y ago
  Which is why equipment to help protect against such threats exists. And, in fact, at least one of the agencies in Uvalde was equipped with such: https://www.facebook.com/uvaldepd/photos/a.935317536501604/2020446901321990/ https://www.facebook.com/uvaldepd/photos/a.935317536501604/2...

Arrath 4y ago

Agreed on all points, and I absolutely abhor the cynical reality. Its why I'm not above calling for purges and complete overhauls of the approach to policing.

bongoman37 4y ago

jjulius 4y ago

>They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat immediately. "The official narrative has shifted from a story of swift response by the local police to one of hesitation and delay that deviated from two decades of training that instructs officers to quickly confront a gunman to save lives, even at a risk to their own."[1] >These aren't unfortunate dolts who bumbled into a tragic response because they weren't equipped to deal with it. Except that, from everything we've learned about this event in the weeks since, they literally were not equipped to deal with it. Police chief didn't bring a radio, their own radios didn't work in the school, they bungled getting a key to the room, they didn't have their tactical materials arrive in a timely manner, I can go on and on. [1]https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police-response.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/uvalde-shooting-police...

banannaise 4y ago
The literal text of their training and the perspectives of the people who train them and work with them have very little todo with each other. Furthermore, behavior like this is fairly consistent across departments. There is also a well-documented history of police coming up with convenient excuses to do whatever the hell benefits them most (see also: bodycam "malfunctions"). Don't want to get involved in a dangerous situation? Whoops, I forgot my radio! Whoops, we don't have the right gear! Guess we can't get involved for more than an hour!
newaccount2021 4y ago
> Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do trained to do, not compelled to do they won't be charged with a crime because they broke no law they probably won't be fired either because their union will sue and probably win if so they won't all be put on desk duty because the local govt cannot afford to hire replacement better-cops while also paying all of the worse-cops to sit at a desk
- jjulius 4y ago
  >trained to do, not compelled to do Right, and it's pretty fucking sad that "kids getting shot" isn't enough to compel them to do their jobs.
emmelaich 4y ago
For a fair assessment, also read the interview with the police chief: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/uvalde-chief-pete-arredondo-interview/ https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/uvalde-chief-pete-ar... In particular he did bring a radio but decided to remove it. Read the article for why.
- ukd1 4y ago
  "To Arredondo, the choice was logical. An armed killer was loose on the campus of the elementary school. Every second mattered. He wanted both hands free to hold his gun, ready to aim and fire quickly and accurately if he encountered the gunman."

ALittleLight 4y ago

CogitoCogito 4y ago
I frankly don’t think deserves to be flagged.

Animats 4y ago

Charging in against someone with an AR-15 and some cover is suicide. It's hard to fault the cops on this one. The 2012 Florida nightclub shooting was a roughly comparable situation - barricaded shooter, substantial firepower, hostage situation.[1] It took three hours to stop that guy, and the cops had to punch a hole in a wall with explosives and an armored vehicle. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_nightclub_shooting

jjav 4y ago
> Charging in against someone with an AR-15 and some cover is suicide. If so, that is a clear cut case for banning it completely.
- throwaway193948 4y ago
  only the police are competent and trustworthy enough for these weapons?
Arrath 4y ago
Which is why equipment to help protect against such threats exists. And, in fact, at least one of the agencies in Uvalde was equipped with such: https://www.facebook.com/uvaldepd/photos/a.935317536501604/2020446901321990/ https://www.facebook.com/uvaldepd/photos/a.935317536501604/2...