5 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. 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."
- jjulius 4y ago
  >Thinking he was the first officer to arrive and wanting to waste no time, Arredondo believed that carrying the radios would slow him down. One had a whiplike antenna that would hit him as he ran. The other had a clip that Arredondo knew would cause it to fall off his tactical belt during a long run. There are children being shot and he's worried some radio antenna's gonna smack him as he ran, or that one might fall off his belt? Bite your lip and put up with the antenna whipping you, and/or put the other radio on your belt, hoping that it doesn't fall off, and if it does, at least you can say you tried. I realize we're talking split seconds, but it doesn't take long to clip a radio, as you're walking, to your belt.
  - Arrath 4y ago
    One imagines the chief has further responsibilities involving incident command for which a radio is rather useful.
- wbl 4y ago
  Why didn't he make sure his radio worked for him?
kube-system 4y ago
They may have attended training that generally suggests that approach, but police are not legally required to put themselves in harms way.
- jjulius 4y ago
  If you don't want to find yourself in harm's way, don't become a police officer. Legally required or not, they knew the risks when they signed up, they knew what they were trained to do, and then they... didn't.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    I think the point is that they should be legally required to intervene when a crime being committed but currently are not.
    - zo1 4y ago
      The problem is that they're equally as likely to be crucified if they jump in, and do a dumb thing and accidentally kill someone when others think that it was avoidable. There are just as many people crying "why didn't they just shoot the shooter in the leg to incapacitate him".
      - jjulius 4y ago
        I'd rather someone be crucified for fucking up than for not doing anything at all, in this instance. Time is a massive factor in these situations, and time was massively wasted.
        kube-system 4y ago
        > I'd rather someone be crucified for fucking up The "someone" might have a little more skin in the game than you do, though.
        4y ago
tvaughan 4y ago
> Absolutely untrue The police are under no legal obligation to protect and serve, https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
- jjulius 4y ago
  You - and others - keep missing the part where I said "trained" rather than "legally required".
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  I'm under no legal obligation to do my job either. Doesn't mean I won't face discipline if I stop working. The job of police is to protect and serve. That's what they're trained to do. Whether or not they can face legal consequences if they refuse isn't really relevant here.
  - LocalH 4y ago
    Your job likely isn't backed by the state's "monopoly on violence", either.
- jeremyjh 4y ago
  That means they can't be sued for this, but GP is taking about their training, and departmental policy/procedures. It is their professional responsibility to stop the threat.

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."
jjulius 4y ago
>Thinking he was the first officer to arrive and wanting to waste no time, Arredondo believed that carrying the radios would slow him down. One had a whiplike antenna that would hit him as he ran. The other had a clip that Arredondo knew would cause it to fall off his tactical belt during a long run. There are children being shot and he's worried some radio antenna's gonna smack him as he ran, or that one might fall off his belt? Bite your lip and put up with the antenna whipping you, and/or put the other radio on your belt, hoping that it doesn't fall off, and if it does, at least you can say you tried. I realize we're talking split seconds, but it doesn't take long to clip a radio, as you're walking, to your belt.
- Arrath 4y ago
  One imagines the chief has further responsibilities involving incident command for which a radio is rather useful.
wbl 4y ago
Why didn't he make sure his radio worked for him?

kube-system 4y ago

They may have attended training that generally suggests that approach, but police are not legally required to put themselves in harms way.

jjulius 4y ago
If you don't want to find yourself in harm's way, don't become a police officer. Legally required or not, they knew the risks when they signed up, they knew what they were trained to do, and then they... didn't.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  I think the point is that they should be legally required to intervene when a crime being committed but currently are not.
  - zo1 4y ago
    The problem is that they're equally as likely to be crucified if they jump in, and do a dumb thing and accidentally kill someone when others think that it was avoidable. There are just as many people crying "why didn't they just shoot the shooter in the leg to incapacitate him".
    - jjulius 4y ago
      I'd rather someone be crucified for fucking up than for not doing anything at all, in this instance. Time is a massive factor in these situations, and time was massively wasted.
      - kube-system 4y ago
        > I'd rather someone be crucified for fucking up The "someone" might have a little more skin in the game than you do, though.
        4y ago

tvaughan 4y ago

> Absolutely untrue The police are under no legal obligation to protect and serve, https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...

jjulius 4y ago
You - and others - keep missing the part where I said "trained" rather than "legally required".
colinmhayes 4y ago
I'm under no legal obligation to do my job either. Doesn't mean I won't face discipline if I stop working. The job of police is to protect and serve. That's what they're trained to do. Whether or not they can face legal consequences if they refuse isn't really relevant here.
- LocalH 4y ago
  Your job likely isn't backed by the state's "monopoly on violence", either.
jeremyjh 4y ago
That means they can't be sued for this, but GP is taking about their training, and departmental policy/procedures. It is their professional responsibility to stop the threat.