Texas Elementary School Shooting, as many as 22 dead, including Children

[s_bushido]

I'm sorry, in what world is "springing" laws on the citizens of a country/state a good idea?

[Draco-Onis]

I don't want to hear any news from North America anymore.

Pretty good idea because that's not the weirdest gun fact in America.

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why the law should never have been reactionary, There should be think tanks that have crafted comprehensive gun legislation that has been vetted every which way and kept hidden until the right time, when you spring it to the public. And not just legislation meant for the federal level but at the state level.

That's a nice theory but that's not how laws are based because humans see bathroom laws, abortion laws, drug laws, tough on crime . We pass laws purely on an emotional and reactionary way then refine or walk it back years if not decades later.

[Poopymonster]

Again, look to the Great White North, which has fully legalized reefer to the point that I can call up the government and get them to deliver weed to my door in whatever form I want; pre-rolls, edibles, buds, whatever. Not medical, recreational.

And our mass shootings sure haven't gone up as a result of that.

That's because it's too cold, and without guns you are at the mercy of Canadian Geese!
/s

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why the law should never have been reactionary, There should be think tanks that have crafted comprehensive gun legislation that has been vetted every which way and kept hidden until the right time, when you spring it to the public. And not just legislation meant for the federal level but at the state level.

There are. Lots of think tanks weigh in on comprehensive gun legislation with plans in fact. Almost all of the plans are boiled down "Khorne cares not from whom the blood flows, only that it flows."

[gondrin]

[Breccia]

While we wait for the inevitable disclosure that in the Tulsa hospital mass shooting, the weapon the shooter legally bought just hours before turns out to be another weapon of war (I put 3:1 on this)

Called it. It was, in fact, an AR-15. And "hours before" was not hyperbole.

I'm guessing many, maybe most, mass shooters don't commit the mass shooting while the ink on the receipt is still wet, but this is twice in two weeks this happened.

There are other compare and contrast issues to be made here, I'll start with contrast. It wasn't a young Hispanic male, it was a middle-aged bald African-American this time (so was the doctor he was there to murder, so is the police chief). It also wasn't a trans person this time, either. Based on the number of empty casings, the shooter had only one magazine for both weapons. He actually shot at an intentional target, rather than going to the nearest building full of civilians to murder at random. And the police showed up much faster this time, four minutes give or take, hearing the Tulsa shooter fire his last round into himself.

EDIT: Speaking of 911 calls, the latest Texas scapegoat is a "system failure" of the 911 call system. Meaning, of course, Texas is no longer interested in holding a human being acountable for their actions and are blaming ones and zeroes instead. Just so we're clear, I 100% believe Texas would skimp on infrastructure (cough cough power grid cough) but that's not an excuse to let people off the hook when they fail at their job. I don't care too much whether the police for that specific school district were somehow unable to hear from that specific school, or just unwilling, both are failures.

ALSO EDIT: The 911 call in Tulsa was likely placed by a patient who was video chatting with their doctor, when the doctor said "Call 911, someone's shooting the hospital I'm in right now" and the patient did just that. That's not a failure by anyone. I just wanted to point that out it was a doctor who recognized gunshots, just in case any Texas police try to use the excuse "we didn't know those were gunshots".

Now, compare. Best information available, neither had a criminal record and neither had diagnosed mental health issues. This is why both were able to easily and legally purchase the same weapon, not a huge surprise considering its mechanics and origin. By all credible accounts, neither expected to survive, although only the Tulsa gunman actually killed himself. The other one just hide behind an apparently unlocked door until the Border Patrol shot him 27 times. Both shooters easily carried a large, obvious weapon of war directly into a building not normally associated with wartime activities, and in neither case did the specially tasked security stop them. Yes, hospitals have security guards. One was just killed in Ohio, I stumbled across that by accident and it's 24 hours old.

Now, as with the Uvalde shooting, there's no realistic way that a non-felon non-diagnosed-insane person, walking into a legal gun store, would have been turned away in this case. He hadn't murdered all those people yet.

Which means, there's a finite number of ways crimes like the Texas shooting and Tulsa shooting could have been stopped.

1) Expand the list of things that cause a background check to fail. Gun owners may be law-abiding but are businessmen looking to make a sale, not psychic. They will sell a three-four figure gun when allowed to. In NYState if I want a CC license I have to nominate four people to talk to the NYState government before I get the license. If even a single one says "he's a loner who keeps talking about fucking a Senator's wife" I'm not getting the license. Is this slow, intrusive, an expenditure of taxpayer money, and inconvenient? Yes. Would it, in this case, have stopped someone bullied to tears for years and someone blaming The System for permanent chronic pain? Well, no, they bought a rifle, but if the same process had been used, yes.

Now it's selfish of me to say "anyone getting any gun has to go through the most difficult screening state's rules for the easiest weapons to hide" because I have no intention to get a gun, so the difficulty is irrelevant to me. I personally don't think this is a bad idea, but I'm biased. Maybe some of y'all will comment, in between the funerals for dead civilians.

2) Turn basically every public building into a fortress with security entrances, metal detectors, permits or invitations to enter, and of course guards capable of surviving the average American with the weapon of war the average American is allowed to have. A single retired US vet standing around a flagpole with a baton, taser, or even pistol doesn't sound like it's enough. I've never fired a gun in my life, and don't plan on it, but I'd be willing to bet that, if you give me a loaded rifle (AR-15 or something less murdery) and don't tell said US vet I'm coming first, I'm pretty sure I take the victory 8 times in 10. Well, maybe 9, depends on the size of the magazine.

Now it's worth noting, Texas already tried this. On this school. It didn't work. They just didn't go as far as the lines above suggest (two walking SWAT tanks checking everyone's papers at the only door). So yes, I'm talking extensive shit here.

I believe @Endus has already spoken on this topic, and for what it's worth, I agree.

3) Go door to door and get the guns.

Yeah, that's not happening.

4) The Winchester 1907 sales.

"...what?"



From 1901 to 1907 Winchester developed this semi-auto box magazine rifle, it uses a 0.351 caliber shell...okay, that's new...in amounts of 5, 10, or 15. Unless you got the police model 25 years later, then it was 20. The rifle was made for 50 years -- yes, it did stop production in 1957 just before the AR-15 came out. Unlike the AR-10 and AR-15, these do not appear to have been specifically designed for the US military, nor was there a pressing reason in 1901 to 1907 unlike in 1957.

So why this gun?

Well for one, it's an objectively worse weapon. Yeah, shocker, 50 years of gun development through two World Wars will do that.

But for two, over its 50-year lifespan, Winchester made maybe 50,000 of these for US civiilian use. The rest went to US military, law enforcement, and foreign governments. So that's one thousand per year. The population in the US in 1907 was about one-quarter what it is now, so, that'd be 200,000 total right now if scaled up.

Remember that 20 million AR-15's I used earlier? I didn't make that up. In this article titled The rise of the AR-15: Why America is defending a ‘weapon of war’, it's in the second paragraph, it refers to a 2020 study. Also, this NPR article talks about the AR-15 and its use as a mass shooting weapon.

So, yeah, while semi-auto rifles have been accessible by Americans for well over a century, Americans in the end of that time frame bought, proportionally, one hundred times as many. If you're wondering why there's so many more mass shootings, well, that's the answer I'd start with.

The Texas shooter, Tulsa shooter, and hundreds of others have shown that the average American can get their hands on a weapon of war way too easily, then immediately turn it into a murder weapon. It's too late to yank the existing guns out of American hands. But maybe it's time to start pressing the brake pedal on making things worse.

[jonnysensible]

Pete Arredondo, the Uvalde school district police chief, did not have a radio when he arrived at Robb Elementary School

And he made the decision not to immediately confront the gunman within minutes of the start of the shooting.

big oof

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/03/u...-response.html

the other details are even worse, what a bunch of useless cunts those Uvalde lot are. No wonder they have a racist biker gang harassing journalists now in the area.

[Breccia]

did not have a radio

Wow, that headline does not pair well with the 911 system failure info I just posted at all.

[Biglog]

This story is something to continue to follow, because it's becoming clear that Uvalde local government is doing everything they can to block any investigation or even reporting on the failed police response to the shooting of the Uvalde police department. More and more details about how incompetent the Uvalde police were that day keep coming out. Shameful.

- When it came out that one of the moms of a child in the school begged for a vest to go into the school herself (unarmed) since the police wouldn't do anything, Uvalde police responded with an Orwellian look into her background. They then told her that since she's on probation for something in her past, that if she talks to reporters about what happened in the Uvalde shooting that day that it would be a probation violation. Something you'd read about in Stalin's USSR, not expect to happen in the US.

- Uvalde police and local government have completely stopped cooperating with any reporting or investigation into what happened that day.

- The Uvalde local government *promoted* the Uvalde police captain to the city council, yes the same one that didn't take a radio to the shooting, to the city council in a meeting where the public had added an agenda item to *fire* him. The agenda item for the meeting was specifically to discuss his termination and they instead added him to the city council and declined to even discuss his termination. It's difficult to even imagine how broken morally individuals have to be to have that response to what happened.

This goes on and on. It's not surprising that there would be this level of Texas 'Good Ole' nepotism in the local government. But the brashness and lack of morality in wake of the tragic shooting to have this approach is disgusting. The only way this is going to really be investigated to prevent a police department from ever responding the way the Uvalde police department did (which truly did more to help the shooter than victims), is if it's external to Texas government from the DOJ. And they are going to have to fight all the way due to the obstructionism.

[D Luniz]

the longer this goes on, the more I think its going to turn out that city gov was corrupt AF
and this tragedy bringing all this attention is freaking them out, and some people are likely to end up in jail
my money is on large scale embezzlement of grant funds

[Breccia]

the more I think its going to turn out that city gov was corrupt AF

Like, in what way? I'm not disagreeing, I just think textbook cowardice is the most likely situation here.

[Ivanstone]

Like, in what way? I'm not disagreeing, I just think textbook cowardice is the most likely situation here.

Well equipped small town cops? Smells like fun with asset forfeiture.

[D Luniz]

Like, in what way? I'm not disagreeing, I just think textbook cowardice is the most likely situation here.

as I said, I think they were misappropriating grant funds that were meant to help offset the costs of being on the route from Del Rio to San Ant and other sudden "border concerns"

Well equipped small town cops? Smells like fun with asset forfeiture.

funny thing, Real county's Sherrif is in trouble right now over that, along with a few others on the border as well, which leads into my response to Breccia's request for me to elaborate my suspicions
I didn't want to go beyond what I posted earlier cause it really starts to sound like "yarn strings and photos on a board" land
but earlier this year a sheriff in the next county over got busted for shaking down illegal immigrants

a lot of these border area departments have been getting in trouble for that over the last few years (they seemed to suddenly think it was ok all about the same time)
combine that with the added funding from Abbott at the state level, and up until recently, federal level funding. ALOT of money went sloshing through the area.

With the shooting, people are asking "weren't you trained? weren't you equipped" and that ALWAYS leads to audits
so someone cooperation until it looks like their story is falling apart, makes it look like they expect something else is there they don't want found

[Breccia]

as I said, I think they were misappropriating grant funds that were meant to help offset the costs of being on the route from Del Rio to San Ant and other sudden "border concerns"

And then the Border Patrol bailed them out. Even if you're wrong, that's high irony. If you're right, someone should get fired.

[postman1782]

An interview was recently done on the mother that went in after her 2 children. This makes it even worse for the Uvalde cops. She was the one that when she got there, the cops arrested her to stop her from going into the school. She convinced them to uncuff her, she hopped the fence and got into the school saved one kid, and while she was opening the classroom to get her other child, the cops were dragging her out. At this point in the story, the cops were supposedly lying already, because they said that the children were supposed to be out of the school, besides the room that the terrorist barricaded himself into.

What is really fucked up about this whole thing, besides the mother having more balls than the 19 cops that were outside, was that when she was going to get interviewed after the event was over, she is apparently on probation, and the cops threatened her with a violation of her probation, if she talked to the press. Which is why it took til yesterday for her to be interviewed. The thing is, a judge said that she cannot be charged with a violation of her probation, if she speaks to the press. If she can prove that, which there is no reason to doubt her, the cops are in ANOTHER world of litigation, not only from the murdered childrens' parents. But now this woman.

[Edge-]

An interview was recently done on the mother that went in after her 2 children. This makes it even worse for the Uvalde cops. She was the one that when she got there, the cops arrested her to stop her from going into the school. She convinced them to uncuff her, she hopped the fence and got into the school saved one kid, and while she was opening the classroom to get her other child, the cops were dragging her out. At this point in the story, the cops were supposedly lying already, because they said that the children were supposed to be out of the school, besides the room that the terrorist barricaded himself into.

What is really fucked up about this whole thing, besides the mother having more balls than the 19 cops that were outside, was that when she was going to get interviewed after the event was over, she is apparently on probation, and the cops threatened her with a violation of her probation, if she talked to the press. Which is why it took til yesterday for her to be interviewed. The thing is, a judge said that she cannot be charged with a violation of her probation, if she speaks to the press. If she can prove that, which there is no reason to doubt her, the cops are in ANOTHER world of litigation, not only from the murdered childrens' parents. But now this woman.

Uvalde PD making it easier and easier to hate the whole department with every passing day.

Sure seems like the city is wasting 40% of their budget on a bunch of faschies.

[postman1782]

Uvalde PD making it easier and easier to hate the whole department with every passing day.

Sure seems like the city is wasting 40% of their budget on a bunch of faschies.

And they are doing everything in their power to try to keep everyone quiet and the real story from being published. If you did nothing wrong, you would be cooperating, not hiding everything.

[Breccia]

If you did nothing wrong, you would be cooperating, not hiding everything.

It's really getting to me that the Texas police are trying to blame everything -- such as "911 calls weren't reaching us and nobody had a radio for some reason" -- but this interview smashed those excused to pieces, when the woman approached the police, told them about the problem, then pulled children from what the police had just told her was an empty school.

You'd think Texas cops would have been more effective than this.

[david0925]

"Good guy with a gun" only working as intended when the opponent is unarmed

[Slant]

The criminal charges would, at a minimum, come if for the assaulting of parents trying to save their children, and their actions taken to prevent stopping the shooter, allowing the shooter as much time as he wished to finish his rampage, which has them acting as accessories to that crime, taking specific actions to allow the primary criminal the freedom to commit their crimes.

Nobody's going to charge an officer who panics and starts hyperventilating and can't make themselves go into that kind of situation. That's not what this situation was, and pretending otherwise is wildly unreasonable.



Again, preventing people from stopping the shooter, and refusing to do so themselves even though their training and standards required them to, demonstrates exactly that. It's pretty analogous to serving as a lookout while others engage in robbery; you're not in there, doing the robbing, but you're making sure nobody stops the robbers.

Nor do accessory charges require that you participated in the planning of the crime. That's where accessory after the fact often comes in, where someone completely uninvolved with the crime a family member committed nevertheless helps them try and escape justice, for instance.

The officers here actively kept people from stopping the shooter as the shooter continued their shooting rampage, making no effort to stop him. They weren't passive bystanders who just couldn't bring themselves to do their duty, they were actively defending the shooter.

The lookout example is not the correct analogy. The lookout makes the ultimate goal of the robbery part of his own motivation. He wants the robbery to succeed and that is his motivation to do the lookout.

These guys did not want the shooter to succeed. You'd have an incredibly hard time trying to prove that in court. They wanted survival and neglected their duty. You can get them for that. But not as an accessory to murder. That is legally not possible unless there is shared intent.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, you can be criminally charged for being afraid for your life. A soldier during wartime, if they refuse to go out on patrol or in general refuse an order because they are afraid to be shot will be criminally charged for neglection of duty. If it results in a death of a fellow soldier, they can be put to death.

Neglecting duty is something else than accessory to murder, which was argued here. I agree that they neglected their duty and should be charged with the full force of the law. But let's try to stay precise about what the real actionable offense is. Societies have almost broken down because people barely used language correctly. Sick and tired of people not using words correctly.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, you can be criminally charged for being afraid for your life. A soldier during wartime, if they refuse to go out on patrol or in general refuse an order because they are afraid to be shot will be criminally charged for neglection of duty. If it results in a death of a fellow soldier, they can be put to death.

Neglecting duty is something else than accessory to murder, which was argued here. I agree that they neglected their duty and should be charged with the full force of the law. But let's try to stay precise about what the real actionable offense is. Societies have almost broken down because people barely used language correctly. Sick and tired of people not using words correctly.

[gondrin]

The lookout example is not the correct analogy. The lookout makes the ultimate goal of the robbery part of his own motivation. He wants the robbery to succeed and that is his motivation to do the lookout.

These guys did not want the shooter to succeed. You'd have an incredibly hard time trying to prove that in court. They wanted survival and neglected their duty. You can get them for that. But not as an accessory to murder. That is legally not possible unless there is shared intent.

- - - Updated - - -



Neglecting duty is something else than accessory to murder, which was argued here. I agree that they neglected their duty and should be charged with the full force of the law. But let's try to stay precise about what the real actionable offense is. Societies have almost broken down because people barely used language correctly. Sick and tired of people not using words correctly.

- - - Updated - - -



Neglecting duty is something else than accessory to murder, which was argued here. I agree that they neglected their duty and should be charged with the full force of the law. But let's try to stay precise about what the real actionable offense is. Societies have almost broken down because people barely used language correctly. Sick and tired of people not using words correctly.

A better example as far as a bank robbery goes is if someone drove a friend to a bank because the friend asked them for a ride, said friend goes into the bank then robs it, hops in the car and tells the person driving the car to they want to go home and gets taken home. The person driving the car had no knowledge of it or anything. Said person, regardless if they knew or not, can be charged as an accessory to said crime because they helped the person that did the crime in some way to get away.