I can't watch the video and only read the first page of comment. If my kids were in that school and the cops keep me from going in then the cops are now as big a threat to my kids a the shooter and will be treated as such. I can live with going to prison and I'm fine with dying but I could no live with myself if I did not do everything possible to save my kids and all the others. That includes treating the piece of (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) cops as hostile and believe me if they are afraid of a very limited experienced kid with a rifle well they would have no concept of the (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) I would rain down to save my kids. Or I will die in the process.

Fall back as in then quickly get a plan, get coordinated and go again. NOT wait over an hour. I am only saying that rushing in headlong also would lead to higher body counts. Yes, protocol in an active shooter scenario is to go to the gunfire and confront it...but that doesn't preclude some sort of exercise of strategy and formation to enhance the likelihood of killing the shooter and minimizing risk to the officers.

What so many, yourself included, fail to comprehend is that the protocol for a hostage/barricade situation does call for waiting while the commander(s) tries to negotiate with the shooter...so as to reduce any further loss of life. Neither the commander, nor the officers in the hallway had good awareness of what the real situation was in the classroom. The 911 calls from inside the room were not being forwarded to the people actually in command on the scene...so tragedy on top of tragedy, those urgent calls were essentially going into the ocean. Yet people react after the fact as though the responding officers had that info.

Uvalde timeline

Many people are also reacting and slamming the officers for ignoring the screams of dying kids, etc. Only I don't see where the officers were in the hallway in time to hear those screams. Virtually all of the shooting in the classroom directed towards the students and teachers happened prior to officers arriving in the hallway. Any victim still screaming, etc, was likely shot again prior to the officers getting there. (IF...it is determined that officers really did hear those screams and still hung back, then that is a very different situation in my mind. But that hasn't been established by any evidence that I am aware of. Yes...many people are supposing that, and reacting accordingly, but that is not actual evidence.)

Not a cop...also not related to anyone who is a cop at this time, but I do know some cops if that applies. But thank you for your erroneous judgment of me...it gives insight into your thought process, that is, making incorrect assumptions and then issuing your misguided opinion(s).

Are you a cop? Because if so, I would sincerely hope that you are more fact and data based, and not so presumptive, than what you seem to be.

I assume that for all of those that think that officers under authority/command in an emergency situation should be free to take matters into their own hands and then charge in, etc, to take out the shooter, etc. You will be A-OK when in the future, in a real hostage/barricade situation, where an officer, or two, ignore orders and rush in to take out the perp and greatly F's things up more than they were...you will be OK with that, right? Because that would them not being cowards, right? Or will you then being maligning those cops for being "rogues" or out of control "cowboys", taking matters into their own hands, not following orders, etc?

While I am not a cop, I can appreciate at some level what those cops were expected and TRAINED to do in a situation. Yes, the whole thing was a giant mess, but that was because of command failure, the determination of it being a hostage/barricade situation and not the active shooter situation that it really was. I do not see individual cowardice. I have asked this previously and I don't think anyone replied directly to it...if the attending officers were all cowards, how was it that 3 or 4 of them ran right in and went to the sound of the shots initially (as is their training)? Later on, approximately 45 minutes into the standoff, if they were all cowards, how come about 10 of them made a formation and advanced down the hallway to the classroom? Was it because they were directed to do so? And then they did.

Do you have any evidence that any of those cops disobeyed any order or directive? (Because that would be real cowardice and dereliction of duty IMO.)

You, and several others, are allowing the emotions of the terrible situation to drive your thoughts. In my opinion, people that are following orders and their training and who really didn't have a good way to know all the details and relevant context that is available later should not then be held in contempt.

I don't think that I am coward, but I do understand authority and command and control in organizations. Reading many of the replies...I think way too many people have no real understanding as to how organizations like police forces, fire departments, etc, operate. It is not, "everyone do your thing", it is a fairly rigid, top down, authoritarian style of organization. That has strengths AND WEAKNESSES too. One of the weaknesses is that when command fails...it is likely that EVERYONE fails. I think that is what played out here.

Your words above appear to indicate that the PROTOCOL for the two scenarios, active shooter and hostage/barricade, are the same...they are not. They are radically different. If the command called it an active shooter and then officers didn't behave accordingly...I would lead the parade to call them cowards. But that is not what happened.

I do try to understand things from ALL points of view, in this case, to include the perspective of those officers. In particular, the ones that I think are being unfairly maligned. To be clear, the chief deserves all of the criticism coming his way, as would anyone else in authority that day. But the responding officers...who were following orders and under command...no, they were behaving as they were trained to and under the authority of the on-site commander. To do otherwise is to be insubordinate.

BTW, yes, absolutely yes, I agree with you...they should have gone into that room and taken out the shooter very early on in that scenario. But the on site commander erroneously ordered a hostage/barricade response and in so doing, he gigantically screwed everything up.

I'll try a different analogy...if the coach(commander) calls a running play and the team then runs the play as called and nets no gain...is that on the team for gaining no yards OR is it on the coach for calling the wrong play? Should say, the tight end ignore his assigned block on the called running play and run a downfield route anyway because he thinks the coach is wrong?

I feel like people are blaming the officers for running the called play. Aim the scorn at the "coach", that is where the problem is.

So just following orders is OK with you. Since you like to play what if... I suppose when the cops come knocking to collect you guns it will be ok becuse they are just following orders and doing their job.

Cops HAVE to follow orders, to not do so would be absolute chaos and way worse results, particularly in emergency situations. Your attempt at a comparison is not "apples to apples", nor is it even "apples to fruit"...it's more like "apples to dinosaurs". In other words, completely meaningless.

Are you really advocating insubordination as an acceptable norm for police when they disagree? Should cops be free to selectively enforce laws and/or follow only the orders that they agree with, is that what you are saying?

Many cops do not follow the document they swore an oath too..and they do selectively enforce.

FWIW, not that this type of context and understanding is likely to change some of the made up minds here...but I just saw a video clip that indicates that some of the officers that arrived on the scene were never told that kids and teachers were in the room. Specifically, the BORTAC officer(s) that ultimately breached the classroom and shot the suspect were stunned when they burst into the room and there were dead bodies present, etc. They had no idea!

They came to the scene with very limited information as to what was going on and then...apparently in the span of 30 to 45 minutes prior to breaching the room...no one bothered to inform them that kids had been shot. Had they known that...they would have breached right after arrival.

They were under the understanding that the shooter was in the room by himself. If this account is truly accurate, and it seems like it probably is to me, then there are "suddenly" several fewer "cowards", no? People are making all kinds of assumptions about who knew what and when did they know it and then casting very serious aspersions on others from afar that just don't reflect a solid understanding of everything that went down there that day.

This is not to say that all officers were completely in the dark, but it sure is sounding like some were. For those macho men that have suggested that all of the cops present there that day, "eat their gun" or resign or be fired, etc, etc. Does your advice still apply...now that you have more understanding of the actual dynamics or are any willing to admit that their judgements were premature, wrong, etc?

I'll say again...command failed here and failed terribly...but the blame or scorn of the failed command doesn't necessarily then wash over to every other person present, making them all cowards, at least in my mind.

He won't get it.

When the 'order' is given to confiscate all firearms from citizens the cops have to obey that because it is an order...right, seiowa.

SEI, It would appear that you are not old enough to remember part of the fiasco in Vietnam at Mei Lai. This was where Lt. Cally(sp) was given orders to eliminate everyone in the village. This was done, then if I remember right, he was held accountable for the murder of dozens of innocent women and children. As much as you don't believe it, there are times and places where orders MUST be disobeyed. Mabey someone has a better recollection of all the circumstances, and can add detail. I am not advocating cart-blanch over riding orders, but each situation merits intelligent consideration, and doing the "right thing".
Zookeeper

I have a great deal of respect for Marty and his general outlook on things. Honestly. Marty, the things you say on this forum truly motivate me to keep working hard and be ready. But, I think seiowatrapper has a pretty reasonable and balanced viewpoint on this issue.
I understand some folks seem to have an established viewpoint of law enforcement in general. I wouldn't try to argue against that. I just think many of the evaluations and judgements of what happened in this specific case are not justified based on the very limited evidence and understanding of the situation that is available to us. This whole situation was poorly handled, that's for sure. But I don't think it supports the conclusion that "all these cops are cowards".

^ I appreciate that and the feeling are mutual.

seiowa makes a persuasive argument but it is not an honest argument. The first group of officers had numerical superiority, wore body armor and had at least one long gun. They had no orders to stand down and it is my understanding that common training to go at the shooter no matter what. They ran and 4 never even got close to the door.

He says cops 'have to' follow orders' but we all know that immoral orders should be declined. He says they did not know kids were there but they were in a school....they gave excuses about a locked door but the door was not locked..

Asked him if all cops have to follow the order to confiscate all firearms in the usa and he does not respond because the answer will not work for his persuasive but dishonest argument.

Yes, saying all the cops there were cowards may not be fair but how would you describe the first 7 who made no attempt to breach and ran or did not even approach the room (50%+)..

I could make a persuasive argument for socialism but that does not mean it would be an honest argument with all the facts. Leave out fats and do not answer important questions and anything can be made to sound good.

If it is ok for cops to run away in this situation then why bother with them responding. Stay in the vehicles until they have the perfect situation to do anything and let the kids die...

So I am being dishonest?? Ffftt. I don't really know you, but you also do not know me and FWIW, there are many people that I have known in my lifetime that would describe me as one of, if not thee, most honest people that they have ever known. Always right...nope. Dishonest though...also NO.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you are being honest, even though we disagree quite a bit here. But I see you conflating various issues and not really clearly analyzing the events of that day. I think you are confused, to wit...

1. Immoral orders - there was nothing immoral about following orders to stand down that day. The recognized commander fairly quickly declared the situation as a hostage/barricade scene...thereby enacting a corresponding protocol where the attending officers are to stand down. Now then, we know now that this decision was terribly, terribly incorrect...but everyone on the scene at that time didn't know that. There is nothing in the record now that clearly indicates that any, and certainly not all, of those officers knew that there were kids/teachers in the room and/or survivors that were still in immediate peril.

2. Does not respond... - I recall responding to your statement, perhaps you didn't like the answer. Cops do have to follow orders, lawful ones. I really don't see where your attempted comparison stands up here though. The two situations are very different, but in all situations, a law enforcement officer is obligated to follow orders from superiors and does not have the authority to disregard those that they disagree with. Now then, it is a different matter if the order is unlawful. Then, they would not be obligated to carry it out.

3. First 7 that didn't attempt to breach - your statement here is contradicted by the video evidence. The first 3 or 4 officers in the door DID run to the sound of the gunfire in an attempt to confront the shooter. They retreated after they ran into heavy fire, with one officer apparently getting his hat shot off. That they didn't pull back together, get organized and try again very soon thereafter is a problem. But in the immediate aftermath of that attempt, the on site commander changed the whole situation by incorrectly
declaring it a hostage/barricade situation.

4. OK for cops to run away... - your emotions are getting the best of you here, this is really just a ridiculous statement to make. No one has said that it is OK for the cops to run away and stay in their vehicles until everything is perfect, etc. I would not expect them to continue run into the face of gunfire like they first encountered. But they should have quickly regrouped and retried. But by then the command ordered them to stand down while he tried to negotiate, etc.


I believe that many, perhaps all, of those staged officers would have gone through the door very early on, given some protective gear, weaponry and some sort of a tactical formation to give them even some modest protection. However, communication and command failures greatly compounded the response and essentially made the whole thing a debacle. Another tidbit I have read just this afternoon is that when the 3 BORTAC officers ultimately did breach the door and take out the shooter...he emerged from a closet/small adjoining room inside the classroom just before getting roasted. The person reporting this seems serious and reliable, but I have yet to see this detail in the official record, so take it FWIW. But, if so, it may give even more understanding as to why he hadn't been sniped from a window, etc.

Thank you.

OK, I would not see these two happenings as all that comparable. I think I have been careful to say that LEO's should follow all LAWFUL orders, please allow me to clarify that. Your characterization of you think I believe is incorrect.

One, someone was actively killing civilians, yes, while being ordered to do so. The other, as far as we know right now, all, or very nearly all, of the killing was done by the perp and was completed before any officer entered the hallway. Yes, the delayed reaction very likely resulted in additional deaths, as some continued to bleed out when seconds and minutes were vital. BUT...no officer actually shot anyone under orders.

I would agree with you that an order to a law enforcement officer to shoot someone should be ignored and not carried out. I don't see where these situations are the same though...to follow orders and not advance while the command is attempting to negotiate, etc, is not the same things as pulling the trigger, etc.

If all the kids were shot before the cops were in the hall, then what was all the shooting that continued throughout the video??

It doesn't matter thay we're following orders. Don't you get it yet?

He lost me at his #1 yes its immoral to follow an order that keeps you from protecting the kids.

They didn't know kids were in the room. ITS A SCHOOL WITH ACTIVE SHOOTER DURING SCHOOL HOURS. Simple facts are lost on some.

I guess he missed the video of cops handcuff parents trying to get to their kids while the cops stand around. Sickening.