I count at least four.
I count at least four.
The police have collective bargaining contracts. These contracts are typically 5 year contracts. The police union has had the upper hand in the propaganda portion of CBA negotiations for the better part of a century. Elected officials come and go, making it difficult for any given city to affect meaningful change in policing in our communities. Some communities have managed to direct their police to turn away from “broken windows” policing (my area has been fairly successful at going this direction). It’s slow community driven work.
Even in the fantasy version the “good guy with a gun” generally doesn’t play any role until after the massacre has already started.
The best case scenario for arming more civilians is “maybe we can kill the shooter before he has a chance to keep shooting additional people until he runs out of ammo.”
The best case scenario for restricting gun ownership is “maybe we can prevent the would-be shooter from killing anyone at all.”
That’s not fair - often they protect white supremacy and the patriarchy as well! They’re multi-faceted! Credit where credit is due.
Cross-posting from the other thread:
I think this is even suspect at this point. I saw a video on CNN of the shooter who seemingly strolled up to an unlocked back entrance, which completely refutes the earlier narrative that shots were exchanged with law enforcement outside the school.
If they are unsure about what, how, and when the events unfurled, they should keep their collective mouths shut until they get all the facts. Right now, it just seems like they know they royally fucked up and they’re trying to concoct an elaborate story to cover their asses.
Yeah, that always makes me crazy because it doesn’t get acknowledged by the people advancing the fantasy. They talk about shootings being prevented. Which doesn’t even make sense. It doesn’t prevent shit, it’s purely a response and you literally can’t respond until the massacre has already started. So in school shootings, a certain number of children must necessarily die in their “best case scenario.” It’s perverse.
Well the earlier narrative I saw from them was that the cop “engaged” but didn’t fire on, the shooter before he entered the building. Either way, there was a cop right there. And even the first wave of subsequent cops arrived a few minutes later, before he entered the class and didn’t stop him.
What a shit show.
Why is this so difficult for some to wrap their heads around… when has “legal” ever equated to “just” in many cases in the US?
That’s all the same thing. I promise they’re far less likely to protect a working class white man as opposed to an upper class one.
With idiotic and tone-deaf responses from the GOP and the NRA only adding to the shitiness and misery.
You do absolutely have a point about the tendency of many police to simply let loose because they know that qualified immunity means they don’t have to worry about being prosecuted or sued for a mistake; my remark about 3-foot-tall bystanders was meant to point out the idiocy of claiming someone might “mistake” a third-grader for a gun-wielding adult (which is apologia for “I shot then thought”).
“But” means “everything I said before this doesn’t count.”
I can’t speak for everyone pointing out the legal issue but I think we are all on the same side here.
The point of saying the cops aren’t legally obligated to protect you is not to excuse but to admonish.
As long as there is no legal obligation to protect, Unions can keep building a system where cops are less able to help while simultaneously being free to indiscriminately kill people that make them nervous. Just and right don’t seem to mean anything to some of these Union leaders.
Somehow the party (GOP) that claims to be for law and order has created a system where cops have freedom from consequence but no obligations. That isn’t a solution to stopping the senseless murders of children.
I was reminded that the single cop at Parkland who stayed outside was charged with crimes, so perhaps it’s not so simple. I would be releived if there was even a modicum of responsibility and duty required. I would love to be wrong and see some consequences for the apparently pathetic response here.
For now I’m just an angry parent. Yelling at the internet. Furious at inaction, and seeing a system that appears broken to its core. Yet there is a single simple solution that no one has the political will to deal with because some people from 1791 can’t be questioned. It’s maddening.
I’m afraid I don’t understand if and what we are arguing about. I am truely sorry if I offended. I am mainly posting in rage at the whole situation and could easily have said something stupid. I will reflect when I have calmed down.
I hope you have a good night, and one day we can wake to a world where this type of news story is just a sad page of the history books.
i fear this means the next argument the gop will roll out - and one that many “centrists” seem perpetually to agree to - is just add even more police funding and training
somehow when their solutions fail - more guns, more police, longer jail and prison sentences, more tax breaks for the rich, more thoughts and prayers - the answer is to double down on the losing bet
They know full well that their “solution” would only serve to guarantee a steady stream of lobby bucks.
I can answer that! Most police never fire their guns (outside of training) in their entire careers! That’s why the fraction of cops who have the interest and aptitude for being in gun fights get into special teams like SWAT, or transfer into bigger departments where there’s a need for that kind of thing. The rest, especially in a small town like this, really are Barney Fife type police.
It’s really tough to train people in a subject like that if they aren’t interested in it and the police chief doesn’t see the need and the city council isn’t even aware of it. And that’s all ok, until suddenly it isn’t.
And remember, building clearing and team tactics aren’t just one-time training. It requires regular (several times per year) refreshers. Most cops just aren’t interested.
This may come as a shock to you how little firearms training of ANY KIND police get. The one reference I found says that the average cop trains twice a year, about 15 hours total… PER YEAR! That’s just enough to stay proficient with basic handgun use. That’s all! That’s not enough for ANY team tactics, ANY useful training on the AR15 or shotgun, ANY advanced handgun skills. That’s just enough to be able to draw, shoot, and reholster safely. That’s all! Probably many cops are below that average, firing under a couple hundred rounds per year for their qualification, which btw is very easy.
I’m not LE but I do have a CCW and I train a lot more than that, including professional training classes, AR15 classes, occasional night shooting classes, etc. That’s way beyond what ordinary cops do for training, although it’s a big step below what SWAT does for training. Probably many people who have CCWs train more than average cops, because people with CCWs are often firearms enthusiasts. I would get professional training a couple times a month if I had time for it. I still would be far below a SWAT professional in ability level, of course.
If you look at cops who are in positions like SRO, probably 99% of them will never use a gun outside of training. Such cops just are not going to be interested in team tactics and building clearing training, and again, that’s totally ok… until suddenly it isn’t.
15 hours per year of firearms training… barely enough to maintain basic proficiency. and safe handling.
None of this excuses inaction in this case.
On another subject, this is a major reason why arming teachers is a terrible idea. If cops aren’t getting adequate firearms training because it’s not a major part of their job, teachers really are not going to. The only exception would be the very few teachers who are firearms enthusiasts and want to get lots of training. How many of those are there? Couldn’t be very many.
PREVIOUSLY ON BOING BOING