Uvalde and all the rest: on reading press coverage carefully – ever so carefully [BUMPED UP: scroll down for newer posts]
The tragic events in Uvalde have been interesting in many ways, but one of those ways is how the response has acted as a reminder that most people – including people who know that the press often prints “facts” that turn out to be false – don’t read media reports with a critical eye. This is particularly true if the report aligns with some preconceived notion the reader has, but it’s not limited to that.
People often talk about paying attention to the 24-hour rule or the 48-hour rule, which is to wait for that long before believing a seemingly sensational story in the news. Sometimes I think it should be the 24-day rule, or the 24-week rule, or even more depending on the story’s complexity and the strength of the motive behind presenting it in a certain manner. For example, the facts of Russiagate are still emerging, all these years later, although most people who hate Trump are probably still stuck in their earlier perceptions of him as Russian asset and are quite happy to stay there. In that sense, the media will have accomplished its task of setting the “narrative” early and powerfully.
That’s one of the reasons I’ve written so many posts on Uvalde. This particular story has various features that put me on alert for poor coverage. The first is that it’s a highly emotional and very disturbing and even heartbreaking event to begin with, so we have emotions that are a mix of despair, fear, anguish, and rage. After the initial coverage and shock, though, the rage at the perpetrator starts moving to the background. After all, he’s a shadowy figure about which little is known, and now he’s dead so there isn’t that much to focus on – no trial, no confession, no nothing. But the police who failed to protect are an easy target, and in addition in this case (as in most) there were failures of execution and apparently a lot of confusion and even chaos, all of which has resulted in accusations of cowardice or worse.
The MSM has been focusing on that part of the story, and it started early with the release of videos of parents standing outside screaming at the police to do something. At that point, did they – or we – even know that the entire school was being evacuated by police and other officers? I don’t recall that being said until later, and it hasn’t been described often or in any detail. And yet it apparently happened, although we have yet to be given a timeline that would help us understand when it happened, and how efficiently or inefficiently.
In addition, there have been so many stories – some based on interviews with various participants, including traumatized child survivors – that no one is coordinating them and looking to see whether the facts being told match up with each other. I say “no one,” but supposedly someone is doing just that: those who are mounting a full investigation and who will be releasing some sort of report many months or even up to a year from now. Till then, they’re not supposed to leak, and one reason is that preliminary and fragmentary information can be very wrong.
But the public wants to know more, and now. For example, commenter “MBunge” writes, among other things:
…as long as you don’t also suggest we should be happy and content with Uvalde police preventing the public from hearing 911 calls or viewing body camera footage of that day.
I just want there to be one standard on this stuff. Not one where, for example, doubt is cast on the statements made by a mother in the immediate aftermath of the shooting but carefully planned and prepared comments by the Uvalde school police chief made over two weeks later are treated as gold.
That last paragraph is a criticism aimed at me. Some or even most of you may have missed what’s being referenced there, so I refer you to this comment of mine and also this, which both point out why I have some reservations about the much-reported story told by a mother who claims to have rescued her own kids. To briefly summarize, my hesitation about accepting the story at face value rests on a large problem with the timeline she gives, the lack of any corroborating evidence including photos, and the fact that the woman appears to have a criminal past. That does not mean her story is false – as I’ve also written. As for the police chief’s story, I have included reminders that we simply don’t know whether his story is true or not. We do need to hear it and evaluate it, though, and weigh it against actual evidence as it comes out, and we don’t have enough information yet to know.
I’ve repeatedly said that I have no problem condemning police if and when I do have more – and more reliable – information, and it points to their guilt. As it is, though, there’s plenty to already criticize, such as the chaos and confusion of the command structure, and the lack of knowledge about the keys, and I have criticized those things and more. But I refuse to say I know more than I know.
I plan another post that deals with the blockbuster story that came out over the weekend, saying that the police didn’t even try to see if the classroom doors were open or not as they waited in the hall, and that there is video evidence of this, and that at least one of those classroom doors was actually unlocked. Hopefully, I’ll get to it today or tomorrow (I’ve already written this lengthy comment about it, as well as others, but I have considerably more to say).
In the meantime, I’ll deal with this Vice article on which I’ve already written several comments; the article is about police “lawyering up” and refusing to release certain material. It is what commenter MBunge was referring to when he wrote: “…as long as you don’t also suggest we should be happy and content with Uvalde police preventing the public from hearing 911 calls or viewing body camera footage of that day.”
There we have the typically sarcastic idea that I’m saying “we should be happy and content” – something I never said. But think for a moment of what is being asked by MBunge and others: hearing 911 calls and viewing body camera footage of that day. I can’t offhand think of a school shooting where such footage was released by police before an investigation was complete. For example, bodycams (if there were any in Uvalde; I’ve heard differing reports on that) would show – among other things – the police entering and seeing the mutilated bodies of fourth-graders, some with their heads practically blown off. I’m being graphic here because it’s necessary to actually confront what’s being demanded. The 911 calls would feature the voices of terrified children who survived, and perhaps even some who died.
Does the public have right to demand such things, and are they ordinarily released so early in the game? I can’t recall any such release in the past, and certainly not at this point – which has nothing to do with being “happy” and “content” about it.
In addition, if you read that Vice article carefully, you’ll find this:
“Uvalde Hires Private Law Firm to Argue It Doesn’t Have to Release School Shooting Public Records” – Some of the records relating to the Robb Elementary School shooting could be “highly embarrassing,” involve “emotional/mental distress,” and are “not of legitimate concern to the public,” the lawyers argued.
Sounds terrible, and like a coverup. And it’s meant to sound that way. But note the shortness of the quotes. “Embarrassing” to whom? “Emotional/mental distress” for whom? We are meant to think it’s the police, of course – and indeed it probably would cause those things for the police. But from previous experience, I’ve learned that in order to understand what’s actually being said here, we need to see the full quote. What comes to my mind is that the release of the videos and 911 recordings would be highly likely to cause distress to some of the victims’ and survivors’ families, as well as the survivors themselves. That’s not rocket science.
Later on in the article there’s also this, which indicates this is just a preliminary legal position that is standard, and later there will be a determination by the court of what needs releasing and what doesn’t:
“The City has not voluntarily released any information to a member of the public,” the city’s lawyer, Cynthia Trevino, who works for the private law firm Denton Navarro Rocha Bernal & Zech, wrote in a letter to Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. The city wrote the letter asking Paxton for a determination about what information it is required to release to the public, which is standard practice in Texas. Paxton’s office will eventually rule which of the city’s arguments have merit and will determine which, if any, public records it is required to release.
And then we get to this [emphasis mine]:
The letter makes clear, however, that the city and its police department want to be exempted from releasing a wide variety of records in part because it is being sued, in part because some of the records could include “highly embarrassing information,” in part because some of the information is “not of legitimate concern to the public,” in part because the information could reveal “methods, techniques, and strategies for preventing and predicting crime,” in part because some of the information may cause or may “regard … emotional/mental distress,” and in part because its response to the shooting is being investigated by the Texas Rangers, the FBI, and the Uvalde County District Attorney.
So now we learn one of the reasons for the “lawyering up”: the city and its police department are being sued. Perhaps you don’t think they deserve to hire additional private legal representation, as they have done here (they apparently already have one in-house attorney). But I would think them very foolish if they hadn’t “lawyered up” under these circumstances. Note that again all those short quotes about embarrassing information and emotional distress are offered, with no further explanation of who would be experiencing those things. We are left to assume it would solely be the police.
The Vice article does include the text of the actual letter sent by the lawyer, in its entirety. This is in a little box, and is ten pages long (at least, it was that long in the font I use). How many people who read the Vice article will also plow through the letter, which is not only long but in dry legalese? I submit that it would be read by very very few. I quickly read it in order to determine whether it specifies who would be embarrassed or emotionally distressed, and it does not. This is unsurprising, because this is a legal document whose function it is to quote the relevant statute, which contains general language about those things, blanket language that applies to anyone who might be involved in the case.
So in summary, no one is asking anyone to be “content and happy,” only to look at a more full picture and to also wait for more information to see how things pan out. It’s also good to look at all articles carefully and read them with an eye towards noticing what is being put in and what is being left out. And to keep asking questions.
Neo,
I wish you were a Fox News website contributor. Or maybe The Epoch Times. I read the public version of Fox News website.
Of course, you would not want that kind of coverage, I suspect.
Your articles are much more thought out than much of the “ drive by media” , as the late el Rushbo would call them.
A few years ago, seems I recall the Rush quoted you on air?
jon baker:
Thanks.
Yes, that Rush thing was probably something like 16 years ago. Time doth fly.
I have a simple question, and it may have been addressed earlier, but I don’t recall seeing it.
Was the School District Police Department a completely separate entity from the Uvalde City Police Department?
If so, it would make sense that Arrendondo would be the commander of all law enforcement responding to the scene. Which makes it puzzling that he turned his radio off and spent much of the 77 minutes fiddling with keys. That, you would think, would be handed off to a subordinate.
As to the outer door not closing completely, I was talking to my daughter, a principal of an inner-city elementary school yesterday (she was wishing me a happy Father’s Day) and, of course, the subject of Uvalde came up.
Her school is physically much the same as the Uvalde elementary school, but in her case 4 classrooms are interconnected by a series of hallways between each classroom– none of which even have doors, let alone a locking mechanism.
Her school is subject to infrequent/frequent lockdowns (depends on your pov).
Anytime a gun is fired in the vicinity of the school, they go through a lockdown. The most recent lockdown was Friday, when a father (known drug user), after being served with a restraining order, told family members he was going to visit his children in school, before killing himself. Needless to say, the family members called police and the school was put on lockdown.
After the children were all secure, my daughter was checking outside doors that are always locked and should lock on closing and found three that didn’t lock, because the doors has sagged over time and the friction with the jamb kept the door from closing completely and locking. Teachers were leading their children through these doors and never checked that the doors locked!
Some of this is related to how often the school is subject to lockdowns. As the vast majority of these are more exercising extreme caution than real threats, it’s easy for complacency, and, of course, teachers resent being scolded when they fail to do their job (my characterization, not hers).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xQeXOz0Ncs&list=WL&index=35
I thought this video had some insights that apply here, especially the idea of the “first story” vs. “second story” part towards the end. Being an ex-Navy Nuke submariner, I can attest to the part about the pressurizer, and “going solid”. So even though it’s about Three Mile Island, the lessons apply to Uvalde as well.
Brian E:
Good luck finding how the structure of the Uvalde PD and school district police were connected or not connected. I’ve tried and failed. My guess is that there is some sort of connection, but I don’t know. They certainly were connected that day by cellphone. Apparently the PD didn’t relay the information about the 911 calls; we don’t know why.
You write: “Which makes it puzzling that he turned his radio off and spent much of the 77 minutes fiddling with keys. That, you would think, would be handed off to a subordinate.” I didn’t read that he turned his radio off. I read that he didn’t take it in because it would hamper his mobility, and that he knew that it probably wouldn’t work in the school because that was usually the case. I have also read that other officers there had radios that were turned on for a while and they didn’t work. I also read that they might not have had them on (or used the phones too much) because the perp was alive and right behind that door and could hear them. They didn’t want him to hear what they were planning or doing, because it would tip him off. But they did communicate by cell phone and by whisper and low voices, apparently.
Also, the report that there were 19 officers in the hall actually said that “at one point” there were “up to 19 officers” there. I don’t get the impression there ware that many officers there most of the time.
As for the keys, I don’t think he spent much of the 77 minutes “fiddling” with keys, even by his own story if that story is true. Several different key chains were brought to him, he says, and he tried them. How many minutes does it take to try a bunch of keys? Certainly nowhere near 77.
As for why Arredondo did it himself, I think that, having read the article about his interview, he says that he was willing to go in first and die. You may or may not believe that, but if that was his attitude it would make sense that he would expose himself first by trying the keys. They also probably thought that the perp could hear the key-trying efforts and might shoot him through the door. That’s my interpretation, anyway.
I agree with Jon Baker, you need greater exposure of your voice of reason.
You so much better than the Panic panic, scream and shout, run in circles, jump about types that dominate media.
I can see that the City and Police in Uvalde are heavily exposed to lawsuits, and getting extra help beyond what the city attorney can handle (who isn’t, after all, probably prepared to handle a mess like this) is sensible. My only point has been that the outside attorneys could phrase their statements more carefully so as not to fan the already spreading flames of bad public opinion.
As to “information” from “sources,” I’ll wait until sources are named. But the public perceptions are so bad that if there’s exculpatory material in favor of the police it would be far better for them, and for Uvalde in general, for the information to come out soon.
Kate:
You write: “outside attorneys could phrase their statements more carefully so as not to fan the already spreading flames of bad public opinion.” Did you actually read the attorney’s note? It’s basic attorney stuff, citing a statute in the usual way. The attorney never made a statement to the public. However, anything that will be said by anyone will be twisted to make the police look worse, no matter how carefully it’s stated. Same for anything the police will release. And it’s pretty clear that whatever videos are available just show a buzzing confusion and chaotic situation, and are of very poor quality (I plan to write more about that tomorrow).
I can’t see why anyone would say that releasing anything except a statement from the deity in support of the police would help at this point. The entire topic is completely poisoned.
SCOTTtheBADGER:
The “we knows” insist that you light your hair on fire and join with them
in their displays of enlightenment.
Basic attorney stuff is good law practice, no doubt, but can be lousy for public perceptions of non-lawyers. Can’t be helped, I suppose.
Kate:
If the attorney gave a press conference, her words would not only be twisted to reflect poorly on the police, but she would be criticized for exploiting a horrific tragedy in order to defend the cowardly cops.
The press could make their coverage more fair, and give a more complete story, and THAT would help public perceptions. But the press chooses not to do so, because that approach wouldn’t get many clicks.
Here’s more bad news for Uvalde.
https://citizenfreepress.com/breaking/disturbing-new-details-from-uvalde-shooting/
No one who wasn’t there has the right to call anyone cowardly or not. In all this I find I only have two questions; Why didn’t the school district police have door breaching equipment? And how did the Border Patrol officers get in the classroom(s)?
how long has it been, we know skippy o’rourkes pathetic grandstand failed, and there is a fresh rising star in mayra flores, but the facts are still sparce on the ground, about where we were with parkland, and another incident with a slightly different character, the zimmerman case, the usual suspects, proliferate,
You can be almost certain that the Uvalde City Police department and the Uvalde School District Police are separate legal entities. Texas law allows school districts to have their own , fully certified, law enforcement agencies. I am not sure if they have arrest powers off campus or not, but I think they do. Under what circumstances their department ALLOWS them to make arrest off campus would be a separate question.
The real question is how much coordination and communication do they have with each other while in the field?
Part of the problem is that grave doubts about the honesty of police departments caught out in past cover ups have sensitized all of us to that probability.
How often do police departments freely admit to wrongdoing? Given their purpose, they have a moral obligation to do so, otherwise trust is lost.
So when the media demonizes the police and there is apparent support for that demonization, it is all too easy to conclude that where there’s smoke reported, there must be fire somewhere.
We have come to expect cover ups from any institution at risk of grave consequence. Upon what basis might we expect an honest and forthright investigation whose report “lets the chips fall where they may”?
It’s the truth we hunger for and issuing easily determined answers to basic questions is unlikely to disrupt an investigation, that is unless real guilt exists like dereliction of duty.
So what was the deal with the long delay in finding the right key? It strains credulity to imagine that neither the janitor nor the principle could not quickly identify that key. No way was the janitor having to work through 30+ unmarked keys at each schoolroom door. Nor would any principal tolerate having to try key after key when they wanted to enter a locked schoolroom. It’s a ridiculous proposition of that being the case.
For once Joe Biden’s “Come on Man!” rings true.
Who and how many people had duplicates of that key? Surely the Principal and Principal’s administrative secretary knew where duplicate keys existed.
Why did the breaching equipment Arredondo requested as soon as he determined the need… never arrive?
It doesnt ‘cut it’ to essentially leave it at ‘well, it just didn’t’.
Why are there pictures of half a dozen or more cops standing together apparently at ease, they certainly were not acting to establish a security perimeter. In fairness, when was that picture taken? If taken with a phone or digital camera, a time stamp of when the picture was taken exists, that can determine exactly what was happening at that moment. If well after the shooter was killed, fine. But if during the wait, it raises serious questions that demand answers.
This is not rocket science, basic questions like these can be quickly answered. The public does not have a right to info detrimental to the investigation but the authorities do have an obligation to release basic information that does not prejudice the investigation, regardless of any guilt it may reveal.
I for one don’t want revenge on cops doing their best in a bad situation. They’re human too. I do want honest explanations of what happened. I’m willing to wait for a reasonable amount of time, which shouldn’t be more than a few more months. But if I sense the authorities are “pissing on my head and telling me it’s rain”… I’ll be forced to conclude that there’s plenty of guilt to be had because that’s the only explanation for a cover up. And that will result in deeper distrust of the authorities.
“No one who wasn’t there has the right to call anyone cowardly or not”
yes and no. many people are cowards, but there is no place for cowardice on the police force. To quite Hyman Roth ” this is the life you chose”
I am a physician and am semi-retired.
I postponed that semi-retirement for 18 months to care for covid patients , and my wife came out of retirement to give vaccines.
Life has never been all wine and roses for the medical profession. Historically we die in pandemics and get killed in wars. Bazarov died of typhus from a patient.
Its the life we chose!
Geoffrey Britain:
You write: “Surely the Principal and Principal’s administrative secretary knew where duplicate keys existed.”
Oh, really? Surely?” What makes you so very sure?
I think we can safely say instead: “Surely the Principal and Principal’s administrative secretary ought to have known where duplicate keys existed.” That doesn’t rely on any facts not in evidence at all.
Have you noticed that the press has reported nothing about the principal or the principal’s administrative secretary or the janitor and their roles that day, other than that the janitor was at some point located and keys were obtained from him (I will assume a “him”)? Where were they, what were they doing, did they have keys or didn’t they, and if not then why not? When were they contacted by the police, what were they doing at the time they were contacted, what were they supposed to do in a situation like this, and on and on with pertinent questions of that sort? Why isn’t the press asking them? I’ve been asking them, but I see almost no one else asking them. Why not?
Update here from PJMedia. It doesn’t seem to cover the door issue though, if the door issue is even still a thing.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/paula-bolyard/2022/06/20/what-were-police-thinking-news-about-the-uvalde-school-shooting-just-keeps-getting-worse-and-worse-n1606679
Historically; soldiers, civilians, and physicians die in wars and in pandemics.
Construction workers die on the job, as do teamsters, fishermen, miners, oil field workers, loggers. Its the job they chose.
I haven’t been a fisherman or a policeman or soldier, but have been on jobs where people died. I needed the work. Finished a shift on the chimney after stepping into the open air 200 ft up; my one hand on the headache ball hook saved me, the opposite of a “death grip.” It scared me and my coworker, we rifght back to work.
Eva Marie; Erasmus:
Eva Marie – when I go to read your link the exact source isn’t specified at all except “videos” and “documents reviewed by the American-Statesman.” When I go to the American Statesman article, it’s behind a paywall so there’s no way to respond to it.
That’s the Austin paper. I have no way – nor do you – at this point to evaluate what they are saying and how reliable their information is. What’s more, at your link there’s a photo there with no caption, which the reader is supposed to think is the photo of the Uvalde police in the hallway 19 minutes after they arrive. Perhaps it is, but why no caption? Why not a single word to say what it is and how it was obtained? Without that information, we have no way to know what it means. We are assuming, but why aren’t they saying? It would be a simple thing to caption it something like: “surveillance video from the Robb Elementary hallway on May 24, 2022.”
There’s also this, which I noticed quite a while back but no one has discussed yet anywhere that I’ve seen. I read in a Houston paper on June 3:
“The quality is poor” and the FBI is trying to enhance it. But that photo doesn’t look like poor quality video. What gives? Is the Houston paper wrong, or is this new report wrong, or what? I am very troubled by discrepancies like this, as well as missing information. Is it just sloppy reporting? Can you explain the discrepancy?
If the new report is true about the shields etc. (and we already knew that BorTac were there with shields at least as early as 12:10 or 12:15, so this just moves up the timeline to earlier), we will learn in due time. If there’s an explanation, I’d certainly like to hear it, because of course it appears to reflect VERY poorly on the police.
Here’s the article
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/06/20/officers-arrived-uvalde-school-rifles-shield-9-minutes-after-gunman/7623318001/?itm_source=premium_bundle&itm_medium=onsite
The most interesting quote is this one It’s near the end of the article:
“I don’t have a radio,” [Arredondo] added. “I need you to bring a radio for me.”
“Multiple police officers stood in a hallway at Robb Elementary School armed with rifles and at least one ballistic shield within 19 minutes of a gunman arriving at the campus, according to documents reviewed by the American-Statesman, a devastating new revelation deepening questions about why police didn’t act faster to stop the shooter who killed 19 children and two teachers last month.
Even as officers with high-powered weapons and ballistic shields massed inside the blue and green hallway, the gunman could be heard firing rounds — including at 12:21 p.m., 29 minutes before officers entered the classroom and killed him.
Investigators say the latest information indicates officers had more than enough firepower and protection to take down the gunman long before they finally did.
Authorities have produced the most extensive timeline yet since the 18-year-old armed with an AR-15 walked into the Uvalde school on May 24, shattering a South Texas town and reigniting the gun debate nationwide.
. . .
The latest timeline shows that officers ultimately breached a classroom door at 12:50 p.m.; the shooter had entered at 11:33 a.m.
Authorities have reconstructed the events of May 24 using footage from inside the school, which showed the gunman casually entering a rear door, walking to a classroom and immediately spraying gunfire before barricading himself. The timeline also was built using body camera video from more than a dozen officers inside the school.
According to the new information, 11 officers entered the school within three minutes of the gumman. Pete Arredondo, chief of the Uvalde school district police force, called a landline at the Uvalde Police Department at 11:40 a.m. for help.
“It’s an emergency right now,” he said. “We have him in the room. He’s got an AR-15. He’s shot a lot. … They need to be outside the building prepared because we don’t have firepower right now,” he said. “It’s all pistols.
“I don’t have a radio,” he added. “I need you to bring a radio for me.”
Four minutes later, at 11:44 a.m., body camera footage detected more shots from the gunman.
At 11:52 a.m., an officer with the first ballistic shield entered the school as other officers grew increasingly impatient.
“If there’s kids in there, we need to go in there,” one officer said.
Another responded, “Whoever is in charge will determine that.”
A transcript of body camera footage from officers showed Arredondo was trying to find keys to open the classroom door, even though officials say they do not believe officers had tried to open the door.
At 12:03 p.m., an officer with another ballistic shield entered the school, and a third arrived two minutes later.
The new information shows Arredondo also tried to speak to the gunman, asking him whether he could hear him.
About 30 minutes before the breach, Arredondo wondered aloud whether officers would consider “popping him through the window? Get two shooters on either side of the window? I say we breach those windows and shoot his (expletive) head off through the windows.”
At 12:46 p.m., the timeline indicates that Arredondo told SWAT team officers who had arrived that they should breach the classroom door if they were ready.
. . .”
If you like I can post the whole article but the rest concerns hearings.
“at your link there’s a photo there with no caption, which the reader is supposed to think is the photo of the Uvalde police in the hallway 19 minutes after they arrive.”
There’s a time stamp in the upper left corner: 11:52:28:13
The phrasing of some of these reports implies the classroom door was not locked.
That would be one thing.
If it were locked, either it gets breached–sure we have charges handy?–or if not, unlocked with keys.
I said something earlier which may apply here; the school had had more than three dozen lockdowns due to external stuff, maybe in the town, leading to nothing for the school. Trained to complacency. Always time to get our hockey together. Tomorrow.
Ballistic shields don’t undo a door, which it would seem is now the question.
Shooting through the door window at…. Why should Ramos have been visible?
Or, if Arredondo had his radio, or somebody gave him one, and it worked, who would he expect to talk to and what–considering Ramos was forted up–orders could he give that cell phones would not transmit and which could improve the situation. We now know–we think–that ballistic shields were arriving fairly early in the procedings so…what else? More guys? He had, “up to” nineteen which, even if there had only been half at the decisive point, would have been twice as many as could successfully go through the door.
Other than a “gotcha”, what was the function of the radio at that point?
Eva Marie:
Perhaps you simply don’t understand my point.
When there is evidence, even presented in a newspaper rather than in a courtroom, you need to know where it came from and what it purports to be before you can figure out what it means in relation to the case.
Photos in newspapers are ordinarily given a caption, so the lack of caption is unusual to begin with. A very important question the paper doesn’t answer is who gave it to the paper and how did that person get it? The timestamp of the photo – which I certainly noticed before you pointed it out – is this part of the video (or photo), or did the newspaper add it later? The reason I ask that is it struck me as odd that it says “time” on it as part of the timestamp. Do surveillance videos usually say “time” before the numbers? I’ve never seen that before (which doesn’t mean it’s not authentic; it’s just unusual, as far as I can tell).
For example, Google the term “surveillance footage” and then click on “Image.” You’ll get a ton of surveillance stills from all sorts of surveillance videos. None that I can see are labeled the way that newspaper photo is labeled, with the word “time.” Some have no labels at all, but for the most part they have a date (which the photo from the link you gave also doesn’t have) as well as a time. Some just have the time, however, but I couldn’t find any that have the word “time” as well. Take a look for yourself.
We simply need more information to know what we are looking at and where it came from. That’s not too much to ask. It’s really the minimum to ask. Why doesn’t the paper provide it? It should.
Again, to repeat: it doesn’t mean the information is false. It may be true. But we can’t know yet if it’s true or false. And that’s been the case for so much of the information given about the police in Uvalde so far. It’s very frustrating.
I lack sufficient info to say much of anything about this incident, but can address one part. A decade and a half ago I retired after 35 years as a dispatcher from an agency in a town about the size of Uvalde. I can’t find specifics as to their comm center, but ours only had one dispatcher at a time. Our comm center handled pretty much all of the incoming business lines, the three 9-1-1 lines, dispatched police (the single school officer was a member of my Dept) and fire/ambulance.
Having worked through a similar SHTF incident, I’d not be surprised if Dispatch did not pass on everything they heard. I promise the 9-1-1 lines would light up immediately as another call was terminated, along with regular lines from callers outside the jurisdiction on the regular lines. Not every officer had their radio off and I suspect plenty were asking questions, along with those on the phone to the station (like the Chief) and probably other agencies who were trying to send help. One can’t stay with any one caller (even if they are in the room next to the killer) as another caller may have better info or an unrelated emergency might be coming in (e.g. in my incident, a code 3 medical emergency come up in the middle of the SHTF incident). No amount of training and experience can prepare one for that type of situation where one is deluged in a firehose of info, but could only put a soda straw’s worth out to the men in the field.
In my case we got lucky: two other students overpowered the armed student and no shots were fired.
Eva Marie:
The thing I’m interested in from the article behind the paywall is what it says about how it got its information and from whom. How many sources? Is the person or people with an actual investigation, or just “familiar with it”? What is the provenance of the photos and/or videos? How did the reporter get hold of them – did the reporter see them himself or herself, or did the informant provide a still photo, or what? In other words, what’s the provenance of the information?
Generic “investigators” and “authorities” don’t cut it. Are they “investigators” and “authorities” who are actually doing the investigating of the Uvalde police, or are they buddies in the field who talked to someone who talked to someone who told them this and that? If they are investigators on this case, why wouldn’t the paper say so?
Why do I ask these nitpicky questions? Because over and over, with particular prominence in the Jan 6 coverage but in a whole host of other cases, we’ve heard from “investigators” and “authorities”, even ones who are “familiar with the investigation” (but apparently not working on it), who have given us bad information that has then been spread around as though it’s true.
Just to take one small example, remember when Officer Sicknick was killed by demonstrators wielding fire extinguishers hitting him in the head? Never happened. And they had video to prove it – but the video was someone else being hit with a fire extinguisher that day.
Eva Marie – the link you provide is an example of what I dislike about so many in the media. (not faulting you, nor is it unique to this case)
Just look at the text they provide in the link: “disturbing-new-details” – it is like they made up their mind.
How about they just report the facts and let me decide if it is “disturbing” or not. But, if they did that it would not lead to the sensationalism that many in the media love to exploit; and so many viewers/readers love to click!
roy in nipomo:
Your story makes sense to me. The amount of chaos and stress involved, and the unaccustomed and ever-changing nature of the crisis, would make it extremely hard to handle the flow of information.
Alright what was the entry point and how far was it from the two classrooms in question, was there an exterior breach point
Eva Marie:
By the way, reading the excerpt you posted from that newspaper article (at 8:23 PM), I don’t think it adds much that’s new except that ballistics shields arrived a few minutes earlier than had been reported. I had heard the shields got there at 12:10 (with BorTac), which was still a lot before the door was actually opened. I had heard there were some efforts by officers to shoot through the windows but they couldn’t see the shooter. I had heard the shooter shot through the door several times at officers while the police were in the hall. And we already know the officers were looking for keys for quite some time, although we don’t yet know the exact time frame.
As far as whether the officers tried the door to see if it was locked, my impression is that the officers may have done that when they first arrived on the scene (around 11:35 AM), and apparently before there were any police bodycams present, and that the surveillance video that was in the hall was of very poor quality and may have missed any attempt to open the door and didn’t even indicate exactly where the police were at the time (at that point I believe there were seven of them, including Arredondo).
From the Houston newspaper on June 3:
If that turns out to be the case, then there wouldn’t be any documentation of any possible attempt to open the door just by turning the knob.
I looked at the firms principal partner denton and zach theyve done some good work including one case that went to the supreme court they are baker and hofstedler or some big white shoe firm
A guy walked into a school and shot and killed a bunch of people. Pretty much all the available evidence is that law enforcement AT MINIMUM badly handled the incident. There’s basically no way to look at any of the information that has come out and conclude “Yep. The police did exactly what they should have done.”
Were the actions and decisions of Uvalde law enforcement quite as atrocious and indefensible as its critics allege? Maybe not. So what? Unless I’ve missed something, nobody commenting here is from Uvalde or knows someone who lives there. It wasn’t your school. They weren’t your children. It didn’t involve your political leaders or public safety agencies. This tragedy is actually less relevant to your lives than most of the stuff that gets discussed here. Yet many are clearly invested in not just doubting the prevailing narrative on Uvalde but iindulging in some undefined counter-narrative that somehow, someway the media picture is all wrong and those poor Uvalde cops are being treated unfairly.
May I ask…where was this skepticism, this jaundiced eye, this refusal to accept the presented narrative when it came to Ukraine? Where was this concern for “sources?” For where information was coming from? For questioning what details were presented and why? Why subject the words of a mother who feared for her daughter’s life to the most intensive forensic examination but swallow almost whole the story coming from people like Bill Kristol? Why do you think the media is lying to you about Uvalde but telling the truth about Ukraine?
And before anyone asks, why do I think the opposite? It’s because information on Uvalde is coming from multiple different sources all working independently in an environment where they can go anywhere they want, talk to anyone they want, and ask any question they want. Ukraine is almost the exact opposite.
And by the by…
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61856144
Read that story and ask yourself how many more tens or hundreds of billions of American dollars should be spent on Ukraine. And ask yourself why that money is being spent. Hint: It’s most likely NOT because the U.S. political establishment cares so very deeply about Ukrainians or their national sovereignty.
Mike
MBunge:
My concern for “sources” has been ongoing and applied to every story I cover.
In fact, I can hardly think of a story that hasn’t had to be substantially revised and often utterly changed from first impressions. I don’t care whether it’s about an accused perpetrator or cops, private citizen or public official – or even you, MBunge.
Your write:
Go back and read what I actually wrote rather than what your faulty memory recalls. For example, see this statement I’ve made about my coverage of the Ukraine/Russia war in general:
I wrote primarily about the history of both countries, of NATO, of coverage in the press, of discussions on this blog, of what this person or that person might be thinking, and continued to refuse to make predictions about winning or losing. I said over and over that the fog of war was a big big issue and that I didn’t see a good ending for either country in the conflagration.
I have acknowledged problems of corruption in both countries, and analyzed Putin’s speeches and past actions, as well as NATOs. However, I criticized Russia and Putin as aggressor, and continue to do so.
So I demonstrated my jaundiced eye about sources over and over and over in connection with Ukraine, repeating that we needed to be skeptical about all reports about battles and troop movements and all predictions of when the war would end and how, and I refused to make such predictions, with repeated caveats about the fog of war.
Sometimes I started posts like this:
Don’t trust reports; fog of war; may be correct…that’s the way I’ve been writing. So my skepticism and care has been just as present involving Ukraine, the 6th of January, the possibility of fraud in the election of 2020, Uvalde, George Floyd, the Covington kids, and just about everything I write about.
I have written countless posts on topic after topic, cautioning about poor sources. I simply don’t trust poor sources, ask questions, state things tentatively, and I wait for more information at the beginning, no matter what the topic. That has meant over the years I’ve had very little correcting to do, because I always try not to rush to judgment. As information comes out, I revise my tentative opinions. With Uvalde, I will do the same as more information comes out and in particular as sources are finally identified and I can trust the information.
So I haven’t defended the police in Uvalde in any special way – I’ve merely given them the same care I try to give everyone accused of anything. It is never a bad idea to want a named source or at least an identified one close to an investigation rather than just “an investigator” or “an authority.”
You also write:
I’m hard-pressed to think of anyone here who would disagree with that paragraph of yours. I certainly agree with it, as I’ve made clear many times. Who on earth thinks “the police did exactly what they should have done?” If anyone here has said that, I’ve missed it.
Then you write, “Were the actions and decisions of Uvalde law enforcement quite as atrocious and indefensible as its critics allege? Maybe not.” Agreed. And also – maybe so. Maybe it will turn out that they were even worse than that. I’m waiting to find out from more trustworthy sources – that’s really all – and then I will say what I think and condemn the police if that is appropriate.
You also then write: “So what?” And that’s where we differ and differ greatly. What if you were one of those cops? Or if one of your loved ones was? Then I bet there would be a large “so what.”
I’ll tell you what the “so what” is for me: I care about the truth. I think in complex situations it can take a long time to discover it, and I’m willing to wait. I care about press coverage and people rushing to judgment. I care about taking our time, authenticating sources and information, which is one of our greatest protections against injustice and tyranny. And yes, I still care about protection against those things. And I care about how the press often twists and lies and sometimes accuses the innocent (or at least the less guilty) and frames them, and you should care too.
Is that happening here? I don’t know, and as more information comes out I have said it looks worse and worse for the police. But in any such situation, I want to know who is giving out the evidence, whether it’s authentic, and I’d even like to hear any defense the accused might offer and see whether it makes any sense at all. At the moment, we’re not yet there. So I hold back, which is not at all the same as exonerating the police.
As for the fact that Uvalde isn’t my community – I write about things that are quite far from my community every day, and I care about them. If you don’t, that’s your prerogative. But then, why are you even part of this discussion?
And Bill Kristol? Excuse me? I don’t think there’s a person here reading Bill Kristol or giving a rat’s ass what he thinks. Way long ago, perhaps, but not for a long long time. I couldn’t even tell you what he thinks about Ukraine, for example, although he probably takes Ukraine’s side like about 80% of people who write about it on left or on right. If I had to guess, though, I’d say maybe Kristol even thought we should have sent troops there? But that’s only a guess, because it’s been many many years since I paid any attention to him. I can’t think of anyone here who ever advocated sending troops to Ukraine at all.
neo,
No way does only the janitor have keys to the rooms.
“Have you noticed that the press has reported nothing about the principal or the principal’s administrative secretary or the janitor and their roles that day, other than that the janitor was at some point located and keys were obtained from him (I will assume a “him”)? Where were they, what were they doing, did they have keys or didn’t they, and if not then why not? When were they contacted by the police, what were they doing at the time they were contacted, what were they supposed to do in a situation like this, and on and on with pertinent questions of that sort? Why isn’t the press asking them? I’ve been asking them, but I see almost no one else asking them. Why not?”
Exactly.
This and the never to be delivered breaching equipment are IMO the central questions to be answered regarding the delay in confronting the killer. Every other aspect of this case is of peripheral importance to those two questions.
They are so central, so basic, so obvious that even the media has to be aware of their centrality. So the media’s silence has to be intentional. They either know and are withholding that information or they don’t want to know. Which certainly fits their agenda.
Whenever the official investigatory report is released, if it does not provide clear and verifiable information that directly answers “Why not?” it’s a virtual certainty that a cover up is in place. And a cover up will not involve just the actions of the Uvalde police because they’re just ‘cannon fodder’, if it serves the interests of higher authorities to offer them up for sacrifice they’d do so in the proverbial New York minute..
“sealed”, “withheld” or half a dozen other ways of putting it always look bad for somebody.
Why hide whatever it is? Tthis question with its implication is hauled out, or not, depending on who’s on who’s side for whatever reason.
Back in the day, I looked at a map of Newtown, CT where the Sandy Hook massacre took place. Best info at the time was that it took the cops fifteen minutes to arrive. Look at the map. In my best days, it might have taken me a bit more than fifteen minutes to run corner to corner in that little burgh. I exaggerate for effect.
I do recall something about those issues being sealed. What I don’t recall is some national fury that the cops weren’t there first–I exaggerate for effect–as we see wrt Uvalde.
In fact, the question hardly ever arose then or later. Now we have keyboard SWAT second-guessing every move, even in the absence of information about said move.
Not. Getting. It.
Bunge is back, hasn’t posted anything or any links about Ukraine, complaining about Ukraine. Now complaining and accusing neo about her her position on Uvalde.
Don’t be a Bunge. He’s that guy.
I am always skeptical about any news in the major papers from Austin, Dallas, San Antonio and Houston, for years they have reported all events as if these papers are part of the Democrat party, putting a left wing twist on almost everything including the phases of the moon. At some point the Texas Rangers might come out with a comprehensive report of the events that took place that day in Uvalde, there are a lot of fine law enforcement officers in every state including Texas but the leadership seems to be lacking in the tragic Uvalde event.
I find that all of this talk about doors, keys, radios, etal. is irrelevant when compared to two facts that we do know for certain:
1. The shooter entered the school at 11:33 AM.
2. He was killed at 1:06 PM.
That is one hour and 33 minutes and that is an unconscionable, unacceptable amount of time for a response from those whose job it is to protect citizens and to save lives.
Grandpa Your annoyance is noted. Now what?
What would be an acceptable amount of time and what would have to be in place to accomplish it?
If, at this point, the Austin paper and TV website are publishing altered screen shots and falsified reports of body cam audio, this is worse than even I think about “news” sources. I am tentatively accepting these reports as true. They do not answer, so far as I know, the question about the keys. Did the police try the door when they first entered the building, and find it locked?
According to the audio, as published, a police officer says they need to go in because there are kids in there, and someone says that will be decided by whomever is in charge. In addition to the question about the keys and lock, who was in charge seems to have been unclear.
Richard, Something much less than an hour and 33 minutes would be acceptable and some courage and willingness to do the job one signed up for would accomplish it.
Keep doing your excellent work Neo – nobody I know of or have read have been as scrupulously honest about what we know, think we know, and have heard but we don’t really know.
I’m reading lots of others, so have less time to hang out here and read great comments & try to add some — but nobody else is as honest as Neo.
This is ABC News reportage on today’s State Senate hearing;
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/texas-leader-uvalde-police-response-abject-failure-85530945
I find McGraw’s testimony that the Uvalde police could have taken out Ramos just 3 minutes after Ramos entered the building questionable at best. If that turns out to be inaccurate and misleading its an indication that higher authorities have decided to make Arredondo the scapegoat. But someone was in charge because establishing on scene command is one of the very first thing cops do, when a situation calls for an all hands on deck response.
MSNBC adds,
“McCraw said the on-scene commander, Uvalde schools Police Chief Pete Arredondo, was the “only thing stopping” officers from breaching the classroom.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-hearing-updates-senate-hears-testimony-on-mass-shootings/ar-AAYHW7T
Uvalde school district Police Chief Pete Arredondo is reportedly the lone witness in a separate hearing on the shooting being held Tuesday in executive session by the Texas state House of Representatives.
Fox News is reporting that a door from the school was taken into the Texas Senate hearing today. Perhaps we may get some answers about the lock. (The report didn’t say if this exhibit is an exterior or interior door.)
Neo – conjecture, the video stills seen in the “Citizen Free Press” are not raw footage, I believe it’s a photo of the monitor showing the video inside video editing software.
Note that it doesn’t just say “Time” it says “al Time :” The programmer in me fills that in to say “Total Time :” but could be “Final” or some other word.
Here is a non-paywalled article also using that photo. Did a google image search using one of the images from that CFP article. Google Image search is probably the best way to tease out fakes and original sources for images. Did that with a Berlin die in protest photo being used as anti-Ukraine propaganda saying “Look at Ukraine staging dead bodies.”
https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/special-reports/uvalde-school-shooting/timeline-uvalde-police-were-ready-with-guns-shields-and-tools-but-not-clear-orders/287-c0b74d8b-24e0-40e3-93a0-66fbc8a99c58
Also agree, that while we have more data/images to crunch through, that’s still not the whole picture.
From my recollection from that day it was “mass shooting turned into a barricade situation.”
And an aside, how many people loose something only to find it in their pocket or where you always put it, without any stress except for “where are my keys?”
But we expect law enforcement, with varying degrees of training, competence and balls, under immense stress to be perfect.
MBunge,
I don’t think it’s much of a revelation that there was a failure by law enforcement to react to the Uvalde shooter.
Arrendondo is probably going to take much of the blame. But if we find the school police department didn’t have the training to confront a shooter with a high powered rifle or the equipment to do so, this wouldn’t be the first time in mass shootings that police/security officers didn’t risk their lives immediately to engage a shooter.
If Arredondo spent 37 minutes, as he said in an interview by him, trying to find the right key, I wonder if this was a legitimate effort, but an excuse for not confronting the shooter.
His absence left a vacuum that other law enforcement didn’t take up.
We’ve learned that early on a officer didn’t engage the shooter for fear of collateral damage. Suppose he had opened fire on the shooter, and one of the children had been injured or killed by his fire. In our current environment, that officer very likely would have been charged with a crime. Maybe not, but the risk was there for him.
Without a commander on site to give the authority, what would have happened if any of the law enforcement on site taken the initiative to engage the shooter and injury or deaths to children had occurred from his fire?
I’m not sure, until we’ve experience being shot at, especially by a high powered rifle, how we would react. Even behind that ballistic shield, officers have to expose themselves to fire from the shooter.
Grandpa. That means armed officers there, every moment the school is open…not the kids’ time, but from the first admin to show up to the last one leaving. And where do you get these guys? Resources are not infinite and someplace else would be shorted.
And, after the target is obviously hardened, the guy goes where the shortfall was imposed.
Equipment? How many public buildings–which is to say all of them–would have a closet full of ballistic shields. And then every cop’s car has a shotgun with breaching charges. And every six months, the watch commander inventories the stuff and charges the guy’s pay for the missing breaching charges.
Gonna be a big deal hardening every target and if you leave just one….that’s the target. And you get to complain again.
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot with the door which cannot be locked from the inside? There’s supposed to be some kind of SECURITY here?
It’s always good to wait for the fog to clear.
Thing is, in this case, early reporting appears to be more accurate than not. Today, we have, with security camera video, officers inside the building with 1 ballistic shield. Yet, they paused, for about an hour.
I am a cop, former SWAT, I go through active shooter training every year with simunitions. I am graded on one situation only, a situation in which I go in by myself. I fail if I wait. I fail if I don’t attempt to be tactically sound with quick threshold evaluations.
At some point, we have to accept the police there did not do their job even taking into account that they are human.
Ever cleared a business by yourself with the knowledge that 1 person is dead and the suspect might still be there?
Yep, done it.
I am no better than the Uvalde cops. I have the same fears and it appears pretty much the same training.
Yet, they failed.
When our city had an active shooter firing rounds from a hotel room. We did not wait. We went in. We used a shotgun to breach the door even though the shooter, at times, was firing from a hole in the door down the hallway at officers. The shooter was arrested, alive.
Sorry, Neo, this is just bad all the way around.
Sorry, but neo has never implied the Uvalde atrocity wasn’t “bad.” IIRC the point is that how and why the bad ended as it did is not really known yet. Some think its close enough (hand grenades and H
bombs) and seem willing to destroy more lives than just those taken by the shooter. Because “I’m” tired or angry or whatever.
TexasDude:
I’ve said many times that the situation was bad in a host of ways: chaotic, problems with command structure and communications, etc. So that’s not news.
The question is whether it’s much worse than that, and if so how much worse. Exactly what was tried and when? How do we know? I have yet to see a straightening out of a host of conflicting information, including differing reports on how the classroom doors locked, whether they were in fact locked, whether police checked to see that they were locked, and how we know. And that’s just one small point of confusion.
As far as shields go, we’ve known since May 27 (McCraw’s press conference) that they got shields at least by 12:15. So we already knew month ago that they had them at least 35 minutes prior to entering the classroom. The news that there is evidence they had at least one shield earlier doesn’t really add all that much information, if true. The question remains: what were they doing, what were they not doing that could and should have been done, and what were the consequences to the children and teachers?
In the book ‘No Heroes’ By FBI agent Danny Coulson the author talks about the men who rise up the chain of command by avoiding making decisions when they can be held accountable and they are great at delegating from a desk blaming others when things go wrong. In the case of Uvalde the momentum of the moment was lost and then the thought processes and concerns about making the wrong decision set in and kids and teachers died while those who could have and should have moved in at once dithered at and then they dilly dallied around until the Feds took action. Perhaps if one actual leader who in the critical moments of entering the school took over and said ‘Follow Me’ over half of those who were killed might have been spared.
Richard Aubrey on June 21, 2022 at 12:19 pm said:
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot with the door which cannot be locked from the inside? There’s supposed to be some kind of SECURITY here?
Explained on another of neo’s threads, classroom doors need a key to lock from the inside, otherwise, as proved through actual events, kids are not trustworthy and can lock the teacher out of the classroom.
Look how secure prisons are, and they still manage to smuggle plenty in and out of them. Most schools do not have the security budget for that. They’d have to fire some DEI administrators and cut back on the woke propaganda.
In the end, no matter the facts or situation, there is always plenty of coulda, woulda, shoulda from both experts and novice alike.
Actual footage of Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw testimony to the State Senate committee;
https://therightscoop.com/watch-texas-dept-of-public-safety-chief-gives-absolute-brutal-takedown-of-uvalde-police-response-to-robb-elementary-massacre/
IF the door could not be locked from the inside (which can be easily verified), then the only way Arredondo could not know that is if he or his men did not even try to enter the schoolroom. If he did know, then he intentionally made the decision to let any wounded die. It also brings into question the prior story of trying 30+ keys…
“One hour, 14 minutes and 8 seconds. That’s how long the children waited, and the teachers waited in rooms 111 to be rescued. And while they waited the on-scene commander waited for radio and rifles. Then he waited for shields. Then he waited for SWAT. Lastly, he waited for key that was never needed.” McGraw [my emphasis]
Amazing how the quickly the “we knows” know the “only” way someting could have happened. Never heard of Murphy it seems.
Back to work.
“But we expect law enforcement, with varying degrees of training, competence and balls, under immense stress to be perfect.” zenman
That is a gross exaggeration. No one here expects perfection from anybody. We do expect a basic level of competence. We do in this case expect that with children involved, the cops would have a sense of urgency and do all they could to stop the killer. We understand that circumstance may have prevented quicker action. But for any such circumstance to be accepted, it must be reasonable and verifiable. The more we learn, the harder it is to accept that the delay in stopping the killer was justified.
Nor can any excuse be valid IF the cops had rifles, shields and faced an unlocked door and, if the door was locked and the cops had a “hooligan” crowbar, then a failure to use it is unconscionable.
Amazing how pathetic the apologia. Pitiful how personal animus is presented as objective criticism.
Maybe I’m not paying close enough attention but has anyone explained how this unemployed 18 year old living at the home of a convicted felon grandfather was able to purchase weaponry worth $5000 plus?
Did he steal his grandmothers credit card?
Bill Serra:
He was only recently unemployed. He had been working full time at Wendy’s for quite a while, after basically dropping out of school. He had no expenses – was living rent-free at the grandmother’s house. Various people have calculated it would have been easy for him to have saved enough to purchase everything, weapons and ammunition. I have read he paid with a debit card. More information may come out that contradicts that, but the information I’ve read so far is fairly straightforward.
Zenman. The need for a key to lock from inside has been discussed. I was responding to a statement from, IIRC McGraw, saying the doors could not be locked from the inside, w/o a reference to keys. If he’s wrong, what else…?
It’s been reported that the shooter had a job at Wendy’s, and further that installment payments may have been available.
Geoffrey Britain:
Whom are you addressing at 2:10 PM?
neo:
I strongly suspect that Geoffrey is taking aim at me.
Where he finds “pathetic the apologia” is something he will have to explain with his usual objective certainty.
For a minute, let’s assume that Arrendondo was trying to find the key to the classroom door where the shooter had barricaded himself (if in fact barricaded is the right description).
Why didn’t the police, with the armor they had breech the classroom door to the connected classroom? Once the shooter’s attention was drawn to the classroom where LE were entering to engage the shooter, the second door could have been breached.
I haven’t heard there was any attempt to divert attention away from the primary classroom where the shooter was. Or, was be actively moving between the two rooms? if that was the case, they would only need to draw fire from the shooter to know which room he was in.
There were certainly plenty of armed LE and at least 2 shields which would deflect the .223 round from the shooter.
What am I missing here?
Brian
One report had Ramos actually within the connecting passageway.
I’d want to see the entire layout Including sight lines from the doors’ windows to get an idea what whether Ramos might have thought that was the best spot. Lots we don’t/won’t know and it probably changed by the minute.
Richard Aubrey,
He still could only fire one direction at a time– and that’s assuming he would have had sightlines to the doors of both classrooms.
But even if he had, breeching both doors would have forced him to choose one direction of fire.
This whole incident is a tragedy on top of a tragedy.
neo,
I was referring to om.
Geoffrey:
No apology for me?
As you know, if you read. I’ve not been jumping to conclusions.
Details are finally comming out, knowns are being established. The truth will out.
GB. Yes. One direction at a time. “time” defined by the amount of it passing while moving the barrel maybe ninety degrees right to left and then the reverse, with a couple of rounds each way.
I can’t claim combat experience. I was on orders and, with a couple of months to due in country, my brother was killed so I didn’t go.
But, being an Infantry officer coming up through Basic, AIT, and OCS, plus training troops in Infantry AIT for six months, I’ve handled a lot of small arms….a lot.
The M16 is extraordinarily handy. Not only light, but the balance is closer to the body than in battle rifles, which means easier to make major deflection changes–a term not used for personal weapons but maybe drawing a picture here–you think and it points.
Such civilian offshoots look to be the same or, if shorter like the M4 is shorter, even handier.
It’s almost like having a wooden yard stick in your hands in terms of moving it around.
Point is, Ramos could put fire on both doors, taking less than a second to change the point of aim. The issue would be what of the adjoining room/passageway would obstruct his move or line of fire. Might have to step right one step, left one step. Young guy can do that pretty quickly.
Each breaching team is going to take hits. What that prospect is supposed to mean to them is another issue. Point here is…another bullet not made of silver. Nice idea, though.
It would be nice if the Congress would wait long enough to get the full data uI’m before proposing restrictions on our rights.
Regarding my comments about breeching both doors, I saw a crude drawing of the way the classrooms were configured.
Both doors were only about 6 feet apart with a dividing wall centered between the two doors. There was a fixed opening of about 6 feet halfway down that dividing wall.
Neo had described a bathroom connecting the two rooms, the drawing showed the a bathroom at one end of the hall serving all the classrooms on that wing.
It wouldn’t have gained much advantage to make noise like one door was going to be the entry point, drawing the attention of the shooter, while police entered the other door. The shooter would only have been 6-8 feet from the door.
“police entered the other door” doesn’t happen on little cat feet.
Eventually, there’d be an exchange of fire and Ramos would be dead. Unlikely any kids’ lives would be saved.
Pingback:Links and Comments | Rockport Conservatives