On Uvalde: notes on the ALERRT report
No, I’ve haven’t forgotten that I said I was planning to write another post (or several posts) on the lengthy McCraw presentation to the Texas legislature about Uvalde and the police response. It’s just that so many events have intervened that I haven’t gotten around to it, and time marches on.
And this isn’t that post about McCraw’s testimony either, not yet. This is about a related subject, though, the Texas State University ALERRT report entitled “Robb Elementary School Attack Response Assessment and Recommendations.” A reader was kind enough to send me a link to the 26-page document.
I had already read something about the report and wrote the following concerning it as part of this July 6 comment:
It would also be really nice to know whether the Texas State people had access to all the interviews and videos and all of that, or whether they’re working off newspaper reports. I hope for everyone’s sake it’s the former and not the latter. But neither of the two articles I’ve read so far (the NBC one you linked and the Texas Tribune one I linked) sees fit to mention the sources involved in the Texas State study.
In other words, I was very puzzled that this long report was issued and then reported on, and some of its findings cited, without a word in the MSM about what the report’s sources were.
Well, now I know [emphasis mine]:
The information presented in this report is based on a incident briefing held for select ALERRT staff on June 1, 2022. The briefing, which was held for approximately 1 hour, was led by an investigating officer with knowledge of the event and investigative details. Briefing materials included surveillance footage from the school, Google Maps, a brief cell phone video, and verbal questions and answers between ALERRT staff and the investigator. We were first oriented to the location of this incident by the investigator via Google Maps. We were then given a chronological timeline of events and actions by the investigator as we reviewed the cell phone and school surveillance video. All times presented in this report are based on timelines provided by investigators. Additionally, we have received additional information as the investigation is still ongoing. The timeline presented here is based on the most current information as of 6/30/2022.
That’s a bit vague as to the extent and timing of the “additional information,” but it seems to pertain mostly to updates in the timeline, as far as I can tell. Otherwise this took one hour, including questions, in a briefing held about a week after the shootings? That certainly gives a new meaning to the term briefing.
I watched four and a half hours of McCraw’s presentation to the legislature on June 21 (my first post on it was here), as well as hours of testimony from others later that day, and the experience raised more questions than it answered. I simply cannot imagine what kind of presentation could be given in an hour, even without the question-and-answer period, and how a report could be based mostly on that.
That’s not to say that this report isn’t accurate. Most of it matches much of the information we already have and can be found on this blog and its links, as well as comments here. The timeline the report gives contains a little more detail in some portions (including seconds rather than just minutes, for example), and it is more clear about certain aspects. For example, as had been hinted and as I had suspected, the initial flurry of shooting by the perp – and almost certainly the killing and wounding of teachers and children – happened as soon as the perp entered the classrooms, from 11:33:32 to 11:36:04. And it’s still not 100% clear whether the perp entered room 111 or room 112 first, a distinction which will become more important when I discuss the doors in one of the posts I have planned for later that’s based on McCraw’s longer legislative testimony.
Three Uvalde police officers enter the building at 11:35:55. That’s nine seconds before the last shot in the fusillade, but they’re not yet at the classrooms, which are down a hall and around a corner. Four other officers enter the building at 11:36:00 and four more at 11:36:03. As the officers get to the classrooms (the report says the “threshold” of the classrooms), they are fired upon by the perp (at 11:37:00 and 11:37:10). As we already know, two were injured – the report says “by building material fragments caused by the suspect’s rounds passing through the walls” – and then the group moves away from the doors but remains in halls nearby. After that, over the rest of the time they are in the hall, the perp fires two isolated shots, but unfortunately the report doesn’t answer the question of whether the shots were towards the hallway or not (I have read that police said they were, but I would guess there’s no way to substantiate that).
On page 12 of the report is a useful diagram of how rooms 111 and 112 relate to each other, and it contains some information that is new to me. I already knew (from some reports and also from McCraw’s legislative presentation) that the surveillance cameras had trouble picking up which door, 111 or 112, the perp had entered first. That was partly because the camera was mounted somewhat far away and therefore the perspective of the video of the doors wasn’t of great quality, but now I see it also was because the two doors are smack next to each other with no space at all in between. They constitute what’s more or less a double door.
McCraw’s presentation had already featured the doors themselves, so I knew what a classroom door in Robb Elementary looked like, but on page 13 of the report there is a photo and you can see the narrow window in the door. An important point is here (page 16) (one also mentioned in McCraw’s legislature presentation):
We received information from the investigating officer that the lock on room 111 had been reported as damaged multiple times; however, this has not been confirmed through work orders at this time. Regardless, the suspect is seen entering the room, exiting the room, and then reentering the room again prior to officers entering the building at 11:35:55. The only way to engage the lock is to insert a key from the hallway side of the door. At no point is the suspect observed entering the hallway and engaging the locking mechanism. Based upon this, we believe that the lock to room 111 was never engaged.
However – and again, this is part of a future post I plan to write about the doors and the locks – McCraw actually said some contradictory things during that presentation that made the issue quite confusing. In addition, the idea that a key was necessary to lock the doors from the outside was contradicted by at least one teacher interview I read, as well as the contradictions from McCraw. In other words, it was hard to make sense of what McCraw was saying, although I listened to the relevant portion several times. As I said, I hope to explain this in a later post; please bear with me, because it’s somewhat complicated.
As I’ve said many times before, in my opinion a big problem with the police response was that it was chaotic and disorganized. With this, the university report certainly concurs: “It appears that the officers did not create an immediate action plan.” It certainly does – or rather, whatever plan they did create (which was also chaotic and disorganized) was based on a false premise, that this was a barricaded subject rather than an active shooter. From the report:
It is not surprising that officers who had never been shot at before would be overwhelmed by the directed gunfire. This is especially the case if they had not been consistently training to deal with this type of threat.
From McCraw’s legislature presentation, I’ve developed a novel (and rather strange) hypothesis as to why the officers hesitated to act for so long and considered the perp to be a barricaded subject rather than an active shooter. But that’ll have to wait for another post.
The university report then goes on to give alternative approaches that should have been considered for getting into the classrooms, some of which seemingly could have been tried and should have been tried, such as going in through the windows in a coordinated effort. The report goes on to discuss various breaching methods, which would make sense if the officers felt it was an active shooter situation. We already know that for some mysterious reason they did not, and the report doesn’t try to figure out why they were so mistaken. It’s something I’ve pondered, and as I said I’ve come up with a somewhat strange possibility, which I plan to detail in a future post.
The report adds a couple of things I hadn’t known before, which is that miniblinds on the outer windows made it hard if not impossible to see from outside into the classrooms, and if the window entry had been tried the blinds would have had to have been “raked” by police. The classrooms were somewhat dark for that reason although it was daytime, and that could have made it somewhat difficult to see in accurately from the hallway through the narrow window in the door. In addition, of course, there would have been the possibility of hitting children if officers fired through the door without getting a good view of the perp.
I’ve said before – but it bears repeating – that I see the police response somewhat differently than most people see it. It’s partly a drama – and a tragedy – involving courage (or lack thereof) as well as training (or lack thereof), and I certainly agree that those are issues. But in addition, and importantly, I see the failures of the police that day as emanating from incorrect perceptions and poor communication. I hope to elaborate on that in a future post or posts.
I’ll stop there for today; this is already long enough. And it only scratches the surface.
Thanks for this report, keeping it from disappearing like many other big tragedies is worth the effort.
“Four other officers enter the building at 11:36:00 and four more at 11:33:03.” Did you intend the reported times be out of sequence or is this a typo?
Thanks for all your work on this difficult subject.
TCNM
tcnm:
Typo. Thanks, will fix!
“McCraw actually said some contradictory things during that presentation that made the issue quite confusing.”
“it was hard to make sense of what McCraw was saying, although I listened to the relevant portion several times.”
Muddled thinking? Incompetence? Intentional misdirection?
Upon what basis might one assume that the authorities are not engaged in CYA in their reports?
“It appears that the officers did not create an immediate action plan.” from the university report.
Isn’t that what shooter exercises are intended to familiarize police with… i.e. action plans that have already been established? What other purpose might shooter exercises have, if not that? If the school police force had recently conducted one… wouldn’t the city police force also have participated in prospective shooter situations?
This continues not to add up.
“I’ve developed a novel (and rather strange) hypothesis as to why the officers hesitated to act for so long and considered the perp to be a barricaded subject rather than an active shooter. But that’ll have to wait for another post.” Thanks, neo. Can you give us a hint about your hypothesis or at least a time estimate for it’s release?
neo:
Thank you for the continued sober assessment of this atrocity.
Argh!
https://twitter.com/JimHansonDC/status/1546960674517094400
Tucker Carlson showed a short version of the video inside the school. The Austin newspaper has it. Those COWARDS stayed in the hallway while kids were slaughtered. One of the COWARDS kept using hand sanitizer.
All of them should be FIRED and denied their pensions.
I’m really surprised that people haven’t attacked these COWARDS at their homes.
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/2022/07/12/uvalde-school-shooting-video-of-robb-elementary-shows-police-response/65370384007/
I don’t want to hear about a lack of training or communication. I see it as outright cowardice. Armed cops waited for over an hour and did nothing.
For decades we’ve heard about Texas toughness and machismo. The whole Alamo thing. Texas is the gun capital of the US. But when it really mattered, armed cops did NOTHING.
Why they all haven’t been fired is beyond belief. The circling of the wagons and self-protection is absurd. They should all be fired for misconduct and stripped of their pensions. March them to the town square and take their badges.
The cop using the hand sanitizer is the perfect metaphor. He didn’t want to dirty his hands saving these kids.
If this would have happened in Nebraska, no way would the cops have waited.
What’s the diff between an active shooter and a barricaded gunman?
The former is still shooting, right?
The latter has some cover and concealment and might not be shooting.
In either case, you want to shoot him, unless talking him out is on the table, which it wasn’t in this case.
In the barricaded case, shooting might be useless because of protection–barricade–or inability to locate.
Basically, breaching and assaulting is the only answer in this case, since shooting more or less randomly won’t help and may hit the kids.
But that requires getting through a stout door which, unless the cops had seen the perp going in and out without a key, was going to be a problem. So…..
Did the Bortac guys bust the door in some fashion or did they figure it was unlocked?
Richard Aubrey:
I plan to deal with a good many aspects of your questions in subsequent posts.
Cornhead:
I’ve gone back and forth with you several times before on this subject. So I won’t belabor it now, except to say I think you are reacting primarily from emotion rather than logic, and that you’re not aware of many salient facts. I doubt anything will change your mind at this point, however, since it appears to be firmly made up.
Neo, thank you for going through this from so many angles, and in so much detail. The TRUTH is the most important aspect of anything, because it alone leads to evaluation and future planning.
I really enjoy seeing a keen mind at work.
Thank you again!
Texas native Taylor Sheridan wrote the movie “Hell or High Water.” In it, two guys rob a Texas bank killing two. The bank robbers jump into their car and the town’s people show up and start shooting at the robbers. That’s the Hollywood version of Texas.
Tonight, as often, I was on Mark Stein’s page, listening to him interview an articulate young woman who had been abused, from age five and for several years, by Pakistanis in the English town of Telford. The police would not help — just as they would not help numberless others in Telford, Rotherham and several other places where cops, office holders, social workers and others, out of rancid cowardice, had failed to protect their young girls. This courageous young lady had also testified on Mark’s show shortly before, and after that, two Telford policeman had tracked her down, banged on her front door, and excoriated her for daring to publicize their unforgivable shame. Beyond infuriating. Yet my blood pressure was only to rise more, for as I listened, I also watched on TV as burly Uvalde “rescuers”, rather than run toward the sound the gunfire, actually retreated down the hallways at the first sound of gunfire in that fateful school. Then stood there, listening to the sound of children and teachers being slaughtered.
Together, the two reports provoked a nearly physical revulsion, hitting me as they did as a kind of recapitulation of all that seems to suggest, here and in Europe, the decline and fall of the West.
My kingdom for a vomit bag.
This brings to mind the Santa Monica couple and their friends who were murdered by Somali pirates in 2011. From an article:
“U.S. military ships and helicopters had been trailing the Adams yacht, the Quest, since Friday, shortly after armed Somalis seized the vessel.”
I remember thinking at the time, these people had the most powerful military force at their disposal and it was pure tragedy.
We can go back and forth about cowardice and it may be a factor but I think the real issue is bureaucracy. The chain of command even on the remote high seas waited like those in Uvalde, but in this case, days. The 15 special ops personnel went in after several days, only after the missal launch and gunshots from the yacht. Too late.
“…decline and fall…”
“America’s Retreat by 1,000 Small Steps”—
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18698/retreat-small-steps
Key graf:
“Because the Biden family has been so deeply involved and so vehemently denied their involvement with Chinese business, the next question is as inescapable as the first: Does the flow of money to the Biden family from China influence the foreign policy of the United States?”
As they say, “to ask the question is to answer it…”
Another question:
With which other countries is “Biden” deeply ensnarled, entangled, ensnaggled…? Beholden? (And Hillary, for that matter?)
File under: But those Jan. 6 Insurrectionists!…. (Know, however, that the mighty will rise up.)
According to the story linked below a cop had the shot before the shooter–who had already sprayed the outside of the building with bullets–even entered the building, called his supervisor for “permission” but, while waiting for it, lost the shot.
Isn’t initiative and on the ground judgement what we pay cops to be good at? *
See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/07/watch-new-footage-shows-uvalde-cops-running-away-salvador-ramos-shoots-children-dead/
Snow on Pine:
I already wrote a lengthy comment about that cop who asked permission to shoot, while outside the building and nearby the funeral home. Please see this.
As far as that Gateway Pundit link goes, to be blunt, I have found that blog to be highly unreliable in the past, not just once but very very often. I don’t link to it anymore for that reason. However, if you read the present post of mine, you will see that the Uvalde police didn’t enter the hallways (as recorded by video in the school) until the shooter had almost certainly completed the killings. After that, he shot at the officers when they arrived (shot at them through the door and walls) and injured two.
So the video isn’t showing the cops running away as Ramos shoots children dead. The entire article is written to be misleading. Ramos did not “continue his killing spree.” His killing spree was over. However, some people who were shot and might have been saved with an earlier rescue may have died (bleeding out, for example) because of the delay in getting into the rooms.
I believe the goal of such articles is to stir up hatred with misrepresentation of the facts as we know them so far. And I believe they are very very successful at it.
neo
I had not heard Ramos fired at the building from the outside. Is this true?
If he were simply moving along with a rifle in hand…Texas is an open-carry state. You need more than a glimpse of the future to shoot somebody who’s open-carrying.
Richard Aubrey:
First there was a 911 call that Ramos had shot his grandmother. Then a while later (not a long time, but some minutes later) he crashed the car near the funeral home, got out, and shot at two people from the funeral home who approached him. There was also a 911 call about that. Then he climbed a 4-ft fence around the school (across the street from the funeral home). Then he walked to the school parking lot. Then towards the school itself. When he got to the school he spent about a minute or somewhat less firing at windows there. At some point not long after that (we don’t have an exact time for it) a teacher in one of the schoolrooms whose windows had been shot (neither she nor her students were injured) called 911 as well. All those calls seem to have come in before the perp entered the school.
We don’t know at what point the officers learned – or even if they did learn – that the perp in the school was the same guy who had shot his mother. No official has ever addressed that question nor has it ever been asked, as far as I know, by anyone but me.
The cop – the one who supposedly had a chance to shoot the perp at a distance while the latter was outside the school – that cop was at the funeral home site of the crash there, having responded to the 911 call about the crash and the shooting at the two people there. It is completely unclear (and has never been addressed as far as I know) whether the perp had already fired at the school windows at the point at which the officer saw him and had the opportunity to take him down. But the officer probably did know that the perp had fired at the two men from the funeral home, without hitting them.
See how complicated this is, and how much is unknown or ignored, even (or maybe especially) by reporters?
Okay, neo. You know I believe in free speech and the adversary system to find the truth. Write a post where you persuade me that cowardice was NOT the reason the cops stayed in the hallway for over an hour and did nothing.
The cop who used hand sanitizer might as well been eating a donut.
Texas cowards is what they are. Nebraska cops would have acted. Convince me otherwise.
neo:
Regarding the press and Uvalde reminds me of the saying about “con” men and “marks;” the marks want to believe the con.
Clearly the Nebraska effect must be studied and applied to all LEOs throughout the US. If that is not possible, then all states must be merged into the greater state of Nebraska. Fixed it?
I fully appreciate that this comment contains some generalizations, but I believe – in broad strokes – this to be true.
Texans have a whole bunch of arrogance and fake toughness. Many are complete blowhards.
Compare the University of Texas football team to that of the Nebraska Cornhuskers when Dr. Tom Osborne was the head coach. Dr. Tom was born in Hastings. He was a humble guy, but had a strong will to win. Exceptionally smart and super hard working. He took a team composed – at its core – of Nebraska farm boys and he dominated college football in the 90s.
The University of Nebraska is not rich like the University of Texas. Lincoln is a crummy small town. It is very cold in the winter. But Tom built championship teams in Nebraska.
Tom didn’t brag. He didn’t like talking to the press. He famously said, “When you get in the end zone, act like you have been there before.”
When Tom became AD, he got UNL out of the Big 12 and moved to the Big Ten. Genius move. He said that the time he was unhappy with how Texas had too much influence in the Big 12. He wanted to get away from Texas.
Texas hasn’t been good in football in decades.
Another Nebraskan who is very much like Dr. Tom is former Creighton basketball coach Dana Altman. Dana is from Wilber. He’s now the head coach at Oregon. He took Oregon to the Final Four and made the Ducks consistent winners.
Like Tom, Dana doesn’t brag. He hated doing his post-game radio show at Creighton. He’s a very hard worker.
Considering how much smaller and poorer Creighton is to the big state schools, I was always amazed how we beat them on a regular basis.
What does this have to do with the murders in Uvalde? The masses take their cues from the leaders. The leaders create the culture. Dr. Tom was – and to this day – remains influential in Nebraska. People want to be like him.
My view is that the cops in Texas thought they were tough guys because they lived in Texas. Macho men with guns. But when it came time to act, they backed down. Following orders? Cowards? Miscommunication?
I take special note that some parents ran in and got their kids. And the cops tried to stop them. For what reason? Too dangerous? Not part of police procedure?
There comes a time when one must act. To hell with the excuses. Prove that he is a man. I say that these Texas cops failed. They are cowards. And have they submitted to sworn depositions?
The failure of the police in Uvalde is nearly as bad as the police station burning in Minneapolis.
Derek Chauvin got a life sentence for bad optics. These cops will all get their pensions. Cops have to protect their own. No accountability.
And OM, I know Nebraskans. I know what would happen. About four years ago a police woman was part of a team who served a warrant on a bad guy. He got lucky and hit her in the neck just above her vest. She died. But her fellow cop, killed the bad guy right away.
The police are trained to shoot guns. The Uvalde killer wasn’t. The cops have protective gear and the element of surprise. As we saw with the Feds, they took him out in short order. The local cops should have done the same. Cowards, I say. Cowards.
Has it ever been revealed whether or not the cops knew about the 911 calls that came from inside the classroom?
Hmmm, wondering why Nebraskans didn’t respond to these shooters with a hail of gunfire…
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/nebraska-mall-shooting-leaves-one-critically-injured-suspects-large-n1264411
And it took them 3 hours to secure this shooter…
https://www.ksnblocal4.com/2021/08/11/breaking-shelter-place-order-issued-due-active-shooter-situation-near-juniata/
****************************************************
Nobody knows with 100% certainty what they or anyone else will do in any particular situation. Pretending otherwise is wishful thinking.
When you get in the end zone, act like you have been there before.
Cornhead:
That goes into my quote list!
Good that at least one person has it all figured out.
Zenman, those weren’t true Nebraskans?
🙂
@Cornhead:
I would not expect a standard patrol officer to be capable of using an AR-style weapon to engage a threat at a distance beyond that of pistol range.
Even if within pistol range, I would be surprised to see one round out of 30 hit the target.
A once-a-year weapons qualification requirement (Texas, other states probably differ) and a one-time “school shooter scenario” training event does not mix together to equate a well-oiled school shooter response force.
But, as always, we will dismally watch events like this unfold and be told by our betters that cops are here to protect us and only the government should have guns.
Zenman:
“Suspects “fled the scene” but were later arrested, the Omaha Police Department said.”
Altogether different facts.
Link below describes how the Omaha Police reacted in 2014. They shot the bad guy in a face-to-face confrontation. I suppose they could have stayed in their cars and called Border Patrol.
https://omaha.com/news/crime/omaha-hadnt-wanted-cops-tv-show-to-film-officers-after-officials-relented-a-sound-tech/article_0659daec-4f50-56a1-afd9-ae757d790923.html
Omaha police killed an armed felon during a traffic stop. See link below. They yanked him out of the car, one cop got his hand on the gun the felon had in his pants and then the cop beat him to the draw.
A Creighton law student tried to start a race riot over this incident so I’m very familiar with the facts. I attacked him mercilessly on Twitter.
Super brave and super smart Omaha cops. That’s what I’m talking about.
https://omaha.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/omaha-police-release-videos-from-kenneth-jones-shooting/article_fb940b02-a2e6-11eb-94bc-a7531fb5d9c7.html
I would not expect a standard patrol officer to be capable of using an AR-style weapon to engage a threat at a distance beyond that of pistol range.
Even if within pistol range, I would be surprised to see one round out of 30 hit the target– Grunt
I hope you’re wrong. Someone that is going to carry a handgun better be a damn good shot, whether a private citizen or a cop. The risks are too high.
1. Mayor of Uvalde wants a criminal investigation of leak of video. CYA.
2. TV expert says it is a training and leadership issue. BS.
Brian E:
So, are you expecting all cops to be trained at sniper level?
In a relatively small town?
I’m not sure what you’re saying there.
Cornhead:
I fail to see why you think you’re making an analogy that anyone should pay attention to. As you describe the cops in Omaha (and your link is behind a paywall, by the way) they were dealing with a guy in traffic stop. In addition, Omaha police are in an urban environment in a metro area 30 times the size of Uvalde. Different experiences and an obviously different situation.
Nonapod:
The answer to your question is that they were not informed of the 911 calls.
Apparently a single officer – whom I believe, if memory serves me, was outside the building – somehow knew about them. My guess is that, because he was outside the building, his police radio worked and he happened to cut through all the jabber (there was a lot of extraneous talk) and hear something about the 911 calls. But there is no evidence that he told anyone else, and my guess is that he thought everyone else knew as well.
That is disturbing and so far there is no explanation for the officers not being told, because they were in communication with headquarters through cellphone calls (cellphones did in fact work in the building much of the time, but radios didn’t).
Another very disturbing part has to do with Officer Ruiz – but I plan to get to that in another post. At least some officer or officers learned from him, when he arrived at the school, that his wife had been shot and was in a classroom. He knew that because she had called him privately though, rather than through 911. So I don’t know whether headquarters or anyone else except Ruiz himself knew that. When he tried to convey that information to someone in the school – and McCraw didn’t describe to whom or what he said other than that she’d been shot – he was apparently disarmed and led out. By whom? What did that person say? Was the information never conveyed to anyone higher up? McCraw never explained, and no one asked, which is very strange to me. I certainly want to know a great deal about it, because it’s one of the most shocking things about the entire incident and the police response.
I can come up with various theories, some less pernicious and some more, but I simply don’t know. Is Ruiz’s privacy or his wife’s privacy being protected? Or is there some sort of lawsuit by him and his family? I have no idea. But the subject was dealt with in an extremely cursory manner by McCraw.
Cornhead:
If you believe in rational argument you would know that what you’re saying is quite irrational. Texas cops bad, Nebraska cops good? Got it.
Don’t order me to convince you of something when you cannot be convinced. I understand that your mind is firmly made up – do you understand it? Do you really think you have an open mind on this topic?
As I’ve written many times, I have more posts planned on the topic of Uvalde. You will see what I have to say there, but I’m not writing them for the purpose of changing your mind. I believe that your mind is set in stone on this particular topic. That’s your prerogative.
Neo:
I’m open to changing my mind. Write your posts. If I agree, I’ll post in the comments. And, yeah, I was challenging you. I’m the Devil’s Advocate.
Each state has its own culture. It is my opinion is that the Texas culture is full of blowhards who think they are tough guys (they get this from Hollywood), but when it comes time to act they chicken out. What other rational explanation is there? You say you have one, but I will hold you to strict proof. I will be fair.
I spent a considerable amount of time trying to persuade the NE S. CT. to reverse a trial court judge. The brief was packed with facts and the law. But I lost. I have to admit that I wasn’t persuasive enough or maybe I was wrong on the law. I think it could have gone my way, but I have to accept the ruling. I deal with reason, words and reality. Also, common sense.
Cornhead:
I thought you would assert that you are open to changing your mind. I have seen zero evidence of it in your statements here, and merely saying your mind is open doesn’t make it so.
And you are not the devil’s advocate. I think you have demonstrated quite amply that so far you are part of the emotional rush-to-judgment mob.
That doesn’t mean you’re wrong but it certainly doesn’t mean you’re right. Unlike you, I have never said that I know what happened there and why. I am still gathering information and although you have no trouble rushing to judgment I find plenty of things that challenge your point of view.
Are there any other states that meet the Nebraska standard? Which is the second to Nebraska, and can it ever hope to reach that pinnacle of perfection?
Back in the day, Infantry enlisted and commissioned, I fired a lot of weapons. I was also an Infantry Advanced Individual Training officer. Which is to say we got guys out of Basic and taught them Infantry stuff–as opposed to Armor or Cooks and Bakers.
Marksmanship was important, as one might expect.
Accuracy? Needs to be defined. With iron sights it’s demonstrated in the classroom….circle-dot-target. Simplest thing in the world. Biggest obstacle is that, I had no idea, some guys simply cannot close one eye.
But firing from rest, or standing without being bounced around by explosions or inside a moving vehicle…can hardly miss at a hundred yards. And hitting is not “sniper” level. Problem is flinching in anticipation of recoil or letting the trigger pull take you off target. The AR recoil is meaningless so if you’ve fired a few rounds, you’ll never flinch. Coming off target with trigger pull is not mechanical but a lapse in concentration. Trigger pull isn’t that big a deal.
Two hundred yards is different. You’d want to get a couple of seconds to settle down and fire from rest, at least leaning against something, to hit for sure. But…that’s what semi-auto is for. Another chance or twenty.
Problem with not shooting the guy is…open carry. Sure, it’s likely he’s the guy who’s been shooting up the place, but did the cop in question see that himself? If not, what has he heard, including the location of the shooter? Could this be a good citizen heading for trouble?
Killing a perp can be a big deal, depending on how the circumstances are portrayed–see George Floyd–and you can get in trouble for a lot less than that…see the compliance techniques used against Rodney King.
And killing anybody is a big deal. Worse, if it’s the wrong guy.
All of that said, killing somebody is a big deal and wanting somebody else to take responsibility–asking for authorization–might come naturally.
Neo,
Grunt said: “Even if within pistol range, I would be surprised to see one round out of 30 hit the target.”
Pistol range is 25 yards or less and most often less than 10 yards. Even given the assumption that this is returning fire, a one in 30 accuracy is pretty poor shooting, for someone whose job is to carry a handgun and be trained in its use.
Most cops are going to more likely use a shotgun than a rifle.
I don’t care what size the town, anyone carrying a gun better be trained and accurate.
Richard Aubrey:
Read this article as well as the ALERTT report. This quote is from the latter document:
So officers in Texas are apparently not routinely trained past 100 yards. I have no idea whether that is unusual about Texas or whether it is typical, but I imagine it’s not unusual. In a quick search I can’t find information on the yardage training and expectations in other states, but I did find this in New York:
It sounds very risky for a typical cop without special sniper-type training to fire under the conditions that existed at Robb Elementary that day, from a large distance and with large risk of hitting children or teachers. An officer can take a much bigger risk when the perp is not around other people.
That NY report also mentions that cops are not trained on moving targets and should be. In the case of the Uvalde perp, one of the articles mentioned that another problem was that he was moving fast and that impeded the chance of the officer getting off a good shot.
Neo,
I’m not sure why you keep using the word sniper.
Every Marine has to pass training that includes targets at 200, 300 and 500 yards.
That’s certainly not sniper distances.
@Brian E-
I agree with you completely. Those entrusted in carrying a firearm and in being the State’s agent in using deadly force when authorized absolutely should be fully trained and qualified in the use of firearms.
This isn’t the case in real life.
Neo posted a quote of the rifle qualification standards applicable to Texas, which agree with my own experience and observations. In the time I held a badge for a large, very well funded law enforcement agency in Texas we qualified on a AR-type weapon once a quarter at a max range of 50 yards. Individual sustainment training past that was on the officer’s own time and dime.
Most cops aren’t even getting that much trigger time. The minimum standard is once per year, and I’d imagine a lot of agencies are doing the bare minimum.
While 148 yards would be cake for an infantryman or an avid hunter, I wouldn’t expect a cop who had no prior military experience to successfully engage a threat at a distance greater than they had ever trained at.
Please, Lord, the NY numbers are for pistols fired with eyes shut.
I started shooting at about age sixteen. Pre-war Enfield, iron sights, battle sights 250 yards, firing from prone. One hundred yards. Couldn’t miss first time out. It’s not that hard.
You don’t “train” to line up two items which are in a fixed relationship with each other–circle and dot–and swing the line to a third item. Learning your capital letters in cursive is tougher.
Since the cop with the rifle asked for authorization, we can presume the backdrop issue–which is hugely important–was not in his mind at the time, although the supervisor might have been thinking about it.
Richard Aubrey:
I assume that the background issue WAS in the officer’s mind, because it’s obvious and elementary. I am assuming he asked for permission because he was worried about it and wanted someone higher up to decide for him.
I’d like to hear from him, but I bet we never will.
Agree with your bet.
Depending on ammo, penetration might be an issue even if Ramos were hit.
@Cornholio – so the suspects fled in the one case, why weren’t those mighty Nebraskan citizens engaging and dropping them right were they stood? Or is it only the law enforcement that is superior.
I’m sure I can find plenty of cases in most every state where citizens and law enforcement, either performed exemplary or piss poor.
Why? Because people perform tasks on a bell curve. Nobody is perfect.
We hope that those tasked with performing highly important tasks, like surgeons, police, fire fighters, to always perform at the top of the bell curve.
******************************
As regards the initial officer not taking the 145 yard rifle shot, I’m sure the following is as drilled into officers as it was to me in my CCW class.
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR EVERY SHOT FIRED
Whether it hits the target, misses, ricochets, you are accountable for where the single bullet ends up.
@Neo-
I too wish we could hear from the officer who had the chance at a rifle shot.
The use of deadly force is clearly justifiable. Even if he didn’t hit the shooter, it could have been a distraction or caused a “give up / kill self” reaction in a guy who now realizes the firing range is going two ways instead of one.
Was this a training deficit? A moment of panic? An example of perfect being the enemy of good? I’d like to know.
Grunt
I’d like to know if the cop with the rifle knew to a certainty it was the right guy, knew to a certainty justifying killing. If he was not that certain, perhaps he thought the supervisor might be.
Cops are second-guessed even if there’s footage showing the bad guy coming at them.
What did he believe at the time? What did he know for sure? What was available to be known?
Buck fever requiring reinforcement?
I initially wrote- “While we wish the LEO had taken the shot, knowing what we know now, at the time it was a kid dressed like a ninja shooting wildly. He wasn’t a mass murderer then.”
But he would have been justified at that point. Once a person is shooting a gun, at random in a populated area, the LEO has an obligation to protect citizens and should do whatever it takes, including killing the shooter, with the exception of….
Brian E; Grunt:
We actually don’t know exactly what the officer knew about the perp. We know that he knew he’d crashed his car and was walking in a schoolyard with a gun. That’s all we know that he knew. He may indeed have known more. For example, he may have known that the perp had shot at the two guys from the funeral home. And/or he may have known the perp had shot at the school windows. Those two bits of knowledge would change the picture, compared to just a guy walking on school grounds with a gun.
The officer also may have known the perp had shot his grandmother, but I think it less likely that the officer would have known that because we still don’t know whether the police connected all the events at that point. And there’s a difference between “know” and “suspect.”
Of course, there’s also the problem of distance and the shooting accuracy of the officer, as well as the very frightening possibility of hitting a child or teacher.
It doesn’t really mean anything but that photo of the cop in the hallway going to the hand sanitizer dispenser has to just about sum up the state of everything right now.
Griffin:
Why?
If he was ordered to wait for further orders, and he was standing in the hall waiting, why not wash his hands? What if he’d decided to bite his nails? Or scratch himself? I really don’t get this problem with what he did, except as a symbol of everyone’s frustration with what happened there, as well as many things that happened during the COVID years.
It’s not the kind of thing that moves me. I want to know why they made the poor decisions they did, and I’m willing to put in a certain amount of time researching to find out as best I can.
neo,
I said it doesn’t really matter so I don’t think it is some big thing but it’s just the idea that you are staging for what could be a life or death situation for you and many others and for some reason hand sanitizer is the move.
My bigger point is society has been so brain washed on these ‘precautions’ that this guy even did it in this situation. More about the mindset so many people are in.
Griffin:
Maybe his hands were really dirty. Maybe he’d been off duty and come in from gardening. Maybe he thought he might have to tend to wounded kids or teachers later. Maybe his hands were greasy and he wanted to get a firm grip on his gun later if he had to use it. Maybe he was nervous waiting and needed something to do. Point is, we interpret it as we see fit, without really knowing a thing about why he did it.
He was probably standing in that hall for over an hour. How long did the hand sanitizer move occupy him? A very small portion of that time.
I agree, however, that hand sanitizer has become somewhat of a reflexive thing.
neo,
This is a silly issue I admit so my final point will be there is no way in the world this guy would have done that in the exact same situation 3 years ago I don’t care if he had just finished digging a six foot hole with his bare hands.
Griffin:
I agree it’s a silly issue, but I’m pressing it because others seem to think it’s somewhat of a big deal. I understand that you are not one of those people.
The other reason I’m pressing it is that I think it’s emblematic of a larger problem. That problem is that people often fasten on small things (especially visuals) and blow them up to much greater significance than they deserve, because they fit a narrative the viewer has pre-determined to be true.
Neo. Good wrt your last, but I have to mention displacement.
The other mini-drama with the Video Review Team has been the officer that had ‘The Punisher’ screen saver on his phone and was standing in the hallway, handgun in one hand and phone in the other, staring intently at the screen. This photo has come in for a torrent of outraged abuse, that the cop could be so distracted at this particular moment.
Then it became apparent that this was in fact officer Ruben Ruiz – and he was reading a text from his wife, who was lying in the classroom, dying from her gunshot wounds, pleading for help. After he communicated this to the team, he was relieved of his weapon and escorted away. So at least the team knew some of the standard procedures that day (snarky I know, but there it is). (Edit: I see that this has already been mentioned).
What is amazing is that even after the information was made clear, there were still people criticizing Ruiz for having a ‘Punisher’ screen saver, that he was somehow the picture of the Bad Cop. Guy’s wife is bleeding out a dozen feet away, and he is prevented from doing anything, but instead of recognizing his anguish, there is no quarter granted. He’s a Bad Cop. It really brings home what a cesspit Social Media can be, and often is.
I hope that it comes out eventually with the full reporting, but usually the first things cops do at a crash scene is call in the plates, not so? And didn’t the timeline confirm that the shooting of the grandmother had already been called in?
Aggie:
I have read tons about Ruiz. I’ve listened to many many hours of presentation and testimony from McCraw and others. I’ve done searches to find out:
Who did Ruiz tell? What agency (local, school, state, federal) did the person or people belong to? When did he tell it? Where was he when he told it? To whom (if anyone) was the information further conveyed? Who took away his weapon and escorted him out, and why? When did his wife contact him first? Did headquarters know about it (she apparently called him on his personal cellphone, so it’s not clear anyone else was informed at the time)? If so, did they convey the information to anyone, and if so, to whom?
So far, except for the fact that he got to the school apparently some time between 11:44 and 11:52, none of these questions has been answered. It’s an incredibly strange omission and I don’t know the reason for it, although I can speculate. I think the information is very important and I think it is known by authorities. I also wonder whether there is a current lawsuit by Ruiz and/or his family and/or his wife’s family.
Aggie:
Social media is indeed a cesspool.
My understanding (and it’s not clear, because I haven’t seen an exact timeline for when this officer got to the scene of the accident or when the grandmother shooting was called in or when the officer had the opportunity to shoot the perp, although I can conclude the latter was around 11:32 because of other factors in the timeline) – my understanding is that the officer probably got to the scene of the crash having been called in because of the shootings at the funeral home people, and almost simultaneously with his arrival the opportunity to shoot the perp occurred. If that is correct, he wouldn’t have had time yet to call in the plates, he’d be reacting to the immediate situation with the perp first.
I would like to know what training the cops had, how recent, how realistic and if any of them had been shot at before. I would like to know if and when the cops heard the gunfire. I don’t know if they hear a lot of gunfire in their little town. Guns are kind of loud. I hear a lot of gunfire, some a mile away or more, some just a few hundred yards away. During duck season, I am awakened just about every Saturday and Sunday by gunfire. One of my neighbors is about 150 yards away and is fond of shooting various handguns and his SKS and Mini-14.
Hi Neo: Well I guess we can be certain that he made it into the hallway, where other lawmen were collected, with his armament intact – because that’s where he checks his phone at 11:36:50, about a minute after he arrived there – the West hallway. He leaves at 11:38:30 or so, having said nothing to anyone as far as I can tell. At about 11:41-42, he is back in the West hallway, briefly, still armed – and again says nothing as far as I can tell, to anyone. By 11:43 he’s gone again and I didn’t notice him again for the rest of the video that I viewed – soon there were soon a lot of people in that hallway, making it difficult to tell. Border Patrol showed up at around 11:51. Somewhere in the video, bodycam footage is inset in the main picture – at around 12:10 the office walks outside (west hallway) and there is a collection of LE people standing around a good 4-10 of them. I didn’t see Ruiz, but it would be easy to miss him as the camera is quite jerky and the outside wall of the building is crawling with cops at each window.
Aggie:
I don’t understand that timeline at all. Where did you obtain it? The presentation by McCraw, as well as the ALERTT report, gives times that don’t jibe with that. The ALERTT report (see this post), for example, says that the police didn’t even enter the building until a small group came in at 11:35:55, and then two more small groups at 11:36:00 and four more at 11:36:03. It took them some seconds to get to the classrooms (it doesn’t say exactly how long) and then at the threshold of the classrooms they are fired upon by the perp at 11:37:00 and 11:37:10. If Ruiz is standing there looking at his phone at 11:36:50, that’s ten seconds before a shot is fired and a police officer hurt, and ten seconds later it happens again. He doesn’t react? He just stands there? He leaves a little less than 2 minutes later without saying anything?
From McCraw’s presentation, Ruiz arrives somewhere at the school between 11:44 and 11:52 – he doesn’t specify when, but it is between those times on the timeline – and tells someone (we don’t know who) “she’s been shot.” Someone (we don’t know who and we don’t know where) ends up escorting him out. I don’t think any of this is on the hall video, and I got the impression – although I’m not sure and I’ll have to look it up again at some point – that it isn’t recorded at all.
If Ruiz does appear earlier in the videos, as you say, it may be that it is before his wife has called him. The shootings had occurred between 11:33:32 and 11:36:04. If he appears in the hall at 11:36:50, it isn’t long after that, so she may have just been shot and not called him yet.
There really is very very little information on the Ruiz part of the story in terms of timing and the other people involved. I think there’s a reason for that and we don’t know the reason yet, but my guess is that it has to do with liability.
Hi Neo: I watched the video that was released. There are several cameras, and they start as the perpetrator approaches the school building. The video is shot by the hall monitor camera mounted on the ceiling in the school, facing down the long South corridor but also showing the East and West near the junction of the 3.
It’s here:
https://heavy.com/news/uvalde-shooting-full-graphic-video/
He enters the school at almost exactly 11:33
The little boy spots him and runs away at 11:33:25. The shooting starts as he runs away, with the perp shooting from the hallway, into the classrooms, before entering.
First cops on scene at 11:35:55
Then the only explanation that follows is that the picture that has been circulated of the cop looking at his ‘Punisher’ phone (said picture occurs in the video at 11:36:50) either is not really Ruiz, as has been published (i.e. he’s been misidentified), or Ruiz was there earlier than originally reported.
Aggie:
Yes, that matches what I said. The problems with the time frame for Ruiz is also as I said – unless he got the news after he was in the hallway and had left, and then returned. My questions are the same about Ruiz. When he get the call from his wife? Where did he return to? Whom did he tell? Who was it who made him leave, and from what agency? Why? Where was he when he told the person or people, inside the school or out? Was any of it done within the awareness of any higher-ups? If so, who? If not, were they ever told?
The part you related earlier, where he’s looking at his cellphone inside the building, seems to have been before he learned about his wife or told anyone about his wife. And the time frame on that is odd, too, because he is standing and looking at the phone just a few seconds before officers were injured by debris from shots into the walls. Does anyone react? If not, why not?
Yes they reacted; The handful of officers that had arranged themselves down the hall outside the classrooms came dashing back pronto, when the gunfire started. One of the older cops in a plaid shirt was feeling for an injury on the top of his head as he reached the end of the hall. Later, another cop inspected the top of his head and patted him on the back with a ‘You’re good to go’ type gesture.
I also noticed that Ruiz seems to have two cell phones – he pulls the other device out of his right-side leg pocket to briefly look at it, then returns it. He had carried the ‘Punisher’ phone in his left leg pocket.
What seems pretty evident from the behavior of all officers throughout this video is that there is a lack of clear leadership and no apparent plan of command and coordination. As you watch the video, most of the LEOs inside and outside the building seem to be doing their own thing, relying on standard police training to cover each other and position themselves tactically. There is a minimum of communication or instruction-giving – just the occasional pointing with ‘go there’ type instructions. On the body-cam footage taken outside the school, there are officers just milling around outside the doors, conversing, as others sidle over to the windows to join the officers that have stationed themselves there. It looks a lot more like a crime scene investigation than an active shooter incident in progress.
And of course the radios weren’t working properly, which explains why they aren’t using them. But I also don’t see much cellphone use, not did I notice the LEOs outside huddling up and discussing plans. I think this might be part of why the investigation is taking a while. There may have been so many LEOs there that crossfire was a concern, given the state of communications and the lack of command structure. Anyway: All of that from a non-LEO private citizen so all to be taken with a grain of salt!
@Aggie – crossfire was a definite possibility as the LEO were set up at both ends of the hall. The AAR states this.
Also, we don’t know who was planning, or if there were police off-camera communication from phone to verbally/visually relaying.
*************
Keep in mind, at around 11:40 it moved from an active shooter to a barricaded hostage/shooter situation. The initial breech was repelled, the police lost momentum and had to regroup.
After the initial response was a lack of leadership, planning and communication.
To many Indians, probably to many chiefs from differing departments. We’ve seen the same for other “unique” situations, trying to fit a newish situation into preexisting playbooks.
Of import to the longer term discussion of what to do, one thing we need to see is the various departments active shooter playbooks. And what cross departmental training they’ve had.
As an abbreviated example, this is what’s expected post-Columbine.
1 – Assess the situation
2 – Find the shooter
3 – Engage the shooter
4 – Search for and triage casualties.
Looks simple, but it is far from simple.
The practice part of all the training has to create situations for the police to train on.
What are the contingency plans if #2 doesn’t immediately stop the shooter?
What’s the C.P. if active shooter turns into barricaded shooter?
And on and on for each possibility.
If in your planning and training you’ve never run those contingencies, you’re not going to respond to them as fast.
If SEAL TEAM SIX had answered the call that day, they’d have the training, skillset and personal experience breeching, that they’d have likely not stopped. Speed of action, violence of force.
I expect, lesser mortals will have lesser responses.
****************
Regarding the officer washing his hands, my explanation is simple. He is coming from the bathroom and doing what people have been trained the last 2 1/2 years to do, sanitize his hands. Normalcy bias (I think) in action.
****************
Regarding the cell phones, RADIO COMMUNICATIONS WEREN’T WORKING. There’s been multiple statements of officers having to communicate with cell phones.
Neo,
An unknown subject walking onto a school campus with a firearm justifies deadly force. Defense of person by law enforcement in Texas is based on reasonable belief- not absolute certainty. It is reasonable to believe that a person walking onto an elementary school campus openly carrying a rifle is there to do harm. It helps to know, but we do not need to know if he has already shot other people.
Indeed, the officer thought deadly force was justified- he asked for permission to shoot.
I realize I’m tugging stubbornly at a single thread here, but I would like to know why he didn’t take the shot. Asking for permission doesn’t absolve him of any responsibility for the use of force. While there is risk of collateral damage in hitting a bystander, the risk of allowing a man with a firearm into the school proper is greater. That means taking the risk of shooting a child or teacher in pursuit of the optimal outcome of killing the shooter.
Which brings me to my point of wanting to know if the officer’s reasoning was based on lack of confidence in making the shot or risk-aversion. And if it was risk aversion, was that from a training deficit or a belief (based on recent prosecutions of police officers) that he’d be hung out to dry if he shot a kid.
Maybe there are smarter cell phones than mine, or maybe they’re smarter than I am.
But I have to dial a number for everybody I want to talk to. Or find them in my “contacts” folder, hit button, hit next button, and wait for the whole thing to go through. After which the other party hears the ring–presuming it’s not taken for somebody else’s ring in a confused situation–and answers the call.
Tough for mass communication even if you have all the people you want to talk to at the same time–which is not likely the same as a bunch of guys showing up–on a kind of blast dial thingy.
To whom are they communicating that shouting isn’t better? Folks outside who are supposed to know stuff. Like what and what difference does it make?
Did anybody, authorized or not, suggest that cops might start shooting into the room from the windows? Somebody might have thought that a good idea and said so and then what?
And with things being simultaneously confused, dangerous, and urgent, putting two and two together, presuming you didn’t get pi instead, is not going to be easy.
What I don’t get is that, of all those cops, not one went, in effect, nuts and tried an assault all by himself. People do crazy stuff to help others all the time. Story this AM about three guys who hopped into the water to help somebody badly bitten by a great white.
Two seconds later, some other story tells us, the rescuer would have been hit by the train.
Got out with the kid just before the building collapsed.
We see this kind of thing all the time.
From which I deduce the cops thought the door was secure and lacked the equipment to breach it. A crazybrave move wouldn’t have worked.
Richard Aubrey:
As I said, I plan to write another post or posts in which I’ll offer my guesses about what might have been going on in their minds. But I’ll just add that I think it might be the case – although we have almost no information about it – that Ruiz might have tried to go in by himself, because of the phone call from his wife, and that someone (I don’t think it was Arredondo or even anyone near him in the hall, because the incident doesn’t seem to have been recorded) stopped him. I have hypotheses about that, too, but I have to say they are just guesses because for some reason we’ve gotten almost no information on that aspect of things – where was he, who was he talking to when he said his wife had been shot, who knew, what did Ruiz do, what was his demeanor, who escorted him out, etc..
Grunt:
He asked permission because it was so far away and hard to be accurate, plus the fact that he could have hurt or killed children or teachers.
When he received permission it was exactly when the perp had just opened the door and entered the school and was suddenly no longer visible.
Therefore he didn’t shoot.