Not all cops want to be a tough guy.
I remember a female DPS trooper who was recorded with her own body worn camera saying she wouldn't go into the school to face the shooter. Her reason was that her own kids weren't inside the school so she wasn't going anywhere inside.I don't know, and maybe it's just me, but I can't imagine just standing by while children are being slaughtered.
Haven't you seen those videos, or have they been scrubbed from the internet by now?We are talking about parents doing an assault - "restraining parents who were willing to make the assault."
They tried...I'm still surprised that some of the parents didn't arm up and proceed anyway....and take care of any resistance along the way.
'They were just angry, especially the dads. We were wondering, "What the heck is going on? Are they going in?" 'The dads were saying, "Give me the vest, I’ll go in there!'
They tried...
Texas school shooting cops restrained parents trying to save kids
New video shows police restraining desperate parents outside Robb Elementary School and telling them 'we're taking care of it' while they took an hour to capture the killer inside.www.dailymail.co.uk
That's much the same argument that many people use against people carrying firearms in public. It was much what I heard before they passed campus carry on colleges. Are there people that could be dangerous to others? Sure. Same with cars.But after thinking about this quite a bit, consider this. Let's say parents were allowed (or forced their way) in. Who's to say that they wouldn't inadvertently shoot innocents while attempting to engage the hostile? Can you imagine the backlash?!
IMO, the "best" (meaning without major legal repercussions) way to execute a parental rescue would have been to arm them with non-lethals and shields. Let them beat the bad guy into submission. Or death.
when I say killer I’m talking about a cop who will show up. Assess the situation then set out to find and kill the shooter. Instead we have a system that wants and seeks out diversity hires and officer friendlies. We don’t need the overweight out of shape cop with a few years till retirement taking the position of SRO. we need the younger cop with a few years experience filling that roll. Also we don’t need the 100lb female on the streets dealing with thugs. Sorry but if they’re not built for the job (physically and mentally) they really have no business wearing that badge. Psychopaths we don‘t need, but a killer isn’t necessarily one either. There’s a difference.The ones that do worry me. The ones who are willing to if called on are the ones we need.
Let's say parents were allowed (or forced their way) in. Who's to say that they wouldn't inadvertently shoot innocents while attempting to engage the hostile? Can you imagine the backlash?!
Pretty easy to ID the shooter. It's generally gonna be the one pointing a firearm at children.
in·ad·vert·ent·ly
[ˌinədˈvərtn(t)lē]
ADVERB
- without intention; accidentally.
Seriously, the police generally suck at marksmanship. Letting emotionally driven citizens drive an assault would be an epic shit show.
Considering the quality of some police responses, it doesn't see like the citizens could do worse.
Well it certainly would have been over a lot sooner.
I think 2-3 gun folks could have done better. But dozens of Fudds running to the school would have been the shit show.
Dozens of anyone responding to one shooter would be a shitshow.
Agree. They were talking about criminal charges against some of the responding officers. My first thought: if they can positively ID any that arrested the desperate parents trying to get to THEIR OWN KIDS, yeah, do that.My biggest beef is with them restraining parents who were willing to make the assault.
How did they know an assault was needed?
By the time parents showed up, no shots were being fired so from their perspective it was over. Until BORTAC fired a few shots an hr later and it was over.