Law enforcement Botched the Uvalde Standoff – Now Gun Controllers Want to Give Police Good luck

A key equation in getting the public to accept weapon control is to convince all of them that they don’t need weapons. But what is the reality?

First it was Columbine. Then it was Parkland. At this point, we learn that on Robb Elementary School, police officers  again   stood around outdoors a  school while the killer was inside with kids.

NPR reports   today :

Frustrated onlookers urged police officers to charge into the Texas elementary school where a gunman’s rampage killed 19 children and two teachers, witnesses said Wednesday, as researchers worked to track the massacre that lasted upwards of forty minutes and ended when the 18-year-old shooter was slain by a Border Patrol group.

“ Use there! Go in there! ” nearby women shouted at the officers soon after the strike began, said Juan Carranza, 24, who saw the particular scene from outside his house, across the street from Robb Elementary School in the close-knit town of Uvalde. Carranza said the officers failed to go in.

Others have reported that parents attempted to go into the college themselves, but were prevented— sometimes violently— by law enforcement.

According to the  New York Post :

While he desperately watched the officers standing outside his daughter’s college, [Jacinto Cazares] recommended storming into the school creating himself along with other civilian bystanders.

“ ‘ Let’s just rush within because the cops aren’t performing anything like they are designed to, ‘” he said he told other onlookers….

“ There was at least 40 lawmen armed to the teeth but didn’t do a darn thing [until] it was far too late, ” Cazares, the father associated with 10-year-old victim Jackie Cazares,   told ABC News .

This video  from the scene shows police pinning one person— presumably a parent— towards the ground while other officers have drawn their tasers in order to further threaten plus intimidate the parents who begged the police to take action.

There are conflicting reports over whether or not the police anxiously waited more than an hour to confront the gunman, or when they waited “ only” forty minutes. So far, the only explanation offered by the police for the long waiting period is that the officers were waiting for a SWAT team to arrive.

It remains unclear the way the shooter got into the school whatsoever, since he was evidently confronted by law enforcement before this individual entered:  


When police finally did enter the scene— right after forty or sixty minutes associated with protecting themselves— many of them ignored the shooter in order to find their  own   children,   as admitted by police workers on the scene — who  also repeated  the propaganda line about “ those brave men and women. ”

If it is certainly found to be true that will law enforcement officers protected themselves while people nearby were being killed— it definitely wouldn’t be the first time.

“ Officer Safety” Is What Matters to Police

At the Columbine massacre in 1999, the shooters roamed the school for nearly 50 minutes. Police waited outdoors for a SWAT team in order to arrive  in order to minimize the particular risk  to themselves.   Columbine is now almost globally regarded as  a case of police incompetence and inaction . In response, police agencies claimed they  had adopted a don’t-wait policy   intended for engaging shooters. But evidently many police agencies have not gotten the memo.

At Parkland, the law enforcement  officer specifically assigned to the school, Scot Peterson, ran away from the school and hid behind outdoors structures. Sheriff’s deputies do the same. Law enforcement’s behavior at Parkland was so inept and so cowardly that in the spring of 2019, the victims’ parents sued the Broward County college board and the sheriff’s office for failing to take timely action against the shooter  that killed seventeen people within February 2018.   According to the  South Florida Sun-Sentinel , police officers  frequently   sought to protect themselves rather than the people in the school. An analysis associated with communications among the law enforcement officials at the site of the massacre confirmed there were “ a minimum of two times a Broward mouthpiece urge[d]  one more officer to protect themselves, not really confront the killer. ”

As is so frequently the case, “ officer safety” was police’s  genuine   concern, not public safety.

This appears to have been the case at the Uvalde  shooting as well.  

Law enforcement Have No Legal Duty to safeguard You

But don’t expect the police to face any repercussions or even be held to account. It is now a well-established lawful principle in the  government courts that in spite of the particular marketing gimmick motto of  “ Protect and Assist, ” police are not really under any obligation to protect the public from harm.

In the cases  DeShaney v. Winnebago   and  City of Castle Rock sixth is v. Gonzales , the Great Court has ruled that police agencies are not obligated to protect citizens. In other words, law enforcement are well within their rights to choose and choose when in order to intervene to protect the life and property of others— even when a threat is usually apparent.

Both in of these court cases, clear and repeated threats had been made against the safety of children— but government companies chose to take no motion. The public is generally unaware of this, and taxpayers continue to pay out handily for the nonprotection they receive from police. In Uvalde, Texas, for instance, police “ services”   constitute nearly 40 percent of the city  budget . Meanwhile, according to Salary. possuindo,   a  sheriff’s patrol sergeant in Uvalde  makes up to $85, four hundred . That’s nearly double the local median  household   earnings of $45, 936 . In Uvalde, the police are very well paid to stand around.

Gun Control Is about Placing A lot more Trust in Police

Even while police ensure it is clear— yet again— that trusting the police to provide defense is a fool’s game, gun control advocates want to deactivate law-abiding private citizens.

This, after all, could be the fundamental equation behind gun control. More gun control means the centralization of coercive (and defensive) energy in the hands of the police. This means when gun manage is imposed, the police become relatively powerful while law-abiding private citizens become fairly powerless. But gun manage also concentrates coercive energy in the hands of non-law-abiding citizens.   One a result of this— among others— is that the public must then seem all the more to the police to give defense from violent crooks, who increasingly outgun law-abiding residents.  

In other words, a key equation within getting the public to accept gun control   is to convince them that they don’t need guns . Yet what is the reality? Police officers will spend immense amounts of time  harassing peaceful suburbanites suspected of smoking marijuana . They’ll  break the arm of a small old lady   for “ stealing. ” They’ll shoot a woman  in her own living room with no warning   because the officer “ feared for his life. ”

But when it comes to actually confronting an armed maniac? Well, then it could time to wait around outside till they can ensure “ officer safety. ”

Considering these facts, you might have to be thoroughly irrational indeed to surrender self-defense rights to the same people who are therefore thoroughly uninterested in stopping chaotic felons.

Weapon control advocates, of course , do see it this way. They evidently believe that gun control legislation just magically makes guns disappear. In the real world, nevertheless , gun control requires adjustment.   And who is responsible for enforcement? The police— that will bring the same level of competence to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals as they bring to school shootings.  

Having apparently not noticed the existence of the drug war and its guarantee damage, gun control promoters believe that this week’s police incompetence  means “ yes, we absolutely should place the police in charge of more weapon prohibitions. ” The logic here is incoherent, but many without doubt find it compelling.

Read More:


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *