I was a volunteer with the Los Fresnos Fire Department and, even as volunteers, I can promise you that members of the VFD would risk their lives to enter a burning house if it was believed that there was someone still alive inside and there was a reasonable chance of rescuing them alive. I can also tell you that it's damned scary going into a burning house. It's scary even when it's a drill, but actual burning buildings come with greater risks. You can't see a thing and the risks are many, as there is not only the fire but the chances of parts of the house collapsing on you while you're inside, and the possibility of explosions. Yet, whether you are paid or a volunteer, you don't sign up for a job that you're too scared to do, and you certainly shouldn't prevent others from doing what you're too cowardly to do yourself. Any police department that would institute a policy of non-intervention when it comes to children being murdered should indeed be de-funded and replaced with those who are willing to protect and serve. Are we budgeting a police department just so that cops can walk around looking cool in a uniform? No one is expecting the police to give up their lives. Suicide wouldn't have helped the situation at all. What should be expected is that they are willing to risk their lives to save children. Otherwise, are we funding the police department only so that they can write traffic tickets? I never thought I'd be on board with the defund the police crowd but if this is what we have, why pay them? Why equip them with weaponry they refuse to use?
Well once again, they were as I heard on several news outlets .... under orders not to engage. I believe there is a big difference in facing the threat of a fire, and facing the threat shooter , shooting randomly ...... again ......jmo BTW I have been in a "hot-house" fire training exercise, tethered. just a few minutes [maybe 5] ? Long story , but indeed very scary.
I already knew that, but In what world does that make it any better? I think that makes it worse that they were under orders not to save any children. I'd rather believe we were dealing with a bunch of cowardly cops than an entire police institution that has such little regard for the lives of children. Were they looking for a larger kill count in order to justify gun control? Did these children and teachers die in order to further the goals of the gun control movement? Such police departments should be 100% defunded and replaced with something that makes sense in the real world, and the person who made that order should be brought up on charges. Quite frankly, anyone who obeyed that order should be, at the least, fired. If they are human beings, I wouldn't think they'd want to stay on the job after this, anyhow. I can't imagine how any of these people can sleep at night.
I thought it was a set up for more gun control as have other mass shootings. It is only later that there were signs the shooter had a history of mental problems and the shootings happen near elections. Chicago has a history of multiple shootings through the year. Trump had plans of bringing in the National Guard and then some but the mayor or some leftist denied access. Better to have hundreds of black on black shootings with children caught in the crossfire than to actually end the insanity? First black on black shootings does not fit the agenda. Nor do the excess of anti gun laws that, surprisingly, are not obeyed by criminals that are not prosecuted. Also, if enough of the citizens get up in arms, martial law can be called. We have been set up in this and other areas, like food and fuel production, to get control by the WEF. With our guns, we are sort of able to stand up to them
OK, let's say I agree, and to a degree I do........ Where are we going to find police officers that will sware to an oath that essentially says they must be willing to lay down their lives,[in such a sitiation] perhaps take a bullet to protect someone....... for $50,000-$70,000 p/yr ? We better be prepared for higher taxes ....... Frankly , if it doesn't get too crazy ? I would be willing. Would you ?
Where did we find them 25-30 years ago, before police departments began to remove "serve and protect" from their police cars? The military doesn't have this problem. Otherwise, what's next. Will military personnel demand the right to never have to place themselves in harm's way? Nobody wants to go home in a box. I get that, and no one should be required to place their lives in danger without good reason. In this case, however, I can't think of a better reason. If our police departments are going to do nothing but write traffic tickets and show up to crimes after the fact, in order to fill out the proper paperwork, then we should concentrate our efforts on training and arming civilians to be able to defend themselves, and we shouldn't spend huge amounts of tax money to equip police departments and police officers with stuff that they're too afraid to use. Rather than sending well-equipped police officers to an active crime scene only to have them stand around waiting for the shooter to run out of ammunition or victims, we could leave them at the station and send someone out with a pen and a notepad after it's all over.
There is no defense for the actions of the police chief nor the police but a town with only about 16,000 residents doesn’t have the kind of money it takes to hire professional policemen who know what the “protect” part means in the logo of To Protect and to Serve. Chances are, all those guys do all year is write tickets, lock Otis up for the night when he’s drunk, bust up an occasional domestic disturbance and keep Ernest from breaking another window with his rocks. Again, there’s no excuse for the inaction of the police but to me and more importantly, there’s also no excuse for men who didn’t figuratively take that uniform off and do what they could have done with or without permission. It’s a derned shame when a woman took her chances and went in and led not only her own 2 kids out but a classroom + + whilst grown men stood around doing nothing. No nads. No nads at all.
Uvalde's violent crime rates are just under that of the state, and Uvalde residents are safer than those in only 5% of US cities. Murders were unusual, however. Property crimes in Uvalde are nearly double that of the state. Being about sixty miles from the border probably accounts for much of this.
"Where did we find them 25-30 years ago, before police departments began to remove "serve and protect" from their police cars? The military doesn't have this problem." In my honest opinion ? .... Afirmative action. When we lowered the standards for police & to a lesser degree firefighters . When we opened the door for minorities , as opposed to maintaining standards for those actually qualified.
I agree a lot here as well but ..... again, I find no oath that says they are required to protect citizens. The "protect & serve" is way over blown .... and just part of a logo .... jmo
The Logo is a shortened version of their oath……. “On my honor, I will never betray my integrity, my character or the public trust. I will treat all individuals with dignity and respect and ensure that my actions are dedicated to ensuring the safety of my community and the preservation of human life. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always maintain the highest ethical standards and uphold the values of my community and the agency I serve.” So, not unlike some politicians who have betrayed their oath of office to defend the Constitution of the United States, police do not have to dedicate themselves to the “Safety of their community and the preservation of human life”? It’s a given that many law enforcement officers have thrown the entire oath under the bus out of convenience but it’s an oath nonetheless that should be taken seriously.
Newly sworn, local and state police officers take an ethical pledge that is called the Law Enforcement Oath of Honor. Separate from the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics but also written by the governing board of the International Police Chiefs, the oath underscores “the importance of treating all individuals with dignity and respect and ensuring the preservation of human life.” Here is the minimum oath that all public-funded police are required to take. Wording may vary and many departments add more specific wording. "On my honor, I will never betray my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will treat all individuals with dignity and respect and ensure that my actions are dedicated to ensuring the safety of my community and the preservation of human life. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always maintain the highest ethical standards and uphold the values of my community and the agency I serve.” Does any police force make them say they will give their life if necessary? No, because their training teaches them of that possibility. They know the risk before they put on that badge. Just like any dangerous job, they are told the risk and agree to pay whatever it is. Just like people that deactivate bombs, they know the risk and regardless of the pay, they accept and perform their jobs. Before the recent war against police where an officer in uniform is a target, there were many jobs that were likely to cost one their life and for lower pay than police make. I am still in disbelief that these officers acted like this was a drill. Were they told it was just a drill? I am beginning to think they were and that would account for their behavior. They have all been silenced. That Uvalde school police chief looks and acts like a criminal in my opinion. The idea that police are not paid enough to risk their lives to save school kids, is a statement of contradiction and frankly scary that officers did take an oath but apparently had no intention of ever honoring it. The statement that as citizens we should not expect the police to protect and serve, is in my opinion, insane. Not only should we expect it, but we also should demand it. The biggest complaint I hear from local police officers is that they are so restricted by all the new protocols. In domestic situations, they usually have at least two cars and three officers responding. They do tell me in a school situation, that the officer that spends his/her days at the school (all our schools have full-time officers in the building) would respond to any shooter situation while calling for backup. He/she would go to the area where the shooter was and not hesitate to take the shooter out even if it cost him/her their life. He/she would engage while waiting for backup.