Uvalde PD, school district PD no longer cooperating with investigation into school shooting

Probably just another KFA article.
(Keep fear alive)
Or
SMG article
(Sell more guns)
Aka..the politician boomer's think tanks finally hired youts to internet for 'em.
It's an electronic version of the church people driving out here.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Xcathdra

Something thats becoming clear, law enforcement is and to a greater degree, attract the absolute wrong kind of people.

Kind of like politics.

Agreed.. Law Enforcement, just like any other profession, has people employed that should not be. The one thing I ask others with issues with law enforcement that I have dealt with -

Do you like it when I assume you are a common career criminal because you've had run ins with the law? Just as you don't like being painted with a broad brush, the same applies to law enforcement.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Xcathdra

"Law Enforcements" job, is "to protect and defend" the C.O.T.U.S and the "Constitution" if their State. I have been to a few, "law enforcement" graduations..myself.

Fair enough

O7

Once again were seeing just like in florida, this whole thing could have been prevented if local athorities had done what they were SUPPOSE to do, starting a few years earlier where he made a FULL PLAN to shoot up a school

That all the way down to negligence by the police and derelict of duty, JUST like in Florida and so many others

a reply to: Xcathdra

I get it. Any event where the blame is laid at the feet of LEOs puts all of them in a bad light. I dont think thats necessarily a bad thing. They should be held to a higher standard.

Now the fallout of that would seem to dissuade good officers. Leaving a large gap to fill with all sorts that have no business being there.

An anecdote.

We have quite abit of volunteer firefighters in my neck of the woods. Most that ive met are pretty cool, mean well. However there certainly is a growing contingent of these guys that just want the sirens, lights and the power trip that comes with securing an area.

The money sucks and if youre already working a job, its just headache. So the good fall off leaving the dregs.

a reply to: Xcathdra

E6

a reply to: JinMI

I completely agree.. However being held to a higher standard by people who don't understand the laws and standards involved causes problems. We move from being held to a higher "standard" and move into the realm of being held to "someone elses opinion". and that can be dangerous.

One of the angles I take when dealing with people on calls is to ask the victim what type of resolution are they looking for. I understand the their position, especially after taking everything that occurred into account.

If the request is doable I work with the victim. If the request is impossible / illegal and time and safety is not an issue I explain why their requested resolution won't happen. All officers have their own approach to handling calls.

As for as your anecdote again I completely agree. To be honest most don't go into law enforcement for the money. I like being able to help people, regardless of what side of the law they fall on. The job, at least to me, is more than making arrests and writing tickets. All the officers ive worked with have the same view.

Ive come across officers with other agencies who, in my opinion, were picked on growing up and this is just a way for them to deal it. Those are the ones who should not be in law enforcement.

a reply to: murphy22

no sir.. O7 is a salute.

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: ancientlight

What an idiotic thing to say.

What is ?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh for sure, higher standards doesnt equal impossible or nebulous standards.

Having a clear break in agencies over the investigation may speak to your anecdote.

a reply to: JinMI

Define clear break?

The investigations are pretty standard across the board in the US. There is the agency responsible and assisting agencies.

a reply to: Xcathdra

From the OPs source:

"Multiple law enforcement sources" stated that the Uvalde Police Department and the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District police force are "no longer cooperating" with the Texas Department of Public Safety's probe into the official timeline of events and decision-making of officers on the ground at the school, according to ABC's Josh Margolin and Aaron Katersky.

a reply to: JinMI

Believe it or not their is a difference between a probe and an investigation. Especially when the "probe" is specifically targeted at one aspect - namely the time line.

However like 2-3 months ago the school police and city police (iirc) had an active shooter training session.

I also have issue with the way the shooting went down and how it comes right at the same times the administration and Democrats are once again trying to pull a gun grab.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Pardon my ignorance here but shouldnt a probe procede an inveatigation?

And yes, everything about the narrative is suspect and it is my opinion that some of the facts simply dont line up with the half assed statements made.

Weird similarities with the LV massacre.

a reply to: JinMI

Yes and no.. Like I said earlier investigating a civilian is a lot more straight forward than investigating police.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: FamCore

thanks for the information. The door thing is making more sense. Still not an excuse, but understandable she panicked.
Her weakness cost the lives of 21 people.

Democrats who opposed President Trump's desire to raise the minimum age for purchasing Automatic Rifles to 21, back in 2018, have much blood on their hands today. (And not just due to Uvalde Tx.)

Source: www.pbs.org...

Can't we just wipe this murderous political party from existence, in some way?

a reply to: carewemust

Please. Justify to me why you support violating Americans 2nd ammendment rights.

a reply to: carewemust

Civilians can NOT own an automatic weapon.

The main federal law governing fully automatic weapons is called the National Firearms Act, or NFA. First enacted in 1934, this federal law regulates fully automatic weapons, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices such as bombs or grenades. The NFA was subsequently modified in 1968 by the Gun Control Act and in 1986 by the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Items included in the NFA are referred to colloquially as “NFA items,” and are highly regulated. A special license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is required to manufacture, sell, and own any of these items, without exception. Whereas regular gun manufacturers and dealers must obtain a Federal Firearms License, or FFL, to legally make and sell non-NFA firearms, entities who wish to make or sell NFA items must obtain an additional license on top of the FFL. These dealers are referred to as FFL/SOT (special occupational tax) or Class 3 FFL dealers. It is a lengthy and burdensome process that requires extensive investigation by ATF.

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

Democrats are once again trying to exploit a shooting for nothing more than political gains, namely destruction of the 2nd amendment.

a reply to: Dontlietome
You know, if a Roman legion ran away from battle, the punishment was decimation. One in ten men would be beaten to death by their fellow legionnaires.

Seems like that would be a fitting punishment.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: carewemust

Civilians can NOT own an automatic weapon.

The main federal law governing fully automatic weapons is called the National Firearms Act, or NFA. First enacted in 1934, this federal law regulates fully automatic weapons, suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and destructive devices such as bombs or grenades. The NFA was subsequently modified in 1968 by the Gun Control Act and in 1986 by the Firearm Owners Protection Act.

Items included in the NFA are referred to colloquially as “NFA items,” and are highly regulated. A special license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is required to manufacture, sell, and own any of these items, without exception. Whereas regular gun manufacturers and dealers must obtain a Federal Firearms License, or FFL, to legally make and sell non-NFA firearms, entities who wish to make or sell NFA items must obtain an additional license on top of the FFL. These dealers are referred to as FFL/SOT (special occupational tax) or Class 3 FFL dealers. It is a lengthy and burdensome process that requires extensive investigation by ATF.

Under the NFA, it is illegal for any private civilian to own any fully automatic weapons manufactured after May 19, 1986. Only certain types of FFL/SOTs may make them, and then only for purchase by qualified state and federal agencies. There are no exceptions. According to the ATF’s official handbook on NFA laws and regulations, it’s not even legal to make new replacement parts for pre-1986 machine guns: “There is no exception allowing for the lawful production, transfer, possession, or use of a post-May 18, 1986 machinegun receiver as a replacement receiver on a weapon produced prior to May 19, 1986.”

Democrats are once again trying to exploit a shooting for nothing more than political gains, namely destruction of the 2nd amendment.

Didn't Salvadore Ramos use an Automatic Rifle? An AR-15?

YES..he LAWFULLY purchased one: en.wikipedia.org...