Mass Shooting Thread: Waiting on the next one.

MakeNTGreatAgain said:
I cannot imagine the horror of being in the presence of an active shooter for MORE THAN 60 MINUTES GODDAMNN

that report fro ALERRT really shows all the ways this could have been stopped earlier once the incident started
Click to expand...
Crazy no permission is needed to open fire on a speeding traffic offender of color.

Wonder if it’s in their rules of engagement to open fire on a traffic stop. Why they always show those highway chases with multiple vehicles, helicopters, etc?

Let me just say apples/oranges to the Texas mass shooting. And it truly is a sad event. There were failures at multiple levels except the victims and their families.
 
MakeNTGreatAgain said:
Prior to the suspect’s entry into the building at 11:33:00, according to statements, a Uvalde Police Officer on scene at the crash site observed the suspect carrying a rifle outside the west hall entry. The officer, armed with a rifle, asked his supervisor for permission to shoot the suspect. However, the supervisor either did not hear or responded too late. The officer turned to get confirmation from his supervisor and when he turned back to address the suspect, he had entered the west hallway unabated. (OS per investigating officer interview).

this excerpt is truly baffling

how tf u see a mf'er with a damn rifle shooting into a school and not even fire one round???

mind blown
Click to expand...

if he was colored all the kids wouldve been alive.. :smh:
 
I highly suggest you all read that report https://alerrt.org/

it really sheds light into how poorly these officers responded

ALERRT teaches that first responders’ main priority in an active shooter situation is to first Stop the Killing and then Stop the Dying (ALERRT & FBI, 2020, pp. 2-9, 2-15 to 2-16). Inherent in both stopping the killing and dying is the priority of life scale (ALERRT & FBI, 2020, pp. 2-6 & 2-34). At the top of this scale, the first priority is to preserve the lives of victims/potential victims. Second, is the safety of the officers, and last is the suspect. This ordering means that we expect officers to assume risk to save innocent lives. Responding to an active shooter is a dangerous task (Blair & Duron, 2022). There is a chance that officers will be shot, injured, or even killed while responding. This is something that every officer should be acutely aware of when they become a law enforcement officer. To adhere to the priority of life, the first responding officers’ actions should be determined based on the current driving force. In this instance, there is a suspect actively shooting inside an occupied elementary school. The active gunfire is the driving force, and the officers correctly responded to this driving force by moving toward the rooms that were being attacked. Ideally, the officers would have placed accurate return fire on the attacker when the attacker began shooting at them. ALERRT trains the widely-used ABCs of cover – Accurate return fire, Body armor, and Cover (ALERRT & FBI, 2020. p. 2-21; Blair et al., 2013). The ABCs give the first responder a tiered approach to achieving cover while maintaining control of the situation. Further, the ABCs are presented in order of preference (A first, B second, C third). As noted in Figure 6, there was a window in the center of each classroom door. Officers could have utilized the window to send accurate return fire back at the suspect. Even though the room was darker than the hallway, the suspect would have been backlit by the exterior windows and muzzle flashes would have been present. Obviously, this return fire must be consistent with the fundamental firearms safety rules (e.g., the officers must ensure that students will not be hit by the officers’ return fire). Any officer with body armor should have squared their body armor to the threat to improve protection. In this situation, we don’t believe the last course of action (moving to cover) was a viable option because the interior construction of the school would not stop bullets, and therefore, was not cover. Maintaining position or even pushing forward to a better spot to deliver accurate return fire would have undoubtedly been dangerous, and there would have been a high probability that some of the officers would have been shot or even killed. However, the officers also would likely have been able to stop the attacker and then focus on getting immediate medical care to the wounded. LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE ASSESSMENT 16 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. However, even after retreating, the officers were still presented with a clear driving force. The suspect was actively firing his weapon when the officers entered the building, and a reasonable officer would assume that there were injured people in the classrooms. The officers also knew the suspect was still alive and preventing them from accessing the wounded in the classrooms. These injured people are a driving force (ALERRT & FBI, 2020, p. 2-17) Once the officers retreated, they should have quickly made a plan to stop the attacker and gain access to the wounded. There were several possible plans that could have been implemented. We list a few here: A. Perhaps the simplest plan would have been to push the team back down the hallway and attempt to control the classrooms from the windows in the doors. Any officer wearing riflerated body armor (e.g., plates) would have assumed the lead as they had an additional level of protection. A team of 4 officers could have utilized the windows in the doors to control a large portion of the classroom from the hallway. Two officers would have taken angular positions on each window. This would have allowed them to cover a large portion of each classroom and the officers would have been likely to see and engage the attacker. Again, this would have been dangerous, but the priority of life scale dictates that the officers assume risk to save innocent lives. It is also worth noting, the officers had weapons (including rifles), body armor (which may or may not have been rated to stop rifle rounds), training, and backup. The victims in the classrooms had none of these things. If the classroom doors were locked, some of the officers on the door windows would have been able to provide cover while the other officers breached the doors. B. If the officers believed that they could not establish control through the doors, they should have found another way to stop the killing and dying. One option would have been to breach the exterior windows of the classrooms. Ideally, this would have involved breaking more than one window simultaneously and then raking the blinds out of the window. It is likely that the suspect would have fired at the officers, but the exterior construction of the building would have provided them with good cover. After the windows were broken (i.e., ported), the officers could have planned to simultaneously stand up in the windows to confront the attacker (i.e., cover). The room would have been substantially darker than the bright exterior conditions at the time. However, breaking the windows and raking the blinds would have increased lighting in the room. Hand-held or weapon-mounted lights could also have been used to increase visibility (see Supplementary information regarding an assessment of breaching options). C. Both options a and b could have been done simultaneously. The window breaks could have been used to signal the start of the assault and draw the suspect’s attention from the doors. The window officers would stay behind the cover of the exterior wall while the door officers had priority of fire. Then the window officers could stand and cover the rest of the room. D. Other options (such as breaching the sheetrock walls or having an officer run past the rooms to draw fire while other officers moved up to cover the interior windows) could also have LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE ASSESSMENT 17 been utilized. Each of these alternatives would have had various strengths and weaknesses but would have regained momentum for the officers. None of these actions were taken. While it would have taken a few minutes to coordinate and execute any of these actions once the officers retreated from the rooms, taking 2, 3, 5 or even 10 minutes to do so would have been preferrable to the more than an hour it took to ultimately assault the room. We commend the officers for quickly entering the building and moving toward the sounds of gunfire. However, when the officers were fired at, momentum was lost. The officers fell back, and it took more than an hour to regain momentum and gain access to critically injured people.
 
getback said:
He had animations on youtube of shooting people with a rifle and then committing suicide by cop. Feel like in 2022 there's gotta be some type of algorithm that raises a red flag on something like that.
Click to expand...

Twitter/youtube will suspend your account if you use LGBQT slurs, but they let stuff like this go on with no reprimanding. They don’t care
 
finessence said:
Twitter/youtube will suspend your account if you use LGBQT slurs, but they let stuff like this go on with no reprimanding. They don’t care
Click to expand...
That would be discrimination against guns and mental health.

The issue today is due to abortion, weed, and critical race theory.
 
nonnative said:
What a terrible example. You should be suspended if you use slurs.
Click to expand...

You should be suspended if you do anything of the like.

“Terrible comparison” but they both involve people saying and doing hateful stuff towards people they dislike or don’t know. It’s exactly the same thing.

Twitter and YouTube censorship is HYPOCRITICAL as heck. That’s my point

Im black and use a he N_ word frequently on Twitter. Terrible comparison?????

But killing and talking about killing people on YouTube is fine? You sound CRAZY
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_20220708-124230__01.jpg

"Reefer", WTF?!
 
But that’s what they’re using to justify the violence.

Marijuana.

Drugs from Big Pharma.

LGTBQ+ ideas.

Liberal media.

Atheism

Why focus on controls to guns? Or raising the floor on law enforcement?
 



The Great Replacement Theory has fuelled the world’s deadliest white supremacist terror attacks – but what exactly is it?
And how has it leaked into mainstream politics?
 
AEA18 said:



The Great Replacement Theory has fuelled the world’s deadliest white supremacist terror attacks – but what exactly is it?
And how has it leaked into mainstream politics?
Click to expand...

How? Fox News! I still can't understand why those people and Rupert Murdoch are still not penalized or charged with dangerous ideologies brought by their show. Guess Money is highly involved.
 
sneeker said:
How? Fox News! I still can't understand why those people and Rupert Murdoch are still not penalized or charged with dangerous ideologies brought by their show. Guess Money is highly involved.
Click to expand...

Because at the core of it there is a large population of Americans that agree with it.

America was founded and built on white supremacy. We had a literal war over slavery. Then another 150+ years of systematic racism that included but not limited to Voter suppression, Redlining in Cities, The Tulsa Massacre, Jim Crow, and thousands of lynchings.

Why would these people be punished for pushing ideologies that got them to the point they are in life currently? It’s how them and their ancestors obtained their wealth. For them to denounce it would be them taking accountability and acknowledging their success is derived from racism.
 
WASHED KING said:
Why would these people be punished for pushing ideologies that got them to the point they are in life currently? It’s how them and their ancestors obtained their wealth. For them to denounce it would be them taking accountability and acknowledging their success is derived from racism.
Click to expand...
since they are living in the U.S. practically consider themselves as U.S. citizens since they invoke their U.S. rights and agreed to abide by the rules and law of the U.S. you cannot simply invoke your rights as an american to throw the U.S. government. what Trump and those trumpsters have committed would automatically be sedition which is a crime punishable by death. there is really no justification nor benefit of typical trial rights since this is beyond what they did nor are they even alllowed to continue such rhetoric and not end behind bars for such a crime.

while racism is indeed deeply rooted, it wouldn't make sense if they don't enforce what united states stands for if every state is allowed to do what they want regardless of how the nation is trying to form. now, putting a narcissist like the orange guy in power made that all worse. this is why I have been saying for awhile now that this democracy wouldn't work now after trump and is getting ripe for a charter or system of government change.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

eracism
Texas ranked worst state for quality of life
5 6 7
Replies
165
Views
9K
Mark Antony
M
Methodical Management
Make a Plan to Vote in the 2024 US Election
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
4K
yobyellav
yobyellav

Latest News

View All News

Thread Gallery

View Full Gallery

The ultimate sneaker enthusiast community.

Site contents may not be incorporated into AI training data or any other derivative works without prior express written consent.

Links to participating merchants may generate referral or affiliate commissions that help support our community. See our policies for details. NikeTalk is NOT affiliated with Nike Inc. in any way, shape, or form. All opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of Nike, Inc.

© 1999-2024 NikeTalk.com

Share this page

Back
Top Bottom