I have a laundry list of complaints about the culture and performance of local law enforcement in this country, but one thing that doesn’t particularly concern me is their collective level of courage. For one thing, whether it’s on a wartime battlefield or an elementary school corridor, I’m pretty forgiving about people who fail the test of valor in the face of automatic weapon fire. If being a hero were not exceptional we would have no reason to highly value heroism. If the cops down in Uvalde, Texas were too cautious in confronting the gunman, I can understand that. They failed the test. They weren’t equipped mentally–perhaps they also lacked leadership and proper training, too.
This is a moment in time when an overwhelming percentage of the American public is feeling supportive of efforts to restrict access to military grade weaponry. It’s not a moment in time in which people feel like passing bills to address the bravery level of first responders. For a host of reasons, I don’t think it’s a good idea to treat this as an opportunity to trash the police.
I’m not talking about giving the Uvalde police a pass on their performance, nor on the lies and inaccuracies they’ve presented to the public. There will be time for accountability after a thorough investigation, and it will largely up to the local Uvalde community and the state of Texas to fix any deficiencies they find. That will be important work, but still largely immaterial to the goal of preventing future atrocities in public spaces throughout our nation.
I think it’s quite obvious that the root of the problem at the Ross Elementary School is that a troubled 18 year old was in possession of two incredibly deadly weapons and hundreds of bullets. We can ask police officers to charge at fusillades of bullets, but we can’t think for a moment that that expectation will be consistently fulfilled, nor that it’s an answer to the mass shootings. The public sees this right now. They’re demanding change. But the consensus and urgency will wane, as it always does.
Opponents of change always want to change the subject and waits things out. Making this about police conduct is doing that job for them. Keep your eye on the ball, people. When the public overwhelmingly agrees with you on the important things, do not focus on less important things with which the public does not necessarily agree.
This story should not be about the failures of the police. It should be about preventing police from being in that position in the first place.
Thank you for weighing in on this. I agree with your assessment 100%. Children will be safer, police dept. will be safer, society will be safer when semi-automatic weapons are no longer available for personal use.
Its past f*cking time.
Yep. “The Onion” gets it right; this is the third day in a row that their entire site has been “‘No Way To Prevent This’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens” stories. https://www.theonion.com/
I’d suggest that folks working on this issue keep that as their single-minded focus: winning support—from those who have been silent and those who have been on the other side—for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.
It’s not a perfect analogy, but our state is about to pass legislation making it possible for undocumented residents to get drivers’ licenses. Critical to winning passage of the bill (by veto-proof margins) has been winning the support of a majority of county sheriffs and of the police chiefs association. If cops (quite rationally) aren’t going to charge into buildings to take on criminals armed with assault weapons and protected by body armor, then we need those cops front and center in the fight for new legislation.
I agree with you 100%. And I’m sick of the GOP getting away with their inaction about guns. If police departments really want to protect their officers they could step up and demand some restrictions, or a total ban on these weapons of war but they are oddly quiet. Why? Why would they be against enforcing restrictions that could better protect their officers and the public from deranged people with high powered rifles?
>>This is a moment in time when an overwhelming percentage of the American public is feeling supportive of efforts to restrict access to military grade weaponry.
What action do you think will result from this public support? My answer: same as the action we got after the last 50 massacres and same as the action we’ll get after the one after that and the one after that and the one after that… There aren’t 50 votes in the Senate for any federal law, and state attempts to enact gun regulations get struck down by our extremist supreme court.
So, why not focus on the cowardly cops?
Well, for one thing because if you’re going to accept that no remedy, no matter how small, is possible, then politicizing the tragedy has only one point, which is to win more seats in the upcoming election, and if that’s the only realistic goal, then you should focus on things where the public overwhelmingly agrees with you rather than turning this into a pro-cop/anti-cop election issue.
Agreed with one point of dissent: While I wouldn’t focus on the ‘cowardly’ conduct of the police forces in this encounter, it illustrates the weakness of the “good guy with a gun/hardened schools” trope. If trained law enforcement professionals failed so miserably at the one job they were meant to perform, how are any of us supposed to buy into the concept of armed teachers and school admins as a layer of defense? And I would be absolutely unmerciful in pointing this out in public debates as definitive proof that GOP solutions are hollow and stupid.
There was another mass shooting a couple weeks prior–that kid had tactical gear that was bullet proof. The security guard engaged and was killed.
The kid at the school also was wearing tactical gear, but without the ballistic plates. I don’t know what the cops saw or if they realized the he was not wearing bullet proof gear. I’m guessing they’d assume he was wearing bullet proof gear, so charging in with handguns would just be suicide. Not only would you die, you’ll likely hit some kids in the exchange of fire. And the shooter would not be taken down. In hind sight, they should have gone in early.