Uvalde

[b1ub0x]

I’m looking forward to my department receiving tons of money for scenario training and better equipment. Or better yet, maybe our schools will allow SROs back inside.

In reality I am excited for more River City videos on how I am racist and a bully.

[NolaT]

Hard to understand the defund / eliminate the SRO thought process, especially now,…….

[just joe]

Hard to understand the defund / eliminate the SRO thought process, especially now,…….

There was an article copied from another site posted on one of the main media sites in which the author claims that this incident is another reason why the police are useless and need to be defunded.

[PNW.CFE]

"The shooter was classified as an active shooter briefly when officers entered the school. He shot through a concrete wall and hit 2 officers. Officers did not return fire because the gunman was in a classroom with kids, and they couldn’t see him to identify a clear shot. The risk of hitting a kid was too great, and they were only equipped with handguns at the time. As police were pulling the 2 injured officers to safety, the shooting stopped and there wasn’t a single shot for another 40 minutes."

Question for discussion here...at what point does the situation transition from an active shooter to a hostage situation? At some point I think it makes sense...if you show up to a scene 40 minutes after the last shot and the shooter is barricaded in a room with hostages, there's room for debate there. You still have to be concerned about wounded in need of medical attention but the situation is arguably not an "active" threat.

But if you're in the hallway outside the room when the last shot is fired, that to me is still an active shooter scenario. If a few minutes pass while you are preparing to breach, it's still an active shooter situation. "Active shooter" doesn't mean a non-stop barrage of bullets. But if it takes you 40 minutes to prepare to breach...then I don't know. But that ambiguity only exists because of how long it took to breach.

Think about it this way...if those officers had breached right away, no one would question it. We'd all agree "yeah that's what we're trained to do in an active shooter situation." The fact that they didn't, or couldn't, is what raises these questions.

It does seem like there was some disagreement on this very point amongst the different responding agencies.

I'm not trying to hate on cops here. This is a legitimate issue we can and should learn from.

[CCCSD]

Active shooter means just that: Active. Once the shooting stops, the dynamic changes. IF you’re a cop, you should know that.

[PNW.CFE]

If I'm not active or retired law enforcement, my posts will be deleted and I will be banned. So, we'll see. But thanks for seriously engaging with the question.

In the Washington Navy Yard shooting, there was about 40 minutes between the last victim and police finding and engaging the shooter. They engaged him as an active shooter because he was still a threat. Were they wrong? Should they have set a perimeter and called for SWAT?

[Iowa #1603]

According to current facts that have been released-------facts that could change with further information releases (note that this doesn't mean PRESS releases but fact releases)

Difference here is that the police KNEW where the subject was, he was in the class room and after he shot through the wall hitting the responding officers-----he stopped shooting.
While he was still an active criminal he was not an active shooting criminal.

He shot at a student who screamed. At that point the police had a plan --that of getting the master key so they could open the outward swinging door so they could enter. Once they had entrance materials they entered and engaged.

[tanksoldier]

Question for discussion here...at what point does the situation transition from an active shooter to a hostage situation? At some point I think it makes sense...if you show up to a scene 40 minutes after the last shot and the shooter is barricaded in a room with hostages, there's room for debate there. You still have to be concerned about wounded in need of medical attention but the situation is arguably not an "active" threat.

The text I posted explains that when the shooter stops shooting AND stops moving, they become a “barricaded suspect”. When they also have hostages it becomes “barricades suspect with hostages”. As long as they are shooting OR moving, they are an active shooter.

There is an element of triage to active shooters and barricades suspects. By containing the shooter to one classroom, you are able to evacuate the rest of the school. You are risking, or even sacrificing, the occupants of that room to save everyone else. The shooter shot two cops thru a wall. If you start a firefight with a suspect who is NOT shooting or moving before the school is evacuated you risk additional wounded to no purpose. Once everyone else is safe, then you work on saving the occupants of that room.

In the Washington Navy Yard shooting, there was about 40 minutes between the last victim and police finding and engaging the shooter. They engaged him as an active shooter because he was still a threat.

False. Officers were trying to FIND Alexis when he engaged them, and he was killed by return fire. They were trying to figure out if he was barricaded or moving. Had Alexis not fired at officers, their likely response would have been to back off and call in negotiators.

In Uvalde the shooter shot officers thru a wall. Officers couldn’t identify a target to return fire, and were only armed with handguns in any case. Once officers retreated, the shooter stopped shooting. That’s a barricaded suspect: not shooting, not moving.

[PNW.CFE]

"They were trying to figure out if he was barricaded or moving."

Is that a fact or an assumption? I do get that it's a different scenario. Every active shooter is going to be a unique scenario. I'm pushing back a little bit because I don't think moving and shooting are the precise elements that define an active shooter. If a shooter kills 10 people, then runs into a room with more potential victims, fires more shots, then stops, he doesn't instantly become a barricaded suspect with hostages. It's not like flipping a switch. You don't know he actually stopped shooting, or for how long, until you get the benefit of hindsight.

Again I ask the hypothetical, if these officers had the right tools, or a key, and made entry within 5 minutes of the last shot, treating the suspect as an active shooter, would they have been wrong? Would anyone here question that decision?

If you play with that hypothetical, keep increasing the time, how does that change the answer? What if it takes 10 minutes to get the tools? 15? 20?

[Aidokea]

It took them 45 minutes to get the tools to make entry (the key), and then they immediately made entry- what's your point?

[Aidokea]

The text I posted explains that when the shooter stops shooting AND stops moving, they become a “barricaded suspect”. When they also have hostages it becomes “barricades suspect with hostages”. As long as they are shooting OR moving, they are an active shooter.

Yes. This has been explained multiple times, in multiple ways. I don't understand why some here aren't getting it. Have they not been trained properly?

There is an element of triage to active shooters and barricades suspects. By containing the shooter to one classroom, you are able to evacuate the rest of the school. You are risking, or even sacrificing, the occupants of that room to save everyone else. The shooter shot two cops thru a wall. If you start a firefight with a suspect who is NOT shooting or moving before the school is evacuated you risk additional wounded to no purpose. Once everyone else is safe, then you work on saving the occupants of that room.

I don't think anyone was "sacrificed" to save others. I don't think there was even a decision to make- even if they WANTED to breach the doors, they didn't have the ability to do so. Those particular steel doors, set in concrete, were designed specifically to keep people with guns out. It is unfortunate that the teacher(s) failed to secure them, because the shooter DID secure them once he was in the classroom, and used them quite effectively to keep the COPS out. The cops there didn't have anything capable of breaching the door with, and it took 45 minutes to come up with a key, at which time they immediately made entry. The shooter fired at the entry team, the entry team returned fire, and the problem was solved.

[PNW.CFE]

The fact that they couldn't breach the secure door is one of the lessons here for the rest of us, I think. If you respond to an active shooter and you locate them behind a door like this, could you get through? What tools does your team have to defeat these kinds of secure doors? Because next time, maybe he doesn't stop shooting until everyone in the room is dead.

[Aidokea]

The teacher that propped the door open, is changing her story again. Now she's claiming she propped the door open because she was expecting a "delivery", which is absurd- any delivery should have gone to the front door, where they could properly identify any delivery person before deciding whether to unlock the door to let them in or not.

[tanksoldier]

They were trying to figure out if he was barricaded or moving."

Is that a fact or an assumption?

Its a fact. They weren’t even sure Alexis was still on scene.

If they had known where he was and been deliberately moving to contact they wouldn’t have sent just 3 officers.

[PNW.CFE]

My point is more that they weren't "trying to figure out if he was barricaded".... They were looking for an active shooter, with the intent to engage him. At least that's my understanding, from speaking with one of the responders.

[tanksoldier]

Good points, except for being wrong. They had reports he was in the building, but there were reports he was in several buildings. In order to decide if you have an active shooter or barricaded suspect, you have to find him. Until you do, you don’t know. In the Navy Yard shooting, he was an active shooter because when officers found him he was shooting. If he had been barricaded in a room or something, they would have handed it that way. Don’t know any simpler way to explain it.

[PNW.CFE]

Of course you're going to react based on the specific circumstances once you locate the subject. That's what it means to "engage". You assess and respond. But if you're not moving through that building treating it as an active shooter situation, you're doing it wrong. And I guarantee that's exactly what they did do. Even though it had been a while since the last shot was fired. You have an armed gunman who just killed several people still roaming the building, you don't know if it's fully evacuated or if there are more people at risk...you're looking for the shooter to engage him as an active threat unless you have very clear indication otherwise (ie he's dead or he surrenders).

So sure, passage of time is a factor, and so is whether the subject is moving or closed off in a room. But you're all treating it like some automatic trigger...he closed the door and hasn't fired a shot in 2 minutes so let's move to hostage protocols. But I notice no one has actually answered the questions I asked.

If the officers had moved in right away, after the shooting had stopped, would they have been wrong? Assuming they had the tools or keys necessary to do so. Remember...at that time, they didn't know and couldn't possibly know that he wouldn't fire another shot for 40+ minutes.

[tanksoldier]

Your confusion and misunderstanding highlights why these are so difficult. There will always be people who criticize and second guess despite knowing nothing at all about the topic. The clarifications and corrections given in this thread are perfect examples of why beginning to dissect an incident too soon is at best pointless, at worst counter productive.

You're looking for a hard and fast answer, and there isn't one.

[HI629]

Lesson learned for the school staff. Have access to all classrooms readily available for first responders in the future.

[Iowa #1603]

Lesson learned for the school staff. Have access to all classrooms readily available for first responders in the future.

I have never heard of a school where when the school was in session did NOT have a custodian on site. Custodians have access to all areas of the building

[BNWS]

He probably ran for his life.

[Aidokea]

Yup. It probably took 45 minutes to find him to get the key.

[HI629]

Perhaps have multiple parties with access to master set of keys?

[tanksoldier]

Lesson learned for the school staff. Have access to all classrooms readily available for first responders in the future.

Yes, and no.

One of the problems with principals or custodians having master keys, is they become a primary target. capture a master key and you have run of the building. When I was an SRO I had a master key, and night staff had a master key, but day staff did not. They had several keys that would get them in where they needed to be, same as one master, but if you didn’t know which key was which it would slow you down.

There was a lock box in the flag pole that fire had the codes to with a key to the fire control room, and another lock box in there with a master.

[Aidokea]

I've gone back and edited my posts, after an interview of the off-duty BORTAC guy reveals he was NOT the one that shot the offender, he was NOT part of the entry team, and he may not have even gone into the school.

He stood in an exterior doorway, and Uvalde police evacuated other classrooms and sent the kids towards him, and he sent them outside.

[Aidokea]

............

[Iowa #1603]

I've gone back and edited my posts, after an interview of the off-duty BORTAC guy reveals he was NOT the one that shot the offender, he was NOT part of the entry team, and he may not have even gone into the school.

He stood in an exterior doorway, and Uvalde police evacuated other classrooms and sent the kids towards him, and he sent them outside.

Hmmmmmmm
Reason # 5995 why LE is reluctant to "be transparent " immediately after an incident and prefers to wait until a full debrief and investigation is complete before releasing information and details

That narrative was shaky from the beginning ---and was quickly shown to be inaccurate by the timeline