I still don't get it.

How does a cop have to ask permission of his supervisor over the radio to fire on a person carrying a rifle into a SCHOOL (illegal in most states), when the cop is ON THE SCENE, and the supervisor is NOT ON THE SCENE?  What is the supervisor going to do?  Play 20 questions before deciding?

Ridiculous.

I still don't get it.

How does a cop have to ask permission of his supervisor over the radio to fire on a person carrying a rifle into a SCHOOL (illegal in most states), when the cop is ON THE SCENE, and the supervisor is NOT ON THE SCENE?  What is the supervisor going to do?  Play 20 questions before deciding?

Ridiculous.

Blame game.

I still don't get it.

How does a cop have to ask permission of his supervisor over the radio to fire on a person carrying a rifle into a SCHOOL (illegal in most states), when the cop is ON THE SCENE, and the supervisor is NOT ON THE SCENE?  What is the supervisor going to do?  Play 20 questions before deciding?

Ridiculous.

Not sure if the video has been posted here yet

At first I was thinking (being objective), maybe the cop thought it was someone who was just open carrying and walking down the street (IDK if legal in this county, but lets assume it is).  But then after seeing the video and how soon the good samaritins were shot at and the 911 call and him shooting at the building randomly,  there is no way the cop could have assumed this.

Is it possible the cop wasn't sure whether it was the suspect or a plain clothes officer/off duty officer responding? If they offered that explanation now then I wouldn't buy it since if it were the real explanation they should have lead with it. It doesn't sound like that would have been a reasonable assumption though if I understand the series of events correctly.

The real question I have is how much of a time window did the officer have. Did he have 30 seconds to take a shot? Did he have 3 seconds? The shorter the window the harder to make the right call.

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/08/22/27-billion-class-action-lawsuit-announced-for-uvalde-victims-and-survivors/?fbclid=IwAR3yjMVOM2eZW2zhOnmCQ-vgidN7qKvRsBkvcewmB-DY98IBbnwY-YPH3-g

Smoke and mirros. Cops immune from civil liability for not acting, Warren vs. DC. So Daniel Defense and the gun store are the real targets.


*Update:

They might have a case because if the cops prevent you from helping family, then you can win. But if they just stood there and did nothing, then Warren vs. DC plays and cops are immune. There have been cases where cops prevented a family member from helping and they lost (cops) in court (found liable).

Is it possible the cop wasn't sure whether it was the suspect or a plain clothes officer/off duty officer responding? If they offered that explanation now then I wouldn't buy it since if it were the real explanation they should have lead with it. It doesn't sound like that would have been a reasonable assumption though if I understand the series of events correctly.

The real question I have is how much of a time window did the officer have. Did he have 30 seconds to take a shot? Did he have 3 seconds? The shorter the window the harder to make the right call.

No because he asked twice if he can engage. You dont ask permission to shoot if it isn't a target.

Cop had enough time to radio twice asking for permission. So more than 3 seconds. 30 might be possible.

No because he asked twice if he can engage. You dont ask permission to shoot if it isn't a target.

Cop had enough time to radio twice asking for permission. So more than 3 seconds. 30 might be possible.

Exactly my point.  EEF thinks somehow the Cop in on scene expected the supervisor over the radio has more information on the identity of the person approaching the school.   

Given the short time needed for the shooter to reach and enter the school, I find it a major (and ridiculous) policy for any Cop to have to get permission to engage.  In almost any situation, the supervisor will have LESS, not more, information, and would likely order the Cop to wait, somehow hoping they get more info before it's too late.

Sometimes common sense means just that.  It doesn't take a "thought experiment" to come to the correct answer.  The Cop should have been able to make the call on his own in that situation.  Only he/she has the most complete picture of the current situation, and any mistakes will be theirs to explain and live with.  Calling a supervisor relieves them of that responsibility -- nothing more.  Seems like something a police union might come up with to protect officers from being crucified for a bad shoot.

Exactly my point.  EEF thinks somehow the Cop in scene expected the supervisor over the radio has more information on the identity of the person approaching the school.   

Given the short time needed for the shooter to reach and enter the school, I find it a major (and ridiculous) policy for any Cop to have to get permission to engage.  In almost any situation, the supervisor will have LESS, not more, information, and would likely order the Cop to wait, somehow hoping they get more info before it's too late.

Sometimes common sense means just that.  It doesn't take a "thought experiment" to come to the correct answer.  The Cop should have been able to make the call on his own in that situation.  Only he/she has the most complete picture of the current situation, and any mistakes will be theirs to explain and live with.  Calling a supervisor relieves them of that responsibility -- nothing more.  Seems like something a police union might come up with to protect officers from being crucified for a bad shoot.

This is why I posted what I did. This is what an objective reasoning thought looks like, and not whataboutism.

No because he asked twice if he can engage. You dont ask permission to shoot if it isn't a target.

Cop had enough time to radio twice asking for permission. So more than 3 seconds. 30 might be possible.

I see, I didn't know he asked twice. Do you know if they have a recording? I am interested in what he said.

The reason I am curious about the details is because I don't want to rush and monday morning quarter back his decision not to shoot. Obviously in retrospect it was a bad decision but not knowing what was known and unknown to the officer makes it harder to judge. Like I said, I doubt he had to ask permission to shoot but still considering all the possibilities.

The only real plausible explanation to me is if he couldn't tell whether the male was a suspect or another officer but like I said I doubt that because they didn't lead with that explanation. If tapes of the radio transmission are available maybe that can be ruled out too.

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/matthew-mcconaughey-uvalde-shooting-gun-reform-debate-politics-172741514.html

It isn't hard if you obey the following:

1) The Constitution
2) Do what's in the best interest of the citizens, unless if violates #1 above
3) Use actual common sense/logic

Ambulance chaser attornies paid for by anti 2a groups are suing video game developers who made Call of Duty.

Sledgehammer, Activision, Infinity Ward/Blizzard, etc...

Also suing Meta, Instagram, Microsoft (owns Blizzard).

If they win, then it's open season on every video game and this won't be the end for the above. These companies have made COD for decades.

Then, when will movies and TV shows be next?