788 Comments

After reading this chilling timeline, I reiterate: strict liability in tort for any loss, damage, injury or death arising from the use of a firearm against the buyer, seller, manufacturer and user of the firearm. Add on mandatory insurance for each gun akin to automobile insurance and a license with an exam and picture ID for each licensee and you will find a solution. Felony with 1 year of community service and fine of $10,000 for failure to acquire the insurance and acquire a license each as separate crimes. Maybe that would make a difference.

Expand full comment

Excellent suggestions, although I would equally suggest a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons to private citizens. No human being, except armed military personnel, needs to possess such a weapon of war! NO ONE!

Expand full comment

Grenades, missiles and tanks are not for sale, WHY are these military rifles able to be purchased?

Expand full comment

Cynically I am waiting for a case to go before SCOTUS for that very thing. I want a tank. Constitution says nothing about not owning one.

Expand full comment

I've always wanted a tank myself.

Expand full comment

I thought I'd ask SCOTUS for a howitzer. Or maybe a flame thrower. You know, for knocking back the weeds in the back yard.............

Expand full comment

........ and tent caterpillar nests.

Expand full comment

Ooohhh - sweet. The flame thrower.

Expand full comment

Perfectly reasonable - effective and efficient! How could they refuse?!?

Expand full comment

Me too. Do they come with grenade launchers?

Expand full comment

And while we're asking, how about one of those snazzy shoulder rocket launchers?

Expand full comment

Parking is a bitch!

Expand full comment

Too funny. If the SUVs get any larger, they might qualify! ;-)

Expand full comment

Even better would be a Stinger, there is nothing in the Constitution that says I can’t own one, hell why not have a garage full of them?

Expand full comment

Dick Until recently I only thought that a Stinger was an exotic cocktail. Too bad it wasn’t demonstrated at the NRA national convention. To quote The Mikado: “I have a little list. They never will be missed.”

Expand full comment

See my answer above: you can own and operate a tank, fighter jet, Stingers, or cruise missiles if you want. You can't buy the warheads, because explosives are not protected by 2A. Hope you have a big enough garage!

Expand full comment

Get out your checkbook. You can buy a tank in most states and drive it on your own property. It may not be street-legal, as the treads will crush most pavement, but you can have one if you want.

What you can't buy are warheads for the gun, because they are explosives, and explosives are not protected by the Second Amendment.

You can also buy an F-16 fighter jet and fly it as you wish. What you cannot buy are the warheads for the missile, because explosives are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Rifles, pistols, and their bullets are not explosives, so they are protected by the Second Amendment and you can buy and use them as state law dictates.

Expand full comment

William, your comment shows how much caprice can be found in the law. Bullets that pierce children's heads and make them unrecognizable are legal, but not explosive ordnance; the use of dynamite requires a permit. What category do we use to classify this fractured (split) hair? In preparation for the D-Day attack on the coast of Normandy, France, in 1945, the Allies deployed a bunch of decoy tanks made of plywood to get the German's to believe the invasion would occur in the Dieppe area where the English Channel is narrowest, as had been unsuccessfully tried earlier in the war. To show how much they enjoyed the ruse, the German bombers dropped a wooden bomb on the fake tanks. This may not have been classified as an explosive unless the Germans wrote "Boom" on the wooden bomb (correctly spelled).

I am similarly in a quandary about abortion being legal, or not, depending upon what week in a pregnancy, theoretically, a fetus is considered (by some unregistered Jack with a nose and two eyes correctly spaced) a "human being." Using this sort of data crunching, getting the status of "human being" is entirely statistical, i.e., arbitrary, however that may, or may, not be the case for the fetus. Can I get capital punishment eliminated if I say it's a post-birth abortion?

In any case, the male participant in the fetus's recondition never gets a mention when culpability is assigned in an abortion case. But, that is TOTALLY arbitrary if you dig down the width of a standard split hair. I can trace the origins of any human back to the Big Bang of Space-race fame, which is to say at some knowable, but unknown moment well prior to the occasion of fertilization according to commonsense. Please tell me, how is it possible that a mere random person can grant him or herself the authority to decide when separate, or conjoined human tissue can be classified as "human." The pretension in this is clearly "towering", but it never Is mentioned in pro or anti abortion debates. So some Pithhorn or Molly Ann, wandering about in his or her size 10s is going to bestow humanness on something on some odd Tuesday at some finite GPS location not noted on the Dr.'s order. In principle, the offending stipulation that outlaws abortion is the matter of "choice", but choice in this case leads to the chicken-or-egg problem of picking the offender. And, be it noted that only choice is the salient moral issue here since, fecundation occurs in Nature, and causal "laws", so-called, get to decide what happens there. Where this is all going is this. If choice is the issue, and Nature carries on in its usual tiresome way, anything that gets in the way of male sperm and a female ovum, BY CHOICE, failing to meet prevents an actual possible human from coming into being so to speak. Obviously, the only moral option is to require free love to be practiced everywhere and at all times; having to go to work, or watch a football match is no excuse for failing to rise (excuse the pun) to the occasion. What is notable in this account is how making "human" attributable only to a fetus at some random point of development inside the female member of the pair, e.g., the fetus "looks" human, and no longer fish-like, the male participant in the copulation choice is TOTALLY left out of the equation, some kind of disposable not so innocent bystander. I hope everyone got down along the dots that join the abortion case with the first story about bullets and bombs. If the real reason driving the anti-abortion choice issue wasn't dividing some women against others for voting purposes, and involved the two-to-tango male as well, abortion would be rapidly recycled out of the news cycle. The real crime that deserves moral condemnation is being stupid on purpose.

Expand full comment

You had me at "free love" for everyone :-) As for the rest, yes, whether abortions or bullets or bombs, most regulations are based on arbitrary and caprice. Why did someone decide ten bullets was acceptable in a gun magazine but eleven was evil and ban-worthy? They pulled a number of the air and declared it Just So.

Expand full comment

Great question...

Expand full comment

Money!

Expand full comment

Exactly

Expand full comment

I agree. I have seen arguments that people use them for shooting wild boar in Texas. What did they do before the advent of assault weapons.

Expand full comment

Real men bow hunt wild boar.

Expand full comment

Real men develop enough self-awareness to understand how childish and dangerous their fixation on guns is. They grow up, get over it, and decide they will never again vote for a Republican.

Expand full comment

I might add that mass killings really are a man (or man-boy) problem.

How often do we hear of women or girls randomly slaughtering folks with assault weapons or engaging in any sort of violent crime, for that matter?

Expand full comment

heart

Expand full comment

Love it. I also get long explanations about what an assault weapon is. Right now there is a thread on our local next door which started about having police officers in buildings. Wasn't there one in the high school in Florida. I haven't even read it because i am sure that there are people suggesting that teachers should be armed. Sigh. As a former educator who knows that you would have to have the gun locked up and even then we sometimes lost our keys. Students would have the gun in a nanosecond.

Expand full comment

That “Good Guy With a Gun” bullshit is so blatantly stupid, IDK how anyone would even suggest it. The first fallacy is How the Fuck does a responding cop to an ACTIVE SHOOTER SCENE know a good guy from a bad guy? Any black guy would be a fool to be standing there with a gun. (Too many of them get shot without a gun) These Repugnant politicians just pull this shit out of their ass without any actual thot, but the ignorant cult base eat it up.

Expand full comment

I'd really like to hear Joe Biden say this.

Expand full comment

Former HS teacher here, too. I would quit in a heartbeat. Or I would never have gone into teaching at all.

Expand full comment

I was surprised at how many people approve of teachers having concealed weapons. Not me!

“And fifty-four percent of voters approve of arming teachers with concealed weapons, while only 34% oppose it, a net approval of +20.”

Expand full comment

Real boars use Stingers to hunt MAGA men.

Expand full comment

LOL. I have long had a fantasy of reverse hunting. Wolves in helicopters hunting men. Elephants in jeeps doing in the safari with high powered rifles.

Expand full comment

Michele Crocodile Dundee did a number on the croc hunters. Now are MAGAS TURNING ON JABBA THER HUTT? Tuff to find bone inside the flab.

Expand full comment

Yes! My hubby has gone hunting (in Texas) with his archery club to hunt wild boar on numerous occasions!

Expand full comment

Or crawl through the brush with a pistol to meet them head on

Expand full comment

Overwhelmingly, the two responses I see in favor of having an AR-15 are (from the non-hunters who think all rifles are the same) that they hunt with them; our local hunters either bow hunt or use 30-30 or 3006 rifles. From the other folks (usually hunters) their reason is: they are fun to shoot.

I happen to agree that they are indeed "fun" to shoot. They are easy to keep on target, with the EO Tech or ACGO sights they are easy to shoot at distance even in subdued light, and they do not beat the crap out of your shoulder. It is possible for an average marksman like myself to qualify at 100 yards (not going to say easy here...). The AR-15 is a great tool on a dark night on a 3 acre property looking for an armed subject who just shot at a family member. To have one to shoot for "fun" doesn't cut it.

Expand full comment

AND you know that because you were (are?) a law enforcement officer!! The hunters here use the same rifles you mentioned above or bow hunt. To my knowledge NOT with an AR-15! They also want to bring home the results after they hunt. I lived (married) with someone who looked forward all year to his vacation that he spent getting up in the dark & coming home after dark usually. He didnt always get a deer, but always had great stories to tell. Did I hunt - NO!

Expand full comment

I AM a retired peace officer - and I still have my service REVOLVER. Never wanted a 9mm. Never needed an assault weapon. Never interested in killing anything (including hunting for game). Just interested in doing my job and protecting/supervising those for whom I had responsibility. Never needed to draw my weapon (and I am thankful for that). And I worked in high populated areas in California. I look at all these yahoos who love to parade around armed to the teeth - for what? They are not law enforcement peace officers. They are insecure little people who want to feel powerful. At the expense of sanity and humanity in our country.

Expand full comment

Let me add a point that I neglected to include - SWAT teams are equipped with assault weapons (and a lot more) because their job (and training) is to deal with issues like those that happened in Uvalde. I have the utmost respect for anyone assigned to those specialized teams. I was armed for the job I was assigned. It appears the small Uvalde P.D. force was not prepared for the task at hand. Why the locals did not transfer the command to the larger department (Sheriff - Border Patrol - ?) as soon as those forces arrived makes me wonder why (unless it was some kind of "power pissing match"). Why it took over an hour to find someone with a key to that classroom ??? I still have a lot of questions and have no confidence we will ever get the full and truthful story from the politicians who don't want to address the real problem - people with freedom and access to weapons that belong only to the military and specialized law enforcement authorities.

Expand full comment

That is not how feral pigs are hunted normally. Dogs are used to catch them and the hunters normally castrate them and release, if they do kill them they use a small caliber pistol. Hunters don’t run through the woods chasing dogs with rifles it’s to cumbersome.

Expand full comment

Bert Helpful advice! There certainly were some feral pigs attending NRA convention. Castration might also reduce the abortion rate. Two nuts in one squeeze, so to speak.

Expand full comment

What a great idea.

Expand full comment

LOL. I am having a late cup of coffee with my Saturday cinnamon roll. Fortunately, I wasn't drinking the coffee when I read this.

Expand full comment

Michele I apologize for my ‘religiouso’ responses to nutty matters. In the Congo, during the ‘troubles,’ I had a Belgian mercenary chaplain with a .45 ride shot gun for me, as I was driving two Congolese rebels that I had captured to a rudimentary field hospital.

Much much later I replaced a nun coordinating a short story program in the Somerset Country Jail. It felt like old Congo days with murderers, drug merchants, and a Dominican entering Federal protection program.

All this religious stuff offset a personal negative impression when two of my ministers ran off with the choir mistress (not the same one)At my most recent church, the minister was about 75 as well as the choir director. The only downside was when an ambulance had to come during the service to remove one of the parishioners (after the collection plate had been passed).

So you can see why I am ‘a bit nutty.’ Pax Nobiscum.

Expand full comment

Michele Sorry to mess up your Saturday morning coffee. Have you tried nutmeg, while playing The Nutcracker Suite? No apologies for what I wrote on a balky Amtrak train as we returned from Washington and the college graduation of of a grandchild. Three more soon in the offing. Perhaps you might try tea?

Expand full comment

I had two people tell me that people used assault weapons, that they were used for hunting wild boar in Texas according to these two. One of them carefully explained to me that he and his family could kill them without shredding them apart and said they filled their freezer with wild boar meat. I do not hunt nor have I ever had hunters in the family, so I know very little about hunting at all. I am glad to know the alternative story about hunting feral pigs. And if I ever see that excuse again, I will have an account to use.

Expand full comment

Yesterday, I heard an interview with author and veteran Phil Clay. He has a new book of essays out Uncertain Ground. He talked about one of his essays, which details the history of the military assault weapons. He was speaking in response to the availability of these weapons to average citizens and their use in mass shootings. He explained that the bullets from guns used in World War 2 entered the body slowly. Soldiers were killed, yes, but medics could also work to save some of the wounded. With assault rifles, bullets enter the body at high velocity and are intended to shred organs, flesh. How anyone can argue with a straight face that these weapons are great for hunting game is beyond my ability to reason. Why do you think authorities in Uvalde had to collect DNA samples from the parents of the school children? Every politician who argued for the protection of assault rifles should be called into our classrooms, churches, movie theaters, supermarkets, concert halls or night clubs after one of these shootings and forced to collect the evidence for identification. I live right down the street from the Laguna Woods church where there was a mass shooting less than two weeks ago. I knew the aunt of a 22-year-old victim of the Mandalay Bay massacre in Las Vegas. I drove 45 miles to attend her memorial. There were more than 1,000 people present. It was heartbreaking to watch her father fall to pieces in front of that crowd. Where are our leaders? What is our true definition of sanctity of life?

Expand full comment

Beats me about the hunting....only reporting what these two said when I spoke against against assault weapons. At least they didn't mansplain about different weapons and what they do and what we should call them. I was talking with my LMT yesterday about weapons and bullets. He talked about what the bullets do. He did hunt at one time and I learned a lot about how to do it right. He is also a veteran who spent time on an aircraft carrier. Now he fishes and we are going to enjoy the halibut bounty tomorrow for dinner. People who are only interesting in power and money don't give a damn about anyone's lives, only their own. If we didn't have the filibuster, we could get something done maybe.

Expand full comment

I grew up with a father who never used anything more powerful than a 22 rifle--without a scope--to hunt for the meat we ate. He never owned a shotgun, always said it wasn't fair to the quail. And I had plenty of quail when I was a kid. Hunting wild boar with assault weapons--actually, hunting animals like wild boar at all--sounds like sport hunting to me. It's not something I know about or want to know about. I can't avoid thinking about "Lord of the Flies." Starting with the cowboys, turned into heroes as they savaged an entire culture, are we now playing out the wet dream of a bunch of boys out slaughtering a sow and, in their blood lust, a child? I don't think there really are any words that describe the world in which this history and undercurrent of violent death has bubbled to the surface and roams like some pitted and misshapen monster through the hallways of our schools and our lives. When we begin to settle for the murder of children, we are lost.

Expand full comment

What did hunters do before the availability of military weapons?or in the “dark” ages?

Expand full comment

Irene Back long ago—even before I was born—in hunting and gathering societies they used nets, at times stampeded a herd over a cliff, or, about 3000 BCE crafted a spear with a crude stone head.

In the battle of Crecy (1346) Welsh long bows decimated the French horsed knights and again at Agincourt (1415)—-Henry 5th–we few, a band of brothers.

Expand full comment

Michelle I’m surprised that these ‘hunters’ didn’t mount a machine gun on their vehicle. This way they don’t have to bother with training, though it’s difficult to put a bayonet on a machine gun.

Expand full comment

In the first instance, the guy was someone I respected for his other comments on the Maddow blog. He did explain to me how he and his family were crack shots and ate the meat. It was interesting, because he was also well-off. The second instance is someone I know who is a R pastor in the small rural community where I taught. He spent loads of time at the school and had way too much influence with kids. I didn't think he belonged there, frankly. I just had an ex-colleague whose son is now very religious (and on the school board) just tell me that she thought the pastor had an undue influence on her son.

Expand full comment

<sigh> I guess "normally" depends on where you live. My dad used to talk about trapping feral pigs (boars) in pits and then shooting them the same way you'd slaughter livestock. He did not think much of hunters who used dogs for anything but retrieving fowl. And when my grandparents bought a farm around which the rest of the family clustered, they raised pigs in a pen under the largest madrone tree on the farm. Thank goodness no more boar meat.

Expand full comment

Stay in a perpetual state of Boardom?

Expand full comment

LOL.

Expand full comment

In novels set pre-gun, they use spears.

Expand full comment

That is correct, Rowshan. And outrageous that possession is so easy. I’m posting one thing today aside from guns. I’m suspecting coverup about a detail that’s frequently stated in the timeline of the massacre, but as a school administrator responsible for decades for safety drills and constant repitition and vigilance of practice to ensure safety…..

WHO propped open the door and how did shooter know to access school through the back? Also, in my experience, no classroom door locks from inside. So if he got into classroom, a locked door had been left open to hallway and he walked in. By closing it, it would be locked. It keeps being reported that “he” locked it. So, who left it open? Teachers are constantly instructed to close their doors and keep them closed. Someone from outside must use key to get in.

And, police keep saying door was locked. So what? One doesn’t have to wait for a principal or custodian to bring keys. Ram the door open or shoot the lock. It is very unnerving to realize the senseless mistakes and protocols not followed that allow murder of children.

Expand full comment

Rowshan, to second your remark expressing legal opposition to the unregulated public availability and use of "assault rifles", as that term is understood by competent military weapons authorities, let me add that such weapons, and all other military arms in military units off the battlefield, are strictly controlled and secured except when authorized explicitly by the designated unit commander or his or her representative.

While military personnel are not explicitly under orders that require them to be armed, all arms are secured in a properly constructed armory, typically equipped with a steel door and several high grade locks, and metal bars on any window. All arms maintained at the unit level are regularly accounted for, with strict corresponding documentation, and are at all times under the supervision of designated persons during regular working hours. Outside of working hours, a Charge of Quarters, stationed so as to have the armory in view, is responsible for carrying out orders affecting armory access and security. Even under battlefield conditions, arms are used under strict orders of an officer or non-commissioned officer with the designated leadership authority. As this account shows, military arms understood to be for use under clear military conditions, are not used for ordinary civilian hunting purposes and are not carried or transported without command authority by individuals acting without orders. In military use, arms are professional tools and are never carried or used under unsupervised conditions. Except for trained snipers, military arms are used by groups of soldiers under supervision so that the direction of fire is controlled by the person with command responsibility.

Given all that has been said above, in what reasonable circumstance would a properly described "well ordered" civilian militia stipulated by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, as a unit, or as individuals, be permitted to carry and use arms under conditions less rigorously controlled and supervised than is explicitly specified for a trained professional force operating under proper command authority? Since assault rifles, style AK 15, are designed to spray bullets, rapidly and in great numbers, the courts do not accept their use for "self-defense" since they lack the kind of accuracy a self-defense claim would reasonably require. Their inaccuracy makes them also inappropriate for normal hunting use.

I believe the present polarization of this present period signaled by the rapid decline of the exiting Boomer Regan-Republican elites practicing a suicidal politics of deliberate governance failure for unnamed short term economic interests held hostage to the national economy and markets, like the Koch Enterprises dependent upon fossil fuels and local electrical power generation, will pass into much deserved political irrelevance under the pressure of new cohorts of USAmericans who will pressure the federal government to reanimate the cooperative model of the war period when the "community of nations" was forced into existence by the menace of a Germany wishing to make growing globalization a work in progress for the German 1000 year Reich. When the present forces of radical anti-social ideologies are abandoned by self-serving elites who see observing principle as a transactional opportunity, the USAmerican love affair with guns can return to its earlier role in the romance of USAmerican Exceptionalism.

Expand full comment

Absolutely.

Expand full comment

Have you ever seen anyone try to get a tank over a chainlink fence and into a school. Come on, let’s get real.

Expand full comment

Alice,

" Arredondo decided that the gunman had barricaded himself in the classroom and was no longer an active shooter, and thus there were no children at risk."

This is a blatant, bald faced lie being handed out and anyone who believes it has never heard or shot a high powered rifle.

The cops outside that door? They could hear the kids crying AND they could hear each shot.

THAT is the truth.

A .223 rifle cartridge is a small, concentrated explosion the exits the barrel of a gun and makes about a 160 dB sound. Hearing one shot without hearing protection will harm your hearing.

A .223 shot can be heard for miles if it is shot outside. Shooting inside a classroom would deafen anyone who heard ONE shot.

The cops were standing outside listening to both kids crying AND the shooting and they were doing NOTHING.

So, since Republicans rely on a "good guy with a gun" narrative for safety,

I say we first file a lawsuit against EACH AND EVERY COP who stood in that hallway peeing on himself and listening to kids cry and be shot in the face.

Because, ALL of the cops in the hallway could hear every shot and it is a lie that they thought the shooting was over because, if they really thought that, they would have gone in.

Expand full comment

One grocery store security guard from Buffalo NY seems to have more courage then 20 Texas cops.

Expand full comment

As a former Texan (Thank God!) I have to laugh at your comment. The Texas Uber-Macho man is something to behold. And here are 19 of them with their pants around their knees. But — we must remember that they were “under orders” not to go in —

Expand full comment

Patricia,

Hiding behind the skirts of an "order" makes a coward.

Expand full comment

There is, of course, the occasional ironic statement. 😝

Expand full comment

Yes.

Expand full comment

I totally agree Mike, but I am also concerned about the police response becoming a distraction from the fact that a teenager, and teenagers in general, was in possession of such a weapon, was angry/depressed, and planned and executed this massacre. We can criticize the police but the main issue must not get lost or watered down. The shooter is hours ahead of anyone else, with a plan, and who knows what weapons. We want NO massacre, not just LESS of one.

Expand full comment

One action does not obviate the other. We must move forward on every front, get as much action going as possible. The more this is discussed, the longer it stays news, the more effect we we will have. That is the strategy that has worked so well for the openly fascist conservatives.

Expand full comment

Kim,

I get it. The main issue is that a kid could buy a weapon of war and then turn his war against little kids, and, his own grandmother.

I agree.

Expand full comment

🙏 I was just so mad at Greg Abbott in his righteous anger against the police when ultimately this is on him and his cronies.

Expand full comment

He was only angry because he had been made to look the fool. That allowed him to sound more sincere and horrified. He’s horrifying. We’ll all forget about his laws that allow vigilantes to take down doctors or others aiding women seeking abortions.

Expand full comment

Greg Abbott doesn't have a 'righteous' bone in his cowardly body.

Expand full comment

I sure get bogged down in the police (non)response, but maybe that is because of my training and experience. It is, however, not seeing the forest but for the trees. With no weaponry like that available to any and all who seem to want one is a huge step in the prevention direction.

Expand full comment

You are right for the response not to become a distraction we must remember police presence at hardened schools is the backbone of the Radicals plan to protect children in school. This school fell within that criteria and the plan failed.

Expand full comment

Yes, but, notice that nobody on the right has shifted their stance.

They know that their followers will stay their course.

Expand full comment

I didn't buy the barricade scenario either....cripes, they could hear the gunshots. Cowards, all of them.

Expand full comment

The Supreme Court ruled in 2005 that Police Officers do not have a Constitutional duty to protect someone.

https://twitter.com/Laureninlex/status/1530410654481399809?s=20

Expand full comment

KellyR, thanks!

I am pretty sure none of the cops peeing on themselves in the hallway are aware of this court ruling.

I am more sure that the cops were just wetting their pants in fear for their own lives and figured that the shooter would run out of bodies and ammunition eventually.

Expand full comment

I'm pretty sure that most command staff in this country are aware of it. That decision came down in 2005 while I was deep in training and policy development for our use of force curriculum, and it was never addressed in any of the policies we wrote. We did have a section on "cowardice" in the General Orders to which this case law could have been an affirmative defense.

Expand full comment

Sometime, Ally, tell us of the story of how you ended up in LE (see, I used the term correctly!) Seriously--it HAD to have been difficult for you along the way. Back in the day, no college was required and my brother went in for a good paying job that also offered some respect in the community (hah! then he was outside the DNC convention in 68 with people throwing bags of body fluids and solids at him! Rude awakening!)

Expand full comment

Rude indeed.

Expand full comment

Ally, thanks. I feel worse this evening than I did this morning.

Expand full comment

The Supreme Court is hurting this nation with the addition of trumps nominees. They are poised to loosen instead of tighten gun laws from what I have read. It is pitiful.

Expand full comment

One hates to "upvote" this. But thanks for posting just one more reason SCOTUS is harming this nation. We pay law enforcement to "serve and protect," but SCOTUS has ruled they don't have to protect.

Expand full comment

👌🏼

Expand full comment

I was unaware that it is supported law to be a coward while kids die on the other side of wood door.

Expand full comment

Thank you for this, Kelly.

So Law Enforcement has no Constitutional duty to protect someone with a court-ordered protective order.

Many abusers, of humans and animals, own assault weapons.

Many Law Enforcement officers are killed responding to Domestic Violence calls.

So it appears the abuser with the AR15 has the advantage.

On a + note, public outcry helped pull a semiautomatic rifle from our local Little League Auction this week.

Expand full comment

Kathy, the good thing about this community is I learn something amazing every day.

That is also the bad thing about this communit.

Now? I know that cops can target shoot unarmed black people for fun and sit in the hall playing cards while a madman wipes out two classrooms of little kids.

I imagine, however, that their might be a few parents out there with a plan of their own now.

Expand full comment

Amazing. I had missed this.

Expand full comment

That’s irrational.

Expand full comment

Well, good to know that all cops can shoot at are unarmed black men driving cars with a blinker light out.

Expand full comment

I agree with mike. They heard children being killed and did nothing. They deserve no respect and should never again wear a police badge. Shame.

Expand full comment

Citizens' arrest!!!

Expand full comment

The students who called 911 multiple times came closest to “citizens arrest.” Powerless against any gun, but a military weapon?

Expand full comment

And I call bullshit that LE were not aware of those 911 calls of students inside the classroom.

Expand full comment

How bout just lock them unarmed in a room with a madman.

Expand full comment

Don’t you think that the children who were calling 911 were also calling their parents who were right outside?

Expand full comment

Probably.

Expand full comment

No: too frightened shooter would find them.

Expand full comment

But they were calling. 911 as well.

Expand full comment

Back in 2005, SCOTUS ruled about the "Constitutional requirement" for police officers to protect people. There is none. The opinion was written by Justice Antonin Scalia (who I sincerely hope is now spending eternity burning in torment and hellfire).

Further, the "qualified immunity" of police while performing their work ensures that very little will be done to hold the officers who didn't enter the school in a timely way to save frightened children from death responsible for those deaths. "As the Supreme Court held in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"."

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-police-do-not-have-a-constitutional-duty-to-protect.html

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/3/21277104/end-qualified-immunity-police-definition-george-floyd

Expand full comment