Uvalde - the followup

S

Shiftless2

Well-known member

Uvalde school shooting victims seek $27B US, class-action status in lawsuit​

Lawsuit says officials failed to follow active shooter protocol when they waited to confront attacker​

The Associated Press ·

Victims of the Uvalde school shooting in Texas that left 21 people dead have filed a lawsuit against local and state police, the city and other school and law enforcement officials seeking $27 billion US due to delays in confronting the attacker, court documents show.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court in Austin on Tuesday, says officials failed to follow active shooter protocol when they waited more than an hour to confront the attacker inside a fourth-grade classroom.

It seeks class-action status and damages for survivors of the May 24 shooting who have sustained "emotional or psychological damages as a result of the defendants' conduct and omissions on that date."

Among those who filed the lawsuit are school staff and representatives of minors who were present at Robb Elementary when a gunman stormed the campus, killing 19 children and two teachers in the deadliest school shooting in the U.S. in nearly a decade.

Instead of following previous training to stop an active shooter "the conduct of the three hundred and seventy-six (376) law enforcement officials who were on hand for the exhaustively torturous seventy- seven minutes of law enforcement indecision, dysfunction, and harm, fell exceedingly short of their duty-bound standards," the lawsuit claims.

City of Uvalde officials said they had not been served the paperwork as of Friday and did not comment on pending litigation.

The Texas Department of Public Safety and the Uvalde Consolidated School District did not respond to requests for comment.

Gunmaker, store also sued​

A group of the survivors also sued Daniel Defense, the company that made the gun used by the shooter, and the store where he bought the gun. That separate lawsuit seeks $6 billion US in damages.

Daniel Defense, based in Black Creek, Ga., did not respond to a request for comment. In a congressional hearing over the summer, CEO Marty Daniels called the Uvalde shooting and others like it "deeply disturbing" but separated the weapons themselves from the violence, saying America's mass shootings are local problems to be solved locally.

Earlier this week, the mother of a child killed in the shooting filed another federal lawsuit against many of the ...

 
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it harder for sober people to own a car." Curm
Click to expand...
By recent court ruling some NY State gun law restrictions were stricken down. Shortly thereafter, in New York's capital Albany, NY law makers were quick to replace the newly stricken laws with even more restrictive statutory replacements.

The result is the gun owner / gun carry legal standards applied today in New York State are not entirely clear.

I cannot & will not dismiss the tragedy of lethal crimes perpetrated with force multipliers like modern semi-automatic weapons. Sadly, for good or ill, "the supreme law of the land" offers some protection to owners of such force multipliers.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

S2,
There have been some challenging problems that the common rabble have not been competent to address. The wooden leg prosthetic is a textbook example. Such prosthetic used to be perceived as a handicap. Then Oscar Pistorias demonstrated updated prosthetics an advantage.
My impression is such innovations result from doctoral level experts brain-storming such problems.

If humans can develop a prosthetic hand that can pick up a hen's egg without cracking the shell, and reveal by tactile sensation whether an object is wet or dry, is there a rational reason such innovative resource should not be directed to this topic issue?
 
Republicans (and the NRA) don't know what a weapon of war is, but evidently police do. “He has a battle rifle”: Police feared Uvalde gunman’s AR-15.

2SNgrsp.png


www.texastribune.org

“He has a battle rifle”: Police feared Uvalde gunman’s AR-15

In previously unreleased interviews, police who responded to the Robb Elementary shooting told investigators they were cowed by the shooter’s military-style rifle. This drove their decision to wait for a Border Patrol SWAT team to engage him, which took more than an hour.
www.texastribune.org www.texastribune.org
 
A "battle rifle" also known as a "gun".
If that police department's charter imposes fashion restrictions on the type of weapons they respond to, that charter is overdue for a major revision.

It's what happens when an excuse is so lame it doesn't justify the misconduct even if it were true.
 
S2 #5
226257849260d12d94e74cc99e45670d6db2725.gif

The direct implication here is that 1st responder police are justified in colluding with the criminal perpetrating a massacre, a mass-murder based on the configuration of the weapon. That may be TRUE at the extremes. If the weapon was a fully capable H-bomb warhead for example, perhaps.

Responding to a Uvalde type emergency is dangerous. Those not prepared / determined to take the risks of such emergency response should not seek such employment, and must not accept $salary for such employment UNLESS they're willing to $earn it on these rare, once-in-a-career disaster responses.
If there's a style of gun they won't respond to it's that individual policeman's duty to inform his chain of command, BEFORE the incident.

Laymen that prefer are free to make excuses for these cowards until the cows come home. These non-responders are derelict cowards, and should seek alternate means of wage-earning via employment their jello vertebrae can withstand.
 
Shiftless2 said:
And that's exactly why people like this shouldn't even apply for jobs like this let alone respond to situations like this.
Click to expand...
My final conclusion PRECISELY. And the logic path I followed to reach that precise conclusion is the "battle rifle" distinction.

IF the information was communicated purely as a heads-up to the "tip of the spear" that breached the perimeter to subdue or neutralize the murderer, fine. BUT !!
"Battle rifle" is not a legitimate reason to leave the murderer free rein to massacre a room full of school children, while the government cowards with enough fire power to take out the entire school loiter in their own personal safety.
 
"Battle Rifle" / ProPublica #9
Click to expand...
- dandy -

"Battle Rifle" does not relieve the emergency. "Battle Rifle" defines the emergency.

ANY armed first responder dispatched to such school shoot scenario has an obligation to stanch the loss of innocent human life as promptly as possible. What took place instead of that in this case is absolutely inexcusable. And every armed first responder as well as their commanders responsible belong in prison.
ANY first responder that is not RESOLUTELY committed to this is in the wrong line of work.

PBSNH230329.JPG
 

Minnesota's 21-year age minimum for handgun carry permits struck down​

Brendan Pierson - Fri, March 31, 2023 at 2:17 PM EDT·2 min read
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday struck down a Minnesota law requiring a person to be at least 21 before obtaining a permit to carry a handgun in public, finding it violated the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
The order by U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez in St. Paul is the latest in a series of legal defeats for state gun control measures following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last year expanding gun rights nationwide.
The state's 21-year age minimum, enacted as part of a 2003 gun control law, had been challenged in a 2021 lawsuit by three gun rights groups - Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation - and three individuals.
"This is a resounding victory for 18- to 20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms," Bryan Strawser, chair of Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said in a statement.
news.yahoo.com

Minnesota's 21-year age minimum for handgun carry permits struck down

A federal judge on Friday struck down a Minnesota law requiring a person to be at least 21 before obtaining a permit to carry a handgun in public, finding it violated the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The order by U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez...
news.yahoo.com news.yahoo.com
"This is a resounding victory for 18- to 20-year-old adults who wish to exercise their Constitutional right to bear arms," Bryan Strawser, chair of Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said in a statement.
Click to expand...
This is silly. For strict constructionists Strawser's "18- to 20-year-old adults" is arbitrary. Is there any constitutional distinction specifying when the right to keep and bear arms first accrues to a "natural born" U.S. citizen? Would Strawer defend 7 year old child that demands the Constitutional right to carry a small handgun like those designed for women? And how many will die if / when this change in the law is implemented?
 
"In Idaho you need a license to fish- but not to carry a gun.
You can wave a Confederate flag- but not teach kids about its racist history
You need a dead person's consent to harvest their organs- but not of a minor impregnated by a rapist to carry to term.
This is GOP "freedom." QR, E #12

At my age, I may never get over this.
 
S2 #15: crayons vs carbines

- splendid -
Seems to me you're overdue for a counterpoint right between the eyes here doctor.

There may be some paradoxically constructive benefit to demonizing Republicans for opposing the Democrat's anti-school-massacre agenda.

One of two things is true.
a) Republicans on this issue are sincerely evil, malevolent, and as the rhetoric suggests, finds the carnage of our children the price we pay for gun rights. - OR -
b) Not.

Assuming Republicans are evil, intransigent, is self-defeating for Democrats. Psychologist Joy Browne calls it "feeling good about feeling bad".

What's more important here S2? Feeling self-righteous? Or achieving substantial victory in massacre reduction?

No doubt Democrats can continue to play the self-righteousness card for perpetuity. But in lieu of more constructive accomplishment, it's an insidious form of surrender, of failure.

What's the reality?
Is the Democrat's position against massacre diminution actually so indefensible, so unpersuasive that their practical limit with it is ineffectual sloganeering, self-righteously preaching to the choir?

If so, as a matter of integrity wouldn't acknowledging that at least keep the cause pure?

If not, SHAME on the rational-minded for surrendering to this ongoing carnage!

What the anti-massacre cause has done so far obviously hasn't worked.

Isn't it long past time they began to do something that DOES work?
 
S2 #17
Sometimes I get the impression even Machiavelli would be shocked.
 
Texas - where men are men, sheep are nervous, and cops hide from them ....

oBMdbLI.jpeg


And true to the American way, her medical bills will bankrupt her family.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top