Texas school shooting

[NT2C]

Texas shooting: 19 children among dead in primary school attack

[majorhavoc]

I don't have anything useful to contribute. I can't even frame this in the prepping context. I'm just sad, fed up and beyond that, speechless.

[tirls]

I´ve been staring at this for the past minutes and my mind comes up blank. I just can´t comprehend what goes on in someones brain to open fire on a 10 year old.
A primary school. Fuck.

[Raptor]

The lack of understanding of such an event is actually a good thing. It is when you start to understand such an action that is when you need to start worrying.

Suffice to say evil incarnate does walk among us.  Laws, rules and regulations will not change or have any impact on this fact. Therefore we should all be prepared to act as necessary to protect our loved ones from such evil.

[wolf_from_wv]

https://www.wdtv.com/2022/05/25/graphic-gunman-kills-19-children-2-adults-texas-school-rampage/

-- Someone watching cameras would help.

Dillon Silva, whose nephew was in a nearby classroom, said students were watching a movie when a bullet shattered a window. Moments later, their teacher saw the armed assailant walk past the door.

"Oh, my God, he has a gun!" the teacher shouted twice, according to Silva. "The teacher didn't even have time to lock the door," he said.

-- If you don't know someone is coming, you can't barricade anyone in a room before they get there.

" The killer "barricaded himself by locking the door and just started shooting children and teachers that were inside that classroom," he said. "

-- You can't wait for backup, time is not on your side.

"Earlier, a law enforcement official said one Border Patrol agent who was working nearby when the shooting began rushed into the school without waiting for backup and shot and killed the gunman. "

-- High profile political events, right, left, center will always be sought by people trying to send a message.

" The shooting came days before the National Rifle Association annual convention was set to begin in Houston. Gov. Greg. Abbott and both of Texas' U.S. senators, all of them Republicans, were among the scheduled speakers at a forum Friday. "

-- If someone says they might do something, and it's bad, maybe check into it.

" Ramos had hinted on social media that an attack could be coming, suggesting that "kids should watch out," according to state Sen. Roland Gutierrez, who said he had been briefed by state police. "

[Lambykins]

I am sad. I am angry AF.
The rest of what I want to say is political as hell and would lose me many friends.

[Raptor]

https://www.wdtv.com/2022/05/25/graphic-gunman-kills-19-children-2-adults-texas-school-rampage/

-- Someone watching cameras would help.

Dillon Silva, whose nephew was in a nearby classroom, said students were watching a movie when a bullet shattered a window. Moments later, their teacher saw the armed assailant walk past the door.

"Oh, my God, he has a gun!" the teacher shouted twice, according to Silva. "The teacher didn't even have time to lock the door," he said.

-- If you don't know someone is coming, you can't barricade anyone in a room before they get there.

We learned these lessons several times but it does not seem to stick.
It is a simple common sense tactic ... lock the exterior and classroom doors.

1. Lock the exterior doors. Have a functioning lock on every exterior door so that getting in from outside requires someone to let you in from inside. These are very common in public places. You can leave without a key but you cannot get in without a key/access card whatever. 

2. Lock the classroom doors. Every classroom should have a  door lock that locks automatically upon exit. You can still exit normally but someone needs to open the door from inside or have a  key. If you do not want to get up and let a kid back in every time one goes to the bathroom give them a "bathroom key" on a big key fob like the gas stations used to use.
Just keep the door closed and locked.

Granted the doors can be knocked open but not without a struggle that will buy some reaction time.
Why make it easy?

[majorhavoc]

New details being reported in the news media. Details that directly contradict things reported as "facts" in the first hours after the shooting. Or at least reported with a tissue-thin veneer of deniability so it can later be claimed no one was saying they were actual facts. "Unconfirmed sources say that x happened" or "according to one unnamed official, y happened". 

Best thing I can say is that nature, or in this case, news media, abhors a vacuum. So it gets filled with all sorts of heresy and innuendo until something more accurate comes along.

Operative takeaway is that in any kind of dramatic event/disaster/emergency/slow news day, take initial reports with a grain of salt. Especially if you're monitoring the news to determine how to respond to a situation which impacts you.

[DarkAxel]

Every time something like this happens, I can count on two things: political haymakers on both sides of the gun debate will go into overdrive, and someone or something will be scapegoated to appease the mob. I watched this happen since I was a primary school student myself.

It sickens me to know that this tragedy means little to the most vocal on both sides. Just another point of contention in the Culture Wars. Another chance to let confirmation bias prove righteousness, more ammunition against the eternal "other" that must be proven wrong no matter the cost.

I may get my e-penis smacked, but I just can't hold this in any more.

Guns are not the problem. Focusing on gun control will not stop future school shootings. Our children need real solutions, not band-aid fixes that do nothing more than make politicians look like they are "doing something about gun violence".

I have identified one thing that seem to be a common thread through these events:

The perps lack quality social connections. These kids feel isolated, alone, and impotent. No one is really reaching out to them to make sure they are OK. Their parents really aren't involved in their lives. Their teachers and guidance counselors don't give a damn. Zero tolerance policies mean no one is really responsible for anything, and our kids risk being hauled off to jail by school resource officers for things that would only merit little more than detention in a sane world.

There's no goddamn silver bullet, no simple black-and-white answer to this problem, and anyone trying to sell you one is a bald-faced liar.

What can we do about it?

I don't have a simple answer for you. I do know that if you see someone in crisis you should try to help. If someone is threatening violence you should take them seriously. If you see someone struggling, you shouldn't be afraid to reach out a hand and let them know that they aren't alone.

[echo83]

New details being reported in the news media. Details that directly contradict things reported as "facts" in the first hours after the shooting. Or at least reported with a tissue-thin veneer of deniability so it can later be claimed no one was saying they were actual facts. "Unconfirmed sources say that x happened" or "according to one unnamed official, y happened". 

Best thing I can say is that nature, or in this case, news media, abhors a vacuum. So it gets filled with all sorts of heresy and innuendo until something more accurate comes along.

Operative takeaway is that in any kind of dramatic event/disaster/emergency/slow news day, take initial reports with a grain of salt. Especially if you're monitoring the news to determine how to respond to a situation which impacts you.

Agreed. There's this overwhelming need to fill the voids in the 24 hour news cycle. The only thing worse than "unconfirmed, " is the "What We Know About X." Or "Here's What We Don't Know About X."

Stop using headlines as bookmarks. 

Stop treating corrections like edits.

Stop writing outlines and start writing articles.

Start telling the truth, and only start telling it when you know it's the truth. 

[NT2C]

New details being reported in the news media. Details that directly contradict things reported as "facts" in the first hours after the shooting. Or at least reported with a tissue-thin veneer of deniability so it can later be claimed no one was saying they were actual facts. "Unconfirmed sources say that x happened" or "according to one unnamed official, y happened". 

Best thing I can say is that nature, or in this case, news media, abhors a vacuum. So it gets filled with all sorts of heresy and innuendo until something more accurate comes along.

Operative takeaway is that in any kind of dramatic event/disaster/emergency/slow news day, take initial reports with a grain of salt. Especially if you're monitoring the news to determine how to respond to a situation which impacts you.

News organizations are driven by ratings and advertiser dollars.  Every news organization wants to start their broadcast with those glorious words that mean high ratings, more dollars, and maybe a raise for the reporter, "As our earlier exclusive report told you..."

Also, there is no such thing as unbiased news reporting.  No matter the source, it will be biased.  Even if you see the event unfold with your own eyes, your perception of it will be colored by your own bias, your physical means of viewing it (eyes, binoculars, TV cameras, etc.) will also color your perceptions of it.

Your job, as a rational, intelligent, thinking human being is to figure out the bias and compensate for it to get it as close to neutral as you can before forming your own thoughts and opinions on it.

[Crosscut]

New details being reported in the news media. Details that directly contradict things reported as "facts" in the first hours after the shooting. Or at least reported with a tissue-thin veneer of deniability so it can later be claimed no one was saying they were actual facts. "Unconfirmed sources say that x happened" or "according to one unnamed official, y happened". 

Best thing I can say is that nature, or in this case, news media, abhors a vacuum. So it gets filled with all sorts of heresy and innuendo until something more accurate comes along.

Operative takeaway is that in any kind of dramatic event/disaster/emergency/slow news day, take initial reports with a grain of salt. Especially if you're monitoring the news to determine how to respond to a situation which impacts you.

News organizations are driven by ratings and advertiser dollars.  Every news organization wants to start their broadcast with those glorious words that mean high ratings, more dollars, and maybe a raise for the reporter, "As our earlier exclusive report told you..."

Also, there is no such thing as unbiased news reporting.  No matter the source, it will be biased.  Even if you see the event unfold with your own eyes, your perception of it will be colored by your own bias, your physical means of viewing it (eyes, binoculars, TV cameras, etc.) will also color your perceptions of it.

Your job, as a rational, intelligent, thinking human being is to figure out the bias and compensate for it to get it as close to neutral as you can before forming your own thoughts and opinions on it.

Not to mention intentionally false or misleading reporting too, usually to fit the narrative the reporter or news org wants to portray.  Example, search google (or other) for "Border Patrol tactical team breached the door" or variations of that in news stories.  When did the definition of "breach" change to include opening a door using a key?

[NT2C]

Ummm... the door was still breached.  It doesn't have to be violent.

[wolf_from_wv]

A TedX talk

[Anianna]

While the term "breach" in most scholarly dictionaries includes some form of force in creating an opening, according to Cambridge dictionary, the term "breach" includes making an opening with intent to attack on the other side.  If we're being pedantic, it's not a precise use of the term, but technically it's not wrong.

[NT2C]

While the term "breach" in most scholarly dictionaries includes some form of force in creating an opening, according to Cambridge dictionary, the term "breach" includes making an opening with intent to attack on the other side.  If we're being pedantic, it's not a precise use of the term, but technically it's not wrong.

In the military, "breaching" means getting through a barrier or making entry however it may be done.  While it can include violent or explosive means it can also mean sliding open a window or opening an unlocked door.  Using a key falls right in the middle of that.

[Crosscut]

Well.... "gained entry" or "unlocked and opened the door" would describe it better imo.  But maybe my own bias too, some media outlets are very sympathetic to Border Patrol and some others might like only police organizations to respond with firearms to stop a threat - so maybe they agree on breached for different reasons.  imo.  

[Anianna]

Some of the early reporting in the first 24 hours included that ICE was on scene looking for undocumented family in the midst of the crisis and that some police officers went in for only their own kids, both of which appear now to have been based on faulty assumptions. 

The immigration enforcement people there weren't specifically ICE and were essentially the border patrol version of SWAT.  They weren't there to round up undocumented people, they were there to help and were ultimately the group that got the job done despite police telling them to stand down.  ICE put out a statement the next day that should have come out immediately that schools are protected areas. 

There was one documented case of an officer going in for his own wife and kids, but he did not save only them - he evacuated that entire wing of the school.  He said he went to that part of the school because it was the part he was familiar with and, yes, because that's where his family were.  He didn't stop clearing kids out once his family was safe.  If he hadn't been concerned for his own family, that entire wing of children may not have been evacuated.  He was off-duty and came to the school with a long-gun he acquired from his barber because he was getting a haircut when his wife, a teacher at the school, messaged him begging him to help.  As far as I'm aware, there are no other documented incidents of officers entering the school for their own children.

Some early reports indicated the off-duty officer with his barber's rifle was the one to take down the shooter, but that seems to be incorrect and it was the border patrol team that took him down.  I'm not entirely certain, but it looks like the off-duty officer did not encounter or engage the shooter and there's still information missing on the entirety of his activities in the school beyond that he evacuated the wing.  My guess would be that he cleared the wing and then grouped up with the other officers to see what the plan was and was prevented from entering further, but that's just a guess.

I've seen that a lot of people were and remain outraged by the initial reports on those two points, so I wanted to clear that up. 

The people who saw the border patrol agents and went to social media warning that ICE was present may have meant well, but they really just exacerbated an already terrible situation, imo.  I wonder if this affected any children being reunited with their families in a timely manner.

[echo83]

New details being reported in the news media. Details that directly contradict things reported as "facts" in the first hours after the shooting. Or at least reported with a tissue-thin veneer of deniability so it can later be claimed no one was saying they were actual facts. "Unconfirmed sources say that x happened" or "according to one unnamed official, y happened". 

Best thing I can say is that nature, or in this case, news media, abhors a vacuum. So it gets filled with all sorts of heresy and innuendo until something more accurate comes along.

Operative takeaway is that in any kind of dramatic event/disaster/emergency/slow news day, take initial reports with a grain of salt. Especially if you're monitoring the news to determine how to respond to a situation which impacts you.

News organizations are driven by ratings and advertiser dollars.  Every news organization wants to start their broadcast with those glorious words that mean high ratings, more dollars, and maybe a raise for the reporter, "As our earlier exclusive report told you..."

Also, there is no such thing as unbiased news reporting.  No matter the source, it will be biased.  Even if you see the event unfold with your own eyes, your perception of it will be colored by your own bias, your physical means of viewing it (eyes, binoculars, TV cameras, etc.) will also color your perceptions of it.

Your job, as a rational, intelligent, thinking human being is to figure out the bias and compensate for it to get it as close to neutral as you can before forming your own thoughts and opinions on it.

I was taught/trained to "triangulate," my news/facts. Two points make a line, and a third confirms it. The tendency of a media outlet to be first on the scene with the most attention-grabbing commentary, as opposed to being first to the truth makes it harder and harder to do triangulate. If my editor ever really applied unfair pressure, I used to ask, "Do you want the story right, or do you want the story fast?"

I don't mean to turn this into a media rant, but these are lives we are talking about here. 

[Anianna]

New details being reported in the news media. Details that directly contradict things reported as "facts" in the first hours after the shooting. Or at least reported with a tissue-thin veneer of deniability so it can later be claimed no one was saying they were actual facts. "Unconfirmed sources say that x happened" or "according to one unnamed official, y happened". 

Best thing I can say is that nature, or in this case, news media, abhors a vacuum. So it gets filled with all sorts of heresy and innuendo until something more accurate comes along.

Operative takeaway is that in any kind of dramatic event/disaster/emergency/slow news day, take initial reports with a grain of salt. Especially if you're monitoring the news to determine how to respond to a situation which impacts you.

News organizations are driven by ratings and advertiser dollars.  Every news organization wants to start their broadcast with those glorious words that mean high ratings, more dollars, and maybe a raise for the reporter, "As our earlier exclusive report told you..."

Also, there is no such thing as unbiased news reporting.  No matter the source, it will be biased.  Even if you see the event unfold with your own eyes, your perception of it will be colored by your own bias, your physical means of viewing it (eyes, binoculars, TV cameras, etc.) will also color your perceptions of it.

Your job, as a rational, intelligent, thinking human being is to figure out the bias and compensate for it to get it as close to neutral as you can before forming your own thoughts and opinions on it.

I was taught/trained to "triangulate," my news/facts. Two points make a line, and a third confirms it. The tendency of a media outlet to be first on the scene with the most attention-grabbing commentary, as opposed to being first to the truth makes it harder and harder to do triangulate. If my editor ever really applied unfair pressure, I used to ask, "Do you want the story right, or do you want the story fast?"

I don't mean to turn this into a media rant, but these are lives we are talking about here.

Rant away.  Media is shit.  Journalism is garbage.  Use it as a means to find source data and find pieces of truth in the mess.  That we can't trust them to make sure what they are saying is the truth and unbiased at that is worthy of a rant. 

When I was studying to be a journalist, we were taught to verify our sources.  Somewhere along the lines, that went out the window.  One outlet reports something and the rest of them just repeat it without even checking first. 

A striking example in recent history was that of the "MAGA Hat Kid" who allegedly disrupted a native American pow wow and got in the face of an elderly native American.  That is not even remotely what happened (I watched the entire several-hours-long source video and it was way more disturbing than anything that was actually reported).  That kid never went near the pow wow, the native American in that image walked through the crowd of kids and stopped in the kid's face when the crowd stopped parting and the kid had nowhere to go, and there was another group there who were instigating arguments with both the native Americans and the kids and who told the kids they should have been aborted, but if the news outlets were to be believed, there wasn't anybody else there but the kids and the native Americans.  The kid was vilified probably solely because of what he was wearing which had literally nothing to do with the events that actually occurred and the outlets all latched onto that narrative without actually checking (or despite checking if they even bothered).