I understand what she said about Protect, but do beleive that this is for a situation when a crime has not occurred, such as a situation when a person is threatened. On this case there was an active shooter, when they came out. 376 police arrived in a town which had 20,000+/- residents.

You have to wonder if the delay in response by the supervisor was because of recent riots after the use of deadly force by police. We've seem demonstrations and riots after police have legally stopped an innocent woman from being stabbed. We've seen deaths that resulted after police were first fired upon. We've seen the town of Ferguson racked by riots after an officer killed a thug who tried to take his gun. The list goes on and on and the resulting impact on life and death decisions by police has been tragic.

Ahhh, law enforcement. The job everyone thinks they can do better than the people that actually do it. Master's degrees from television shows, apparently.

I normally just tune out all law enforcement critics. People who have not experienced (first hand) the job really do not understand what it takes. They do not understand decades of living at tactical alert, at being privy to the goings-on of people and the true nature of dangers in the world and how quickly and unexpectedly they appear. People are more concerned about getting tickets or calling on cops because they don't like the neighbor's wind chimes. They do not know of 90% of the dangers and encounters that occur, only the ones the news picks up and publicizes.

All that being said, there were two large failures, in my estimation. Primarily, those in charge were cowards - political cowards. Paralysis by analysis. Too afraid to make a mistake, better to do nothing at all mentality. Have you ever seen the old T-shirt from the L.A. riots? Sure wish I still had one: a waffle pattern boot print real big across the back, and the words, "Footprint of a coward." The twist is that the waffle pattern was made up of rank insignias. Clever shirt.

Secondarily, the line level offices that were too afraid, (whether personal safety or career safety) or too morally bankrupt (thank you modern society) to step up and override the primary causation factor, the leadership.

Fear of being dragged into Federal court to be charged criminally or civil court to be charged personally and the media fanning of flames has taken its drastic toll on law enforcers and their actions or lack thereof.

Do not underestimate the daily attacks they undergo - the outright disrespect, hatred, and assaults that no other profession endures. No one routinely shoots at lawyers, as much as people don't like them, they just make jokes at their expense. Law enforcement endures exponentially more dangers than ANY other profession, and they are constantly second-guessed by every TV watcher in America (and abroad apparently since Prince Harry has opted to weigh-in now). Even here, in this thread of supposed law enforcement supporters, the armchair criticism is unmistakable - and amateur.

I find the individual officer's response disgusting, but understandable.

I find the weasel-like response by the leadership to be treasonous to their oath - but it is neither unprecedented (Talking to you, 1992 LAPD) nor uncommon (every city, big and small, pandering to politicians to maintain their careers). Even the L.A. County Board of Supervisors last week voted 4-1 to give themselves the unconstitutional authority to fire the County Sheriff. The lawfully elected by the people County Sheriff. So much for an independent law enforcement leader who answered only to the electorate.

I suppose this is Progressivism. Defund the police (training), etc. If so - the USA is damned to further decay, and eventual failure. Tragic.

I ask a guy years back: Why he felt he needed to carry a gun."

His reply was:
"I would rather have that choice to protect my family, myself or other citizens then to
stand by and see them being shot then living with the thought of doing nothing."

No matter what the issue people will have strong opinions. The day it affects them or their children directly their opinions change.

That report TOTALLY DISPROVES the often-quoted excuse that "a good guy with a gun" is the solution to protecting us all from the bad guy with a gun! There were more than 350 law enforcement officers at that site and some of those children were more than likely murdered AFTER their arrival on-scene.....

They are in line for excellent pensions, much better than 95% of people in the private sector.

That's how.

bingo! You win the internet award for today.

Uvalde School Shooting Report
 

I agree.

I think the initial delay from the officer that had the shooter in his sights while he was still outside is due to the media treatment of Law Enforcement and lack of support from politicians. It may also be a flaw in that departments protocols. The officer already knew the Shooter had taken shots at the two men who were walking toward the crashed pickup, so the question of armed and dangerous was readily apparent.

Everything that occurred in the hallway is a flaw in response protocols, in my opinion. Also many did not have the courage to engage the shooter. From viewing the video, of those in the hallway the only ones who acted appropriately were older men. The officer who caught shrapnel in his head (from concrete being hit) was the first to engage within 3 minutes of the Shooter entering the building. The officer engaged but had nobody to back him up. The paramedic on the scene later on was also older and immediately began directing people. He was the only one in view of cameras that took up a leadership role.

I don't know the answer in addressing the media who demonizes Law Enforcement and makes heroes and martyrs of criminals. There should be some way to have truth in reporting and accountability on media for their role is social discourse.

I respectfully disagree. You can have all the good guys with guns but if they do not engage it is for nothing. We can see how a good guy able to respond almost immediately at the Greenwood Mall shooting was able to stop a mass shooter. The shooter had a rifle and several magazines, apparently intent on doing much harm. The good guy had a handgun. Even though he was outgunned, the good guy engaged and stopped the bad guy from killing many more. He had the solution and used it.

Ahhh one of those. Horrible when people stand on the bodies of children to push their agenda.

the Center for Disease Control, in a report ordered by President Obama in 2012 following the Sandy Hook Massacre, estimated that the number of crimes prevented by guns could be even higher—as many as 3 million annually, or some 8,200 every day.

What a horrible response. No one wants to hear truth, experience, logic and reasoning. I do, so I agree with you 110%. My son retired from NYPD. He used to share experiences with me. One comes to mind. 2 officers were in a shootout with a perp in Manhattan. The cops shot dozens of rounds. Only one round hit and wounded the perp but in the process a few bystanders were hit by bullets from the police. So, what guarantee is there that the police would not have shot some children in the shootout? Maybe some would have been shot so, yes, political cowardice and analysis paralysis by the leadership probably was the main ingredient to this disaster. Would they (the police) have stormed into the classroom if instructed to do so? I would like to believe most would have done so. We'll never know but it was a no-win situation the minute that low-life creep got into the classroom.

OP is a truthteller