Texas Police Admit — ‘It was the wrong decision’ not to breach school…

  • Join War Room Forum!

    Welcome Deplorable! Please take a moment to Sign Up for a free account so you can join in on the LIVE CHAT and forum DISCUSSIONS.

    Sign Up    Live Chat Login


UpLateAgain

Member
Jun 23, 2021
53
42
18
A new element has now been possibly introduced into the Uvalde catastrophe. According to the sister of one of the City of Uvalde police officers, two Uvalde (including her brother) officers entered the building and went after the suspect immediately after arriving at the school. She said her brother engaged the shooter outside the school and was fired upon, but not hit. The shooter then apparently went into the school unopposed (a teacher had propped the rear door to the school open), and her brother and another Uvalde officer entered the school to go after him. They had him pinned in a classroom, and were in there the entire time until the suspect was taken out by the SWAT team that arrived an hour later. Both officers were apparently wounded in the process of pinning down the suspect.. though the wounds were minor.
If that's true, it puts a whole different light on how things went down, and makes sense of several things that heretofore made no sense whatsoever. Under that circumstance, officers outside were right to not let parents enter the building, and if the suspect was not actively shooting kids in the room where he was pinned down, the officers were probably right to wait for the SWAT team and/or hostage negotiators. And the two wounded Uvalde police actually did follow established active shooter protocol.

What stinks about the sister's version of events if accurate is: 1.) Why hasn't this been explained before by the police authorities who have conducted numerous press conferences over this incident? 2.) Why, if the officers had the suspect pinned, wasn't the rest of the school evacuated? 3.) Why weren't the officers who had the suspect pinned replaced by officers with significant body armor and high powered rifles (the first arriving officers likely just had their standard vests, which will NOT stop a rifle round, and their sidearms, and allowed to be treated for their wounds? Reports are one of the officers was grazed by a bullet in the head, and took a flesh wound to the arm.... where he didn't even realize he'd been hit until he noticed he was bleeding significantly while taking a shower some time later.
This possible element to the story is not yet being widely reported. But then what we have so far is a mish-mash of people with incomplete information putting out statements. A senior DPS official says there were no officers in the school while parents were being prevented from going-in. The Uvalde officer's sister says her brother was in the scho0l pinning down the suspect the entire time until the SWAT team went in and killed him.

What seems clear is the different agencies involved had terrible communications with each other, and it seems questionable whether an incident commander was designated at the scene and was making informed decisions.

Incident Command System: The Incident Command System is a nationally standardized approach to the command, control, and coordination of emergency response providing a common hierarchy within which responders from multiple agencies can be effective. Under ICS, the unity of command principle is always in play. There is ONLY one IC (Incident Commander) at an incident, and it starts off being the first arriving officer. As more senior people arrive, they can relieve the IC and assume those responsibilities, but EVERY responding agency should locate the IC when they get there and either relive him and take command or fall into the chain of command and follow the IC's instructions. The ICS is structured very much like the military command structure, and generally follows a five paragraph order operating directive when being implemented. That reduces confusion, ensured unity of command, and ensure all necessary bases are covered in carrying out an operation. The ICS has been in effect in the US and Canada for a couple of decades now, and every police agency in the US is supposed to be intimately familiar with it and train on it annually. It doesn't look like it was effectively employed in Uvalde. Had it been, one of its tenets is singular press briefings by a designated public affairs officer who consolidates known information. Having four or five different agencies giving out different stories only results in public confusion. Which we seem to have an abundance-of.
 

UpLateAgain

Member
Jun 23, 2021
53
42
18
Here’s the nub of where the mistake was made: If the shooter was in that classroom by himself, then the police in the hall would have been right, and the situation would have gone from active shooter to barricaded suspect (which you treat differently than active shooter)… and their actions (including keeping the parents out) would have been the correct ones. It’s the fact that kids were in the classroom with the shooter that made it remain active shooter and not barricaded suspect. If/when the police heard a shot from inside the classroom, or had ANY other indication there were kids in there, they should have immediately stormed it.

The question comes down to: Did the police know or suspect there were kids in the classroom with the shooter? That is what subsequent inquiries will be trying to determine. Logic says they should have known... but we'll have to have the inquiry to get the whole story.

As for keeping the parents out: That was appropriate. Letting them go in would have only likely resulted in dead parents and/or parents getting in the way of the police engaging the shooter. As it was, a couple of police were wounded engaging the shooter. If parents had gone in and been shot, people would be outraged that police let the parents go into the middle of it all. That situation is going to be a PR no-win for the cops, but keeping the parents out while police were in the building engaging the shooter was necessary and appropriate.

It all really comes down to did they know or suspect kids were in that classroom. And if they did, then the decision to keep him pinned and not assault him was the wrong one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Confusedpatriot

Confusedpatriot

Well-known Member
Sep 12, 2021
1,135
439
83
Here’s the nub of where the mistake was made: If the shooter was in that classroom by himself, then the police in the hall would have been right, and the situation would have gone from active shooter to barricaded suspect (which you treat differently than active shooter)… and their actions (including keeping the parents out) would have been the correct ones. It’s the fact that kids were in the classroom with the shooter that made it remain active shooter and not barricaded suspect. If/when the police heard a shot from inside the classroom, or had ANY other indication there were kids in there, they should have immediately stormed it.

The question comes down to: Did the police know or suspect there were kids in the classroom with the shooter? That is what subsequent inquiries will be trying to determine. Logic says they should have known... but we'll have to have the inquiry to get the whole story.

As for keeping the parents out: That was appropriate. Letting them go in would have only likely resulted in dead parents and/or parents getting in the way of the police engaging the shooter. As it was, a couple of police were wounded engaging the shooter. If parents had gone in and been shot, people would be outraged that police let the parents go into the middle of it all. That situation is going to be a PR no-win for the cops, but keeping the parents out while police were in the building engaging the shooter was necessary and appropriate.

It all really comes down to did they know or suspect kids were in that classroom. And if they did, then the decision to keep him pinned and not assault him was the wrong one.


This is a very well-written and well-thought out analysis. I wish we had more like this on here!

What I would add is that situations like this are very fluid with hundreds of bits of information flowing into the "headquarters" (whatever that was).

I can't believe that the cops in the hallways could not hear children screaming, moaning, crying and calling for help. We know there were also 911 calls from inside the room.

So, whatever set of facts there were when the on-site commander first made his call to not breach . . . . those facts changed . . . BUT HIS DECISION DID NOT.

Why? Was the new info not being pushed forward to him? Was he someplace out of touch? Did he freeze? Did he not trust the new info?

The other thing I'm sure we'll eventually discover is that not all the cops could talk to each other.

It would not surprise me to eventually hear that he changed his mind and told them to breach but the message never got to the cops in the hallway.

My prediction: The big problem here will end up being COMMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UpLateAgain

UpLateAgain

Member
Jun 23, 2021
53
42
18
This is a very well-written and well-thought out analysis. I wish we had more like this on here!

What I would add is that situations like this are very fluid with hundreds of bits of information flowing into the "headquarters" (whatever that was).

I can't believe that the cops in the hallways could not hear children screaming, moaning, crying and calling for help. We know there were also 911 calls from inside the room.

So, whatever set of facts there were when the on-site commander first made his call to not breach . . . . those facts changed . . . BUT HIS DECISION DID NOT.

Why? Was the new info not being pushed forward to him? Was he someplace out of touch? Did he freeze? Did he not trust the new info?

The other thing I'm sure we'll eventually discover is that not all the cops could talk to each other.

It would not surprise me to eventually hear that he changed his mind and told them to breach but the message never got to the cops in the hallway.

My prediction: The big problem here will end up being COMMO.
Another aspect of this whole thing is what it appears to me was the abuse, rather than use, of the ICS (Incident Command System) during this incident. For those who don't know, the ICS is a system that has been in effect across the country for a couple of decades now, and it's purpose is to present a uniform way of dealing with a situation among multiple agencies. It provides for establishing a command post, setting up a chain of command, and making sure all agencies are on the same page as far as who's in charge, communications throughout, how gathered intel is gotten back to the people in charge, who communicates with the public and coordinates what information will be given out, how the incident is payed-for, etc, etc, etc. It is a system that is fundamentally based on essentially the same five paragraph order structure the military uses for those of you familial with the military five paragraph order.

ALL first responders in the US are required by federal law to be trained on it, and it is supposed to be used in any critical incident.. especially an incident large enough to involve multiple agencies, because it establishes the relationships among those multiple agencies. There is plenty of appearance that it was not used by all the parties to this incident.

Under ICS, the first officer to arrive on scene is the IC (Incident Commander). The IC remains the IC until relieved. With police, the USUAL way it works out is a sergeant will show up on the scene and relieve the officer of IC duties. Then if the incident is critical enough, a LT, CPT, or the Chief will relieve him, and if the Sheriff shows up, the Sherrif may well relieve the Chief as the IC. The transfer of authority is a formal act. And it doesn't matter the rank or relevant authority of other people who show up on scene. The IC remains the IC and is in charge of the whole incident until and unless someone formally relieves him (or her) of that duty.. It's like having the con on a ship. The guy who has the con is in charge of ship operations until relieved.... There may be a host of more senior officers on board, but the officer with the con is in charge of running the ship no matter what the more senior officers are doing. There could be an Admiral visiting the ship, but that Lt Officer of the Deck who has been given the con is in charge of ship operations until someone more senior (say the ship's captain) tells him he is taking the con. It's the same with ICS, and as it happened, the Chief of the Uvalde School Police department had assumed IC duties, and remained the IC throughout. Though federal and state officers may well not have recognized that fact... as none of them relieved him of those duties.

When the Sheriff or DPS shows up, either of them is 'senior' to the Chief, and either can go to the chief and relieve him of the IC duties, assuming them himself. Then the Sheriff or DPS agent would be the IC, and all operations would channel through him. So using the ICS properly results in there ALWAYS being unity of command and causes different agencies to work together under one command protocol instead of different agencies operating on their own and having the actions of one agency screw up the actions of another.

Given the different responses we seemed to get from different police agencies, it kind of looks like different agencies came-in, and instead of properly using ICS, decided to do things their own way.... or at least some of them did. The governor should not have gotten bad info to give out, because the governor's briefing should have comedirectly from the IC (the Chief of the Uvalde School PD). It looks like DPS officials and US Marshals each sort of assumed that since they were 'higher ranking agencies' than UPD, they were automatically in charge. THEY WERE NOT. Not until and unless they formally relieved the Chief of Police as IC at any rate. And it looks to me like those improper assumptions caused 99% of the bad communications, lack of unity of command, and a ton of misinformation being fed back to to the wrong people causing the operational parameters to be decentralized and mishandled.

And another thing.... ConfusedPatriot is likely right. Without an acknowledged IC establishing specific comms, it is actually more than likely a lot of radio time was spent with one agency NOT talking to another. There are different ways of getting comms to be uniform. In some states, all police radios have been modified to include the installation of a specific crystal so all of them can switch to a channel they all carry. In some states, Sheriffs have been designated as emergency operations coordinators, and the Sheriffs Department will keep a slew of radios in a command post van or bus to hand out to other agencies as the report in at an incident. Each system has its advantages. Giving out radios allows you to get comms to agencies (e.g. federal agencies) who would not normally have access to a statedesignated emergency channel. I'm betting because ICS was ignored here to a major degree, ConfusedPatriot is absolutely right and uniform communications never were established. Each involved agency continued to use their own systems and a TON of vital communication never took place.
 
Last edited:

War Room Forum
Donate to War Room Forum
Donations pay for increased server capacity, Live Chat and our support staff to post news and video clips throughout the day.

Hey Deplorable! Join us...

Never miss out. Join in on all that our community as to offer!

Sign Me Up!

War Room Podcast

War Room Live Chat