Officers waited for backup because ‘they could’ve been shot’ - Lt Chris Olivarez

  • Thread starter Thread starter SQUAREHEAD
  • Start date Start date
JackBootedThug said:
your damn right about that. Congrats on the grandkids. I've got 2 myself now....hard to keep up with them....
Click to expand...
Thanks man, we're getting them left and right. More than I can count on both hand so far, they are the best!
 
Not taking up for anyone, but I talked to a friend of mine who is an experienced Entry Team guy, he said he had heard that initially the call went in that established it was an active shooter scenario, but by the time they arrived it had been changed to a "barricaded shooter scenario"
The protocol for the latter is very different for a team to go in and engage the shooter as opposed to "active shooter" The potential for loss of life is much higher for a person dug in behind cover with hostages as opposed to the same shooter running around looking to shoot any target that pops up on the run while trying to avoid LE guys who are certainly going to put rounds in him as soon as they see him.
It was then changed back to "active shooter" but the main guy in charge had left his radio in his vehicle and could not issue orders on the fly so very rapidly a grey area on how they were supposed to proceed developed that took way too much time to resolve when every second counted.
The LE guys I know would rather be shot multiple times than let kids who are sitting ducks fend for themselves in a situation where the odds are greatly against them. They are much, much more comfortable with their weapons training and gun-handling skills being put up against a punk ass who has played too many video games and thinks himself to be some kind of warrior king due to all his video game prowess...
It is what it is, they took way too long and it costed them the lives of innocent children who had no chance of getting an upper hand on the lunatic. I'd be willing to bet that nobody feels worse outside the victims family members than the very guys who were supposed to go in and take him out as quickly as possible.
There are several ways to cut down mass shooting events, possibly as much as 85-90% overall, but none of the proposed changes or gun bans or any of the democrats plans currently on the table would have much if any effect on the scenario that actually happened on that day. In reality their is no way to stop all of the potential ways a mass shooting could happen.

You want to cut down on mass shootings? Great. So does every sane person on the face of the earth. So does every law-abiding American who owns guns and refuses to comply with changes in the laws that will have zero effect on mass shooters, but will compromise their ability to defend themselves, their families, and anyone else they see fit to defend.
There are very definitive ways to weed out potential lunatics with guns, but you are going to have to be willing to profile people through a criteria that is based on very available information, but you will have to let go of all the PC bullshit and make up your mind that if someones civil rights are going to be compromised, it needs to be the person sending out all the common-denominator signals, and the people connected to them including parents, classmates, school staff and other common denominators that always, without fail pop up in the next week following a mass shooting event. If you are going to continue with this horseshit about gun bans and changing laws that would only have an effect on people who would follow the laws in the first place, then you are not a serious individual who should have any say in any changes that are implemented on the rest of us.
Gun owners should be willing to discuss ways to cut these things down without giving up their own rights, but so should politicians, who every time, without fail, go back to the same tired bullshit that will not and never has actually worked. As soon as they start talking about gun bans and mag limits, I know they are not serious about the problem... Gun owners should also be willing to support changes to the way background checks are conducted to potentially weed out the crazies at the git-go. Support anything that will make it harder for lunatics to get guns, but not infringe on your civil rights, even if it means waiting a few days. I realize this will have little effect, but knowing that all the democrats want is gun confiscation, you should be willing to at least wait a few days or risk the ramifications of an idiot politician deciding to confiscate weapons across the board, and we know where that will lead in a hurry.
As soon as they start labeling AR's as "weapons of war", I know they should not even be at the table for a discussion. It is a crystal-clear indicator that you don't know shit about guns. Look at the governments own stats on murders, more people are killed with claw hammers every year than AR's.. Even if they are banned forever, there are currently over 18+ million of them currently in use by civilians, possibly as high as 20+ million. You will NEVER get them all.
Large numbers of them have been sold in the last 12 years, and huge numbers in the last 8, have the number of people killed with AR's gone through the roof in that time?? No. Again, more people were killed with hammers and knives every year.

So if you are indeed serious about stopping these crazy people, your gonna have to be willing to stomp on somebodies civil rights to do it..
You can either pick the actual people who are committing the crimes in the first place and actually make a difference and stop them a large % of the time, or you can try the same stupid shit again that didn't work the last time you did it and potentially start a civil war in the process, depending on how far you are willing to put law enforcement guys lives in danger to achieve nothing.. Your vision of dis-arming the population of the United States is something you will never achieve. You might as well go ahead and tackle this thing head on in a way that will actually get tangible results and stop the crazy people...
 
Last edited:
JTyson said:
Gun owners should also be willing to support changes to the way background checks are conducted to potentially weed out the crazies at the git-go
Click to expand...
The catch 22 is though, that the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone including these crazies. Even crazies have a right to defend their own lives with guns...do they not? So how do you solve for that?
 
BB330D34-9034-4FD7-801F-8D327E424041.jpeg
 
Metalhex said:
The catch 22 is though, that the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone including these crazies. Even crazies have a right to defend their own lives with guns...do they not? So how do you solve for that?
Click to expand...
Yes it does. And the catch 22 is even worse than that, no doubt the current admin would misuse any and all discretion given to them, so the system is being played by both sides. Again, my point was if your going to stomp someones rights into the ground and nullify them, it should be the people who are most likely to actually be a problem and not those who pose no problem whatsoever. It would end up a relatively small group of people who have given a definite reason based on the common denominator past actions of those who have actually carried out a mass shooting vs 30+ million law abiding gun owners who are no threat at all. As bad as it sounds, I'm willing to let the rights of those who have demonstrated they could potentially kill a bunch of people based on their own words and deeds in high schools and on social media or any other platform that they can reveal their intentions on be trampled instead of those of us who would never do such a thing.
If you start saying you wish to do harm to others, even if they have mistreated you in some manner, you should be taken seriously, and those who see such indicators, who are monitoring the FB and other social media platforms should be required by law to report any and all such statements to the police. The police should have protocol set to look into and document all such occurrences, and that should be linked into the NCIS database to stop those idiots from buying any weapons. This should also include high school resource people who could recognize such individuals. Yes this could be misused and probably would be. With democrats in charge of it, I have no doubt it would be. They have proven every day that if you give them a thimble full of power, they will abuse it before the sun sets..
But at this point, something in the context of policy will have to change, people who don't realize they are being played are at a point of demanding it. Why should those of us who would never set out to do evil to others pay with our own rights for those who are dumb enough to literally say what they mean to do, serious or not?
And I don't give a shit if they are minors, we prosecute minors charged as adults all the time based on the severity of their actions. One of the leading common denominators in mass school shootings is the perp is a minor, so we should be done with that.
Im just saying there are ways to link the possible problem people to the system to stop firearm purchases, and someones rights will suffer as a result, Id rather it be them than those who would never do that
 
Metalhex said:
The catch 22 is though, that the 2nd Amendment applies to everyone including these crazies. Even crazies have a right to defend their own lives with guns...do they not? So how do you solve for that?
Click to expand...

You have to define "crazies" though. When you buy a gun from a licensed FFL, or reside in a state where a background check is required even for private sales you have to fill out a Form 4473. Form 4473, Section 21, subsection F asks the following:

Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?
Click to expand...

So, theoretically.. This base is covered, as long as the person filling out the form is truthful. Of course, this wouldn't apply to private sales between two parties where a background check through an authorized FFL dealer is not required (which would trigger use of the 4473), and wouldn't account for all the "crazies" that are out there that aren't yet on the radar. People could be bat$&%^ crazy and never been hospitalized/committed for it, been picked up by the law and processed, etc.. However, the same could be said for privately selling a gun to a felon. It's not like they wear a name tag with the designation on it. LOL Different states have different laws, so you have to know the law for the state that you live it. But, as an example.. Where I live in Arkansas, the law only states the following:

No one may transfer a firearm to a minor without the consent of a parent or legal guardian; or who is otherwise known to be prohibited from possessing a firearm by state or federal law.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much it. So, as long as I don't know or reasonably believe someone to either (A) Be a convicted felon or (B) would answer "yes" to any of the other question in section 21 of Form 4473 then I can sell privately to them and nobody would be the wiser. No background check and/or FLL transfer. What they do with it after that is out of my control, but you can bet your behind that even though a background check/transfer by FFL isn't required in Arkansas, I still get a Bill of Sale with all pertinent information and signature of the buyer. Just in case that gun is used to commit a crime. If I bought it new, there is a 4473 out there with the make/model/serial number of that weapon and my name on it, and I want to have documentation to prove that I no longer own that weapon.

JTyson said:
As bad as it sounds, I'm willing to let the rights of those who have demonstrated they could potentially kill a bunch of people based on their own words and deeds in high schools and on social media or any other platform that they can reveal their intentions on be trampled instead of those of us who would never do such a thing.
If you start saying you wish to do harm to others, even if they have mistreated you in some manner, you should be taken seriously, and those who see such indicators, who are monitoring the FB and other social media platforms should be required by law to report any and all such statements to the police. The police should have protocol set to look into and document all such occurrences, and that should be linked into the NCIS database to stop those idiots from buying any weapons.
Click to expand...

While I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying here, but it treads awfully close to "Red Flag" laws which I am 110% and inequivically against. If there is documented proof of someone making threats (FB, Email, Online, etc..) or someone is willing to be sworn in and testify in a court of law that they heard someone making these types of claims, then absolutely.. they should be looked in to. However, under "Red Flag" legislation anyone that "thinks that Joe Blow down the street may do harm to themselves or others" because another "Joe Blow" says so can have their guns taken away and possibly arrested. That's no bueno. This would likely cause legal expenses for the accused to prove their innocence and that they are not a threat to themselves or anyone else and get their property back. Just because someone said something that might not be true. I believe that any form of "Red Flag" legislation that may be passed, needs to included penalties for the accuser if it is found that there was no basis for the accusation. This would include allowing the person accused to sue for libel, defamation of character, slander, legal fees, compensatory damages, etc.. Effectively throw the book at them, to make sure that if you're going to throw somebody under that bus.. you better be able to back it up.

Anyway, just my two pennies.
 
was the border patrol's version of S.O.R.T. actually called up to assist? I retired from the FBOP and even though our sort and dct are trained for active shooters this is not federal jurisdiction. I'm telling you no warden would authorize our teams to leave and take down a school shooter. Every swinging dick on the teams would do it without hesitation but no executive staff would authorize it.
 
From what I had read, the Border Patrol is authorizied to operate anywhere within 100 miles of the US/Mexico border. Uvalde fell within that 100 mile border zone area. It was said that Border Patrol is often used in these small towns to suppliment local law enforcement, and that the Border Patrol actually mans a permanent border checkpoint in Uvalde. Most of this info is in the story below:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/border-patrol-uvalde-shooter/
 
and I have been involved in barricaded hostage situations in a correctional environment. these situations are dynamic to say the least. You expect shit in prison but a situation like that? I could not imagine.
 
War_in_D said:
From what I had read, the Border Patrol is authorizied to operate anywhere within 100 miles of the US/Mexico border. Uvalde fell within that 100 mile border zone area. It was said that Border Patrol is often used in these small towns to suppliment local law enforcement, and that the Border Patrol actually mans a permanent border checkpoint in Uvalde. Most of this info is in the story below:

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/border-patrol-uvalde-shooter/
Click to expand...
thanks..I'll read it later...
 
The Border Patrol responding in Uvalde would probably be no different than what happens here in Arkansas in the rural areas of the state. Both of my nephews are State Troopers, but one of them was a county Sheriff's Deputy for a while in a very rural area of the state. When something big went down, or he needed back up, everyone from the State Police to the law enforcment arm of the Park Service would show up.
 
War_in_D said:
You have to define "crazies" though. When you buy a gun from a licensed FFL, or reside in a state where a background check is required even for private sales you have to fill out a Form 4473. Form 4473, Section 21, subsection F asks the following:



So, theoretically.. This base is covered, as long as the person filling out the form is truthful. Of course, this wouldn't apply to private sales between two parties where a background check through an authorized FFL dealer is not required (which would trigger use of the 4473), and wouldn't account for all the "crazies" that are out there that aren't yet on the radar. People could be bat$&%^ crazy and never been hospitalized/committed for it, been picked up by the law and processed, etc.. However, the same could be said for privately selling a gun to a felon. It's not like they wear a name tag with the designation on it. LOL Different states have different laws, so you have to know the law for the state that you live it. But, as an example.. Where I live in Arkansas, the law only states the following:



That's pretty much it. So, as long as I don't know or reasonably believe someone to either (A) Be a convicted felon or (B) would answer "yes" to any of the other question in section 21 of Form 4473 then I can sell privately to them and nobody would be the wiser. No background check and/or FLL transfer. What they do with it after that is out of my control, but you can bet your behind that even though a background check/transfer by FFL isn't required in Arkansas, I still get a Bill of Sale with all pertinent information and signature of the buyer. Just in case that gun is used to commit a crime. If I bought it new, there is a 4473 out there with the make/model/serial number of that weapon and my name on it, and I want to have documentation to prove that I no longer own that weapon.



While I don't necessarily disagree with what you are saying here, but it treads awfully close to "Red Flag" laws which I am 110% and inequivically against. If there is documented proof of someone making threats (FB, Email, Online, etc..) or someone is willing to be sworn in and testify in a court of law that they heard someone making these types of claims, then absolutely.. they should be looked in to. However, under "Red Flag" legislation anyone that "thinks that Joe Blow down the street may do harm to themselves or others" because another "Joe Blow" says so can have their guns taken away and possibly arrested. That's no bueno. This would likely cause legal expenses for the accused to prove their innocence and that they are not a threat to themselves or anyone else and get their property back. Just because someone said something that might not be true. I believe that any form of "Red Flag" legislation that may be passed, needs to included penalties for the accuser if it is found that there was no basis for the accusation. This would include allowing the person accused to sue for libel, defamation of character, slander, legal fees, compensatory damages, etc.. Effectively throw the book at them, to make sure that if you're going to throw somebody under that bus.. you better be able to back it up.

Anyway, just my two pennies.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I'm against red flag laws also, and Im as pro 2A as they come, but if the subject in question has literally given evidence that he would do something, why should we be against him not being able to get weapons? I guess my point is, as much as the left wants to paint all gun owners with a broad brush, sane people should be ok with things that would separate us from nut jobs. Even this is not going to stop them all, I have never understood why idiots who mean to do evil think they should tell others about it on FB and other platforms.
The red flag laws have already been misused against people, we all knew that was gonna be trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top