Uvalde parents lash out after new report clears city police of wrongdoing during 2022 school attack
Uvalde parents lash out after new report clears city police of wrongdoing during 2022 school attack
An investigation Uvalde city leaders ordered into the Robb Elementary School shooting has put no blame on local police officers and defended their actions, but still acknowledged a series of failures during the response.
UVALDE, Texas (AP) — An investigation Uvalde city leaders ordered into the Robb Elementary School shooting cleared local police officers of wrongdoing Thursday, despite acknowledging a series of rippling failures during the fumbled response to the 2022 classroom attack that left 19 children and two teachers dead.
Several family members of victims walked out in anger midway though a presentation that portrayed Uvalde Police Department officers of acting swiftly and appropriately, in contrast to scathing and sweeping past reports that faulted police at every level.
“You said they did it in good faith. You call that good faith? They stood there 77 minutes,” said Kimberly Mata-Rubio, whose daughter was among those killed in the attack, after the presentation ended.
Another person in the crowd screamed, “Cowards!”
Jesse Prado, an Austin-based investigator and former police detective who made the report for the Uvalde City Council on Thursday, described several failures by responding local, state and federal officers at the scene that day: communication problems, poor training for live shooter situations, lack of available equipment and delays on breaching the classroom.
“There were problems all day long with communication and lack of it. The officers had no way of knowing what was being planned, what was being said,” Prado said. “If they would have had a ballistic shield, it would have been enough to get them to the door.”
You're viewing a single thread.
It was the republican primary for the election. He didn't get reelected.
Im starting the think these republicans might not be so bright.
You may be onto something
He got 64 percent of the vote in the primary. He's running against two other republicans. The do-nothing incompetent sheriff is still likely to win.
That may be true, but he still wasn't reelected on Tuesday.
What do you call it when an incumbent wins his primary against same party challengers if not re-elected?
I mean, the Clown with Short Bowels is being annoyingly pedantic, but they're not wrong.
What do you call it when an incumbent wins his primary against same party challengers if not re-elected?
I would personally go with "The Party's Chosen Candidate" but I understand that's pretty wordy.
I feel that with the general turmoil of US politics in recent years, providing correct information is becoming increasingly important. How are people supposed to take part in a system they don't understand?
Even if OP was saying it flippantly, the next person reading it may not know that.
I agree, but unfortunately being a pedant can be annoying, even to other pedants.
Accuracy is indeed important, but that's not going to make humans, you know, stop being human and stop responding emotionally instead of thoughtfully. Humans are gonna human and damn it if they aren't irrational beasts. I should know, I am one.
Not sure that I agree that using the correct term is pedantic. Saying he was reelected on Tuesday is a factually inaccurate statement. He became the nominee or candidate.
Pednatic: giving too much attention to formal rules or small details
Sorry, but quibbling about the correct terminology for what someone is called after a primary election firmly falls under "too much attention to small details," when that wasn't the point being made.
The original point that was being made was about how clearly a lot of people are happy to vote in the same people who failed their children. That point is proven whether he was fully elected or just a candidate, because it means a non-insignificant portion of the population voted for him.
We're in a derail about whether the person talking about it is using the right terminology, and we've lost the plot of the original point which is that a lot of US citizens are happy to vote for people who fail them again and again and again. Which was proven by him being a nominee/candidate, he didn't need to be fully elected to prove that point.
The inability to see that using the right terminology actually doesn't change the point is what makes it pedantic.
Pedantic. I rest my fucking case, man.
Correcting a factually incorrect statement isn't fucking pedantic. Considering an election is what put this asshat in power, it seems like very relevant information to the post and topic broadly.
If I want to be pedantic I can drill down into a dictionary definition (actually pedantic btw) and make my point too.
They become the nominee or candidate.
But what are his chances in the general? Is it a location where the "real" election is the primary and whoever has an R by their name in the general will win?
Yup, Uvalde is majority Republican and the election is expected to go to Republican candidates. Since he won the Republican primary, he basically already won the general.
They voted for that wheelchair guy though, so whoever wins the Republican primary wins the seat.