Tuesday, July 19, 2022

No One Could Have Seen That Coming, Oh Wait . . .

The Mercury News: Uvalde killer earned ominous nickname: ‘school shooter’ 

That's what most people would call a "clue".

This is especially so as he was being called that for months before he attacked the school.

ABC News: Texas school shooter left trail of ominous warning signs

The Uvalde, Texas, gunman gave off so many warning signs that he was obsessed with violence and notoriety in the months leading up to the attack that teens who knew him began calling him “school shooter.”

. . .

A state investigative report that highlighted law enforcement's bungled response to the mass shooting at Robb Elementary School has also provided the most in-depth account to date about missed red flags and possible motivations surrounding 18-year-old Salvador Ramos. Despite many warning signs, he still managed to legally amass more than $5,000 in guns, ammunition and gear in the weeks leading up to the killings.

Read the entire ABC news article and be amazed at how many clear signs the killer was giving off and yet nothing was done.

Yet again, another "known wolf" giving off clear signs of violent intent and mental illness with a propensity for violence towards others and again nothing was done.

Heck, for 77 minutes as the shooting went on, nothing effective was done either. 

The insanely bungled and inept, if not beyond grossly negligent, police response cost lives.  But so too did the abject failure to act after so damn many clear indications were made by the killer before he acted.


DaveS said...

I keep thinking that I should try to figure out where the lines should be on this whole "red flag laws" issue and statements like, "somebody should have done something, just look at all the warning signs, it was SO obvious..."

As usual, it seems to me that the big question always comes back to this: Who should be entrusted with making the decision that Mr./Mrs./Miss Xxxxxx appears to be thinking or acting in a manner that ~might~ end up causing a problem, even though they haven't actually done anything illegal yet. And maybe the answer isn't that it shouldn't be a person making that judgment, but rather a process - that has a better chance of not being corrupted. Until some DA decides that he/she doesn't need to enforce the law...

Slippery slope - trying to stop crime before it's committed.

I don't know the answer to the question. But I'll support liberty and freedom over a deal with the devil to secure a little temporary safety.
On second thought, it appears that I DO know the answer to the question. We all do, it's just harder for some than others to acknowledge that life is full of dangers, struggles, hardship and ultimately death. And it's not fair. Ever.

Aaron said...

DaveS: I'm generally not a fan of prior restraint.

However, when there's clear indications and even public announcements by a person that said person is about to commit a deadly act, interdiction and intervention is appropriate.

I'm for a pretty high bar to do so and most red flag laws don't meet the level I have in mind, but this killer broadcast what he was going to do far and wide and pretty clearly had violent tendencies, mental illness, and Tarrasoff-level of clear threats of harm to others so some investigation was certainly warranted.

markshere2 said...

Just who bought the Ar 15s that the Uvalde and Greenwood mall shooters use?

The broken people doing these evil acts, somebody is winding then up and sending them off to do things that whip up outrage against freedom.