The story told by the third teacher under siege at Robb Elementary, Arnulfo Reyes
We hadn’t heard of his existence before, but now it emerges that there was a third teacher in one of the two rooms under siege at Robb Elementary, Arnulfo Reyes, and he survived although seriously wounded and still in the hospital. He told his story to ABC and it was featured today.
This man has been deeply deeply traumatized both physically and emotionally. The eleven children under his care were all killed and he alone survived to tell the tale. That’s already a heavy burden of survivor guilt for a man who really had no chance against a gunman. According to the newscasters at ABC, the interview was much longer than what they aired, but this is the segment they showed:
I’d be exceedingly curious to see the rest of the interview with Reyes, because as it’s edited it doesn’t answer a single question I would have wanted to ask this man. My own questions would have focused on what he actually perceived rather than his speculations about what the cops were doing outside the door, although he is understandably blaming them for delay without seeming to know anything more than we do about the details of why that happene. The aim of the ABC team is very very clear, and they have edited this suffering man’s interview to serve them well, and have asked leading question to elicit exactly what they want. For example, see minute 4:02 (interviewer: “Did you feel abandoned in that moment by police, by the people who were supposed to protect you?”).
That video piece is over nine minutes long, but a great deal of it isn’t the interview at all but is instead the rehashing of the “the police waited over an hour doing nothing” narrative, with no new facts at all. Reyes – and the interview we do see is heartbreaking because what this man went through was a nightmare – makes an impassioned plea at the end of his segment on the clip for more gun control, saying that no training would have helped. He doesn’t consider the possibility of firearms training for teachers, of course, but it seems to me that if he had had the opportunity for a firearm then he and his young students mightn’t have been such sitting ducks.
Although perhaps they still would have been, because no system is perfect. The gunman at Robb Elementary had the element of surprise – as Reyes tells the story, they had heard shots and they got down under a table and pretended “to be asleep,” but the gunman came into their room (111) through an adjoining door to 112 (as we already knew) and suddenly he was there. We don’t hear Reyes addressing the issue of whether he had locked his own door – I’m going to assume he did but it’s an odd omission in the interview – or whether he received the “Alert!” text calling for lockdown. Perhaps this was covered in the longer unedited interview, but it certainly isn’t covered in what we see. Nor does Reyes discuss the other teacher in the room – what she might have done, how she was killed. From his interview we still don’t know whether either of the other two teachers were in his room, or both in the other room, or one in each room.
The segment spends a lot of time blaming police, and Reyes does as well. The commenters at YouTube chime right in, too. Reyes’ feelings against the police are understandable, but his knowledge of what they in fact were doing out there during the wait may not be any better than ours. Just to take one example, he says at one point that they “went away,” but perhaps they just got quiet; how would he know they went away if he couldn’t see them? He also calls them “cowards” (ah, how the MSM must love that!) and addresses the officers this way: “You have a bulletproof vest. I had nothing.”
But did they have bulletproof vests? It certainly stands to reason they did – but did they? We know that the Border Patrol officers who finally entered had ballistic shields with which to protect themselves, and one was almost shot in the head nevertheless. We also know part of the wait had to do with getting the key from the janitor (and I’d like a ton more information about why that took so long). But the only thing I can find about bulletproof vests that day is this:
The [DOJ review of the Robb Elementary shooting] will also likely examine how well officers were prepared with gear like weapons and body armor. The shooter wore a tactical vest and was armed with an AR-15-style rifle, a powerful weapon capable of piercing basic bulletproof vests.
In previous shootings reviewed by the Justice Department, non-specialized law enforcement units did not have the kind of body armor needed to fully protect themselves.
It seems we don’t know what they had regarding such vests. Plus, not every bulky vest worn by law enforcement is a so-called “bulletproof vest.” And what does a bulletproof vest do against an AR15? I’ve already quoted information that it does not protect, and here’s more about that:
Body armor is meant to absorb impact of the projectile. Depending on the vest’s rating it may have stronger absorption than other vests. This does not make it bulletproof. Most manufacturers avoid the term when naming vests, even when the vest is up to the highest standard…
Keep in mind that the slower the bullet is, the better off the wearer is going to be. Bullets that have a hard tip or fired at a high velocity will get through the fibers and right through the bullet proof vest…
The highest possible level of ballistic protection possible for soft body armour is Level IIIA. Higher levels of protection from rifle ammo is only possible with aid of additional ballistic plates.
And even those plates don’t seem to work, according to this video demonstration.
I’m not blaming Reyes at all for what he said. As far as I’m concerned, he can say whatever he wants, and I have empathy and sympathy for his reactions to the horror he endured. My ire is for the news people who guide him, edit him, and shape his interview towards their own goals: to blame the police prematurely and to further the cause of gun control. They are happy to exploit someone’s enormous mental and physical anguish in that endeavor.
They are the ones who could have put out a simple sentence saying whether the police had “bulletproof vests” on and if so what kind, or whether we actually know (at 7:29 newscaster Robin Roberts repeats that the officers had bulletproof vests; I’d love to know whether she actually knows that or not). The news people are also the ones who could and should explain about such vests and what happens when they face an AR15. I’m no firearms expert, but it took me about 30 seconds to find the information I wanted on that. I bet they didn’t even try, because they’re not interested in telling a more complete or more objective story.
[NOTE: Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick has called for “state leaders to move around $50 million in the state budget to buy bulletproof shields for school police officers.” That seems to be in line with previous reports that the police officers in Uvalde had to wait for Border Patrol to arrive in order to have access to protective ballistic shields.]
The everyday protective vest worn by rank & file police officers is not “bulletproof”; at best it is bullet resistant, and designed to stop the more common pistol calibers the officers might be confronted with, especially the caliber of weapons carried by the officers: .38Special, .357magnum, 9mm parabellum, in case they lose control of their own weapon. The stuff fired by AR and AK variants don’t stop for those vests. Body parts like arms, legs, and heads are not protected by the vest….
it seems there is always one goal in mind, and it’s not anything that solves problems, just creates more of them,
https://t.me/Jack_Posobiec/12792
On the other hand, re body armor:
If you want to see how really effective off-the-shelf body armor can be against handgun rounds, watch any one of the many YouTube videos of the famous North Hollywood Bank Shootout of February 28, 1997. E.g.:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZg4mcYkIwU
The perps, Larry Phillips Jr. and Emil Matasereanu, were covered literally neck to feet, front and back and arms, in ballistic armor. They were struck countless times by small arms fire: in the videos you can see rounds hitting them, to absolutely no effect. The LEOs who were battling them might just as well have been throwing paper wads at the two. I don’t know if any of the LEOs used assault rifles or shotguns. I do know that several cops prevailed on a nearby gun store owner to issue them with assault rifles; if the LEOs used those ARs against the two perps, then it is certainly the case that these also had no effect. The perps do not, however, wear ballistic helmets — a curious oversight.
So the cops were to charge in (if possible, but as Neo has said we don’t know if they could enter the room earlier) without protection, get shot. Dead cops are OK then. Thanks for pointing out that the 3 cops that entered, one was shot and another had a bullet hole in his helmet (I believe).
Of course the Parents that wanted to rush in would have been useless except to get in the way.
My opinions after this most recent post and timeline.
The lunatic bought a lot less ammo, carried a lot less ammo and shot a lot less ammo than we were led to believe.
We still don’t what kind of ammo but it makes a difference as to the level of armor needed.
The most common is probably commercial 55 grain .223 Remington FMJ
The next most common is probably military 55 grain 5.56 mm NATO FMJ (and commercial clones)
Then is probably military 62 grain 5.56 mm NATO penetrator AKA “Green tips” (and commercial clones)
The first two are intended stopped by level III armor, the Green Tips are not. Level IV armor is supposed to stop a 30-06 AP round.
I have tried on a friends set of level III plates (front and back only) and felt like the Tinman. In my size, a full set of all four pieces weights about 26 pounds.
The No.3 entry man was grazed in the head. I saw a picture of the wound. Very close to a life altering experience. He was wearing a mesh baseball cap when hit.
Not to cast aspersion on anyone, but in my admittedly limited personal experience, those who call others cowards are they themselves the … well nevermind. I pity that teacher, but I can’t admire him. I disagree with giving him a full pass on the names and accusations he throws around; if he’s that traumatized, he shouldn’t be showing off in public.
The media’s goal in demonizing the police is to further the momentum toward nationalization of local police forces.
Efforts to outlaw ‘assault’ rifles and high capacity gun magazines, along with efforts to allow the suing of gun and ammo manufactures continues covert efforts to disarm the public.
Universal gun registry is another goal, which is what the outlawing of “ghost gun” parts is meant to help achieve.
When the left judges that the time for gun confiscation has arrived, the prior implementation of government controlled digital currency (Canada) will allow the financial assets of the ‘uncooperative’ to be frozen without due process. Regaining access to financial assets such as paychecks, bank accounts, etc. will depend upon turning in all firearms in our possession.
Our coming social credit system (Italy) will allow our governing elite to focus upon the early prevention of those who protest.
At what point will it be permissable to hold the perpetrators of tyranny personally accountable?
Nice leading question on the part of the reporter.
Another Mike: “…designed to stop the more common pistol calibers the officers might be confronted with, especially the caliber of weapons carried by the officers: .38Special, .357magnum, 9mm parabellum, in case they lose control of their own weapon. The stuff fired by AR and AK variants don’t stop for those vests.”
I’m not very knowledgeable about guns, especially contemporary ones, but not completely ignorant either. I haven’t dealt with them since I was hunting as a teenager over 50 years ago. I thought the .357mag was in a class similar to the old Army .45 automatic as far as stopping power is concerned. And I keep reading, from people pooh-poohing the whole campaign against “assault weapons”, that the AR is *relatively* low-powered. So what you say seems the opposite of my impressions, and would seem to lend weight to the anti-AR arguments. Can you, or some other knowledgeable person, sort this out for me?
So maybe my question boils down to “relatively low-powered” compared to…what?
how does blaming the police help gun control?.
Good post Neo.
Mac,
I’m not a big expert either, but …
Many or maybe most states won’t allow hunters to hunt deer with an AR-15 because it is insufficiently lethal for an animal that size. For at least a couple obvious reasons you don’t want the animal to run off after being shot. Some of that is just caliber. The AR-15 round is either .223 (inch) Remington or 5.56 (mm) NATO. So in terms of diameter the bullet almost exactly the same size as a kid’s .22 rifle and is very small.
However, those AR-15 bullets are heavier (longer) than a basic .22LR, by 37% to 90%; and have a pretty large cartridge behind the bullet which is common for serious rifles. So you are putting more mass and lots more energy behind a small bullet diameter.
One measure of these issues is bullet energy at the muzzle. It’s about 1200 to 1300 ft-lbs for an AR-15. A serious deer hunting rifle might be a .308 Winchester rifle with a muzzle energy just under 3000 ft-lbs. So by that measure, the AR-15 looks a little wimpy, but you are still putting quite a bit energy behind a small diameter.
The amount of gun recoil produced when firing a .223 Rem is modest. So in a military M16 or M4, firing on full auto is much more controllable than say an AK-47 with its bigger bullet. Even an AK uses a reduced power cartridge compared to a hunting or sniper rifle of the same caliber.
An AR-15’s .223 is low powered for a rifle. Rifle cartridges have enough propellant that they leave the (longer) barrel faster. It packs ~1700 to ~1900 joules of force.
A 9mm pistol fires a bullet that’s about twice as big, but because it’s around a third the velocity it still only packs around ~500 to ~700 joules of force over almost twice the cross-section, so a given section of armor only needs to stop ~one sixth the force to prevent penetration.
The .44 Magnum, a high-powered pistol round, is an 11mm bullet pushing out ~1000 – ~2000 joules of force, which puts the higher-end loads near the low-powered rifle. A .30-06 rifle (not particularly high powered) is a 7.6mm bullet hitting with ~4000 joules of force.
The muzzle energy of a .223 Rem AR round is about 3.5 times greater than typical 9mm pistol round. A .44 magnum pistol round is definitely a serious amount energy. For a pistol.
A .30-06 is not particularly powerful compared to say a .50 BMG.
Sorry, Boobah. The .30-06 is about the same .308 Win, which I’d say is fairly powerful, just not exceptionally so. Older, lower tech cartridge.
It looks to me like the youtube video that Neo linked has been pulled. I found what I suppose is the same video at ABCNews.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/News/act-asleep-wounded-uvalde-teacher-recounts-chilling-moment/story?id=85217589
And of course the national media is still largely uninterested if the shooter had a prior juvenile record. And if so, would it have shown up on a gun background check? Because that does not advance their agenda on taking away adults gun rights.
Plus, I guarantee you most of the touchy-feely crowd would rather protect juvenile criminals- just look at how the lefty DAs are- than to protect the rest of the public, or the rights of the rest of the public.
These people may imagine themselves to be like the proverbial “ good shepherd”, going out to save the lost juvenile lamb, but in reality they are throwing the rest of the flock to the wolves when they protect the juvenile wolves and pretend they are lost lambs.
Jesus saves. But these lefty DAs and media types are not Jesus.
Uno Mhee:
I give him a pass because of what he went through, and because he may have said other things in the full interview but the MSM gets to edit it, frame it, and give it context as they wish. This man is feeling overwhelming survivor guilt for failing to product the students in his care – not that he could have protected them; he couldn’t have because he was unarmed and the shooter took him by surprise. So I think he feels he failed to protect the kids and the cops failed to protect them all. He was there in the room with the shooter, and they were outside failing to protect because he’s been told by the media that they were cowards. They are exploiting him for their own purposes. If you watch the video to the end you can see it quite clearly, I think, when they’re all talking to each other and saying how anyone who watches the interview and has a heart must know we must finally do something (and the something they mean is more gun control). This man’s interview is golden to them.
TommyJay:
I found another video that shows pretty much the same thing. Thanks for letting me know the other video wasn’t working.
avi:
The logic of blaming the police to help gun control goes like this: the police are incompetent at best and evil at worst. Therefore they cannot and will not protect you. People on the right hear that and it seems like an argument against gun control in that to people on the right it would seem logical that people must therefore arm themselves to protect themselves. For people on the other side, it means that since the police can’t protect you from someone with a gun then we must get rid of all gun ownership.
Yes it still doesnt make sense, there will be criminals with guns ome way or another an ohio police chief was just convicted for selling 200 such weapond
Thanks for the ballistics info. This seems to be the main point: “An AR-15’s .223 is low powered for a rifle.
I’m curious as to what y’all think of this piece at CNN, from a former cop.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/05/opinions/guns-ar-15-uvalde-school-shooting-fanone/index.html
Seems to me that he’s mainly saying that cops have handguns and therefore criminals should not have AR-15s. But wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they shouldn’t have rifles of any kind? I guess the AR has advantages over some other rifles in magazine capacity and general ability to fire more rounds quickly.
That writer also says “Rifle ranges that permit the type of training required to use this weapon system effectively are few and far between.” But I read over and over from the right that this is the most popular rifle in the country, that it’s lightweight and easy to use etc and that’s why pretty much everybody who’s interested has one.
And this makes me wonder about the author’s good faith: “And outlawing these AR-15s would not require confiscating them from people who already have them. Once you’ve made these weapons illegal, anyone found with one would be subject to arrest, since possession of these weapons would be a crime.”
What?!? That is most certainly confiscation, unless he means that the AR owner would be allowed to take the gun to jail with him. Now I’m wondering about this guy. Former Trump supporter, now famous for having been “physically and emotionally injured” in the Jan 6 riot?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Fanone
I would like to know this one teacher’s feeling about having a gun and protecting himself.
Also, how quickly was he shot and the kids – in the first few minutes?
When seconds count, the police are minutes away.
Thanks, Neo, for explaining well the logic of: “since the police can’t protect you from someone with a gun then we must get rid of all gun ownership.”
Of course, it only ends easy legal gun ownership; the outlaws still get guns.
When one has been propagandized to actually believe that “the police” are supposed to protect the rest of us from assaults AS THEY ARE HAPPENING it is understandable that blame is assigned when that does not occur. In fact, the “protect and serve” part of the usual oath is actually the result of deterrence against such things happening because of the prospect of apprehension, prosecution and punishment. However, since Our Societal Betters have decided that this tripartite arrangement is no longer desirable, and should be replaced by mere passive observation (no more car chases, no “stop-and-frisk,” etc.) and, when necessary, stern verbal warnings against anti-social behavior (“Please don’t steal that car.”) and at the most extreme, diversion into rehabilitative alternatives to actual punishment, it comes as no surprise that this teacher, goaded by the leading questions from the reporterette, blames the cops. (I don’t think they responded appropriately, but in no event were the cops going to prevent all the death and destruction visited upon the school by the perp.) The lesson I took away from all this is simple: NEVER GIVE UP YOUR GUNS OR YOUR RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF SELF AND OTHERS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!
The really interesting thing is the bizarre message being invoked:
“The police didn’t, and won’t, protect you. So we want you to be even more helpless and unable to protect yourself when something like this happens.”
It seems, no matter what information is available, that certain conclusions are not going to be overcome.
This is such a horrible event that SOMEBODY has to take the blame. If it had been a meteor strike, there would be people howling about how NASA or our new Space Force should have seen it coming.
As I keep saying, displacement.
The key, it seems, is how long before cops with sufficient resources–which would be whatever it would take to get into the classroom–were assembled before they moved.
And, secondly, whether, given Ramos’ immediate murders, whether that would have saved lives.
It should be remembered that, in all such circumstances, the cops can only respond to actions. Ramos was not a shooter until he was a shooter. What does a cop or teacher do prior to that?
I talked to a couple of teachers in Michigan who work near the Oxford high school. What they are allowed to do BEFORE some kid starts going nuts is surprisingly limited. They’re not allowed to check back packs, for example. Lockers, before a hit from a drug dog, are usually off limits.
In the Uvalde case, when does the clock start allowing (I use the term “allowing” because obviously required responses may not be allowed) positive action on the part of staff or the SRO? This requires some of them to actually see something. Bang. Clock starts and…..who has what resources to deal with…..?
How long before the dreadful work is done?
When did sufficient resources arrive (ballistic shields, the EFFING master key)?
This is such a horrid event that such questions are not going to be entertained.
I discovered, talking to my teacher friends, that some of them dislike the teachers union(s), but join anyway to have the legal backup against lawsuits which may be filed by butthead parents.
Since there were two classrooms each with doors to the outside hall, with a connecting bathroom between them how does one shooter control both rooms at the same time? Fear and intimidation I’d assume as he could only be in one room at a time.
geoffb
I’ve seen a couple of layouts like that. Not sure Uvalde had the same thing. However, if the doors to the connecting room are open, the perp can move back and forth easily, can see from one room into the other, more or less depending on his position which he can change at will, and can hear what’s happening.
Richard Aubrey
I’d like to see a schematic of the layout. It, to me, would be an odd bathroom that could have an open view at both ends if it was not lockable.
Mac,
I’d say this Fanone guy is spinning more than a little.
From his article:
In that incident, two individuals clad in body armor held up a bank in the Los Angeles neighborhood. Police who responded at the scene literally had to run to a nearby gun store to purchase more powerful weapons, because they were using 9 mm pistols, while the bad guys were armed with semi-automatic rifles.
Um, the bad guys had one semi-automatic rifle (not plural), and the other three rifles were illegally converted to fully automatic. Those were weapons of war unlike the AR-15.
That writer also says “Rifle ranges that permit the type of training required to use this weapon system effectively are few and far between.” But I read over and over from the right that this is the most popular rifle in the country, that it’s lightweight and easy to use etc and that’s why pretty much everybody who’s interested has one.
He’s kind of spinning again. Any outdoor range will allow you to practice with an AR-15 as well as some or many indoor ranges. Some indoor ranges aren’t set up for more powerful rifle rounds. What he is being sneaky about, is that to become really proficient in a law enforcement sense you need to move and shoot and draw (a pistol) and fire or do rapid fire, and my range for example won’t allow any of that. Law enforcement often have their own ranges, and civilian who are motivated can find other options if interested.
the cost of ammunition exceeding a dollar per round is more than this guy can afford.
Before covid, the cost was around $0.20 – $0.25/round for cheaper stuff. Now it is about $0.60 – $0.75.
But it [the bullet] also will go through the wall behind that person, and potentially through that room and into the next wall. That power and accuracy are useful for military purposes, which is obviously what they were designed for. But it’s far more power than should ever be in the hands of the average civilian.
But that’s true for a .357 Magnum pistol, or even some 9mm rounds.
I have no doubt that police in Uvalde wish they had had weapons as powerful as the one carried by the shooter who snuffed out the lives of the victims in that school.
Why didn’t they?? In the San Bernadino terrorist shootout, the police showed up quickly with AR’s in their police vehicles and took them out. The very small town cops in my area have them.
But wouldn’t it be more accurate to say they shouldn’t have rifles of any kind?
Exactly. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle at the lower end of the high powered rifle scale. That’s it. Sen. Feinstein’s assault weapons ban targeted pointless stuff like muzzle flash suppressors and pistol grips.
To be fair, there is a sizeable difference between a bolt action rifle, a repeating rifle, and the semi-auto rifle. And then there are shot guns which can be super lethal which was used at Columbine.
About gun laws:
I believe that President Biden, and lots of his supporters, hate gun ownership in the USA, + they want to do anything they can, to outlaw American people from owning guns.
Here is an article by Mr. Massad Ayoob, about the lies being pushed by Biden, + many of his supporters, + by many pro-Biden Democrats, to try to pass laws that will take the right of owning guns away from- most or all US citizens.
This is the article:
“The Latest Gun Exaggerations and Lies
The latest anti-gun hysteria is reaching new heights of exaggeration and outright falsehood. Consider the following:
The President now claims 9mm pistol bullets will blow your lungs right out of your body. Uh…no. No they won’t.
NPR claims .223 rounds from AR15s will decapitate human beings who are shot with them by others. Um…no. That just doesn’t happen, either.
In this recently filed legal action, a person wounded by a maniacal racist who opened fire on straphangers in a New York City subway car is suing Glock, the manufacturer of the pistol the gunman was feloniously carrying.
The lawsuit claims, “the defendants are aware that their Glock design which promotes concealment and firearm’s firepower, unsuited to personal defense or recreation, enables an individual in possession of the weapon to inflict unparalleled civilian carnage.” Au contraire. IF it was unsuited for personal defense, the Glock pistol would not be the most popular self-defense handgun in the nation today, which it is. Nor would it be so popular among police that it constitutes two-thirds to three-fourths of all handguns in US law enforcement holsters today, which is true, including the entire NY State Police and two-thirds or more of NYPD officers, and virtually every Federal agent in New York State and elsewhere. If it was unsuitable for recreation it would not be the most popular handgun in IDPA and one of the most popular in USPSA, IPSC, and Steel Challenge competition (all of which are true). Indeed, an entire pistol shooting sport is devoted entirely to, and sponsored by, Glock: http://www.gssfonline.com. In terms of outdoor recreation, the single most popular handgun for bear protection among Alaskan hikers and fisherman seems to be the 10mm Glock.
The lawsuit claims, “That solely and directly as a result of the negligence of the defendants, Plaintiff, ILENE STEUR, sustained serious and permanent personal injuries.” No, those injuries would seem to be “solely and directly…a result” of a psycho whose red flag behaviors were ignored by society, and are clearly documented in the lawsuit itself.
I have to resist the urge to tell these ignorant people, “Stay in your lane.” Why am I able to resist saying that? Because I’ve come to realize that for the anti-gunners, lies and exaggeration have become their lane.”
That is the entire article, or if you’d rather read the article from the source, here’s a link to the article, on the site where I found the article:
https://www.backwoodshome.com/blogs/MassadAyoob/the-latest-wild-gun-exaggerations-and-lies/
Also,
please call or write your [Federal Government] Senators, and your [Federal Government] House of Representatives members, and ask them to vote against The Protecting Our Kids Act.
The Protecting Our Kids Act is a proposed law, that, I believe, would- make gun owning too hard for many people, and it would not stop a lot of- mass shootings, or other gun crimes.
Cheers.
***Just to let people know***
I’ve also put this comment on the [Open Thread] article of June 8, 2022, on this site.
I put my comment on this site, twice, because I wanted to show this article to as many readers as possible.
Cheers.
TommyJay–thanks, and here’s the non-satirical side of The Babylon Bee covering that same piece, making some of the same points you do.
https://notthebee.com/article/guy-who-owns-ar-15-explains-why-people-who-arent-him-shouldnt
geoffb:
He enters one classroom and quickly blasts away. The people in the other classroom are an unarmed teacher (or teachers if there are two) and little children. It all happens very quickly. They are sheltering under tables, etc., as they’ve been taught. Do they know exactly where he is, in the adjoining classroom rather than the hall, for example? Do they know he’s alone? If they knew he was in that classroom and he was alone, they might be able to save themselves by opening their own door and running out into the hall. But they don’t know that at the moment and they have no way of knowing that. They instead do as they’ve practiced in lockdown drills.
Maybe they (the teacher or teachers) even forget that there is an adjoining door that is unlocked, by which he can get into their room. It’s hard or really impossible to think of everything when under such intense stress. We still don’t know how many children and teachers were in one room and how many in another. And apparently the entire massacre took only two minutes or so to accomplish.
OBloody:
It’s not so bizarre if you think of it this way: guns (whether wielded by police or by private citizens) cannot protect you against guns. Therefore the only solution is to ban or heavily heavily restrict guns.
I know I’ve seen a news photo (wish I could recall where) of the Uvalde PD showing off their brand-new Level 4 body armor plates and taken before the shooting.
They appear to have had the equipment available. Whether it was on-site, or when it got there if at all, I haven’t heard.
Really lousy journalism on this event – no comprehensive timeline story has been done to my knowledge, posing all the relevant questions and laying out what answers we do and do not have.
PGP:
Exceptionally lousy journalism, but I think a lot of it is intentionally so. They have an agenda to get out there.
As for the Level 4 body armor plates and the Uvalde PD, please offer a link. I’ve not seen that, nor do I know whether they actually already had those plates at the time or were due to get them. Nor do we know who or what had access to them at the time of the arrival at Robb Elementary, because I’m pretty sure that officers raced to the school from wherever they were at the time and not in some coordinated SWAT team from the police station. Plus, such vests don’t necessarily protect against the gun the perp used, if the information I got for this post is correct.
If in fact the police in the hall had that level of body armor, I’m surprised it isn’t all over the MSM. Of course, body armor doesn’t protect against a head shot – which is how one of the three Border Patrol officers who entered with the shields (rather than body armor) almost got killed.
Here it is, on Facebook (of all places):
https://www.facebook.com/242033339163364/posts/2020447201321960/?d=n
Neo,
From memory: Your video showed AR-15 rounds penetrating level 3 or 3+ armor plate. I think a level 4 would stop any of those rounds, maybe including the M855 ammo which is supposed to be better at penetrating hard surfaces. I’m guessing a little, but I think level 4 is serious stuff.
I don’t have a Facebook account so I can’t get into PGP’s link.
This link shows that level 4 stops all the conventional rounds. You have to scroll down a few screens to get to the NIJ rating chart.
TommyJay:
I found this site which does talk about Level IV armor, but it seems to be indicating that it’s mostly for the military (the article is from February 2022, so it’s recent). We have no word as yet on whether the Uvalde police actually were wearing body armor of any sort, much less of that grade. Or whether they had access to it, or time to get it, or really anything about it.
Some general information from a police officer and teacher on the subject of law enforcement:
I believe that most of the officers were out driving around or even at home when they got the call, and time was of the essence. This is the sort of thing that reporters should be writing about instead of making assumptions and pronouncements based on those assumptions. But they’re not writing about it and we have virtually zero information on it.
If they had level IV, as PGP stated, then it would have protected properly.
Ordinary police vests are no good. Your video with the IIIA or III+ or whatever the suffix, was interesting because it had a decent steel plate that did not protect.
Of course, if the armor is back at the station it can’t help you.
neo:
“And apparently the entire massacre took only two minutes or so to accomplish.”
That is different from what I’d read about a teacher calling/phoning out several times saying how many were still alive. It implied that the killing took place intermittently over at least 15 to 30 or more minutes. But then nobody in the police or the media seem interested in getting an exact timeline of who was where doing what, when. The 5 “Ws” and the “H” are no longer taught in J-school I guess or are to be ignored when politically inconvenient.
For those lacking Facebook access, here’s the text from what is titled the Uvalde PD Facebook page:
“Uvalde Police Department
August 1, 2018
The Uvalde Police Department is pleased to announce that we have completed the process, and been awarded grant funds through the Office of the Governor to outfit EVERY Uvalde Police Officer with Level 4 body armor. This important piece of legislation provided funding to equip police officers with body armor rated to stop rifle rounds. In 2017, Senate Bill 12 was passed into law. The $23 million Rifle-Resistant Body Armor Grants were awarded to 453 jurisdictions around the state. Thanks goes out to those who supported Senate Bill 12 and everyone who supports those who work to keep us safe. #BlueLivesMatter ?
Photo: Uvalde Police Officers proudly wear their newly issued Level 4 body armor.”
PGP:
As I said, the answers to important questions such as whether or not they actually had access to that equipment that day, whether they actually got it that day and if so when, and that sort of thing, have simply never been reported. Don’t you wonder why? I would think it would be a big part of the story. So far, it’s not. We simply don’t know the answers to those questions.
However, there are reports such as this [emphasis mine]:
Why would they call for body armor if they already had it on? And did they get it? And if so, when? And if so, what kind? We already know from one of the links I provided that police often do not wear that sort of heavy armor while out on regular patrol – even if they have it – because it hinders them on the job.
There’s also this, which mentions quite a few things I’ve been trying in many of my posts to get across as possibilities [emphasis mine] :
Those things seem quite obvious to me.
geoffb:
You are remembering wrong. The information has been out there for quite some time, plus I’ve written about it several times on this blog.
Thing is, the MSM frames other facts to lead you in a subtle manner to believe exactly what you seem to think. They imply lots of things that don’t seem to be true.
Please see this comment of mine for one of my many previous discussions of why it seems pretty clear that the massacre took place in the first couple of minutes before police even got there.
By the way, it was a student not a teacher who called several times to report the number of injured and dead in her room, although she may have not been exactly precise and was probably estimating. Obviously she didn’t walk around and do a survey, nor is she a medical person. She was not in the room the shooter was in for the bulk of the time – he stayed in the other room after the killings, for the most part (she said he never came back to her room after the initial shootings of the teacher and kids). She’s a fourth-grader and she called 911 multiple times.
When the police were there waiting, the shooter only shot very sporadically – just a few times – and those shots were through the door at police officers. So yes, there were a couple of gunshots when the girl was phoning, but they were the shooter shooting at the cops.
Thank you Neo for dissecting this so I don’t have to. Not going to watch the interview because I won’t use of any of my time on earth viewing propaganda designed to steal my liberty.
I do have a question. Why is this teacher alive when all of his students are dead?
Molly Brown:
He was very seriously wounded. It’s just the way the bullets happened to go. I don’t think he’s to blame for anything. The press is, and of course the most blame goes to the perp.
The basic theory on police body armor has historically been to scale the protection level so as to protect the officer from the caliber of their own carry handgun, given the number of take-the-cop’s-gun-and-use-it-to-shoot-the-cop events that have tragically transpired.
The basic theory on active shooter armor differs, supplying officers one front armor plate, sufficient to stop 5.56 or 7.62×39, in a compact plate carrier (think square bag on your chest with shoulder straps) as well as a semiauto compact (M-4ish) ‘patrol rifle’ and multiple magazines.
This is driven by evolved active shooter doctrine where the first unit arriving on the scene makes entry and confronts the shooter after grabbing the rifle and donning their plate carrier, backed up eventually by the next unit that rolls up, etc.
This is explicitly not “Wait for SWAT”, or the magic entry shield, or the bomb squad, or K-9, or your local planetary superhero. Go as soon as you arrive, and have what you need to go with in the trunk of your unit.
I know for a fact that some officers on scene had such plate carriers, as the guys in the video stopping and cuffing the parents were wearing such.
The remains much to be answered here. But naturally ABC is not helping get any actual answers.
FM:
If you know exactly what kind of body armor officers were wearing in the video you cite (but give no link to), do you also know that it was US marshals who were involved in restraining parents and not the Uvalde police?
I’d really appreciate getting a link to the video you say you saw in which the parents were supposedly handcuffed. Because I’ve never seen such videos nor can I find them in a search. There was indeed a mother who said she was handcuffed by US marshals but no video seems to exist of it, and the US marshals say that did not occur and that they handcuffed no one.
In addition, we need to know – and do not know at this point – who was in the building and when, and what equipment they had, and why, and a step-by-step timeline of the decisions made, including when they decided to get a key and how long it took them to get a key.
You add that ” the first unit arriving on the scene makes entry and confronts the shooter” – well, of course, But how do they make entry into the room when they can’t make entry? I discussed issues related to the entry problem in this previous post. And what if they kill children by firing through the door, blindly? I made further relevant points in this previous comment of mine on this very thread. Please read.
You’re certainly correct that the MSM doesn’t seem to be pursuing these questions. They’ve got their narrative already.