Alerrt Report: Uvalde Shooting

 

Alerrt Report (Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training) program has issued a 26-page report on the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, TX. In Street Cop Speak it would be called an Epic Fail.

The gunman, an 18-year-old with an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle, entered the building at 11:33 a.m. Before that a Uvalde police officer, who the report did not identify, saw the gunman carrying a rife toward the west hall entrance. The officer asked a supervisor for permission to open fire, but the supervisor “either did not hear or responded too late,” the report said.

When the officer turned back toward the gunman, he already gone inside “unabated,” according to the report.

The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

“Ultimately, the decision to use deadly force always lies with the officer who will use the force. If the officer was not confident that he could both hit his target and of his backdrop if he missed, he should not have fired,” the report read.

Shooting at a moving target that is 148 yards away is not the same as shooting at stationary paper target with a berm behind the target. As the report stated if he could not be sure of hitting the target and the backdrop was not good if he missed then the officer should not shoot.

The rest of report is critical of the police response, as it should be.

Authors of the 26-page report said their findings were based off video taken from the school, police body cameras, testimony from officers on the scene and statements from investigators. Among their findings:

It appeared that no officer waiting in the hallway during the shooting ever tested to see if the door to the classroom was locked. The head of Texas’ state police agency has also faulted officers on the scene for not checking the doors.

The officers had “weapons (including rifles), body armor (which may or may not have been rated to stop rifle rounds), training, and backup. The victims in the classrooms had none of these things.”

When officers finally entered the classroom at 12:50 p.m. — more than an hour after the shooting began — they were no better equipped to confront the gunman than they had been up to that point.

“Effective incident command” never appears to have been established among the multiple law enforcement agencies that responded to the shooting.

Here is a link to the Police One article that contains a link to a pdf of the report.

Published in Policing
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 36 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Without knowing any details about the specific case, here’s my general take:

    This is what we get for conditioning two generations of “first responders” to radio home for instruction instead of executing pre-planned responses (PPRs) and backing the officer in question.  Live by the lawsuit, DIE by the lawsuit.

    Time was when a good guy with a gun had no comms with anybody whatsoever and was expected to discharge his duty (if nothing else) and be prepared to defend his actions later.

    By the way — how many women responded to the scene?  Why wasn’t there an all-female (or whatever) squad of XX-chromosomed warriors scoping in on the soon-to-be-perp?  Why is it men (and probably white men) taking this rap?

    Don’t get me wrong — this is a catastrophe.  But it is a catastrophe of unaccountable bureaucrats and the feminization of society.

    Again, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for femininity.  I just don’t want men turned into women over it.  That will please exactly nobody.

    • #1
  2. Doug Watt Moderator
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    BDB (View Comment):

    Without knowing any details about the specific case, here’s my general take:

    This is what we get for conditioning two generations of “first responders” to radio home for instruction instead of executing pre-planned responses (PPRs) and backing the officer in question. Live by the lawsuit, DIE by the lawsuit.

    Time was when a good guy with a gun had no comms with anybody whatsoever and was expected to discharge his duty (if nothing else) and be prepared to defend his actions later.

    By the way — how many women responded to the scene? Why wasn’t there an all-female (or whatever) squad of XX-chromosomed warriors scoping in on the soon-to-be-perp? Why is it men (and probably white men) taking this rap?

    Don’t get me wrong — this is a catastrophe. But it is a catastrophe of unaccountable bureaucrats and the feminization of society.

    Again, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for femininity. I just don’t want men turned into women over it. That will please exactly nobody.

    You have to trust in your training. When you’re on the street you have to be willing to fight and win. Think outside the box, neutralize the target, and there is no such thing as a magic bullet that covers every incident that might come your way.

    • #2
  3. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Without knowing any details about the specific case, here’s my general take:

    This is what we get for conditioning two generations of “first responders” to radio home for instruction instead of executing pre-planned responses (PPRs) and backing the officer in question. Live by the lawsuit, DIE by the lawsuit.

    Time was when a good guy with a gun had no comms with anybody whatsoever and was expected to discharge his duty (if nothing else) and be prepared to defend his actions later.

    By the way — how many women responded to the scene? Why wasn’t there an all-female (or whatever) squad of XX-chromosomed warriors scoping in on the soon-to-be-perp? Why is it men (and probably white men) taking this rap?

    Don’t get me wrong — this is a catastrophe. But it is a catastrophe of unaccountable bureaucrats and the feminization of society.

    Again, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for femininity. I just don’t want men turned into women over it. That will please exactly nobody.

    You have to trust in your training. When you’re on the street you have to be willing to fight and win. Think outside the box, neutralize the target, and there is no such thing as a magic bullet that covers every incident that might come your way.

    Yup.  And when you are trained to ask Mom, you will wait for “confirmation” from somebody who does not see what you see.  Frequently, this comes in handy, but without the (trained) ability to say “there’s no time for BS — this is my decision and my superiors will have my back,” then we get what we got.

    • #3
  4. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    It’s a good report. It has a detailed timeline and a complete physical description of the sites. All the best analyses have dynamic and static models. I’m impressed, didn’t know about ALERRT. 

    • #4
  5. Mad Gerald Coolidge
    Mad Gerald
    @Jose

    The police and bureaucracy will keep us safe.  That is why we don’t need guns.

    • #5
  6. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Doug Watt:

    The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    “Ultimately, the decision to use deadly force always lies with the officer who will use the force. If the officer was not confident that he could both hit his target and of his backdrop if he missed, he should not have fired,” the report read.

    Just what was this rifle, that it should go through walls and kill somebody in far greater probability than whacking the obvious threat?  I’m not buying it.  This sounds like Department-ese.

    After all, if we’re training for the big picture, imagine the effect on a young man skulking into a school, with evil in his heart, of a bullet smashing into bricks inches from his head.  Nothing is guaranteed, but if we’re getting into the game of probabilities of extended consequences, LET US PLAY.

    I maintain that the officer should have taken the shot — should have been prepared to take the shot.

    • #6
  7. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    Without knowing any details about the specific case, here’s my general take:

    This is what we get for conditioning two generations of “first responders” to radio home for instruction instead of executing pre-planned responses (PPRs) and backing the officer in question. Live by the lawsuit, DIE by the lawsuit.

    Time was when a good guy with a gun had no comms with anybody whatsoever and was expected to discharge his duty (if nothing else) and be prepared to defend his actions later.

    By the way — how many women responded to the scene? Why wasn’t there an all-female (or whatever) squad of XX-chromosomed warriors scoping in on the soon-to-be-perp? Why is it men (and probably white men) taking this rap?

    Don’t get me wrong — this is a catastrophe. But it is a catastrophe of unaccountable bureaucrats and the feminization of society.

    Again, don’t get me wrong — I’m all for femininity. I just don’t want men turned into women over it. That will please exactly nobody.

    Well, actually, women THINK it will please them, but when they get what they claim they wanted, they don’t like it.  As usual.

    • #7
  8. Jim McConnell Member
    Jim McConnell
    @JimMcConnell

    This situation reminds me of some of the reports I read of our combat in Afghanistan, where senior commanders always had a “lawyer” at his side to advise him if a proposed action was within the official legal guidelines.

    • #8
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    BDB (View Comment):

    Doug Watt:

    The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    “Ultimately, the decision to use deadly force always lies with the officer who will use the force. If the officer was not confident that he could both hit his target and of his backdrop if he missed, he should not have fired,” the report read.

    Just what was this rifle, that it should go through walls and kill somebody in far greater probability than whacking the obvious threat? I’m not buying it. This sounds like Department-ese.

    After all, if we’re training for the big picture, imagine the effect on a young man skulking into a school, with evil in his heart, of a bullet smashing into bricks inches from his head. Nothing is guaranteed, but if we’re getting into the game of probabilities of extended consequences, LET US PLAY.

    I maintain that the officer should have taken the shot — should have been prepared to take the shot.

    They were pretty much going to get sued by someone, regardless.  If they shoot the guy and one kid inside the school gets hit too, they get sued by the family of the shooter, and by the family of one kid.  By not taking the shot at that time, they still get sued by the family of the shooter, and they get sued by ALL the families of ALL the kids who died.

    • #9
  10. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    BDB (View Comment):

    Doug Watt:

    The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    “Ultimately, the decision to use deadly force always lies with the officer who will use the force. If the officer was not confident that he could both hit his target and of his backdrop if he missed, he should not have fired,” the report read.

    Just what was this rifle, that it should go through walls and kill somebody in far greater probability than whacking the obvious threat? I’m not buying it. This sounds like Department-ese.

    After all, if we’re training for the big picture, imagine the effect on a young man skulking into a school, with evil in his heart, of a bullet smashing into bricks inches from his head. Nothing is guaranteed, but if we’re getting into the game of probabilities of extended consequences, LET US PLAY.

    I maintain that the officer should have taken the shot — should have been prepared to take the shot.

    After thinking about it for a bit, I think you’re right. His duty was to take the shot if he could. But it would have been hard. 150 yards is not point and shoot unless someone is in practice. I wonder if they train for hard choices and for combat shooting.

    • #10
  11. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    BDB (View Comment):

    Doug Watt:

    The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    “Ultimately, the decision to use deadly force always lies with the officer who will use the force. If the officer was not confident that he could both hit his target and of his backdrop if he missed, he should not have fired,” the report read.

    Just what was this rifle, that it should go through walls and kill somebody in far greater probability than whacking the obvious threat? I’m not buying it. This sounds like Department-ese.

    After all, if we’re training for the big picture, imagine the effect on a young man skulking into a school, with evil in his heart, of a bullet smashing into bricks inches from his head. Nothing is guaranteed, but if we’re getting into the game of probabilities of extended consequences, LET US PLAY.

    I maintain that the officer should have taken the shot — should have been prepared to take the shot.

    He doesn’t even have to hit the target – just the act of taking a shot might have diverted the shooter from entering the building.  If he was worried about the backdrop, shoot into the ground in front of the target.

    • #11
  12. BDB Coolidge
    BDB
    @BDB

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    BDB (View Comment):

    Doug Watt:

    The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    “Ultimately, the decision to use deadly force always lies with the officer who will use the force. If the officer was not confident that he could both hit his target and of his backdrop if he missed, he should not have fired,” the report read.

    Just what was this rifle, that it should go through walls and kill somebody in far greater probability than whacking the obvious threat? I’m not buying it. This sounds like Department-ese.

    After all, if we’re training for the big picture, imagine the effect on a young man skulking into a school, with evil in his heart, of a bullet smashing into bricks inches from his head. Nothing is guaranteed, but if we’re getting into the game of probabilities of extended consequences, LET US PLAY.

    I maintain that the officer should have taken the shot — should have been prepared to take the shot.

    He doesn’t even have to hit the target – just the act of taking a shot might have diverted the shooter from entering the building. If he was worried about the backdrop, shoot into the ground in front of the target.

    DING frikkin DONG

    • #12
  13. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Mad Gerald (View Comment):

    The police and bureaucracy will keep us safe. That is why we don’t need guns.

    When seconds counts the police are minutes away from convening a meeting on determining what action should or should not be taken.  

    • #13
  14. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    An hour!

    If they had any sense of honor. . .

    • #14
  15. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    An hour!

    If they had any sense of honor. . .

    Fall on their swords?

     

    • #15
  16. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    I think the glaring fact here was that there was no incident command set up.   If the chief was not the incident commander, then he should have asked for someone to take the role.   This is the rule at any major police response, fire, mass casualty event, or industrial disaster.

    In the incident command system, you have unity of command – everyone reports to one person, all the way up to the incident commander.  For example, the incident commander takes over after the initial push is forced back.   According to the timeline, there are 10 officers on scene.  The IC assigns an operations leader and a logistics guy, possible another to handle communications as a runner if radios don’t work inside the structure.   Logistics guy works on getting shields / rifles / entry tools / etc.  That’s all he does, so he can focus on it.  Operations Leader starts figuring out how to neutralize the suspect and takes the remaining six officers, probably splitting them into two teams of 3 to divide attention.  Anything they need gets passed on to the logistics guy.

    Meanwhile, one team goes outside the to the window and attempts to get eyes on the shooter, probably the ones with rifles.   The other team approaches the door – guys with best armor.  Meanwhile the IC is assigning officers as they come on scene.  By the time they get a shield, or there is a good opportunity from the window, both teams engage.  The shooter cannot cover both access points, and is neutralized.  Operations lead switches the team to rescue and the IC / comm runner gives paramedics the all clear.

    This is actually a very cautious approach, but this would have moved the timetable for entry up to 11:55 at the latest.

     

    • #16
  17. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):

    I think the glaring fact here was that there was no incident command set up.

    The idea that the various agencies were not organized enough to be decisive is easily understood, but not something anyone is prepared to find ‘acceptable’. 

    Careers should end at the very least.  

    • #17
  18. Vince Guerra Member
    Vince Guerra
    @VinceGuerra

    Cop sees person with rifle approaching school. 

    Cop yells, “Stop! Police! Lay your weapon down!” (or something like that) while running toward the threat. 

    The man turns to face the cop. 

    The cop shoots him while continuing to close the distance. 

    Isn’t this how it’s supposed to work?  

     

    • #18
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Cop sees person with rifle approaching school.

    Cop yells, “Stop! Police! Lay your weapon down!” (or something like that) while running toward the threat.

    The man turns to face the cop.

    The cop shoots him while continuing to close the distance.

    Isn’t this how it’s supposed to work?

     

    Maybe, if the cop wants to risk going to prison himself.

    • #19
  20. DonG (CAGW is a Hoax) Coolidge
    DonG (CAGW is a Hoax)
    @DonG

    Vince Guerra (View Comment):

    Cop sees person with rifle approaching school.

    Cop yells, “Stop! Police! Lay your weapon down!” (or something like that) while running toward the threat.

    The man turns to face the cop.

    The cop shoots him while continuing to close the distance.

    Isn’t this how it’s supposed to work?

     

    At that point, the cops should have gotten reports from the funeral home about a gunman shooting from the school.  150 yards is a long distance, but nobody else was outside at the time.   Contrast that with the police response in Akron. 

    • #20
  21. Columbo Member
    Columbo
    @Columbo

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    This situation reminds me of some of the reports I read of our combat in Afghanistan, where senior commanders always had a “lawyer” at his side to advise him if a proposed action was within the official legal guidelines.

    Yep. ‘Rules of engagement’, [un]defined by lawyers and politicians, is a recipie for indecision and bad results.

    • #21
  22. Spin Coolidge
    Spin
    @Spin

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters.  I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently.  I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long.  I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot.  Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.  

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.  

    • #22
  23. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    I wonder if things would have been different had one of the officers had a kid in the school. 

    • #23
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    Is there such a thing as “dereliction of duty” for civilian cops?  Last I heard, the Supreme Court doesn’t think so.

    • #24
  25. Spin Coolidge
    Spin
    @Spin

    TBA (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    I wonder if things would have been different had one of the officers had a kid in the school.

    Well, unless you are there, looking down the sight, processing all of that, it’s hard to say.  Especially in this day of hating cops for anything and everything they do.  Those guys waiting at an unlocked door, however….

    • #25
  26. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    I can hit a man-sized target at 350 yards 9.5 out of 10 times, standing in quick succession.  But that’s not with adrenaline.

    • #26
  27. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    I can hit a man-sized target at 350 yards 9.5 out of 10 times, standing in quick succession. But that’s not with adrenaline.

    Well hell, take more than one shot if you feel like it. 

    • #27
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    I can hit a man-sized target at 350 yards 9.5 out of 10 times, standing in quick succession. But that’s not with adrenaline.

    I’m thinking the adrenaline would have come later, like after they started hearing gunshots from inside the school.

    • #28
  29. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    I can hit a man-sized target at 350 yards 9.5 out of 10 times, standing in quick succession. But that’s not with adrenaline.

    I’m thinking the adrenaline would have come later, like after they started hearing gunshots from inside the school.

    Adrenaline and even tunnel vision can happen quite quickly.

    • #29
  30. Spin Coolidge
    Spin
    @Spin

    Cassandro (View Comment):

    Spin (View Comment):

    Doug Watt: The officer was 148 yards away from the door, which the report said was within the range of his rifle, and allegedly said he was concerned that an errant shot could have penetrated the school and injured students inside.

    I’ve shot at man sized targets with small arms at ranges from 7 yards to 300 meters. I’m a pretty darn good shot and with my most accurate AR I can hit a man sized target at 100 yards consistently. I know guys who can group rounds in a 3″ diameter circle all day long. I’m not sure I’m faulting the officer here in not taking that shot. Looking back, he should have…but hind site is 20/20.

    The balance of the police response falls in “dereliction of duty” territory to me.

    I can hit a man-sized target at 350 yards 9.5 out of 10 times, standing in quick succession. But that’s not with adrenaline.

    I can hit many man sized targets at 900 meters.  But that’s with an M240 machine gun coaxially mounted on an M1A1 and aided by laser rangefinder and a computer.  :-)

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.