Uvalde School Officials Think Hiring Even More Cops Is the Solution
Robb Elementary didn't need additional cops; it needed the cops on hand to actually do their jobs.

In the wake of the mass shooting at Robb Elementary that left 19 kids and two adults dead, Uvalde district officials have come up with a plan to make their schools ostensibly safer: Hire more police officers.
"It is our goal to hire additional officers to be assigned to each campus for the upcoming school year," said Hal Harrell, superintendent of Uvalde schools, during a press conference on Thursday.
But there's no reason to think that Uvalde schools employed an insufficient number of police officers. When the shooter, 18-year-old Salvador Ramos, entered the school, locked himself inside a fourth-grade classroom, and proceeded to indiscriminately murder children, 19 cops quickly arrived on the scene. They had the gunman completely outnumbered. And in any case, police training instructs officers to confront a mass shooter as speedily as possible, without waiting for background. The problem wasn't too few cops; the problem was the cops didn't do anything.
In fact, it was a Border Patrol team that finally—after more than an hour—ignored the on-scene commander's orders to wait, entered the classroom, and killed Ramos. Meanwhile, police officers harassed, restrained, and arrested parents who were trying to rescue their kids themselves. Robb Elementary didn't need additional cops, it needed the cops on hand to actually do their jobs.
Uvalde represents one of the most stunning failures in police history, but it is not a failure born of insufficient personnel. With dying children calling 911 and begging the cops to intervene as desperate parents tried to free themselves from the clutches of law enforcement in order to help, Uvalde's on-scene commander, Pete Arredondo, decided to wait. And wait. And wait. This was gut-wrenching incompetence—not a lack of cops.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who agrees with me that Twitter has been the greatest tool in journalism since the printing press?
Gosh, I hate conflict, but the Bible tells us to not swear false oaths.
So... I disagree.
OH come on, without Twitter, we wouldn't know that the herpetologist's handshake is Strong with the Washington Post.
I get it, and I love lizards too. I saw a big lizard sunning in my back yard today. My dog barked at it and it ran away, so that was too bad.
But, still, I can't help but feeling that perhaps Twitter isn't really that representative of real life, and that the people who post comments from there as news are reinforcing a bubble within a bubble.
Sorry, sir...
Breaking this schtick because I fear it's turning into online sex roleplay: I liked a point I read in an article yesterday that said that one huge advantage of Twitter is it has let us see that a lot of people in positions of power we thought were normal folks are actually fucking batshit.
Lawrence Tribe was the cited example, but you see this a lot. This is really true on both sides. It also highlights folks who are kind of normal and just want to post about cars or whatever.
And also that a lot of the people who claim to be experts are not too different than you or me.
"were not so different you and I"
Tell me your a villain without telling me your a villain
They have blue checkmarks.
Twitter isn't really that representative of real life, and that the people who post comments from there as news are reinforcing a bubble within a bubble.
That's why it's the greatest tool in journalism. It helps us understand why a journalist with a bunch of spreadsheets on xer desk in Virginia tells us there's no crime problem in San Francisco.
And they are all our betters, capable of seeing the easy solutions to our problems that have evaded us midwits outside of journalism despite our best efforts.
Still, I can't help but feel that not ALL problems can be solved in 256 characters.
When I read the responses to people like Ted Cruz on Twitter, it is just so clear that people on both sides of the aisle are living in completely different realities. There are people right now on Twitter linking to and reposting that NYT article about SF crime over and over and over, telling San Franciscans that they don't know what they are talking about.
I remember reading one exchange after Newsance instituted state-wide mask mandates. Some liberal was saying it was unfair because she had developed a medical condition that made it hard to breathe with a mask on. It turns out that she had always worn a mask, until she got COVID, and then the damage to her lungs prevented her from wearing the mask now. Well, it didn't matter how big a liberal she was- she was obviously a maga-head. She clearly didn't wear her mask correctly, else she wouldn't have gotten COVID.
Until it happens to you and you are seeing the narrative contradicted with your own eyes, it is too easy to believe that these people are mistaken, lying or wrong.
Leftists have become wholly psychotic.
You can't overlook that.
I can't help but feeling that perhaps Twitter isn't really that representative of real life
Surely you're not implying that there's more to life than making sure everyone knows your preferred pronouns and virtue signaling about much you support the current thing?
Call it the greatest automation tool ever and I'll agree.
Don't you get it yet? The cops did their fucking job! Their job is to go home safe while having zero tolerance for noncompliance. They went home safe after assaulting parents who refused to obey their commands. That's their job.
The Supreme Court has ruled a number of times that the police have no duty to help people. If someone is beating you to death their duty is to wait until the guy gets tired, because immediate intervention could jeopardize officer safety.
So please stop with this "The cops didn't do their job" nonsense.
They did exactly what they are supposed to do.
His conclusion still stands then. More cops ain't the answer, bub.
I had to actually say that? I didn't imply it hard enough? Are you daft?
I mean, a little. So is everyone who spends their time posting on internet comment sections.
I can go further though. I sympathize with your discomfort with police. I think you go too far though and I think it's more complicated then as you say.
Try being a fly on the wall in a bar when cops get drunk. You'll never look at a police officer without contempt again.
I have. I mean, I worked the night shift at a convenience store for my early adult life. I've interacted with a lot of cops both with them hanging around getting coffee, and coming over because of issues.
And it was complicated. There were shit-heads, there were people trying, there were folks trying to ride out to a pension, there were monsters who get below average sized hard-ons from the authority they wield. It's complicated.
Modifying rules and incentives matter in this situation. It is actually a good place to start. Police reform is important. I do not think it is hopeless though.
The reforms we need will never happen. Unions and immunity are here to stay. As long as those two things exist there will never be any accountability in law enforcement.
So, there are then two questions here. The value of a police force at all, versus how one gets to improving it. Because the alternative is pretty bad, which is no policing at all. (I guess you could be a private police force type libertarian. I am somewhat open to that one).
There's a question of real world issues here. Will it be perfect? No. This is not a perfectable world.
So, the question becomes is there value to having it at all, and what can be done to improve it. And we do see improvements on local scales. The quality of the police force do vary wildly from precinct to precinct. And reform is actually doable on local levels, particularly outside of places with intense machine politics.
It's hard and slow though, it's unsexy.
The problem is broader than that. It's the entire ethos of law enforcement. They used to be peace officers. Now they're warriors. They used to help people. Now they command people. They used to catch thieves. Now they are thieves. I really don't see how one department here one department there, when there's over 17,000 police departments in the country, is going to make a difference.
There has been a lot of bad stuff. And, there really is an aspect of all their bad stuff being shown so often that you become inundated to it, plus government does a lot of bullshit stuff and the police are the enforcement branch of it. It is very disheartening, and I don't tend to really feel comfortable around police myself. I remember an old girlfriend of mine who was Mexican used to joke how it was lame how she dated a white boy who was afraid of cops too. Couldn't use that weird energy some white people have of fearlessness around cops.
But, I digress. It's hard and it's slow. But making changes in individual departments is likely the only real way to effect change in a positive way. First, because there is a lot of control there and truly small amounts of people can lead to meaningful change in the local context. Also, there's the likely fact that, besides some big horrible Supreme Court doctrine that needs to die, there isn't going to be one-size-fits-all changes that fix problems in both NYC and Mayberry. It's a very granular issue, forcing it more to the local level will force folks to deal with that fact.
But, local changes do matter. It matters demographically, but it also matters to the people there. It's slow, but how real change happens.
I suppose you have a point. Change can more easily be made in Maybury than NYC because people know each other. There's some accountability outside the department. Not so in a big city with powerful public unions. They run the show.
I’m always disturbed when they refer to non officers as ‘civilians’. If they say that shit in front of me I’m quick to correct them. They’re law enforcement, not military. THEY are civilians.
Couldn't use that weird energy some white people have of fearlessness around cops.
Cops shouldn't fear criminals. I can understand that they are going to, but they shouldn't. Confronting and arresting criminals is their job. Any other professional that fears doing their job is not going to be in that business long.
What they should fear is interfering with an innocent person. The fact that they don't is the problem. You shouldn't have to have power or money before the cops are going to fear that arresting you or even just stopping you could result in them losing their jobs.
When the SCOTUS invented qualified immunity, it made them feel invulnerable. The unions ran with it, and here we are today. Criminals have greater access to justice than innocent people, and the rich and powerful have even more.
There were shit-heads, bad cops there were people trying, wannabe good cops who haven't been forced out yet there were folks trying to ride out to a pension, do nothings are just as bad as bad cops there were monsters who get below average sized hard-ons from the authority they wield. more bad cops.
You're not doing much to convince me that anyone in that profession is worthy of anything other than contempt.
No italics around "bad cops" html fail
Reason's Italics code is broken. Cancel my subscription!
One of the few times I'll admit that you have a valid point.
That kind of shoots the whole "You don't need a gun, the police are here to protect you" in the foot.
I am surprised (but maybe not) that media such as Fox has not pointed this out. Guess that would piss too many of the boot lickers off that watch.
The don't want to lose the "Back the Blue" demographic. Those folks honestly believe that cops are brave heroes who go around helping people, and no amount of Supreme Court decisions will convince them otherwise.
Some how the Blue Check Twitteratti are claiming that the Uvalde incident PROVES that a good man with a gun can't save people...Because something...police...locked doors...something.
I think the idea is that the fact that the police couldn't do it is proof that a could man couldn't. Circular argument.
Worse than that, it's circular and terrible logic. It's not that the police couldn't, they simply didn't.
That has to be one of the more idiotic takes. Because some people failed to do anything, no one could have. OK. Seems pretty obvious that one person with a gun and some balls likely could have stopped the bad guy. If there were several willing to take the risk, then for sure.
Without the police there, that room would have been stormed in 10 minutes, TOPS.
They can, but it involves a concept called ‘trying’.
Now we're seeing that one of the guys he initially shot at retrieved a gun and was going in after him, but the two police on the scene stopped him.
Perhaps a better plan is to mandate any parent enrolling a student in the school must pack heat 24/7. When the call goes out that an event it taking place, they will get there faster than the 'that's not my job' police, and go in and take the SOB out and minimize casualties.
I remember back in the day, their was a mass shooting at a school, I believe it was in Tennessee. The assistant principal went out and retrieved his 1911A1 from his car, engaged the shooter and stopped him cold. Some were calling for the principals prosecution for having a gun on campus.
When I was a kid, through high school, every other vehicle had a gun in it during the fall, never had a single shooting incident. If guns on campus were a real threat, we should have had at least one mass shooting every fall.
Funny how nobody started shooting up schools until they became gun-free-zones.
And the kids were being drugged and emasculated by leftist bureaucrats and educators. Guns don’t force kids to go shoot up a school. If that were true it would have been worse in the old days. When there was far greater access to firearms.
One of my classmates got pulled out of class because a drug dog pointed out his car. He popped open the trunk for the cops and all they found were a half dozen guns, but no drugs. The cops apologized for the false positive and gave him an excuse note for being late to his next class.
It was a colt 45. And he was parked off site because he had it in his car (not allowed to have guns anywhere on campus).
And he apprehended the kid after he had finished his shooting and was about to shoot himself.
It is likely that if the AP had been allowed to carry on the scene, he'd have saved many lives.
Yeah it's been a few years so couldn't remember all the details.
So, new polling shows support for an "assault weapons ban" is the lowest it's ever been, with for a ban and against a ban being statistically tied (meaning the margin of error equals the difference between the two positions). Background checks are the most favored, but this question is always a red herring as most people support the current background checks, so say yes, but don't necessarily support more or stricter background checks or waiting periods. Raising the age to buy firearms was the second most popular, but it's likely not constitutional. Maybe why this incident, and other similar ones recently, haven't resulted in the normal spike for assault weapons bans, is because people realized why this one and Buffalo ended up the way they did is because no one could fire back and the cops reactions were delayed in both cases. That given the time the shooters in both cases had, just about any firearm would be adequate to pile up bodies.
the Uvalde school shooter could of had a revolver and still killed 19. Time was on his side
I'm pretty sure he could have used an arquebus
Yet more proof that we need to ban deadly weapons of war like the brown bess, named for the tactical brown shell that's invisible to metal detectors.
One of my favorite stories about the revolution was von Steuben training Americans at Valley Forge. In Europe the command was ready fire. Aiming wasn't considered sporting or something. He couldn't get the Colonials to stop aiming so he had to change it to a three step command, ready, aim, fire. Even with a smoothbore and undersized bullet they used, aiming still increased hit rates phenomenally. Additionally, the Colonials preferred a buck and ball load, which had a smaller slug, and four to eight pieces of buckshot in each paper cartridge. So basically they turned their brown bess and Charleville muskets into giant shotguns. I see these type of rounds are making a comeback in the self defense market.
He had over an hour. Fucker could have used a muzzle loading musket. In fact, I'm shocked he only killed 19 kids (plus 2 adults).
He could have made some home made nail bombs and possibly killed far more. Or just brought a container with a few gallons of gasoline and some matches. Or any number of other things.
David Hogg lamented today that one of the kids was decapitated. Did he do that with the gun, do you think?
Clinical decapitation is severed spine from brain stem, not necessarily head separated from shoulders. Easily done with a properly placed bullet. Hogg is just an idiot.
I'm frankly always amazed that these mass shooters rarely seem to utilize the best tools for the job.
It's like they are disaffected loner idiots instead of truly dangerous madmen.
They want to become famous, they desire notoriety. They know the media will make a big deal if they kill a large number, especially if they use a scary black rifle. That's why they choose soft targets, where people aren't armed, kids are always a good way to get known and talked about ad nauseam. Even more so when if you post some asinine screed online, (especially if you mention anything possibly conservative). If it was just about body count, explosives probably would create a larger body count, and greater chance for you to survive. Instead they choose "cool" looking rifles and pistols that will get the maximum press coverage. It isn't that these weapons are the best for their goal, unless you realize their goal is to get the media talking about them non-stop. They want to be talked about. They want to be analyzed ad nauseam. They want to be hated, just as long as people talk about them.
The gun grabbers never say anything about shotguns.
Biden is a fan of them.
And yet, even a crazy person finds a "gun free zone".
"Likely not constitutional", technically, neither is a drinking age of 21. Once a member of society becomes of Majority then not giving them all rights is not constitutional.
HOWEVER, if we change our constitution and make different types of citizenship available with differing rights then it can work. Example, illegal alien can have NO benefit of society. Someone born in USA of an illegal citizen can not be a full citizen ever. That would confer the gains of a criminal act to a third party (same as a Ponzi scheme really). Then we could have foreign workers who enter, they can never become citizens even by marriage, any children born are not US citizens but from the patriarchal country. Then we can have legal immigrants, they gain certain rights but not all necessarily. Such as social security benefits etc. Then natural born of TWO citizens. Totally different. Voting rights would be diminished to ONLY citizens born of two US citizens and naturalized citizens who did NOT enter the country illegally. Enter illegally and you can NEVER vote, not ever. Etc.
Great idea except for that pesky 'equal protection under the law' thing.
Sadly, qualified immunity will keep the parents from going after the officers and their incompetent actions. There probably has never been such egregious ineptitude to qualify as precedent for SCOTUS to hold them accountable.
These officers should be tarred and feathered before being banished from the state.
One mother on probation outperformed every cop there.
In spite of the cops best efforts to stop her.
mother of the year
Fuck that. Cop of the year.
Maybe the Uvalde PD should hire her and make her chief of police. Or she should run for county sheriff. She'd probably win.
They need more cops to wage more War on Drugs because that's America's answer to everything.
More spectators to stand around instead of their jobs?
More of a lard-ass Chief who doesn't know what to do?
More teachers to leave doors open?
Remember folks, the police serve the public.
Who is the public?
The public is everyone except you.
Let me get this straight. This kid tortured animals, he killed animals and he talked of killing at a school well in advance. The Police, his family and several people online had plenty of chances to turn him over to police. The kid ADVERTISED on social media his plans.
Within moment of a conservative saying something online that makes sense, they are taken offline. This means that the social media have REAL TIME spiders examining EVERY post.
No one stopped this kid. No one has arrested anyone (for accessory before the fact) that the kid told about his plans in advance. No one has talked of the responsibility of SOCIAL MEDIA to assure that these foreshadowed events are not given to authorities in advance.
Stop passing laws, uphold laws that we have. Go after social media make them REPONSIBLE. If they have spiders and use them for POLITICAL PURPOSE then they had KNOWLEDGE of this event in advance.
With regard to those that he told: arrest them and charge them as accessories before the fact. Get the word out that you spend you life in prison if you knew or should have known and did nothing.
Stop passing laws, uphold laws that we have.
What laws did the kid break before he went on this rampage?
How many of the "signs" are relatively normal behavior for a teenager who hates the world? How do you tell the difference between real plans and someone blowing off steam?
You want to protect the children? Stop making them sitting ducks.
Good people with guns obey the signs that say "Gun Free Zone" because they don't want to go to jail.
Bad people with guns don't care.
Gun Free Zone = Target Rich Environment
What good is a solution that doesn't involve spending more money and having more government employees?
That's UNION government employees to you - - - - - -
The Uvalde School District had 12 years to work with Ramos and shape him into a well adjusted, successful graduate. Instead, they dropped the ball and ended up with a bitter, disaffected dropout who got his revenge by shooting up the elementary school. Where were the counselors, social workers and speech therapists who could have been working with him in school during those 12 years?
Where were the counselors, social workers and speech therapists who could have been working with him in school during those 12 years?
They were too busy making sure he knew his preferred pronouns.
What do you think the likelihood is that he was prescribed one or a number of drugs based on the recommendation of school officials?
Not very high likelihood that he was prescribed drugs at the school's request. I think they just ignored him and his problems. Some medications might have actually been helpful...if properly dosed and administered.
Where you said "to actually do their jobs." what they did is just exactly their job, their job is to make you do what you are told.
As the supreme court ruled in castle rock v Gonzales
That case is where the Castle rock police department refused to lift a finger (Literally) because they were too busy writing parking tickets also Literally
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/04-278
"Uvalde School Officials Think Hiring Even More Cops Is the Solution"
I think this is a brilliant idea: I think there should be a one-to-one ratio of the number of children and teachers being murdered and the number of cops standing in the hallway with their thumbs up their ass.
If we only could have more cops standing around doing nothing then surely events like this could never happen.
Well, some parents apparently were able to go in and get their kids out. If they'd had more cops on hand they could have stopped that from happening.
There were more holes in that report than Swiss cheese and journalistic ignorance is no excuse.
1. There was no security officer at the school at the time of the attack (one for two schools?). At least one more might have prevented the attack since they would have been aware of the funeral home shooting.
2. A team of three Uvalde police officers attacked the classroom door within three minutes of the attack (an outstanding response and appropriate action). They could not breach the solid steel door set in the steel frame. They took fire and two officers were wounded. They were forced to retreat.
3. The Robb Elementary Principal with the needed key could not be found.
4. The police chief put out a call for necessary breaching equipment which did not materialize because...
5. Intra-unit communications failed. Did the fire department know of the door problem? Did officers on the outside know?
6. Shooting had stopped. Due to that, the time that had past and the inability to breach, the IC made the call for negotiators and additional assistance.
7. Responding Bortac, etc. officers WAITED until the key was found and then they led the breach team and killed the assailant. I repeat, Bortac waited until AFTER the key was obtained to breach the door.
AND
8. Had two teachers responsible for locking either of the two doors for which they were responsible done so, Uvalde doesn't happen. An evil man killed 19 kids and 2 teachers but two teachers invited evil in.
Did police make mistakes? Probably but we won't know until the investigative report is released and I don't see any overt failures.
That's pretty much what I heard. Let's face it, no matter what the cops did they were going to be at fault for something. Storm the classroom a student gets killed in the crossfire. Hang the Police. Storm the classroom, kill the shooter. White supremacist cops kill Hispanic child. It doesn't matter. What's really funny is that today there's an article on Reason questioning the need for Police training. The kind of training that would be used in this situation. The investigation is going to determine that the Police did nothing wrong and people are going to yell "Cover up!".
Mass shootings don't (not even once) happen at police stations. Why? The shooters are cowards or people looking to murder easily, become known, then die. Give them two potential targets, one with defense, one without, and they will always attack the defenseless. To advertise: "gun free zone" is to attract an attacker. For example, a teacher who thinks concealed carry is best, to avoid warning an attacker, is ignorant. Open carry deters attack. Gun shops openly/proudly practice open carry, thereby making robbery highly improbable. Deterrence is the best defense. Isn't the $Trillion military budget based on this belief? The $Billion police budget? The belief is correct, but ineffectively achieved. The Swiss legally require every family to own, maintain, practice self-defense with firearms. They are not attacked in world wars. Likewise, people who open carry are not mugged; schools who advertise teachers carry are not attacked.
People who choose to self-govern, self-arm, self-protect, are freer, safer, protected best.
I’m a gay Black man who is GOP Proud like [GOP intern] Milo and Caitlin. What the fuck is so hard about this issue? The right to buy a high powered assault weapon by the criminally insane and/or mumbling 18-yo off his meds SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!! Geesch… liberal Jesse Jackson fans who want to put this Black and gay man on a plantation sure are dumb!
None of this, however, has anything to do with legal access to abortion. I mean, just because I don’t support laws to prevent crazy people from obtaining bazookas and assault weapons (their reasons could be perfectly legitimate… like shooting prairie dogs (h/t John Thune)) doesn’t mean i support the anarchistic notion that women should choose when and where they have a kid that they are going to have to support for the next 20 years, That right is up to the Catholic Church, GOP church ladies, and whenever the fuck Dear Leader wants to fleece a couple of
dumb rubesamazing patriots. I’m no anarchist. On the contrary, I’m a gay, Black man who is GOP Proud. I say Libertarianism has its limits.The obvious problem is the sissy men who live in Texas. If they had any balls they'd gladly break into a building held by a nut with as much fire power as they have. The governor's plan will work once they get real men to move there.
What is needed more than anything else is for the gun culture in this country to stop worshiping their weapons of death, and start valuing life over guns. Currently, the exact opposite is the case. They'd rather preserve the ability for everyone to own a weapon of mass murder than take the steps needed to make our country safe.
The Second Amendment was passed to allow the thirteen original colonies to have their own state militias. The guns at the time were flintlocks. Bullets had not even been invented yet.
There is nothing in the second amendment to prevent government regulation of firearms. Regulation is NOT infringement.
Sadly, I do not see this happening. The worship of firearms--and an insurrectionist former President--continues to drag this country down to a level of immorality and depravity never seen before.
+1
Exactly right.
What adds to it is- it used to be taught that it is had a singular purpose- to kill. Sure sport shooting is fine but people knew its main aim was to destroy its target.
But now it's so wrapped up in bullshit that people wrap their entire identities around it. And yes, they'd rather millions more die than ever have it regulated in the slightest. Let's call gun nuts what they are- absolute sociopaths who would gladly have you die so they can own their guns til the end of time.
The 2nd has been bastardized to hell and back and it's ironic that people think they'll "fight tyranny" or do any other such dumb thing.
1) They certainly didn't try to stop the obvious coup attempt on 1/6 and rather would've joined in on it.
2) Their idea of fighting tyranny is some mythical tyrannical government to save our freedom. What freedom? I'm so "free" that I need a goddamn weapon just to go about my daily life. Should I wear body armor too? Surely that idea of freedom is one of dystopia.
Your ignorance is strong.
Only in this dumbass country is more guns the answer.