15 killed in shooting at Uvalde elementary school, active shooter killed, officials say

[dmonty]

There's a branch of government meant to determine that.

You're not part of that.

Cite the exact Article, Section or Amendment that authorizes any "laws", or "court opinions" that can usurp the US Constitution or invalidate the 2nd amendment.... I'd be interested to know what branch of government had that enumerated power, since in over 234 years no text has ever been identified with granting that power to any branch of government.

now you can ratify another amendment if you don't like the clear text of the 2nd and 9th, 10th Amendments, but until then arms [bats, knives, guns, missiles, canons, etc] shall not be infringed, and unlike the 4th Amendment there are absolutely no exceptions, none....

Technically, and legally I am the part that makes the decisions..
"We the people", not "we the government" are the only part that gets to decide, each of us individually, you don't like guns don't own or carry one, but your opinion has no bearing on my civil liberties restrict ownership or carrying of any arms.

 

[ll74]

Cite the exact Article, Section or Amendment that authorizes any "laws", or "court opinions" that can usurp the US Constitution or invalidate the 2nd amendment.... I'd be interested to know what branch of government had that enumerated power, since in over 234 years no text has ever been identified with granting that power to any branch of government.

now you can ratify another amendment if you don't like the clear text of the 2nd and 9th, 10th Amendments, but until then arms [bats, knives, guns, missiles, canons, etc] shall not be infringed, and unlike the 4th Amendment there are absolutely no exceptions, none....

Technically, and legally I am the part that makes the decisions..
"We the people", not "we the government" are the only part that gets to decide, each of us individually, you don't like guns don't own or carry one, but your opinion has no bearing on my civil liberties restrict ownership or carrying of any arms.

Hey, do what ya gotta do. You're wrong, but more power to ya, Sparky

You go to court to challenge laws that you see as unconstitutional, you don't ignore them...because that's how our Constitution decided it to be. And yes, that's regardless of your tantrums about what you think it is.

Your guns seem to be the most important thing to ya, which is a sad existence....but you do you.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Texas department of public safety breaks the "thin blue line", throws the Uvalde Police Department under the bus: Abject Failure

You know it's bad when your so-called "brothers in arms" desert you.

Welp, hizzoner the Mayor of Uvalde isn't gonna take this affront lying down! He verbally fired back at the Texas DPS tonight. Seems he's very very upset....not that his chickenshit officers weren't doing shit for over an hour, but that the DPS released photographic evidence of their malfeasance.

Oh and he also noted the school would be razed to the ground. Typical Republican: punish the building, spare the guns.

 

[butters]

Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw:
"the lives of police officers were valued more than those of children as gunfire tore through that south Texas campus on May 24'...states the classroom door was not locked.

"The only thing stopping a hallway of dedicated officers from (entering rooms) 111 and 112 was the on-scene commander who decided to place the lives of officers before the lives of children," he said.

"The officers have weapons, the children had none The officers had body armor, the children had none. The officers had training, the subject had none."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/u...sedgntp&cvid=49265c06e815497c98a38578c8a94f5a

 

[KeithD]

Oh and he also noted the school would be razed to the ground. Typical Republican: punish the building, spare the guns.

Well, who's going to want to send their children into that building ever again?

 

[dmonty]

Hey, do what ya gotta do. You're wrong, but more power to ya, Sparky

You go to court to challenge laws that you see as unconstitutional, you don't ignore them...because that's how our Constitution decided it to be. And yes, that's regardless of your tantrums about what you think it is.

Your guns seem to be the most important thing to ya, which is a sad existence....but you do you.

And yet the only way the US Supreme Court even opines on the Constitutionality of the law is that someone must be arrested for ignoring the laws.

Our US Constitution did not give the US Supreme Court any authority to make their opinions laws, colloquially judicial activism. The people, not the congress, not the president and not the Supreme Court decides what arms to own, carry and places to be armed, the 2nd amendment specifically exists to restrict the government not the citizens, who have absolutely no restrictions per the US Constitution to own, carry any arms.

My guns without a doubt are more important then your hoplophobism; in the 40+ years I've owned them not one has harmed a human being, and the ones passed down to me from my grandparents generation and parents generation haven't harmed a single human.

 

[ll74]

And yet the only way the US Supreme Court even opines on the Constitutionality of the law is that someone must be arrested for ignoring the laws.

Our US Constitution did not give the US Supreme Court any authority to make their opinions laws, colloquially judicial activism. The people, not the congress, not the president and not the Supreme Court decides what arms to own, carry and places to be armed, the 2nd amendment specifically exists to restrict the government not the citizens, who have absolutely no restrictions per the US Constitution to own, carry any arms.

My guns without a doubt are more important then your hoplophobism; in the 40+ years I've owned them not one has harmed a human being, and the ones passed down to me from my grandparents generation and parents generation haven't harmed a single human.

No, you can actually sue of a law takes away a right. Typically organizations like the ACLU are the way to go.

Sorry you believe the right is absolute. It's not, no matter how long you whine about it.

I applaud your gun safety. It sounds like you might be minorly inconvenienced while large numbers of people may get to not have their full rights taken away at high velocity.

 

[ll74]

Photograph taken during heroic response to active shooter

 

[dmonty]

No, you can actually sue of a law takes away a right. Typically organizations like the ACLU are the way to go.

Sorry you believe the right is absolute. It's not, no matter how long you whine about it.

I applaud your gun safety. It sounds like you might be minorly inconvenienced while large numbers of people may get to not have their full rights taken away at high velocity.

It's not "a belief" its what is written, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is nowhere in any part of the Amendment that authorizes any restrictions, i.e. its an absolute no restriction or limits of any kind. Far more people would be inconvenienced with losing their lives without private gun ownership - just think how many people would have been saved if the school staff were armed and not unconstitutionally disarmed due to their fears of being persecuted by oath violators.

Constitutional protected civil liberties are far more important then your hoplophobism. When people have more guns more lives are protected.

In the recent, and predictable pattern of the Democrat party's push for gun control following the Uvalde shooting, has anyone asked the basic question, "Do you believe in the right of self-defense?" Many leftists believe that only the State has the right to defend its citizens. They believe that the State should possess a monopoly on the legal use of force.

The "wait on the police" position on self-defense calls to mind an adage well known to gun owners: "when seconds matter, the police are only 30+ minutes away." In the case of Uvalde, the police spent over an hour milling around the hallway outside the room where the killer was executing students and teachers.

the People need to confront the fact that it is not just guns that the left wants to take away. The left wants to erode both the right and the ability of citizens to effectively defend themselves their families and their communities.

The 2nd Amendment isn't a Bill of Needs or Wants, its the Bill of Rights all inalienable and absolute it isn't even about hunting or recreational use, its for the self defense against all enemies, so yes every citizen should be able to own, carry a rocket propelled grenades launchers, m60 or even the m27/m349.

 

[ll74]

It's not "a belief" its what is written, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." There is nowhere in any part of the Amendment that authorizes any restrictions, i.e. its an absolute no restriction or limits of any kind. Far more people would be inconvenienced with losing their lives without private gun ownership - just think how many people would have been saved if the school staff were armed and not unconstitutionally disarmed due to their fears of being persecuted by oath violators.

Constitutional protected civil liberties are far more important then your hoplophobism. When people have more guns more lives are protected.

In the recent, and predictable pattern of the Democrat party's push for gun control following the Uvalde shooting, has anyone asked the basic question, "Do you believe in the right of self-defense?" Many leftists believe that only the State has the right to defend its citizens. They believe that the State should possess a monopoly on the legal use of force.

The "wait on the police" position on self-defense calls to mind an adage well known to gun owners: "when seconds matter, the police are only 30+ minutes away." In the case of Uvalde, the police spent over an hour milling around the hallway outside the room where the killer was executing students and teachers.

the People need to confront the fact that it is not just guns that the left wants to take away. The left wants to erode both the right and the ability of citizens to effectively defend themselves their families and their communities.

The 2nd Amendment isn't a Bill of Needs or Wants, its the Bill of Rights all inalienable and absolute it isn't even about hunting or recreational use, its for the self defense against all enemies, so yes every citizen should be able to own, carry a rocket propelled grenades launchers, m60 or even the m27/m349.

View attachment 2157195

Good luck with your expectations. The government has interpreted words differently than you. Wonder how that will end up.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Nothing like Constitutionalists who use it like an ex on a drunken booty call. Convenient when it fits their fucked up narratives.

 

[jaF0]

Is this Head Skool Fuzz gonna get locked up?

 

[butters]

Is this Head Skool Fuzz gonna get locked up?

who knows? he had to testify monday in front of state legislators so i expect they're digesting that.

he got sworn in as a city council member end of May, didn't attend tuesday's meeting and has asked for a leave of absence so he doesn't have to attend future council meetings. It's been denied. If he misses 3 meetings, he can be removed from his city council membership.

A motion was unanimously denied to grant a leave of absence to the newly elected council member, who was not present Tuesday night. Per city council rules, there is a $2 fine for missing council meetings, and after three missed meetings, the other council members can vote to have a member removed from their post.

Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin said he would vote "yes" to replace Arredondo on the city council if he misses three consecutive meetings without a leave of absence. The council pointed out that it can't take an opinion or make any official vote because Arredondo hasn't actually missed three meetings.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...sedgntp&cvid=db7c0fb647424e7291f0380762e22032

relatives, survivors and school parents want him out

At a school board meeting on Monday, parents of the victims and members of the Uvalde community called for Arredondo's resignation.

"Having Pete still employed, knowing he is incapable of decision-making that saves lives is terrifying," Brett Cross, the uncle of student Uziyah Garcia, who died in the shooting, said. "Innocence doesn't hide, innocence doesn't change its story, but innocence did die on May 24."

 

[ll74]

Police chief put on leave

https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/uvalde-school-district-police-chief-pete-arredondo-placed-on-leave/

Fuck him

 

[butters]

Police chief put on leave

https://www.cbsnews.com/dfw/news/uvalde-school-district-police-chief-pete-arredondo-placed-on-leave/

Fuck him

so he's placed 'on leave' pending investigations in his position as police chief but can't get leave from his city council job. ha

this should have been done sooner.

 

[dmonty]

Is this Head Skool Fuzz gonna get locked up?

nope because the police have no legal duty to do anything... You must have fallen for the PR Gimmick that the police exist "To protect and serve", they don't and never have.



while its widely known among the 2nd Amendment advocates, and those that have been victims under the mistaken belief that the LEO's are there to protect you....its generally not well publicized that the Law Enforcement has absolute no duty to protect anyone or even to have to show up unless they feel its safe to do so.

LEA's and government, try to keep this out of the public eye and hire PR firms and get local news media to propagandize the lies that they exist "to protect and serve", multiple US Courts including United Staes Supreme Court have all ruled that the Police propaganda slogan "To Protect and Serve" is just an empty platitude, and a very good marketing PR Campaign.

A fact of law and of practical necessity individuals are solely responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they legally and ethically are not required to do), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it.

More legal info: Google: "The Public Duty Doctrine."

Police protection must be recognized for what it is, "report takers" after a crime happens, this is there one and only legally required job function. The police arrive on the scene after a crime has been committed (and only if they feel it is safe to do so) so they can collect the facts, write an unbiased report, and file it with headquarters, while the lawyers determine fault in the courtroom using the before mentioned police report. (at best police response times are 5 minutes, national average in the US is typically 15-20 minutes) but more often it's at least 45 minutes if ever)

LEA's & LEO's have absolutely no duty to protect you or your family; there actual job is to just take a report and file it.

Saying it again for those in the backrow police have no legal duty to respond to and/or prevent crime and/or protect anyone. There have BEEN OVER 30 various supreme and state court cases the individual citizen has never won a single case!!

There is only one exception that the Police have an actual duty to protect you it's called “special relationship” with the police clause - just in case you were wondering what would constitute a “special relationship,”
here's an example...
Let’s say that an assailant attacked a NY'er with a knife and he was eventually disarmed and restrained by the victim and the police eventually handcuffed the attacker, and witnesses then decided to beat the attacker. Police would then have a duty to defend him, (yes the knife-wielding attacker), because the officers had taken the attacker into custody and is now their charge.

If the police officers stood idly by as the attacker was now attacked, officers could be found negligent, because a “special relationship” existed between the police and the murderer as soon as he was detained..

See also (Google the following cases):
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia
[2] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
[3] Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
[4] Thurman v. City of Torrington,
[5] McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
[6] Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
[7] Freeman v. Ferguson
[8] Keane v. City of Chicago
[9] Morgan v. District of Columbia
[10] Calogrides v. City of Mobile
[11] Morris v. Musser
[12] Davidson v. City of Westminster
[13] Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
[14] Weutrich v. Delia
[15] Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
[16] Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
[17] Silver v. City of Minneapolis
[18] Bowers v. DeVito
[19] Zinermon v. Burch
[20] South v. Maryland
[21] Hartzler v. City of San Jose
[22] Bell v Thompson
[23] Ford v. Town of Grafton
[24] Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
[25] Susman v Los Angeles
Then there is NY's special laws - That NY law dictates unconstitutionally that carrying any weapon for self-defense is illegal.
[26] Riss v. City of New York
[27] Lozito v NYPD, CIty of New York

 

[LukSkyFokker]

nope because the police have no legal duty to do anything... You must have fallen for the PR Gimmick that the police exist "To protect and serve", they don't and never have.

View attachment 2157265

You agree with the defund the police crowd. Nice work, Comrade.

 

[ll74]

nope because the police have no legal duty to do anything... You must have fallen for the PR Gimmick that the police exist "To protect and serve", they don't and never have.

View attachment 2157265

while its widely known among the 2nd Amendment advocates, and those that have been victims under the mistaken belief that the LEO's are there to protect you....its generally not well publicized that the Law Enforcement has absolute no duty to protect anyone or even to have to show up unless they feel its safe to do so.

LEA's and government, try to keep this out of the public eye and hire PR firms and get local news media to propagandize the lies that they exist "to protect and serve", multiple US Courts including United Staes Supreme Court have all ruled that the Police propaganda slogan "To Protect and Serve" is just an empty platitude, and a very good marketing PR Campaign.

A fact of law and of practical necessity individuals are solely responsible for their own personal safety, and that of their loved ones. Remember, even if the police were obligated to protect us (which they legally and ethically are not required to do), or even if they tried to protect us (which they often don't), most often there wouldn't be time enough for them to do it.

More legal info: Google: "The Public Duty Doctrine."

Police protection must be recognized for what it is, "report takers" after a crime happens, this is there one and only legally required job function. The police arrive on the scene after a crime has been committed (and only if they feel it is safe to do so) so they can collect the facts, write an unbiased report, and file it with headquarters, while the lawyers determine fault in the courtroom using the before mentioned police report. (at best police response times are 5 minutes, national average in the US is typically 15-20 minutes) but more often it's at least 45 minutes if ever)

LEA's & LEO's have absolutely no duty to protect you or your family; there actual job is to just take a report and file it.

Saying it again for those in the backrow police have no legal duty to respond to and/or prevent crime and/or protect anyone. There have BEEN OVER 30 various supreme and state court cases the individual citizen has never won a single case!!

There is only one exception that the Police have an actual duty to protect you it's called “special relationship” with the police clause - just in case you were wondering what would constitute a “special relationship,”
here's an example...
Let’s say that an assailant attacked a NY'er with a knife and he was eventually disarmed and restrained by the victim and the police eventually handcuffed the attacker, and witnesses then decided to beat the attacker. Police would then have a duty to defend him, (yes the knife-wielding attacker), because the officers had taken the attacker into custody and is now their charge.

If the police officers stood idly by as the attacker was now attacked, officers could be found negligent, because a “special relationship” existed between the police and the murderer as soon as he was detained..

See also (Google the following cases):
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia
[2] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
[3] Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
[4] Thurman v. City of Torrington,
[5] McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
[6] Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
[7] Freeman v. Ferguson
[8] Keane v. City of Chicago
[9] Morgan v. District of Columbia
[10] Calogrides v. City of Mobile
[11] Morris v. Musser
[12] Davidson v. City of Westminster
[13] Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
[14] Weutrich v. Delia
[15] Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
[16] Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
[17] Silver v. City of Minneapolis
[18] Bowers v. DeVito
[19] Zinermon v. Burch
[20] South v. Maryland
[21] Hartzler v. City of San Jose
[22] Bell v Thompson
[23] Ford v. Town of Grafton
[24] Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
[25] Susman v Los Angeles
Then there is NY's special laws - That NY law dictates unconstitutionally that carrying any weapon for self-defense is illegal.
[26] Riss v. City of New York
[27] Lozito v NYPD, CIty of New York

Now you're duplicating your own posts.

 

[dmonty]

You agree with the defund the police crowd. Nice work, Comrade.

Just so you know the defund police crowd has nothing to do with the facts that long before the "defund police" campaign the courts, and all of the courts in the US including over 20 US Supreme Court Opinions have all affirmed this, that the police PR gimmick "To Protect & Serve" is just that a gimmick the police departments only legally required job is to take a report, that's it.

You and you alone are the only person responsible for your protection, sure you might get lucky calling 9-1-1 and actually have police arrive, in about 20-30 minutes the average response time in the US for an emergency. So the adage of "when seconds count, the police are minutes away." Uvalde School shooting wasn't the outlier, of police idly standing by it is the norm, look no further then Parkland School, Pulse nightclub, Sandy Hook, etc.

As to your "comrade" remark it is rather funny, that this reference from the socialist ideologies with its many spelling variations (marxism, nazism, communism, progressivism, etc) all advocate for disarmed citizens and the use of violence against the disarmed to commit their atrocities using their "police forces."

Once you realize this legal fiction, then you'll come to realize that you are paying for public services that you are never going to receive, this is called fake advertising and public and private companies are sued for millions for making false claims such as this; so do you really think that police that function as crime report takers (national average for a crime reporter from the newspaper's salary $53,994, with a total comp of about $78,367) are worth their average salary (National average $55,458, plus all taxpayers benefits making total comp exceed $110,000) for doing at the end of the day the same job. Also keep in mind that at least 60% of police officers are patrol officers (revenue generators, they write tickets), the remaining 40% do all the other functions administrative/supervisory, investigations, internal investigations, and their is no national average on the breakdown of these, however we also know that only about 10-15% of crime cases are actually closed, so are you getting your money's worth, or is your community even being "protected and served?"

 

[dmonty]

Now you're duplicating your own posts.

well since people seem to have missed it, when they keep bringing up the police PR gimmick "to protect and serve" and have no understanding that, that is not the policeman's or their departments job, never has been. Sometimes one must repeat the facts a few times, as people are still being led astray by lies.

LukSkyFokker, missed the original post, as he came to falsely believe that this is anyway connected to the defund police movement, its purely another PR gimmick, in 4 years from now we'll be reading about this "court" story drama based on real events.....just like current court case of Broward Sheriff's Office Deputy Scot Peterson, they are making it a good show, but like every other police officer before him, he won't be convicted and won't lose any taxpayer benefits (the taxpayers are also paying his defense right now as well); his charges of "failure to act" is a law that exists to charge cops that stand-by and allow another cop to violate a citizens civil liberties, it is rarely applied in other cases, and has zero convictions when applied to non-civil liberties violations.
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/...0190605-v2rn5n4dzjbudjyrejucm4qviq-story.html

https://content.next.westlaw.com/Br...fault&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true

 

[jaF0]

Who is this BB?

 

[ll74]

well since people seem to have missed it, when they keep bringing up the police PR gimmick "to protect and serve" and have no understanding that, that is not the policeman's or their departments job, never has been. Sometimes one must repeat the facts a few times, as people are still being led astray by lies.

When they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they didn't hear you.

 

[butters]

Who is this BB?

not anyone worth reading

 

[LukSkyFokker]

It's challenging LittleDickSee for False Equivalence Queen.

 

[dmonty]

When they disagree with you, that doesn't mean they didn't hear you.

Disagree with what the Police Departments own defense statements in multiple court cases, and the courts rulings confirming that they do indeed exist solely to take a report and not do anything else, for a taxpayers provided salary and benefits package?

Identify a single court case, where the police have not used this defense its a slogan not legal responsibility, or any court case that hasn't affirmed this.

I can spare you wasting your time, there are none.

Google: "The Public Duty Doctrine."

Here is just a list of major court cases, there are over 1,000 cases with far less notoriety but the same outcomes. the cops don't exist to protect you, your family or your community.
[1] Warren v. District of Columbia
[2] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services
[3] Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department
[4] Thurman v. City of Torrington,
[5] McKee v. City of Rockwall, Texas
[6] Castle Rock v. Gonzales,
[7] Freeman v. Ferguson
[8] Keane v. City of Chicago
[9] Morgan v. District of Columbia
[10] Calogrides v. City of Mobile
[11] Morris v. Musser
[12] Davidson v. City of Westminster
[13] Chapman v. City of Philadelphia
[14] Weutrich v. Delia
[15] Sapp v. City of Tallahassee
[16] Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville
[17] Silver v. City of Minneapolis
[18] Bowers v. DeVito
[19] Zinermon v. Burch
[20] South v. Maryland
[21] Hartzler v. City of San Jose
[22] Bell v Thompson
[23] Ford v. Town of Grafton
[24] Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice
[25] Susman v Los Angeles
Then there is NY's special laws - That NY law dictates unconstitutionally that carrying any weapon for self-defense is illegal.
[26] Riss v. City of New York
[27] Lozito v NYPD, CIty of New York