Texas police want uvalde bodycam footage suppressed

Post by jjulius » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

emmelaich wrote: post #41

jjulius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat imme…

For a fair assessment, also read the interview with the police chief: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/uvalde-chief-pete-ar... In particular he did bring a radio but decided to remove it. Read the article for why.

Post by shkkmo » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

jjulius wrote: post #47

kube-system wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They may have attended training that generally suggests that approach, but police are not legally required to put themselves in harms way.

If you don't want to find yourself in harm's way, don't become a police officer. Legally required or not, they knew the risks when they signed up, they knew what they were trained to do, and then they... didn't.

Post by ALittleLight » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

giraffe_lady wrote: post #6

Arrath wrote: post #2

I think the 'weakness' of their response is plainly obvious. If criminals can find advantages in this footage, its an opportunity to overhaul training programs and response plans. The training and response was woefully inadequate for this crisis, after all. There should be no reasonable reality in which the release of this footage is suppressed. This is an undeniable tragedy, battening down the hatches and obstinatel…

They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. This is extremely at odds with how the police want to be perceived , and managing that contradiction is certainly their biggest concern right now. From that perspective it's easy to un…

Post by jjulius » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC

newaccount2021 wrote: post #40

jjulius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They maintained control with minimal personal risk to themselves. From a "policing realism" perspective that's exactly what police do. Preventing or ending any sort of crime or violence is optional at that point, and they opted not to. Absolutely untrue, and has been for decades. Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do, which is go in and eliminate the threat imme…

> Their hesitation to react and go in is the complete opposite of what they were trained to do trained to do, not compelled to do they won't be charged with a crime because they broke no law they probably won't be fired either because their union will sue and probably win if so they won't all be put on desk duty because the local govt cannot afford to hire replacement better-cops while also paying all of the worse-co…

Post by Arrath » Mon, Jun 13, 2022, 7:00 PM UTC

jjulius wrote: post #61

emmelaich wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a fair assessment, also read the interview with the police chief: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/06/09/uvalde-chief-pete-ar... In particular he did bring a radio but decided to remove it. Read the article for why.

>Thinking he was the first officer to arrive and wanting to waste no time, Arredondo believed that carrying the radios would slow him down. One had a whiplike antenna that would hit him as he ran. The other had a clip that Arredondo knew would cause it to fall off his tactical belt during a long run. There are children being shot and he's worried some radio antenna's gonna smack him as he ran, or that one might fall…