As the details of Tuesday's shooting in Texas continue to seep out, it becomes increasingly clear that this was more an avoidable atrocity than a senseless tragedy.
Contrary to the initial assertions of the Texas Department of Public Safety, DPS officials now maintain that not only did the Uvalde elementary school in question not have a school resource officer to confront the shooter but also that the surrounding officers failed to stop the shooter for over an hour.
From start to finish, the police on call appear to have violated nearly every best practice established in the post-Columbine era. Rather than charge the shooter, who had entered the school through an unlocked door and without encountering any authority, the surrounding law enforcement "fell back" for "cover." DPS Lt. Chris Olivarez justified allowing the lone shooter to open fire on unarmed children to CNN with the possibility that officers "could have been shot."
The police evidently turned their efforts to the parents begging them to save their children. Video shows that officers visibly armed with guns and tasers stopped parents from taking matters into their own hands. One video even shows an officer pinning a parent to the ground. One elementary school mother, Angeli Rose Gomez, told the Wall Street Journal that she was handcuffed by U.S. marshals for interfering in an active investigation. After she convinced local police to get the marshals to uncuff her, Gomez stormed the school and saved her two children.
From the local to the federal level, law enforcement's handling of the Uvalde shooting is nothing short of a scandal and one that should shut up all partisan bickering over gun laws and school safety. Sure, the Uvalde shooter might have had to purchase a high-powered firearm illegally as felons in Chicago do. And yes, multiple exit doors could have offset a single entrance. But here's a better idea: What if law enforcement, from the police on the front line to the prosecutors, were to enforce the existing laws before making new ones?
Conservatives correctly condemn the Soros prosecutors who have been turning many American cities into something out of El Salvador. Time and again, we discover that convicted killers, such as Sunday’s subway shooter in New York, already had dozens of arrests under their belt, only for progressive prosecutors to let them out so they could graduate from assault to murder. But this fault is hardly limited to woke district attorneys. Consider, for example, the culmination of the FBI’s frankly criminal handling of the Larry Nassar catastrophe.
Nassar, as you may recall, was the former USA Gymnastics team doctor convicted for, among other things, child pornography and the serial sexual assault of minors, including girls under 13. (Note: That’s what most people colloquially refer to as “child rape.”) Despite an inspector general report declaring that the FBI did indeed sit on the allegations brought to them against Nassar, as well as its falsification of statements made by key accuser McKayla Maroney, the Justice Department announced Tuesday that it would not issue a single criminal charge against the former FBI agents responsible.
This, of course, ignores the FBI’s utter incompetence related to mass shooters and bombers in particular. Although the Uvalde shooter seemed to have presented the sea of red flags that ought to have triggered his referral to law enforcement long before Tuesday, there is not yet any immediate indication that he was already known to authorities.
But in 2013, the FBI investigated Omar Mateen, the son of one of its informants, for his alleged terrorist ties. A year later, he shot up the Pulse nightclub in Florida, executing the deadliest anti-gay attack in the nation’s known history.
In 2014, the FBI was warned of Ahmad Khan Rahimi's possible terrorist ties. He went on to set off three bombs in New York and New Jersey, injuring 35 people.
In 2017, the FBI got a tip that a YouTube user named “Nikolas Cruz” posted, “Im going to be a professional school shooter." A year later, Cruz conducted the deadliest high school shooting in the nation's history.
To its exceedingly limited credit, the FBI can’t be blamed quite yet for dropping the ball in Texas. But even if it had known, what difference would it have made? By all available evidence, we can assume that it would still be up to the front line of law enforcement — that is, the fully armed Texas police — to actually enforce the law. Yet when presented with a lone gunman flagrantly violating the law, law enforcement armed with guns, ammunition, and proper protection decided to let the 10-year-olds fend for themselves.
Seriously, what the hell do we pay these people for? So before we resume our usual tribal warfare, can the public please realign for a moment and demand that existing laws be enforced?