On the menu today: Apparently, almost everything authorities told the public in the immediate aftermath of the Uvalde elementary-school shooting was wrong — and perhaps a reason this atrocity carried such an unbearably high cost in innocent lives was that the police delayed confronting the gunman, which contradicts the hard-learned lessons of Columbine and other mass shootings. Meanwhile, here in Houston, a rally to urge the mayor to cancel the NRA convention is quieter than expected and the mayor offered a spectacularly unrealistic proposal to delay the convention a few weeks; and finally, for the slow learners out there, a lesson on who actually sets the policies on guns when a president or former president is in a building.
Stunning Revelations from Uvalde
Quite suddenly, the horrific story of the Uvalde elementary-school shooting has shifted from questions about the gunman — why no one thought to report his strange and menacing behavior to police, and how he managed to obtain several thousand dollars’ worth of weaponry and ammunition — to just what happened when he entered the school. The official accounts from authorities have changed quickly. Apparently, almost everything we were told by law-enforcement authorities in the immediate aftermath of the shooting was inaccurate, and this is now a story about police showing up to an ongoing school shooting, taking fire, retreating, and then waiting an hour for backup.
The revised account of events is shocking:
A gunman who killed 19 children and two teachers at a South Texas elementary school walked unopposed onto school grounds, state law enforcement officials said Thursday — and once he was inside, it took police an hour to stop him. . . .
“He was not confronted by anybody,” Victor Escalon, a DPS official, said during a press conference Thursday. The agency is leading the investigation into the shooting along with Uvalde police.
He offered new details about the timeline of the law enforcement response Thursday, saying local police officers were the first to arrive at the school — about four minutes after the gunman entered — but had to fall back after taking gunfire. Officers tried to negotiate with the shooter, he said, but the man “did not respond.”
Escalon said most of the gunfire from the shooter occurred when he first entered the school but added that he continued to fire shots — some at police — as officers attempted to make contact.
It took officers an hour to kill the gunman once he was inside as law enforcement officers called “everyone that’s in the area” to help, then waited for “specialty equipment” and body armor and organized a tactical team to reenter the school, Escalon said.
Asked whether officers should have gone in sooner, Escalon said, “That’s a tough question. . . . I don’t have enough information to answer that question yet.”
Let me help you with that, Texas Department of Public Safety South Regional Director Escalon: Yes, officers should have gone in sooner. When elementary-school children are being shot or at risk of being shot by a crazed gunman, an armed police officer is obligated to intervene. That is their job. They take an oath to serve and protect. If you’re not willing to confront an ongoing threat in a circumstance like that, why did you become a cop?
Texas Department of Public Safety lieutenant Chris Olivarez appeared on CNN Thursday with Wolf Blitzer, and he offered this account:
Olivarez: So, what we do know, Wolf, is that there was multiple officers who arrived on scene. There were three officers that arrived, that made entry at one of the entrances, where the gunman actually made entrance to. We had other — another four officers who made entry at one of the other entrances to the school. So, there were officers inside that school. As they were taking gunfire, they were also calling in for reinforcement, backup, tactical teams, snipers — any additional personnel that could arrive to assist, to not only deal with the situation, but also to assist in evacuating students and teachers. At that time, that’s when a U.S. Border Patrol tactical officer arrived, also with a Zapata County sheriff’s deputy, as well as two additional Uvalde police department officers, were able to go into that classroom with a ballistic shield as cover. And of course, we know, one of those officers, an agent actually, was shot, was grazed on top of the head. But they were able to shoot and kill the suspect. And preserve any other life. We know that there was other injured children in that classroom that they were able to save as well, and get them to cover. . . .
Blitzer: But don’t current best practices, don’t they call for officers to disable a shooter as quickly as possible, regardless of how many officers are actually on site?
Olivarez: Correct. The active-shooter situation, you want to stop the killing, you want to preserve life, but also one thing that — of course, the American people need to understand — that officers are making entry into this building. They do not know where the gunman is. They are hearing gunshots. They are receiving gunshots. At that point, if they proceeded any further not knowing where the suspect was at, they could’ve been shot, they could’ve been killed, and that point, that gunman would have had an opportunity to kill other people inside that school. So they were able to contain that gunman inside that classroom, so that he was not able to any other portion of the classroom to commit any other killings.
But in that account, there were seven police officers on the scene, and they didn’t confront the shooter, even though they knew children were at risk of getting killed.
Meanwhile, Here in Houston . . .
The rally in front of City Hall Thursday afternoon to persuade Houston mayor Sylvester Turner to cancel the NRA convention generated a less-than-overwhelming turnout. I counted about a dozen attendees, establishing a roughly two-protesters-to-every-media-photographer ratio.
I could mock these protesters for holding a position that effectively opposes both the First and Second Amendments, but I suppose they deserve credit for coming out in the 90-degree heat and standing up for what they believe in, as guaranteed by that U.S. Constitution that they’re still somewhat iffy on. Still, the meager turnout should dissuade them of the notion that the average Houston resident is outraged that the city is hosting this year’s NRA convention.
On Wednesday, Turner laid out why the convention could not be canceled: “That convention has been on the books for more than two years. It is a contractual arrangement, and so we simply cannot cancel a conference or convention because we may not agree with the subject matter. We simply can’t do that. That would subject the city to a number of lawsuits.”
The George R. Brown Convention Center is managed by the Houston First Corporation, a “local government corporation” which is described as a “quasi-governmental entity that’s also a nonprofit organization able to receive and spend both taxpayer funds and private donations in order get things done that benefit the public.” The mayor appoints the CEO and members of the board of directors of that “local government corporation.” As noted yesterday, even pro-gun-control big-city mayors usually grin and bear it when tens of millions of dollars from visiting NRA members is on the line — and successfully hosting an NRA convention is sometimes seen as a dress rehearsal for hosting a major party convention. Charlotte, N.C., hosted the NRA convention in 2010, and in February 2011, the Democratic National Committee selected that city to host the 2012 Democratic National Convention.
By Thursday, Turner did call for the NRA to voluntarily postpone the convention for one or two weeks, an unrealistic proposal which would require all of the just-unpacked displays by several hundred exhibitors to be repacked and that would require the George Brown Convention Center to bump the already-booked 2022 Rotary International Convention, the Hydrogen Technology Conference & Expo, or the Texas State Republican Convention.
You will hear a lot about the NRA’s supposed hypocrisy, because firearms are not allowed in the convention center’s General Assembly Hall during tomorrow’s speeches. Personal firearms may be carried in the larger convention center in accordance with Texas law, but with former president Trump speaking, security for the assembly hall is managed by the U.S. Secret Service. This means everyone entering the hall will go through the magnetometers, and bags will be searched. All firearms, firearm accessories, and knives are prohibited, along with laser lights and pointers; mace or pepper spray; and noisemakers such as air horns, whistles, drums, bullhorns, etc. If you want a president or former president to speak at your convention, you have to play by the Secret Service’s rules.
ADDENDUM: As noted yesterday, everyone calling for Congress to take action on gun-control legislation immediately should keep in mind that the House and Senate are now in recess until the second week of June. No one made Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi make that decision.