The passionate and mixed feeling over the response by the police before and after the events that happened in Uvalde Texas are a continuing and overwhelming presence two weeks after it happened likely not disappearing from the public eye for a while. The public outcry over whether or not this could have been prevented, looms heavy over the entire nation and even the world itself.
Recently the United States Attorney General Merrick Garland announced that the Department of Justices was forming a team to investigate the circumstances behind the police response in Uvalde after public perception deemed it inadequate. The investigation of the Uvalde shooting which resulted in the death of 19 children and 2 teachers will have its findings made public. Details behind the oncoming investigation show that the Department of Justice will question local officials and witnesses in order to make its determination of the facts.
Merrick Garland in a statement to reporters in a closed door meeting said, "Nothing that these folks can do, can undo the terrible tragedy that occurred and that we are just heartbroken about, but we can assess what happened and we can make recommendations for the future."
The creator of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's active shooter protocol, Katherine Schweit made clear that the response by Uvalde police in the handling of the incident while there was an active shooter at Robb Elementary was not by the standards as she outlined in her response protocol.
As part of a statement Katherine said, "That the law enforcement was there for an hour on the other side of a wall is just unheard of." Clarifying how the response from police should be in an instance where there is a shooter she said, "Let me qualify a little bit and just say, the law enforcement training that the FBI is pushing out and has pushed out for years requires that when there is active shooting underway, even if it's a single officer, you must pursue to the sound of the shooting or where you believe the shooter is."
Public outcry over the incident continues, as some argue that police have no duty to protect even in the case of the Uvalde shooting and from a legal stand-point they may be correct. Though their training may imply their responsibility to protect and serve the public from a legal perspective the police have no real duty to fill that responsibility.
Philip Lyons Dean of the College of Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University said in regard to the Supreme court's opinion of the police's 'duty' to protect and serve, The Supreme Court said that there’s generally no duty that exists to protect individual members of the public." In the court of public opinion the police's response to the shooting in Uvalde has been dramatic with many feeling the police failed in their approach and serve to only enforce law rather than sustain the stability and health of the people.
The investigation headed by the DOJ will serve to give some answer to whether or not the police improperly handled the situation as a whole.
Share This Post On
0 comments
Leave a comment
You need to login to leave a comment. Log-in
