Some of the police officers went in and got their children.
There were shots fired outside the school and also at the school. He fired at people who were at the funeral home across the street when they came to check on him in because he crashed.
This schoolâs lockdown procedures are massively flawed.
EDIT:
I just realized @Californiagrown already said this
1 Like
Leave it to you to make excuses, trying to defend these cowards.
This is what I heard as well, but I havenât seen/heard anything to validate this. Iâm for holding people accountable, but not fabricating stories to make them seem worse than they are⊠So far this portion of the story sounds more fabricated than not. Feel free to prove me wrong though.
And they do.
âallegedlyâ
This is your most reliable source? Your Tango??
You do know what I mean by âvalidating a storyâ, right?
2 Likes
dude, welcome to every source sparkyo ever shares.
2 Likes
This case has been plagued with moving specifics of the event.
Unlike some, I am not put together to âput on trail, execute punishment, and then investigate.â So basically, I donât have an opinion.
3 Likes
It certainly would be nice to have some details that we can trust. How rare these are to come by with todayâs mainstream media standards.
1 Like
The Uvalde PD not cooperating with investigators I think is more at fault than the MSM for not being able to discern what is truth here.
3 Likes
This didnât happen for a few days after the incident. Details like âthe shooter being encountered outside of the school by securityâ (which arenât true) were perpetuated by MSM. I agree that Uvalde PD bares some responsibility for misinformation, but I wouldnât put all the blame on them either.
1 Like
Competitive MSM plus our demand for instantaneous news reporting is the root of misinformation. If there wasnât vast money $ in news reporting, maybe they would allow a complete investigation to be conducted, instead of rushing to be the first to âBreaking Newsâ
All we got was âBroken Newsâ
2 Likes
I donât even blame this on the MSM. It was a breaking story, and they made the assumption that the Uvalde police were telling them the truth on this. The investigation comes later. When a story breaks, you have to report the first-hand accounts, and in this case, thatâs what we got from Uvalde PD. The fact that they very clearly lied is not MSMâs fault.
This is an inherent problem with reporting breaking news in the first place: sometimes people lie, sometimes information is relayed inaccurately. But that doesnât mean it shouldnât be reported immediately. This was a BIG DEAL. Even if they reported some initial details that turned out to be inaccurate, itâs fine. You can always correct those things later. But MSM absolutely had a responsibility to report this incident with as much detail as they possibly could, immediately.
1 Like
That and people like to hear scary stories. The media gives out what the average consumer wants.
I think a lot of average consumers want these scary (but very unlikely) stories. When I say unlikely, I get there are several big events a year, but with 330 million people statistically your chances of winning the lottery is better than being a victim of a mass shooting.
1 Like
I have lived most of my life with absolutely no way of getting immediate news. I would rather wait until the investigation was complete and and then issue the news. Instead I get to have hourly, or minute to minute updates of some mystery conclusion, until it becomes another mystery conclusion, and then a brand new mystery conclusion, and so on, and so onâŠ
And this is what we will continue getting as long as there is $$$$$$$ in 24/7 news.
I remember those times. The only reason we had no or very limited immediate news is the lack of technology. Nothing special about the generations involved, not in that regard anyway.
Things arenât going back to the way they used to be. Citizen-reporters with cellphones and social media will break the news no matter what any professional media may or may not do. This brings journalistic ethics into play here. Is it more ethical to wait on the story before reporting anything or is it better to report what is known as well as it can be, as soon as possible?
Last century and earlier Iâd argue the former is more ethical. Today I believe the latter, while highly flawed, is more ethical.
To take it even further, there are whack-jobâs posing as community news organizations with real audiences. Weâve got one particularly mentally disturbed person with a scanner and a facebook account who has been on the actual news for his âreportingâ antics. His personal account is rather sad, with no friends or followers and lots of disturbed posts. His Local Scanner Police and Emergency Alerts facebook page has tens of thousands of followers.
Heâs well-known to dramatically embellish stories and get all kinds of facts wrong, but that doesnât stop him from listening to the scanner and making social media posts. His status as a known local nutjob doesnât stop people from taking his BS reporting at face value, either.
Iâve even been the subject of one of his fantasy posts working bar security. A non-violent but loud group of knuckleheads in the parking lot got the cops called to the bar by the neighbors. End of story, until someone asks me about the massive brawl that took place on my shift with bats, knives and guns that they learned about from our local nutjobâs facebook page.
Few can complain about the state of modern media more than I can, but I think we have to live with ASAP, real-time reporting and all of its flaws.
Or they could have used a key. Which they eventually did.
Theyâd have to be faster with a key than anyone Iâve ever seen, to avoid spending significant time in the doorway.
With a shield.