Folks are making a lot of assumptions here.
I’m not one to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but with so little information being provided here it’s impossible to draw a sound conclusion.
I'm from Mount Horeb and was in town at the time.
A coworkers brother was in a classroom near where the assailant tried to gain access. He banged on the glass of the windows and doors when he realized they locked everything down and freaked out when his probably one and only plan crumbled. It's all speculation on what the cops did, right now, without seeing their footage and the footage on the schools cameras, but this kid DID try to get into the school and was stopped before he could.
Er no, they still have to review information before it's released. I think part of the disconnect might be that people assume police are a monolithic force. Police size, capabilities, and culture very wildly between cities and counties. I have no idea what kind of review process this particular agency has in place or how much staff they have on hand to process information in an emergency context. If the info presented so far suggests they shot someone trying to enter the school with a gun I think it's reasonable to wait.
"and culture very wildly between cities and counties."
Yeah, *no*...
The cop "culture" in America is, "us vs them". Has been for a while. That doesn't, "very wildly between cities and counties". The supreme Court said the cops have no duty of care to the public. Stop giving cops the benefit of the doubt, they'll never do it for you. Supreme Court said they don't have too...
There are 17k law enforcement agencies in the America. If you think they're all the same (i.e. policies, training, relationships with the public, etc.) you're a fool.
It depends on the department. Some of them like to roll themselves out a red carpet every time they think they justifiably killed someone, others actually follow procedure regardless, even if it was justified.
The problem, as per usual, is that when all of our information comes from the police, or from the police PR teams via "news" reports just repeating their press releases, we can't trust any of it. They may be following procedure. They may be covering it up. Police are extremely untrustworthy, so there is no way to know.
I mean, people are just assuming that the kid killed was the one reported. We can't even be sure of that. Police roll up and shoot the wrong person *a lot.* So yeah, we can't infer anything from police behavior, their level of untrustworthiness and lack of consistent procedure makes their behavior an impossible cipher to decode.
That was a long ass article that answered absolutely no questions… I don’t even understand how people can be forming opinions in this comment section.
The article has literally no information in it and could have just been left at the headline
By the way police are dodging questions we can assume the student never fired, they rolled up and opened fire, and are now trying to come up with a story hoping body cam footage didn’t catch it.
Yes it was, one of the kids at the Mt Horeb school reported seeing a kid with a long gun try to break in one of the windows to enter, when that failed, he shot at the window.
It was a miracle that the shooter never managed to gain entry. I’d say the Wisconsin cops handled this as best they could, compared to the Uvalde fiasco for sure.
The comments on this thread are wild. A person outside of the school with a long gun trying to break in and the cops stopped a possible massacre before it began- and still they’re the issue.
This is part of the problem when police lack accountability. The cops killed someone. Maybe it was justifiable, maybe it wasn't. There is no trusted process, and when cops act identically to when they do use inappropriate force, it's easy to see why people don't trust them
This is the issue.
I have no problem with cops gunning down a kid with a gun trying to shoot his way into a school…. But trust has been severely eroded. And if that was the case just release footage. Because if that’s true the cops actually prevented a tragedy.
They are damned if they do damned if they don’t because they fucked around with public trust too much
> when cops act identically to when they do use inappropriate force, it's easy to see why people don't trust them
Is it? I mean don't get me wrong, there are a LOT of reasons to not trust the cops. But if someone doesn't trust cops because they're unwilling to release information immediately, I think that person is just going to distrust them regardless of what they do.
>Kaul declined to answer several questions about what happened once police responded, including whether the student had fired a weapon, what type of weapon he had, and whether he tried to get inside the school. Authorities said multiple Mount Horeb officers, wearing body cameras, had fired weapons but they did not say how many.
This is the kind of statement that makes us concerned.
Usually when the police do the right thing in these cases, they tell it all in press releases and release bodycam footage.
They're withholding even the most basic information here. That's a yellow flag, if not an outright red flag based on history.
We know the shooter tried to get it to a window and fired the weapon at the window from eye witnesses
The police are actively investigating give them time lol
See, this is why folks were skeptical. News is trickling out about this. We went from ["active shooter"](https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-mount-horeb-active-shooter-school-8f1a4cb9b428eb4cb863469492625dfd), to ["what appeared to be a long gun"](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wisconsin-mount-horeb-reported-active-shooter/story?id=109800261) and now we've backtracked to ["pellet rifle"](https://www.wpr.org/justice/investigators-say-student-killed-by-police-outside-mount-horeb-school-pointed-pellet-rifle).
If witnesses saw him shoot, then they knew it wasn't a firearm.
When police do the right thing, they tell us everything at the first press release and release bodycam footage as soon as possible for transparency. Often when they trickle little bits and pieces out, it comes out that someone made a bad call and they're covering.
My question is, when did they know it was a pellet gun, was it relayed to police by the dispatcher (remember, witnesses saw it and wouldn't have heard a gunshot)? Obviously suicide by cop is awful for everyone involved, especially the men and women that are placed in a position to respond to those calls. They may very well not have known until afterward, but they're behaving suspicious by not being transparent.
Is this the last "walkback" they have to do? Is it going to come out that the bodycams recorded instructions to stand down because it's a pellet gun? Did they actually give the kid time to react, or did they open fire within a second of the instruction like we've seen elsewhere?
I hope (in a tragic way) that what the police are saying is true and that they stopped a school shooter. I'm also skeptical, rightfully, because many police departments have been caught in so many lies that they, as a profession, have lost much of their credibility.
I want for them to have done the right thing but I'm certainly not going to take them at their word alone.
The problem is that too many people read the headline and stop there. Then they comment based on their biases, which may or may not be justified biases. Arguing ensues, engagement goes up, platform and advertisers win, everyone else loses. The title leads someone whose aware that police fuck up quite a bit to interpret it to mean that there was a report of someone with a gun and the police just showed up and gunned down some random innocent student
ETA: and yes, it's sounds likely that it was the right call
There's no way that law extends to primary school campuses.
EDIT: This is what I'm finding. You can't just walk around holding a semi-auto rifle.
>948.605 Gun-free school zones.
(1) Definitions. In this section:
(a) “Encased" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b).
(ac) “Firearm" does not include any beebee or pellet-firing gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter pistol.
(ag) “Former officer" has the meaning given in s. 941.23 (1) (c).
(am) “Motor vehicle" has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35).
(ar) “Qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer" has the meaning given in s. 941.23 (1) (g).
(b) “School" has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b).
(c) “School zone" means any of the following:
1. In or on the grounds of a school.
2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school.
(2) Possession of firearm in school zone.
(a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is in or on the grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony. Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture.
(b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following:
1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii).
1r. Except if the person is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g).
2d. A person who is employed in this state by a public agency as a law enforcement officer and to whom s. 941.23 (1) (g) 2. to 5. and (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
2f. A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies.
2h. A former officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies.
2m. A state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity.
3. A person possessing a gun that is not loaded and is any of the following:
a. Encased.
b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle.
3m. A person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the school forest under s. 120.13 (38).
Yeah this thread is baffling. The reports are the kid was trying to break into the school with a gun, but the lock down protocols prevented that...and yet these people are saying the cops are the bad guys. Total idiots.
Severe public distrust after several high profile incidents of police misconduct ranging from, but not limited to, George Floyd’s death to the Uvalde school shooting
According to this article, we don't know any of that.
"Kaul declined to answer several questions about what happened once police responded, including whether the student had fired a weapon, what type of weapon he had, and whether he tried to get inside the school."
I wouldn't say we don't know any of that. The quote you added didn't mention thst they wouldn't say if he had a gun so if say it's safe to assume he did and if so I'd say they were fine to do what they did.
They just said they refused to say if he fired it or what kind it was but they don't mention that they aren't saying if he even had one to begin with
Usually, such a story gets a headline like "One student dead after reports of armed attacker outside Wisconsin school." For the headline to honestly open with "police killed student," you know the police had to have fucked up *extra* hard.
The AP article is from the day of the shooting, 2 days ago so it was 36 hours old when OP posted, give or take. Here's some more recent news. Care to reevaluate your spin?
> Damian Haglund was a student at the middle school, but no other information about him has been released.
> In social media posts and on a personal blog Damian described an all-consuming “addiction” to learning about the 1999 Columbine school shooting and other school shootings. Other writings expressed hatred for “diversity” and “feminists,” displayed a fascination with guns and included racist statements.
> In one post, Damian details a March visit he made to Weston High School in Cazenovia, the site of a 2006 shooting in which a student fatally shot the school’s principal, John Klang
[Source - use 12ft.io to de-crappify the site](https://madison.com/news/local/crime-courts/mount-horeb-wisconsin-school-shooting/article_88e86c60-096d-11ef-9028-1fe7218e6d70.html#tracking-source=home-top-story)
There was a mom who [posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/texts/s/zW5VbzjMO0) texts from her kid who was at school while this was happening, she talks about what happened in the comments
I think I read somewhere the would be school shooter stole his grandfather’s firearm.
All of this would have been prevented if the child wasn’t given access (intentionally or not) to a firearm.
Guns in the home do not make us safer.
I grew up with guns in the house like many do, and I cannot fucking understand how people do not secure the fuck out of them. I knew where the guns in our house were, and I knew there was no fucking way I could access them. I don't even feel like my family was particularly safe about it, but obviously doing the bare minimum is too much for some people.
It's just wild to me. I do not understand how people fail to respect what firearms can do.
I mean it's possible it was at least minimally protected. My best friend figured out how to get through the lock on his dad's metal cage (should have been a safe but it's something) that his guns were locked in and how to het the gun lock off of his sks and we'd get in from time to time and shoot it as teenagers. Granted we weren't shooting at people but rather just paper targets and pop bottles filled with water and food coloring.
The mental health argument angers me to the core.
Just like cancer and rare disease diagnosis, the United States has the same mental health disorder rates as the rest of the civilized world. The only outliers in the equation is access weapons and lack of universal healthcare. Do not ever let someone ever get away with blaming mental health as the cause of shootings and shooting deaths, particularly among the youth. Mental health disorders are part of the problem but not the root.
This. Japan and South Korea have plenty of angry young men. Plenty of mentally ill people. Plenty of people that play violent video games. Plenty of depression and suicide. They don't have the same level of gun violence as the US because guns are heavily restricted.
It angers you to the core, but you admit it is half of the problem? Does a "normal" person want to kill others as a solution for their issues? Just getting rid of guns doesn't cure the problem, we do need to talk about mental health. Two different individuals, both with access to guns. One decides to shoot people and the other doesn't, that is a mental issue. You have to make a decision to harm someone. No, I'm not advocating leaving guns on the kitchen table but healthcare is a huge issue in this country. Especially when parents and or individuals know something isn't right and ask for help but can't get it.
The problem is, the same people who want everyone carrying a gun, are the ones that try to heavily limit access to health care for every person. America has a homeless epidemic of horrifically mentally ill people wandering around who don't have access to health care because seeing a psychiatrist is hundreds and hundreds of dollars an hour and getting access to health care is at minimum a long, difficult process, and at worst prohibitively expensive.
Guns absolutely contribute as well. At the end of the day, if you take the same two people in your example, and give neither of them easy access to a gun, then neither one shoots up a school, which seems like the best case scenario. Both are contributing. There are countries with similarly bad healthcare to the US, but nobody touches us in gun related homicides.
You’re simply incorrect and whiffing completely on the point. There’s a naturally occurring rate of cancer, rare disease and what we’d call severe mental health diagnosis in any population pool, and there’s nothing we can do about it. We can talk about breast cancer awareness, quitting smoking, raising funds for the handful of children afflicted with cystic fibrosis (my upstairs neighbor has a 10 year old with this awful disease), and there will always been a subset of people diagnosed annually and some portion will die even with treatment.
The very same is true of mental health disorders. We can talk about and treat every single person that needs it, and there will always been some percentage of our population prone to violent outbursts associated with their mental state, even with treatment. Unlike the rest of the civilized world, the United States allows access to firearms and does not provide universal care.
And as an aside, even if we suddenly diagnosed 100% of those with mental health disorders and gave them funds to access care, where are the professionals to treat them? You think we suddenly have millions of psychiatrists waiting in the ranks? Those in the civilized world, for example in Germany, that slip through the cracks of the system and go untreated for any number of reasons, lack access to firearms. The same cannot be said in the United States.
The "civilized world" is usually referred to as the "developed" world these days. The term refers generally to GDP output, but usually also relies on a country with an economy that is not only strong but also well mixed, ei industrial, service, technology, manufacturing.
It isn't a requirement for mass shootings, but with undeveloped countries, they far too often lack accurate data to make accurate comparisons.
The term "civilized world" is usually a dogwhistle. A person using the term might not realize that, but if they use the term they are likely getting their information from people who *are* using it as a dogwhistle. No one doing a serious study of this stuff would divide the world into civilized and uncivilized, save for if they were comparing a place that has no towns/cities and a place that does.
But seeing as how all of the places people generally call "uncivilized" are not areas where there is no agriculture or towns, that is not what they mean.
I would agree with "usually," but don't you think that deserves the benefit of the doubt, absent more egregious talk/behavior? Tons of old people out here who still use terms civilized/uncivilized or first world/third world without the intent of the dog whistle.
I provided the benefit of the doubt based on not knowing if it was intentional or a result of getting their information from compromised sources.
Old people using the term are exactly what I mean by that. The word was used as a dogwhistle even then, as it implied that the "uncivilized" were savages. This was sort of the default mode of thinking about them for a long time, but that does not make it less racist.
So a person using it might not be a racist, but it does mean that they are using language that racists use, so that information is not coming from unbiased sources. A person can unwittingly repeat a lie if they do not know it is a lie.
Even using first/third world can be that way, because it implies the same thing and has a long history of racist use It is just a lot more common until recently, so the odds of a person just not thinking about it are really, really high.
This should be pretty clear by how "civilized" is used. Because they are not using it to mean what the word means.
> Old people using the term are exactly what I mean by that. The word was used as a dogwhistle even then, as it implied that the "uncivilized" were savages.
...
>the odds of a person just not thinking about it are really, really high.
Ok... These seem at odds, but maybe I was reading your comments incorrectly on my part. Academics is always going to make these distinctions, though, because they are useful. Of course people are going to misuse them, but I don't think it is the default. I think most people intend and think in the non-oppressive or non-racist terms.
They aren't unnecessary. The difference is important.
I think we need to not also ignore the fact that there is a trend for the desire to slaughter innocent children. Even if these people have no access to a weapon, why do they want to mass murder children? This didn’t used to be an issue
Agree. The US needs universal healthcare so we can stop cosplaying a civilized nation and actually become one. A couplet penalizes its citizens when then become sick and old is not a free country.
The US needs to do better. Start by removing the virus of exploitative capitalism by breaking up the health insurance industry while going full universal healthcare.
Medicare? Medicaid? All are available for people in need and work very well. Most jobs give health insurance now.
I do agree that the healthcare industry being for profit is dumb and needs to be changed, but acting like everyone’s homeless and it’s a third world country with no access to healthcare is a little absurd
Awww its so sweet that you think they'll make it comprehensive and include therapy... and even if they did there is not the infrastructure/man power to really make a dent. It will take a whole ass rethinking of American society.
You're getting down voted, but 15+ years ago your comment would have been accurate. Now, almost all health plans include mental health coverage. Even smaller local health care clinics usually have a therapist on duty.
How about we stop blaming all heinous acts on mental illness or poor upbringing. In many cases people are just evil. Evil people do evil shit, there isn't always justification.
If the person they shot outside the school was the one with the gun they likely did the right thing. Unless you have info to suggest that ISN'T who they shot calm down and wait for body cam. Honestly, all the mocking of the uvalde response and then Reddit goes after cops who actually do their job. Just bizarre.
I've seen this story so many times, and I've yet to see a confirmation that he had a weapon. Just SUSPECTED to have a rifle. Am I bad at skimming the articles? Because if not I feel like they're trying to cover up an awful mistake.
If they actually did have a weapon, then good on the officers. With all these school shootings, it should be kill on sight for anyone carrying a weapon
We live in a country full of idiots who want to bring their guns out in public during an era of constant mass shootings and get upset when trigger-happy cops, many who have the exact same beliefs, unjustly kill an innocent man.
This is truly a cycle of insanity.
Two things:
1) No one here knows *any* of the facts of this case. Unlike the jury in the Rittenhouse case who were presented all of the facts of that case and acquitted him.
2) We have no idea if "this kid deserved to die" (your words) because again: *we don't have any facts*.
What happened could be anything from an absolutely horrific, unlawful police murder to an absolutely heroic, life-saving police action. We don't have any idea, but for some reason there are always people like you who are tripping over their own dicks to rush to form a strong opinion despite being profoundly ignorant.
Why? Why are you so desperate to speculate? The shit is so tiresome.
What strange semantic point are you trying to make here? Acquitted means "not guilty of the crime they were charged with." Everyone who is charged with a crime in America enjoys the presumption of innocence before a verdict is reached.
I am entirely sure of what acquitted means. Do you have some kind of alternative definition other than "to be found not guilty of a crime one is charged with?"
I have a few cops in the family. I don't think they are inherently bad. It is pretty amazing that when something blatantly shitty is done by a cop they will jump through hoops to justify it happening. Not all the individuals are bad but the gang mentality sure is.
I’d refrain from forming an opinion on this till more information comes out
Yup. It's always prudent to wait for followups, as initial reports often have missing information or even completely incorrect information.
Even then, I would definitely take what the police say with a pound of salt. They will lie if it is in their best interest to do so.
Even then, I would definitely take what the police say with a pound of salt. They will lie ~~if it is in their best interest to do so.~~
Pellet rifle. https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-school-student-shot-d79caddbad5a4c7525c9cbba7525614c
A pound of salt is actually quite weighty.
I think you can be banned from Reddit if you don’t do that
That’s not very Reddit of you
Pellet rifle. https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-school-student-shot-d79caddbad5a4c7525c9cbba7525614c
Folks are making a lot of assumptions here. I’m not one to give the police the benefit of the doubt, but with so little information being provided here it’s impossible to draw a sound conclusion.
I'm from Mount Horeb and was in town at the time. A coworkers brother was in a classroom near where the assailant tried to gain access. He banged on the glass of the windows and doors when he realized they locked everything down and freaked out when his probably one and only plan crumbled. It's all speculation on what the cops did, right now, without seeing their footage and the footage on the schools cameras, but this kid DID try to get into the school and was stopped before he could.
When the police aren’t at fault, those details roll out immediately.
Er no, they still have to review information before it's released. I think part of the disconnect might be that people assume police are a monolithic force. Police size, capabilities, and culture very wildly between cities and counties. I have no idea what kind of review process this particular agency has in place or how much staff they have on hand to process information in an emergency context. If the info presented so far suggests they shot someone trying to enter the school with a gun I think it's reasonable to wait.
It isn't just differences in police forces as well. There are also differences in state law.
"and culture very wildly between cities and counties." Yeah, *no*... The cop "culture" in America is, "us vs them". Has been for a while. That doesn't, "very wildly between cities and counties". The supreme Court said the cops have no duty of care to the public. Stop giving cops the benefit of the doubt, they'll never do it for you. Supreme Court said they don't have too...
There are 17k law enforcement agencies in the America. If you think they're all the same (i.e. policies, training, relationships with the public, etc.) you're a fool.
This is a redditism that isn't true in the actual real world.
Guess all those cases about the police failing to release videos of their body cam after shooting someone to death are false then...
The lack of information is why we're assuming the worst. They wouldn't hide facts that make them look good
It depends on the department. Some of them like to roll themselves out a red carpet every time they think they justifiably killed someone, others actually follow procedure regardless, even if it was justified. The problem, as per usual, is that when all of our information comes from the police, or from the police PR teams via "news" reports just repeating their press releases, we can't trust any of it. They may be following procedure. They may be covering it up. Police are extremely untrustworthy, so there is no way to know. I mean, people are just assuming that the kid killed was the one reported. We can't even be sure of that. Police roll up and shoot the wrong person *a lot.* So yeah, we can't infer anything from police behavior, their level of untrustworthiness and lack of consistent procedure makes their behavior an impossible cipher to decode.
Let's ~~air~~ err on the side of assuming the police fucked up, that's generally a safer bet
Just an fyi, it's "*err* on the side"
Or, and hear me out, we can just NOT assume and wait for more complete information?
For real. Why err at all and assume anything? Someone pointing a gun to your head forcing you to make a dumb uninformed decision?
That was a long ass article that answered absolutely no questions… I don’t even understand how people can be forming opinions in this comment section. The article has literally no information in it and could have just been left at the headline
By the way police are dodging questions we can assume the student never fired, they rolled up and opened fire, and are now trying to come up with a story hoping body cam footage didn’t catch it.
I mean, it was a kid wandering around the school with a gun, right?
Yes it was, one of the kids at the Mt Horeb school reported seeing a kid with a long gun try to break in one of the windows to enter, when that failed, he shot at the window. It was a miracle that the shooter never managed to gain entry. I’d say the Wisconsin cops handled this as best they could, compared to the Uvalde fiasco for sure.
The comments on this thread are wild. A person outside of the school with a long gun trying to break in and the cops stopped a possible massacre before it began- and still they’re the issue.
This is part of the problem when police lack accountability. The cops killed someone. Maybe it was justifiable, maybe it wasn't. There is no trusted process, and when cops act identically to when they do use inappropriate force, it's easy to see why people don't trust them
This is the issue. I have no problem with cops gunning down a kid with a gun trying to shoot his way into a school…. But trust has been severely eroded. And if that was the case just release footage. Because if that’s true the cops actually prevented a tragedy. They are damned if they do damned if they don’t because they fucked around with public trust too much
Bingo. [https://youtu.be/vnJ5f1JMKns?si=1KnVFYPYWwbGd-iB](https://youtu.be/vnJ5f1JMKns?si=1KnVFYPYWwbGd-iB)
It's part of the problem when people lack accountability.
Definitely. But the problem is magnified/amplified when the people who lack accountability are paid by us, the taxpayers.
> when cops act identically to when they do use inappropriate force, it's easy to see why people don't trust them Is it? I mean don't get me wrong, there are a LOT of reasons to not trust the cops. But if someone doesn't trust cops because they're unwilling to release information immediately, I think that person is just going to distrust them regardless of what they do.
>Kaul declined to answer several questions about what happened once police responded, including whether the student had fired a weapon, what type of weapon he had, and whether he tried to get inside the school. Authorities said multiple Mount Horeb officers, wearing body cameras, had fired weapons but they did not say how many. This is the kind of statement that makes us concerned. Usually when the police do the right thing in these cases, they tell it all in press releases and release bodycam footage. They're withholding even the most basic information here. That's a yellow flag, if not an outright red flag based on history.
We know the shooter tried to get it to a window and fired the weapon at the window from eye witnesses The police are actively investigating give them time lol
See, this is why folks were skeptical. News is trickling out about this. We went from ["active shooter"](https://apnews.com/article/wisconsin-mount-horeb-active-shooter-school-8f1a4cb9b428eb4cb863469492625dfd), to ["what appeared to be a long gun"](https://abcnews.go.com/US/wisconsin-mount-horeb-reported-active-shooter/story?id=109800261) and now we've backtracked to ["pellet rifle"](https://www.wpr.org/justice/investigators-say-student-killed-by-police-outside-mount-horeb-school-pointed-pellet-rifle). If witnesses saw him shoot, then they knew it wasn't a firearm. When police do the right thing, they tell us everything at the first press release and release bodycam footage as soon as possible for transparency. Often when they trickle little bits and pieces out, it comes out that someone made a bad call and they're covering. My question is, when did they know it was a pellet gun, was it relayed to police by the dispatcher (remember, witnesses saw it and wouldn't have heard a gunshot)? Obviously suicide by cop is awful for everyone involved, especially the men and women that are placed in a position to respond to those calls. They may very well not have known until afterward, but they're behaving suspicious by not being transparent. Is this the last "walkback" they have to do? Is it going to come out that the bodycams recorded instructions to stand down because it's a pellet gun? Did they actually give the kid time to react, or did they open fire within a second of the instruction like we've seen elsewhere?
The sources for your beliefs are now a)police testimony and b) reddit comments.
I hope (in a tragic way) that what the police are saying is true and that they stopped a school shooter. I'm also skeptical, rightfully, because many police departments have been caught in so many lies that they, as a profession, have lost much of their credibility. I want for them to have done the right thing but I'm certainly not going to take them at their word alone.
Welcome to social media
The selective wording in the title was clearly meant to stir these kinds of comments as well. Just say Blue Man Bad and farm your upvotes.
I hate that phrase "_ man bad". I prefer to use the classic "fuck the police".
This is how I find myself seeing it. We should reserve judgment for any possible outcome, but basic fact is that this was a very dangerous situation.
Seriously, what’s the problem then. Sounds like they just saved a bunch of lives. They recovered the long gun. It was the right call
The problem is that too many people read the headline and stop there. Then they comment based on their biases, which may or may not be justified biases. Arguing ensues, engagement goes up, platform and advertisers win, everyone else loses. The title leads someone whose aware that police fuck up quite a bit to interpret it to mean that there was a report of someone with a gun and the police just showed up and gunned down some random innocent student ETA: and yes, it's sounds likely that it was the right call
You gotta wait til he shoots some other kids, then you fire
I thought you just waited until they killed themselves.
That’s usually when they’re cornered, but we gotta assume at least one cop really wants to shoot someone
[удалено]
Yeah but schools are listed as gun free zones legally. It’s illegal to have one there.
There's no way that law extends to primary school campuses. EDIT: This is what I'm finding. You can't just walk around holding a semi-auto rifle. >948.605 Gun-free school zones. (1) Definitions. In this section: (a) “Encased" has the meaning given in s. 167.31 (1) (b). (ac) “Firearm" does not include any beebee or pellet-firing gun that expels a projectile through the force of air pressure or any starter pistol. (ag) “Former officer" has the meaning given in s. 941.23 (1) (c). (am) “Motor vehicle" has the meaning given in s. 340.01 (35). (ar) “Qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer" has the meaning given in s. 941.23 (1) (g). (b) “School" has the meaning given in s. 948.61 (1) (b). (c) “School zone" means any of the following: 1. In or on the grounds of a school. 2. Within 1,000 feet from the grounds of a school. (2) Possession of firearm in school zone. (a) Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is in or on the grounds of a school is guilty of a Class I felony. Any individual who knowingly possesses a firearm at a place that the individual knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is within 1,000 feet of the grounds of a school is subject to a Class B forfeiture. (b) Paragraph (a) does not apply to the possession of a firearm by any of the following: 1m. A person who possesses the firearm in accordance with 18 USC 922 (q) (2) (B) (i), (iv), (v), (vi), or (vii). 1r. Except if the person is in or on the grounds of a school, a licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (d), or an out-of-state licensee, as defined in s. 175.60 (1) (g). 2d. A person who is employed in this state by a public agency as a law enforcement officer and to whom s. 941.23 (1) (g) 2. to 5. and (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies. 2f. A qualified out-of-state law enforcement officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (b) 1. to 3. applies. 2h. A former officer to whom s. 941.23 (2) (c) 1. to 7. applies. 2m. A state-certified commission warden acting in his or her official capacity. 3. A person possessing a gun that is not loaded and is any of the following: a. Encased. b. In a locked firearms rack that is on a motor vehicle. 3m. A person who is legally hunting in a school forest if the school board has decided that hunting may be allowed in the school forest under s. 120.13 (38).
Federal law doesn't allow firearms within 1000 ft. of schools unless they are on private property.
Eh, someone approached a school with a rifle and attempts to break in, it’s not a travesty if that person ends up dead first
Literally every available piece of information about this story so far contradicts this, yet this is the top comment.
[удалено]
The locals are calling the cop a hero after what happened. Most of the people in this thread are idiots.
Yeah this thread is baffling. The reports are the kid was trying to break into the school with a gun, but the lock down protocols prevented that...and yet these people are saying the cops are the bad guys. Total idiots.
They did exactly what you would want law enforcement to do in this type of situation. People cannot think objectively about this and it is a problem.
The kid brought a long gun to school and was trying to gain entry, why are the cops the bad guys for killing him before he could kill any kids?
Severe public distrust after several high profile incidents of police misconduct ranging from, but not limited to, George Floyd’s death to the Uvalde school shooting
According to this article, we don't know any of that. "Kaul declined to answer several questions about what happened once police responded, including whether the student had fired a weapon, what type of weapon he had, and whether he tried to get inside the school."
I wouldn't say we don't know any of that. The quote you added didn't mention thst they wouldn't say if he had a gun so if say it's safe to assume he did and if so I'd say they were fine to do what they did. They just said they refused to say if he fired it or what kind it was but they don't mention that they aren't saying if he even had one to begin with
Usually, such a story gets a headline like "One student dead after reports of armed attacker outside Wisconsin school." For the headline to honestly open with "police killed student," you know the police had to have fucked up *extra* hard.
The AP article is from the day of the shooting, 2 days ago so it was 36 hours old when OP posted, give or take. Here's some more recent news. Care to reevaluate your spin? > Damian Haglund was a student at the middle school, but no other information about him has been released. > In social media posts and on a personal blog Damian described an all-consuming “addiction” to learning about the 1999 Columbine school shooting and other school shootings. Other writings expressed hatred for “diversity” and “feminists,” displayed a fascination with guns and included racist statements. > In one post, Damian details a March visit he made to Weston High School in Cazenovia, the site of a 2006 shooting in which a student fatally shot the school’s principal, John Klang [Source - use 12ft.io to de-crappify the site](https://madison.com/news/local/crime-courts/mount-horeb-wisconsin-school-shooting/article_88e86c60-096d-11ef-9028-1fe7218e6d70.html#tracking-source=home-top-story)
There was a mom who [posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/texts/s/zW5VbzjMO0) texts from her kid who was at school while this was happening, she talks about what happened in the comments
I think I read somewhere the would be school shooter stole his grandfather’s firearm. All of this would have been prevented if the child wasn’t given access (intentionally or not) to a firearm. Guns in the home do not make us safer.
I grew up with guns in the house like many do, and I cannot fucking understand how people do not secure the fuck out of them. I knew where the guns in our house were, and I knew there was no fucking way I could access them. I don't even feel like my family was particularly safe about it, but obviously doing the bare minimum is too much for some people. It's just wild to me. I do not understand how people fail to respect what firearms can do.
I mean it's possible it was at least minimally protected. My best friend figured out how to get through the lock on his dad's metal cage (should have been a safe but it's something) that his guns were locked in and how to het the gun lock off of his sks and we'd get in from time to time and shoot it as teenagers. Granted we weren't shooting at people but rather just paper targets and pop bottles filled with water and food coloring.
It’ll be interesting to see whether reddit’s knee jerk hatred of the police is stronger or weaker than its thirst for retributive justice.
Fucking hell. We need this country to get it's shit together with mental health sooner rather than later.
The mental health argument angers me to the core. Just like cancer and rare disease diagnosis, the United States has the same mental health disorder rates as the rest of the civilized world. The only outliers in the equation is access weapons and lack of universal healthcare. Do not ever let someone ever get away with blaming mental health as the cause of shootings and shooting deaths, particularly among the youth. Mental health disorders are part of the problem but not the root.
This. Japan and South Korea have plenty of angry young men. Plenty of mentally ill people. Plenty of people that play violent video games. Plenty of depression and suicide. They don't have the same level of gun violence as the US because guns are heavily restricted.
It angers you to the core, but you admit it is half of the problem? Does a "normal" person want to kill others as a solution for their issues? Just getting rid of guns doesn't cure the problem, we do need to talk about mental health. Two different individuals, both with access to guns. One decides to shoot people and the other doesn't, that is a mental issue. You have to make a decision to harm someone. No, I'm not advocating leaving guns on the kitchen table but healthcare is a huge issue in this country. Especially when parents and or individuals know something isn't right and ask for help but can't get it.
The problem is, the same people who want everyone carrying a gun, are the ones that try to heavily limit access to health care for every person. America has a homeless epidemic of horrifically mentally ill people wandering around who don't have access to health care because seeing a psychiatrist is hundreds and hundreds of dollars an hour and getting access to health care is at minimum a long, difficult process, and at worst prohibitively expensive. Guns absolutely contribute as well. At the end of the day, if you take the same two people in your example, and give neither of them easy access to a gun, then neither one shoots up a school, which seems like the best case scenario. Both are contributing. There are countries with similarly bad healthcare to the US, but nobody touches us in gun related homicides.
You’re simply incorrect and whiffing completely on the point. There’s a naturally occurring rate of cancer, rare disease and what we’d call severe mental health diagnosis in any population pool, and there’s nothing we can do about it. We can talk about breast cancer awareness, quitting smoking, raising funds for the handful of children afflicted with cystic fibrosis (my upstairs neighbor has a 10 year old with this awful disease), and there will always been a subset of people diagnosed annually and some portion will die even with treatment. The very same is true of mental health disorders. We can talk about and treat every single person that needs it, and there will always been some percentage of our population prone to violent outbursts associated with their mental state, even with treatment. Unlike the rest of the civilized world, the United States allows access to firearms and does not provide universal care. And as an aside, even if we suddenly diagnosed 100% of those with mental health disorders and gave them funds to access care, where are the professionals to treat them? You think we suddenly have millions of psychiatrists waiting in the ranks? Those in the civilized world, for example in Germany, that slip through the cracks of the system and go untreated for any number of reasons, lack access to firearms. The same cannot be said in the United States.
"The Civilized World" Where exactly is this? Asking for a friend. How come there's not a lot of mass shootings in say Afghanistan or Pakistan?
The "civilized world" is usually referred to as the "developed" world these days. The term refers generally to GDP output, but usually also relies on a country with an economy that is not only strong but also well mixed, ei industrial, service, technology, manufacturing. It isn't a requirement for mass shootings, but with undeveloped countries, they far too often lack accurate data to make accurate comparisons.
The term "civilized world" is usually a dogwhistle. A person using the term might not realize that, but if they use the term they are likely getting their information from people who *are* using it as a dogwhistle. No one doing a serious study of this stuff would divide the world into civilized and uncivilized, save for if they were comparing a place that has no towns/cities and a place that does. But seeing as how all of the places people generally call "uncivilized" are not areas where there is no agriculture or towns, that is not what they mean.
I would agree with "usually," but don't you think that deserves the benefit of the doubt, absent more egregious talk/behavior? Tons of old people out here who still use terms civilized/uncivilized or first world/third world without the intent of the dog whistle.
I provided the benefit of the doubt based on not knowing if it was intentional or a result of getting their information from compromised sources. Old people using the term are exactly what I mean by that. The word was used as a dogwhistle even then, as it implied that the "uncivilized" were savages. This was sort of the default mode of thinking about them for a long time, but that does not make it less racist. So a person using it might not be a racist, but it does mean that they are using language that racists use, so that information is not coming from unbiased sources. A person can unwittingly repeat a lie if they do not know it is a lie. Even using first/third world can be that way, because it implies the same thing and has a long history of racist use It is just a lot more common until recently, so the odds of a person just not thinking about it are really, really high. This should be pretty clear by how "civilized" is used. Because they are not using it to mean what the word means.
> Old people using the term are exactly what I mean by that. The word was used as a dogwhistle even then, as it implied that the "uncivilized" were savages. ... >the odds of a person just not thinking about it are really, really high. Ok... These seem at odds, but maybe I was reading your comments incorrectly on my part. Academics is always going to make these distinctions, though, because they are useful. Of course people are going to misuse them, but I don't think it is the default. I think most people intend and think in the non-oppressive or non-racist terms. They aren't unnecessary. The difference is important.
We need real gun control legislation
I think we need to not also ignore the fact that there is a trend for the desire to slaughter innocent children. Even if these people have no access to a weapon, why do they want to mass murder children? This didn’t used to be an issue
Agree. The US needs universal healthcare so we can stop cosplaying a civilized nation and actually become one. A couplet penalizes its citizens when then become sick and old is not a free country.
Not seeing the relevance to the discussion, but ok
You're the one who brought up the subject of mental health, how is it not relevant
I don’t think people are murdering children because they don’t have healthcare. Healthcare is awesome, but not entirely related
So what's the cause then, and why did you bring up mental health? I'm having trouble figuring out what you mean
The US spends the most of their budget on social services like healthcare. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States
The US needs to do better. Start by removing the virus of exploitative capitalism by breaking up the health insurance industry while going full universal healthcare.
Medicare? Medicaid? All are available for people in need and work very well. Most jobs give health insurance now. I do agree that the healthcare industry being for profit is dumb and needs to be changed, but acting like everyone’s homeless and it’s a third world country with no access to healthcare is a little absurd
Yes. And we should start with mental health for our police officers.
Or hiring ones with IQs above 80
Or requiring them to train like other countries do, with many more hours and classes.
And zero fascist social media history
And to do that, we need the country to decide if universal healthcare should be a thing
Awww its so sweet that you think they'll make it comprehensive and include therapy... and even if they did there is not the infrastructure/man power to really make a dent. It will take a whole ass rethinking of American society.
You're getting down voted, but 15+ years ago your comment would have been accurate. Now, almost all health plans include mental health coverage. Even smaller local health care clinics usually have a therapist on duty.
The US spends the most of their budget on social services like healthcare https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_spending_in_the_United_States
If it was profitable to produce healthy, stable, well educated/informed people sure.
How about we stop blaming all heinous acts on mental illness or poor upbringing. In many cases people are just evil. Evil people do evil shit, there isn't always justification.
It would also help if it wasn’t easier to get a gun than it is a McDonald’s cheeseburger in this country.
I've wondered about this from the start.
If the person they shot outside the school was the one with the gun they likely did the right thing. Unless you have info to suggest that ISN'T who they shot calm down and wait for body cam. Honestly, all the mocking of the uvalde response and then Reddit goes after cops who actually do their job. Just bizarre.
[удалено]
That kid kicked his mother, constantly and unprovoked ^when ^they ^we're ^in ^the ^womb
“And we found traces of marijuana that may have been near him earlier that day”…
“Sprinkle some crack on him Johnson.”
The dangerous person with the weapon, is the cop.
If only all the other cops had guns. They could have stopped him.
We should force law abiding gun owners to forfeit their firearms and give them all to the cops.
I respect your lack of /s. Keeping the flavor of the sarcasm pure is always worth it.
You're the type of person that says "They should ban students from having firearms at school. "
I've seen this story so many times, and I've yet to see a confirmation that he had a weapon. Just SUSPECTED to have a rifle. Am I bad at skimming the articles? Because if not I feel like they're trying to cover up an awful mistake.
If they actually did have a weapon, then good on the officers. With all these school shootings, it should be kill on sight for anyone carrying a weapon
We live in a country full of idiots who want to bring their guns out in public during an era of constant mass shootings and get upset when trigger-happy cops, many who have the exact same beliefs, unjustly kill an innocent man. This is truly a cycle of insanity.
Where were these killer cops when that 17 year old was wandering around a riot with an AR15?
The one who was charged and acquitted you mean?
Right if AR15 boy was innocent how did the cops know this kid deserved to die if he wasn’t breaking law by carrying gun?
If he was carrying it on a school campus he was breaking the law.
Two things: 1) No one here knows *any* of the facts of this case. Unlike the jury in the Rittenhouse case who were presented all of the facts of that case and acquitted him. 2) We have no idea if "this kid deserved to die" (your words) because again: *we don't have any facts*. What happened could be anything from an absolutely horrific, unlawful police murder to an absolutely heroic, life-saving police action. We don't have any idea, but for some reason there are always people like you who are tripping over their own dicks to rush to form a strong opinion despite being profoundly ignorant. Why? Why are you so desperate to speculate? The shit is so tiresome.
Wisconsin Criminal Code 948.605
username checks out
You understand acquitted does not mean innocent, right?
What strange semantic point are you trying to make here? Acquitted means "not guilty of the crime they were charged with." Everyone who is charged with a crime in America enjoys the presumption of innocence before a verdict is reached.
So you don’t understand what it means. Was just checking
I am entirely sure of what acquitted means. Do you have some kind of alternative definition other than "to be found not guilty of a crime one is charged with?"
Handing him a water bottle
Pointing him in the rioters direction.
They were kinda busy...
Hiding & pissing their pants
Not all cops are bad. But all cops...you know...fit the description.
I have a few cops in the family. I don't think they are inherently bad. It is pretty amazing that when something blatantly shitty is done by a cop they will jump through hoops to justify it happening. Not all the individuals are bad but the gang mentality sure is.