USA: It’s now 100% clear that the Uvalde mass shooting was a “stand down operation,” meaning law enforcement was deliberately ordered to stand down so that the massacre could take place. The goal? Gun control, of course.
“Uvalde police stood outside school while parents urged them to go inside during shooting,” declares the title of an article from ThePostMillennial.com:
“Go in there! Go in there!” Women shouted at officers as the officers stood there and did not go into the school to intervene and prevent the carnage, according to the AP. The gunman was barricaded in a classroom for 40 minutes, where he murdered 19 children and 2 teachers.
A father who lost a daughter in the massacre raised the idea of charging in themselves, without weapons, while the police stood idly by.
“Let’s just rush in because the cops aren’t doing anything like they are supposed to,” Javier Cazares said. “More could have been done.” His daughter Jacklyn Cazares was killed inside. When he heard about the shooting, he raced to the school only to find officers standing outside.
We also have a story from the left-wing media outlet MSN, declaring, “Uvalde Police Officer Admits Cops Saved Their Own Kids From Robb Elementary Before Stopping Shooter“:
A police officer admitted that the police went inside the school to save their children first rather than stop the shooter.
The officer said, “There [were] some police officers’ families trying to get their kids out of school because it was an active shooter situation.”
The officer continued to talk about the situation while trying to justify the officers that went in to save their children initially.
Video shows devastated parents pleading with officers to enter the school as the cries and screams of the children could be heard inside.
So wait… the same cops who tackled parents, pepper-sprayed one dad and tackled other parents to prevent them from going in were, themselves, rushing in just to save their own kids?
Is this what law enforcement has become now? Even in Texas?
They could have been shot!
One of the most frustrating developments in all this is the fact that Texas DPS spokesman Lt. Chris Olivarez said in an interview with CNN that officers couldn’t continue to pursue the suspect immediately because, “they could have been shot.” This has been reported by The Epoch Times:
A Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) official has said officers “could have been shot” if they engaged the gunman holed up with his victims in a classroom at Robb Elementary School before a specialist tactical team arrived.
“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 at that point, that gunman would have had an opportunity to kill other people inside that school.”
By this standard, then, all firefighters should just stand back and watch buildings burn down, because if they try to fight the fire, “They could have been burned.”
And I suppose all military soldiers should refuse to fight on the battlefield because if they enter they battlefield, “They could have received artillery fire.”
You get the point.
This is insane.
In today’s podcast, I demand that cops who aren’t willing to pursue active shooters should turn in their badges and stop pretending to be cops. If you aren’t willing to put your life on the line when it counts, you’re no cop to begin with.
Brighteon.com/5d002cab-fe16-4d49-ad2e-bf9d5d9a7169
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post