The shooter was taken into custody?
(media.greatawakening.win)
Comments (16)
sorted by:
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Clear-Creek-ISD-high-school-campus-under-lockdown-17197805.php
Different one this am here
Well it was breaking news a lot happening they might not have had all the information at the time.
Multiple news agencies saying he was taken into custody. Saying they were told that by uvalde police. Even giving a time down to the minute that he was taken into custody.
When narratives collide...
From what I've read so far (on a recent and probably developing situation), the shooter barricaded himself in a classroom.
That classroom was then breached by a tactics team and the shooter was killed inside.
If you've ever watched bodycam footage of a police shooting, you'll notice that after every police shooting, they usually handcuff the perpetrator immediately.
And many times, people who die from gunshot wounds, even severe ones, are still living when those handcuffs are put on.
So the shooter probably was "taken into custody" by that SWAT team, even if he was filled with bullets at the time. He was likely handcuffed and detained until he was pronounced dead.
Which, I would guess, is what happened here as far as the confusing timeline.
He was killed by border patrol not swat. The police supposedly fought with him before he even entered the school. He was able to get into a classroom after fighting with police. Do police usually start firing into rooms with child hostages? Look at the family interviews. A “dad” last name Elrod was interviewed before he even knew if his daughter was dead or alive. The first thing he says to the news is asking if they can get to the funeral home. Dead bodies aren’t taken to funeral homes. That would never happen. Who would even interview with the news thinking their child might be dead but they are missing?!
I read a citizens with a gun in the parking lot killed him before he even went in.
I try not to assume people react rationally in intense situations like gunfights or awaiting news of a potentially dead child.
I will defer to you on the team responsible for taking down the shooter, though. I used the term “SWAT” colloquially in reference to the tactics team, but I know border patrol was there, and if it was their team, I accept the correction.
You’re obviously a shill/ mason just like cats5 or whatever. Why no real research gets done here.
Your right. The lefty loves to "assume" what someone would do in a situation when convient but suddenly switch to the old "i try not to assume how people react in these situations". They had no problem assuming in the previous comment..
Notice how it then reacts by not addressing the flip flopping on assuming. Only attempts misdirection through emotion, shock, and exaggerations. Id have to say what we are seeing is your typical type b shill. Nothing to fear, its an old model. Havent seen one of these babies out on the frontline in a couple years. (Slaps hood) These shootings really bring em out of hiding..
That's a fair point, in a sense. But I think it's just a semantic thing. Here:
I assume that people under extreme stress (such as being in a gunfight or facing the possibility that your child was murdered) may behave in ways that seem irrational.
They will not always do the things you think you would do under those circumstances, because the brain does weird stuff when subjected to survival pressures.
A woman I did martial arts with was a black belt, and an excellent fighter. She was raped largely without a fight, because her brain shut down from the shock. She could have killed her attacker with her bare hands, but you never know how you're going to react under that kind of pressure until you're in it.
So, essentially, I try not to do Monday Morning Quarterbacking on what a "reasonable" person would have done under circumstances that could potentially make ANYONE unreasonable.
It's Texas.
Being 'taken into custody' doesn't mean that you still won't be shot eventually.
Taken into custody means alive.