Editor’s note: For details of the mass shooting, check out yesterday’s Big Story—which includes an analysis of America’s addiction to guns. 

Wait, what? The police didn’t take down the killer?

According to a new timeline released by the police, here’s what actually happened:

• Salvador Ramos arrived at the school—crashing his van into a ditch—at 11:28 am.
• He shot a round of bullets at the funeral home opposite the school—whose occupants called the police.
• Ramos then jumped over a fence and entered the school at 11:40 am. No security officer confronted him—contrary to previous claims by Texas officials. 
• The first policeman arrived on location at 11:44 am—exchanged gunfire with Ramos—who then locked himself inside the fourth grade classroom.
• An anonymous source told the New York Times that two officers were shot as they initially tried to enter the classroom at about 11:45 am.
• At this point, the officers simply fell back—and waited for a tactical team to arrive: “We need equipment. We need specialty equipment. We need body armour. We need precision riflemen, negotiators.”
• While they waited, Ramos continued to shoot at the children and teachers inside the classroom.
• The Border Patrol team arrived an hour later at around 12:40 pm—and moved into the classroom, and killed Ramos.

To sum up: A large group of armed police waited an entire hour to take down the shooter.

The bizarre decision to wait: The police claim that since the gunman was isolated in a single classroom, they decided to prioritise evacuating the other teachers and children—to prevent additional deaths. Law enforcement experts say this decision violates standard police training. As one former police chief explains:

“Charge. Don’t wait. Run toward the threat and engage. We learned after Columbine and other mass shooting incidents that in a world of high-capacity firearms, the carnage occurs quickly and not engaging immediately is not an option, especially when shots are actively ringing out.”

And the police have been taught to do specifically that:

“Officers are now trained to disable an active shooter as quickly as possible, before rescuing victims and without waiting for a tactical team or special equipment to arrive. That is true even if only two officers  are available—or one who is willing to go in alone—said Brian Higgins, a former SWAT team commander and police chief.”

Yet it seems that the police instead tried to “negotiate” with the shooter—rather than enter the classroom.

Also notable: The Uvalde police has boasted of its SWAT team in the past—but none of its members were involved in trying to stop the shooter. Yeah, these guys:

Point to note: This failure to act isn’t new. During the Parkland school shooting in 2018—which resulted in 17 deaths—the school security officer on duty hid outside the school for 40 minutes while the gunman rampaged through the building. A local deputy took a full minute to put on his vest as shots were heard across the school.

But why did the police assault the parents?

As the police waited for the tactical team, parents rushed to the school—desperate to save their children. They grew increasingly frustrated by the police’s refusal to go in:

“Ms Gomez, a farm supervisor, was also waiting outside for her children. She said she was one of numerous parents who began encouraging—first politely, and then with more urgency—police and other law enforcement to enter the school sooner. After a few minutes, she said, US Marshals put her in handcuffs, telling her she was being arrested for intervening in an active investigation.”

A number of parents were reportedly tackled and thrown to the ground by police or pepper-sprayed. This six-odd minute video captures the chaos and anger—and just how heavily-armed the police were: 

Point to note: Many of the parents are convinced that the police simply didn’t want to go in without backup. They should have been willing to sacrifice their lives for the kids: “That’s what they signed up for.” But some are just as strident in their defence of the cops: “You want to talk down on them? No. They did everything. They got fired at, they took bullets, they did everything. They were here within minutes.... They did their damn job.” But these are parents whose children survived.

Ok, so what happens now?

There will be an investigation into the actions taken by the police. Other than that, the focus has now moved to Congress—where the Democrats are once again trying to pass a gun control law. 

Background checks: There is already a bill called HR.8 which was passed by the House in March, 2021. It expands background checks required for gun purchases and plugs big loopholes in the current law. As of now, US law does not require unlicensed gun sellers operating online or at gun shows to conduct background checks on a potential customer.

But it has stalled in the Senate—where it is vehemently opposed by the Republicans. Democrats only have a one vote majority in the upper house—and it will not be enough to pass any kind of law. The reason is something called a filibuster—a rule that requires 60 members to end debate on most topics and move to a vote. Or else, the other side can keep refusing to vote for the ‘cloture’ motion until the bill dies. Democrats need 10 Republican votes to override a filibuster. Point to note: Republicans used the filibuster to block gun control after the Sandy Hook massacre—where 20 children died—in 2012.

Red flag laws: There is some sign that Republicans may agree to a more modest measure. One option is something called a ‘red flag’ law. Currently, nineteen states and Washington DC have Extreme Risk Protection Orders. These allow law enforcement—with a court order—to temporarily seize guns from someone considered a danger to themselves or others. A move to make this federal law across the US could find support with more moderate Republicans.  

Yes, it doesn’t sound like much, but Democrats are resigned to taking what they can get:

“We’re at a point in this debate and in the trajectory of gun violence where we need something… We need to show progress. People are frightened. And so I’m probably much more willing to accept something smaller and important, but incremental, than I was a few months after Sandy Hook.”

Point to note: Soon after the shootings, Golden State Warriors head coach Steve Kerr made an impassioned plea to Congress to pass new gun control law—and it went instantly viral. He pretty much says everything that needs to be said about this matter:

The bottomline: We leave you with this revealing interview—where a British reporter asks Senator Ted Cruz the big question the entire world is asking:

Reading list

Wall Street Journal, New York Times and LA Times have the most details on the police action—or lack thereof. New York Times and Axios have more on the gun control discussions in Congress. Also in Axios: Why Republicans may be more open to new regulation this time around. CNN is less optimistic—and uses polling numbers to explain why the GOP won’t budge. BuzzFeed News has more on how Republicans are trying to shift the debate from gun control to mental illness—which they’re blaming for the tragedy. NPR looks at the rightwing conspiracy theories that have spawned in the wake of the killings—including the rumour that Ramos was a transgendered person.