Elie Mystal Gun Violence Police Accountability

The Disturbing Reason the Uvalde Police Won’t Be Held Accountable

Thanks to an old Supreme Court case, Uvalde parents will have a hard time convincing courts to hold police liable for failing to protect their kids.
Police officers speak near a makeshift memorial for the shooting victims outside Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., on May 27, 2022. (Chandan Khanna / AFP via Getty Images)

By Elie Mystal / The Nation

The massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., has exposed one of the Republican Party’s favorite pro-gun talking points—the “good guy with a gun” refrain—as a fraudulent gun lobby ad campaign that will not protect our children. There were many police officers on the scene in Uvalde, yet these alleged good guys with guns did nothing to stop the mass murder of children. Instead, the officers used their armaments and training to prevent parents from saving their own kids. I guess all the military-style equipment Republicans constantly funnel to the police really is just meant to shoot gas canisters at unarmed protesters outside a Target, not to subdue a lone gunman systematically executing children and teachers.

Republicans are reluctant to blame the overfunded, heavily armed police for their cowardice in the face of actual danger. Instead, they’ve blamed just about everything else (except guns, of course, never guns). Cancún Senator Ted Cruz traveled to Texas to blame Robb Elementary for having too many doors, which should give people a sense of how unserious the Republican Party is when it comes to protecting children.

Of course, there are others, including some in the Uvalde community, who want answers and accountability. The police response (or lack thereof) to the shooting is already being investigated by the Texas state police, and the Department of Justice is going to review the incident as well.

But the sad reality is that police chief Pete Arredondo (currently in hiding) and his officers will likely escape any legal accountability or even punishment for their actions. That’s because in the United States, the police have no duty to protect children, even when they are the only ones who can. That sorry fact isn’t the fault of Congress, or even the state or local governments, which are primarily responsible for policing. The blame lies, once again, with conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

The reason for that goes back to a case called DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. The case, decided in 1989, didn’t deal with the police specifically but rather with child protective services, which the court ruled had no affirmative duty to protect children from harm, and thus no legal culpability for the failure to do so.

At the center of the case was a father, Randy DeShaney, who was abusing his 4-year-old son. A court in Wyoming granted DeShaney custody of the boy in a divorce settlement, and the two of them moved to Wisconsin. The Department of Social Services (DSS) in Winnebago, Wis., was put on notice of the abuse by DeShaney’s second wife and step-mother, after she and DeShaney also divorced. A doctor further told the department of suspected abuse after the child was brought to a local hospital. DSS convened a “team” and interviewed the father, but decided not to seek removal of the child from his custody. There were additional hospitalizations, known by the DSS caseworker over a period of months, but still the child was left in DeShaney’s custody. Eventually, DeShaney beat the child so severely the child suffered irreparable brain damage. The father was tried and convicted of child abuse, and the mother sued the state on the child’s behalf for failing to protect him.

Writing for a 6-3 conservative majority, William Rehnquist ruled that the state’s failure to protect a child from “private violence” was not a violation of the Due Process clause of the Constitution, which says no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” According to Rehnquist, the protections of “life, liberty, and property” do not mean that the state has to actively protect these things, just that it can’t take them away without due process of law.

I actually agree with this first part of Rehnquist’s ruling. As a purely practical matter, it is unworkable to hold the government liable every time it “fails to protect” the loss of life, liberty, or property caused by private action. The state cannot prevent all crime; it can merely be expected to find and punish criminals.

It’s the rest of the opinion where Rehnquist gets it all wrong. Rehnquist argues that the state had no “special relationship” with the child, and thus had no affirmative duty to protect him. The state, Rehnquist acknowledged, would have a duty to protect the child if he were in the state’s custody, say at a child detention facility. The state would have a duty to protect if it caused the harm. But here, even though the state knew about the violence, even though a different state put that child in that position to begin with, even though a government agency promised to protect the child, Rehnquist ruled that Wisconsin had no constitutional duty to the child.

That is some cursed logic. The state does, or should, have a duty to prevent crime when it is aware that crime is being committed and it is the only entity that can step in and stop it. In the DeShaney case, DSS knew the child was being abused and put itself in the only position to stop it. Remember, DeShaney was granted custody by the state in the first place.

DeShaney was decided in 1989. In 1999, 13 people were killed by two gunmen at Columbine High School in Colorado. In the aftermath of that massacre, questions were also asked about what government agents—in this case, the police—did to prevent the shooting from happening. Lawsuits were brought against police officers and some school officials. Most of those lawsuits were dismissed, and in the dismissal federal judge Lewis Babcock repeatedly cited DeShaney as protecting the cops and the school from liability for their inactions.

If the Supreme Court didn’t like how its opinions were being used to protect cops from accountability after school shootings, it had a chance to correct itself in the 2005 case called Castle Rock v. Gonzales. That case addressed police inaction directly. There, Jessica Gonzales had a restraining order preventing her estranged husband from seeing their three children except in the case of prearranged visits. But Gonzales’s husband abducted the children. Gonzales asked police to find her husband and bring her children back, as her husband was in violation of a court order. But police in Castle Rock, Colo., told her to wait until the evening to see if he brought the children back. He did not. Instead, that night, he murdered all three children, then went to a police station and opened fire. He was shot and killed by police.

Gonzales sued, arguing that the police violated her constitutional rights by failing to protect her due process interests: specifically her “property” interest in having the restraining order she obtained against her husband enforced. The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed, but the Supreme Court shut her down. Writing for a 7-2 majority (John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were the dissenting votes), Antonin Scalia ruled that the restraining order conferred no property interest the police were bound to protect, and that Colorado law did not entitle holders of restraining orders to any “specific mandatory action” by the police. Essentially, Scalia found that the police had no specific duty to find and protect the children.

Once again, we see that the Supreme Court is unwilling to find any constitutional violation when confronted with police inaction or incompetence. (I say “once again,” because we can’t forget the awful specter of qualified immunity, which protects cops from civil lawsuits that arise out of their constitutional violations while on the job). Thanks to the Supreme Court, the police have no affirmative duty to protect children, even when they know that children are in danger or when they are the only people available who can save them.

I can’t imagine being a parent of a murdered Uvalde child, I do not know what I would do. I think there should be legal recourse for them against the police. In the Uvalde situation, the police were more than passive, I’d argue. They actively prevented parents from going into the school and trying to save their kids. I would argue that the police use of force against the parents created a “special relationship” with the victims, and created an affirmative duty for the police to save these kids, since they were preventing parents from doing that themselves. The police on the scene essentially took custody of the school: That should create a constitutional responsibility to protect the lives of those inside.

But conservative justices have shown, time and again, that they will not hold the police accountable. There are cases all over the place where judges apply the Supreme Court’s rulings in DeShaney and Castle Rock and fail to hold the police to a duty to protect people who are suffering from violence in real time. This is a fairly common feature of the conservative interpretation of constitutional law: The cops are authorized to shoot anybody if they are afraid, but they’re not required to save anybody, if they are too afraid to do so.

We don’t have to live like this. We don’t have to have unfettered access to guns. We don’t have to live with daily mass shootings. We don’t have to have cops who shoot unarmed teenagers. We don’t have to have cops who refuse to protect children. These outcomes are policy choices. Increasingly, they are choices imposed upon us by unelected, unaccountable justices. The Supreme Court will not protect our children, and it won’t require anybody else to either.

Elie Mystal

Elie Mystal is The Nation’s justice correspondent and an Alfred Knobler Fellow at the Type Media Center. His first book is the New York Times best-seller Allow Me to Retort: A Black Guy’s Guide to the Constitution. He can be followed @ElieNYC.


  1. I do not think blaming the police is the solution.
    One of the cops went in and got his own child to safety, which as a parent I understand.

    I think we need to look at the life of the 18 year old shooter, and why he did such a thing.
    He did not need a gun, he could have thrown a homemade bomb or started a fire.
    He was 18 years old, and he did not think his life was worth living.
    Why would an 18 year old in the United States, feel this way and be driven to this kind of act?

    That is the question.

    1. Nylene: I thought there was some higher motivation to becoming a police officer other than the perks and benefits. I thought they wanted to protect people and restrain bullies, or something. I doubted they would ever use their position for personal advantage, if they really cared. But according to your POV you can’t beat driving a new tax paid car, getting guns and badges, and paling around like a predatory gang. I have been a “police” (only 2 years- but in a supervisory role) , and still have police friends, but most of those I’ve seen are sadists and derelicts. Law enforcement has become a dumping ground for fascists and misfits.

      And your thing about not understanding how an 18 year old could get so alienated and gun fixated in our wonderful country, that’s even more clueless. And I thought you were my friend. Your assumptions about bombs and arson are kind of sick.

      1. @Red Hornet
        A study showed that the largest group of people to become cops are bullies, and the second most are people who’ve been bullied. I’ve had friends who were cops, only to quit when they saw what it was really about after falsely thinking that it was about helping people.

    2. Want an answer to your question of “Why would an 18 year old in the United States, feel this way and be driven to this kind of act?” Here’s one (of perhaps many) possible answer: During the Great Depression, people without hope found a way out: Suicide accomplished by throwing oneself from a high building or bridge while many through themselves in the path of an oncoming train. Today, why not go out in a blaze of glory (sarcasm to the max) making headlines all over the world. Indeed, a whole lot of blame to fertilize of American soil.

    3. He did not need a gun? You’re making excuses. He shot the school up and murdered those adults and children with a war gun. Not with a bomb or a knife or a screwdriver or a car. We do need to look at his life, and ask ourselves this too: why did this disturbed young person easily get his hands on TWO war guns? How can that be? What kind of a culture allows that? You act as if the use of the gun isn’t important, or is a side issue.

      1. AR-15’s aren’t “War Guns” – they were always the Civilian Version of the M-16 – which is a “War Gun”. Every cop car in the Country has at least one of those “War Guns” – and cops have body armor, too – just like the shooter.

        It is an uninvestigated series of failures to act, here, that you appear to be ignoring – in your quest to disarm the populace, in violation of the 2nd Amendment- but not the State.

        Those perhaps deliberate malfeasances, or perhaps grossly negligent misfeasances, start with the failure to get this guy Psychological or Psychiatric help. He had clearly expressed the plan/desire – to do exactly the horrible thing that he did, to the Cops, long ago. Next is the question of why he wasn’t prevented from buying those weapons, by the mandated background check, in the first place. Expressing a plan to shoot-up a school, and kill kids – should be enough to cause you to flunk the background check. For some reason, it wasn’t. Why was this so?

        Why did the multiple 911 calls, and sounds of shots being fired, close by – not result in all the points of access to the Campus, and all of the Classrooms, being locked? The fable that a (now dead) teacher left the door open is not just insane, and trite – but entirely unproven. It lets everyone off the hook, for a catastrophic failure of the campus’ security protocols. Where was the School’s ARMED security? The School District’s Police Chief just got PROMOTED to the City Council. That seems ODD.

        AND THEN we have the incredibly slow response times, and the failures of local police to act in accordance with their training, regarding an active shooter. Armed local parents showed up – prepared to act, where the Police would NOT. The Cops spent their energy restraining and preventing an appropriate response, not actually engaging in one. Why was that?

        It’s been reported that the local Cops may have gone into the school to remove their own Children. What was the timeline, and the justification on doing that? When parents tried to do the same thing – THEY were arrested.

        The fact remains that people determined to kill others, may use many different methods to do so. Had rifles been unavailable, how do we know that he wouldn’t have built a bomb? Or driven a car into a crowd of Children, leaving the school? Bombs are already illegal yet people have used those in the past, to horrifying effect. But a bomb, by contrast, cannot be used for lawful self defense. It certainly can’t prevent Tyrrany of the sort now being seen in places like Australia – where they’ve rolled-out concentration camps – having already disarmed their population.

        The RIGHT to bear arms – for law abiding Citizens – is a right which predates the US Constitution. It was a right denied (for a time) to the Scots – under the Tyrrany of the English, who abused them gravely, because of that disadvantage. They fought to regain that RIGHT. It’s an undercurrent in the film “Braveheart”. Notice that the swords were kept hidden, in the thatched roofs of the huts.

        You seem to have already come to some hasty and supported/supportable conclusions, prior to any real investigation – in your zeal to disarm the American people. youtu be/E77Xo7Qetgg

        The threat of Technocratic Totalitarianism is real, in the world (and our country), right now. Guns may not be a perfect solution to those plans – but they do appear to be holding them at bay, for the moment. Which came first – the proposed legislation – or this incident? I’m pretty sure it’s the former, and not the latter. Which means that if one event, was truly the motivation for the other – it was the pending Legislation, which motivated the shooting, and not the other way around. As FDR once put it – ‘in politics, there are NO coincidences’.

      2. Oh, so the word crazy is pulled out of the redneck’s cedar chest? Ulvade — high unemployment, Wendy’s jobs for young men, drop-outs, failed systems in k12, and, alas, there are a million young men, or more, just like this young man. Crazy, uh? Deep thinkers over at Sheared Off Post.

        Here, Bruce Levine:

        Diversion from Societal, Cultural and Political Sources of Misery

        When we hear the words disorder, disease or illness, we think of an individual in need of treatment, not of a troubled society in need of transformation. Mental illness expansionism diverts us from examining a dehumanizing society.

        In addition to pathologizing normal behavior, the mental health profession also diverts us from examining a society that creates the ingredients—helplessness, hopelessness, passivity, boredom, fear, and isolation—that cause emotional difficulties. We are diverted from the reality that many emotional problems are natural human reactions to loss in our society of autonomy and community. Thus, the mental health profession not only has financial value for drug companies but it has political value for those at the top of societal hierarchies who want to retain the status quo.

        Today, a handful of dissident mental health professionals do challenge and resist their profession’s dehumanizing standard practicies. I know several of these dissidents, and they are the only psychiatrists, psychologists and mental health professionals that I have any respect for.


        Bruce E. Levine is a clinical psychologist and author of Get Up, Stand Up: Uniting Populists, Energizing the Defeated, and Battling the Corporate Elite (Chelsea Green, 2011)

      3. LAME – stop pathologizing the RIGHT to bear arms.

        Why don’t we get CIA – OPERATIONAL MIND CONTROL-control, first.

        Psych meds are a common element in most of these shootings, too. Maybe do some real real analysis of things like that… Or maybe just a real investigation, of how a guy who’d espoused his desire (to law enforcement) to get a gun and then shoot up a school – was cleared to buy an AR-15, during the background check – TWICE!!!

        And then there’s complete failure of the police and armed school security to properly respond to 911 calls, or act to stop the shooter, at any point.

        And how did he get INTO, a school on “lockdown”? The story that he got in, through a door left open by a teacher – was a LIE. Until we know exactly what happened, and why and how – pushing a knee-jerk and pre-planned response – is just caving-in, to DNCIA Terrorists.

        I don’t think that poster’s response was “rightwing” – just rational.

  2. SCOTUS has always been politicized because of the procedure in which justices are selected. I don’t know though how we can change it to make it less politicized. That’s something to consider.

    1. @Tom
      All court decisions in political cases are politically based, not legally based. Judges and justices decide the case first, then get legal authority to back up their decisions. Not how it’s supposed to be, but that’s how it is.

    2. Reexamine the February 24, 1803, Marbury v. Madison (look it up), which Congress could do if they only had some courage, Holy Cow, that’s not going to happen. But hey, that’s where it all started.

  3. Glad the police are always able to defend themselves! What would we do without them to defend themselves? They are our heroes, good guys, knights in shining armor! Let us all worship at the altar of the Gun (god) and the cult of law enforcement! All praise be to law enforcement!

  4. There is plenty of outrage on the right about the inaction of the Uvalde police, and plenty of commentary about the Supreme Court decisions that will prevent them from being prosecuted. Saying that Republicans are “reluctant” to blame the police is simply false. We do ourselves no favors by misrepresenting the right.

    1. Exactly, and here’s a place where people (I mean to say, real citizens that have to slug-it-out day by, excuse the pun, bloody day) can come together in unity against the political system, our national duopoly, and stand up for our rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (it’s kind of difficult to do any of those things when you are constantly fighting merely to survive). Again, it’s time to rid ourselves of this political system which could care less about the “average” citizens of our nation, in short, they (our political whores both Red and Blue) need to go.

  5. The DeShaney incident would never have happened had it been the child’s mother accused of abusing him. The fact is, Children’s Services Departments will always blame the mother for and let the father/stepfather get away, literally, with murder before they’ll do anything that might reflect on their budgets. That a conservative SCOTUS would approve of that is a direct reflection of their firm Puritan belief that the man is the head of household and entitled to do what he pleases to his family.

  6. Recent training helps the police perceive themselves as the victims in need of protection. The laws described here show how this has been reinforced by the courts.

    If accountability here has only to do with money, or putting people in jail, it would seem that this kind of accountability is probably unlikely and would be very long in coming if it ever did. That should not stop the Uvalde community from demanding its own accountability and help make an example for the rest in this country. Why not have an awards ceremony and give prizes for the biggest cowards involved in the debacle. Post them publicly in Uvalde and on the internet and ask these people nicely to resign, and look for another line of work, since they can’t do the job.

    There has long been problems with the way the US polices itself. Many years ago there was a great documentary comparing policing in the US to that of Canada. The differences were shocking. And there are other models throughout the World that would be much better than the one we use. Maybe we should look around and copy one.

    It also wouldn’t hurt for us to enforce the law, like the laws against shooting unarmed people.

  7. This analysis misses the point by dancing around the issue. The issue here is that if cops are going to be given privileges like immunity from prosecution and military grade weapons — which they should not be — and high pay with great benefits, then they should be required to protect people in situations like this, even where it means risking or sacrificing their lives. Instead, they get the best of both worlds.

    The reason for this totally sick situation is that the cops protect the ruling class and their property first and foremost. Those people know that it’s in their best interests to keep cops happy, and they do so, to the detriment of everyone else.

    Those are the real issues here, not technical legal issues like whether cops have an affirmative duty to protect us based on the right to due process.

    1. True Jeff about the ruling class priority. I led a small complement of 12-18 in a specialized branch focused on parks, wildlands and the environment. We arrested and cited a few polluters and trespassers, shut down an illegal shooting range in a large park, and of course arrested drug users. But most of our calls were from city administrators to do favors for their clients, or to muster a “show of force” for public relations. I left after the FBI botched a theft ring investigation involving several public works departments. I took the case to them over my supervisors heads because I couldn’t handle it alone. Just like in “The Wire” authorities refused to follow the money as it circulated among notables. I had to move to a different city and cloak my identity to evade retribution. What a way to end a career!

    2. One solution for holding the police accountable was given by Thom Hartmann wherein, an act of Congress could mandate that the police, and other agents in law enforcement, must carry liability insurance or else face being dismissed from the profession. And here’s the kicker I just love: The nearly almighty INSURANCE companies can and will hold officers accountable for their actions by refusing to insure those persons who use force against the citizenry. No insurance, no job, and out you go. Also on the plus side, multiplicities would no longer have to paid all of those civil suits caused by the overzealousness of our ‘Protect and Serve” people.

  8. The cops at Uvalde were IN ON IT. They failed to follow their own protocols. They didn’t even try to go in to get him. The guy was shooting outside the school – but someone still insured that he could get inside. The armed security on campus, didn’t even try to engage him. All kinds of 911 calls were coming in – but police are said to have had ridiculously slow response times.

    There are reports that the local cops went in and got their own children out – was that before the shooter arrived, or after? We won’t know – because they’re lawyering-up, and refusing to answer questions.

    The Border Patrol team eliminated the only witness who can explain where an 18 year old working at Wendy’s got the thousands of dollars needed for all those weapons, body armor, and ammunition. Some things about this smell about as fishy, as the “DC Sniper” case.

    These things are ALLOWED to happen, where they aren’t actively instigated. The shooter was WELL KNOWN to local cops. He’d previously expressed a desire to do EXACTLY what he did. And yet none of that came up on the Mandatory Federal Background check?!?! WTF?!?!

    BUT, like CLOCKWORK, you know that there will be a series of increasingly extreme shootings – whenever there’s societal disarming legislation, pending in the Congress. That’s EXACTLY how it happened in Australia, a while back. If you’d graphed those incidents on a timeline – they’d look like a spike, or a mountain, rising above the background patterns, which might look like foothills and vales. And now that they’re a completely disarmed populace, with an armed police and military – what do you have in Australia? A RIGGED political system, run by the US Empire, no matter which party is in power – massive human rights violations – protestors beaten, brutalized and arrested – and CONCENTRATION CAMPS. Literally.

    That’s the direction that the Biden Regime and their WEF/Bilderberg pals, are trying to push us… And of course the completely sold out (long ago) NATION is right there, to help insure that “the left” is goaded into pushing the agendas, of Megalomaniacal Billionaires.

    That WEF Franchise to the North, has plenty of guns… But not a bunch of shootings, for some reason. But because he takes his orders from Davos, and models the Tyrrany that they eventually hope to attain, here in the USA – Justin Trudeau, and his ‘penetrated cabinet’ immediately began instituting restrictive legislation against guns, and travel, right after this happened. Pay attention folks. This is the plan being implemented.

    1. It must be hard to live like a paranoid rat in a maze AWIP.
      Or, do you just wish most people were as anxious as your post suggests?

      1. Aren’t you the guy who already saw a little bit of how CORRUPT and Criminal the US Empire is, firsthand? There must be some kind of cognitive failure going on with you, if you don’t see what this system is capable of, in this area – in light of what you already typed, about your own experiences. It seems like despite what you’ve seen, you’re still under the sway of the cult.

        I’m trying to reach people, with the reality of what’s being rolled out here – before it’s TOO LATE.

        “No matter how paranoid or conspiracy-minded you are, what the government is actually doing is worse than you imagine.”
        William Blum, Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower

        When assessing propaganda, PR, PSYOPS and related Covert Operations – one key element to look for, is that they almost always rely upon an appeal to visceral emotions. That may explain why the ATF and the Federal Judge who later tried Timothy McVeigh had the day off, when the OKC bombing occurred – but the kids in the nursery school there, didn’t. Isn’t that the way that they passed the last “Assault Weapons” ban? Letting or Making that happen?


        I was aware of the warnings that went out, prior to that one – I wonder why nobody told the kids?

        Did you hear about the Ukrainian parliament firing their “Human Rights Minister” (Orwellian by itself, just considering all of the atrocities committed, by that CIA-backed NAZI Regime), for just making things up? She was the girl who cried Wolf(sangle) one time too many. Even THEY – thought that the fraudulent tales of Russian soldiers raping children, in front of their parents, were just…a bit too much. And she hadn’t even bothered trying to spoof these hoaxes properly.

        But that’s not a story that many in our country have heard… Because the same media that breathlessly reported upon ‘Kuwaiti incubator babies’, carried all of that disinformation, as well. And of course mass shootings like this recent spate – tend to push inconvenient news like that, right out of newscycle.

      2. He robs Capitalism of its power by assigning it to specific Capitalists. They don’t need to arrange disasters, the system they oversee guarantees they will happen. They only need to be (and very much are) ready to take advantage when the disasters occur. Their hands inherently retain the appearance of cleanliness, no matter how many millions die by their actions.

    2. CONCENTRATION CAMPS? Some might use the term: PRISONS! Both are absolutely appropriate, ask any member of a black community. Oh, and by the way, really liked the tone of this response, much needed in today’s reality.

  9. Mostly a good piece but unfortunately, the author does not go into some very major details concerning the Supreme Court’s present make-up, three of which I will give: (1) Obama’s abject failure to maintain a Democratic majority in the House and Senate when he and the Democratic Party rescued Wall Street while leaving main street to fend for themselves thus losing any opportunity to keep the House in the 2010 off-election. (2) In 2011, while The Democratic Party still had a majority in the Senate, Obama practically begged RBG to step down wherein Obama knowing that the Dems would lose both houses of Congress, would still be able to get a Supreme Court nominee through the Senate. But unfortunately, RBG’s ego would not allow her to step down form the High Court (her health failing, and what happens in the future? Donald Trump gets the nominate a justice hand-picked by The Federalist Society) GO FIGURE? (3) Obama and the Democratic Party’s failure to fight like hell for Obama’s nominee (Obama’s choice of a very conservative Merrick B. Garland was and remains a huge mistake, and frankly, not someone who the Democrats would fight like hell to support).

    And so here we are. The author rails against the Republicans, as she should, but nothing about the Democratic Party’s miserable failures in standing up for the American public. And hey folks, the Dems are bought and paid for political whores just like the Republicans. Time for a strong, truly opposition Third Party thus ending our American political tragedy known by its accursed name: DUOPOLY! A single coin when flipped returns to earth either heads or tails but remain the one same coin.

  10. I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: Love and appreciate The ScheerPost to the max, but please, this whole thing about ‘Your comment is awaiting moderation” is absolute BULLSHIT! And I hope, this comment will be properly “MODERATED” Christ, sounds very Orwellian to me.

    1. That comment is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, or perhaps something much more sinister.

      The CIA spent decades researching and experimenting on Mind Control (see MK-ULTRA, NAOMI, SEARCH, ARTICHOKE, etc.) – before moving on to OPERATIONAL MIND CONTROL (see MH-CHAOS, the SLA/Patty Hearst, the People’s Temple Massacre, the Assassination of RFK, the attempt on Reagan, by a friend of the Bush family, and potentially Columbine, and the Aurora, Colorado Theater shooting, etc.) – for a reason… To USE those techniques to create plausibly deniable events – and “terminal experiments”.

      It’s too soon to declare definitively what this was, because there’s been no appropriate investigation of what actually occurred, and how, and what failures allowed for this.

      But we do know that this event fits a pattern. Plans and legislation, to disarm a population, are drawn up. Then there’s an event, or series of events, whether manufactured, or just allowed to occur – that seem to perfectly justify those plans and legislation. In the UK (already a society with a large number of restrictions upon gun ownership, prior to the apparently catalyzing event) it was the “Dunblane Massacre”. https://web.archive.org/web/20170522174748/http://www.dunblaneexposed.info/2013/10/savile-isnt-the-only-obnoxious-paedophile-being-covered-up-by-the-system-thomas-hamilton/ – while it seems like that’s being scrubbed from web – there were a lot of unanswered questions about that one.

      As I’ve already mentioned – in Australia there was ANOTHER series of horrific shootings, that appear to have been sonewhat ODD, or inorganic in their timing and sequence. As soon as the gun grab legislation was passed – they seemed to magically stop. (People intent on doing something like this, aren’t likely to follow the law, or just turn over their weapons). Around that time, there was a VERY ODD series of attacks upon Chinese preschools, by people with cleavers. The public explanations never made any sense in terms of the sudden increase in frequency and similarities to the attacks. Somehow the Chinese managed to study those events, and solve whatever was causing them – without disarming every kitchen in their country. I’d suggest that we reach out to them, about what the found as the driver of those events, and how they solved the problem.

  11. Carey Wedler (perhaps formerly) of Antimedia.com has some takes on this and related stories, and the Brandon Administration and McResistance Lite ®’s proposed legislative agenda, which they’ve been holding in place, until the timing on the roll-out, was exactly right.

    youtu be/E77Xo7Qetgg

    Are ScrewUToob links now being BLOCKED on this Site? Everytime I try to post one – the post disappears.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

%d bloggers like this: