... they didn't take any casualties doing so.
Is that right?

Well, if that is correct, was the shooter already dead?
Was the shooter incapacitated somehow?
Was the shooter surrendering?

I have no quarrel with the guys who breached that classroom, whatever happened.

Since there were no casualties among the force that breached the classroom, it really makes the cops that sat their on their thumbs for an hour look worse!
Who trained those people?

... for school shootings changed after Columbine.
Before that, police were supposed to wait and try to negotiate with the barricaded suspect(s).
Now, I read that the protocol calls for immediate engagement of the suspect.

Will someone here with actual knowledge of such a protocol please clarify.

"At the time, and because it was such an unheard of event, police scrambled to respond to Columbine. Then, when on the scene, they treated the shooting like a bank robbery negotiation, waiting outside for almost an hour thinking that the shooters would be in communication with demands - all while the shooting continued inside. Today, protocols call for the first officer on-site to enter the situation rather than waiting outside to plan and respond."

https://www.lockdowninternational.com/post/5-school-safety-measures-that-have-changed-since-columbine

That scumbag said that...."...the proposals the Democrats have — none of them would have stopped this.”
That's because the Dems will propose some kind of rational step that almost anybody could agree with. Not Repubs, of course.

Why not go for gun registration, shooter registration, competency testing, safety training... the whole enchilada?

Nothing the Dems propose will pass anyway, but at least we'd be on the record as favoring real reforms that really would work.

Could a key witnesses - or witnesses - change their story and deny their sworn depositions?
trump could promise them their families would be cared for... and maybe a pardon.

... and was using the term "pro-abortion" to describe them.
We have a Sinclair station in Seattle, but this one is a normal one.
I was there, and I saw ZERO "pro-abortion" signs... just pro-choice ones.

When the fuck did "pro-choice" become "pro-abortion"?

It wasn't just one reporter. The anchor said the same thing.

How are we supposed to frame the narrative when the media ignores the real message and makes up their own?

I ran into this old article .. from a year ago... talking about a Federal court ordering trump to release his financial records while president to Congress.
I can find nothing more.
Anybody know if those records were ever released? Or is the Mango Menace simply ignoring the courts. Again.

"... trump's accounting firm must give Congress his tax and other financial records from his time in the White House, and for a longer period about his lease of a government-owned building for a hotel, a judge ruled on Wednesday in a long-running legal fight over a House subpoena."

Well... like the real estate salespersons always say....

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.

... is the right to an abortion mentioned.

That's true.

What they don't deal with is this fact:
Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that zygotes, embryos, and fetuses are human beings with the rights of citizens.
The Constitution - as it was written in 1787 - omitted any rights for women, and counted black people as 3/5ths of a human being.
Alito's leaked opinion shows how dogma can overrule a lot of legal education... and sound reasoning, too.