trial of Uvalde school officer starts today

8,598 Views | 141 Replies | Last: 3 days ago by CharleyKerfeld
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:04a, 1/5/26
AG
IMO a waste of time and money. Case law has already decided that you do not have to risk your life to save another if you're an officer. He's a coward but that is not a criminal offense. We cannot let emotion drive us. The chief is more to blame, and he is incompetent and likely a coward but that is still not a crime.

https://www.kwtx.com/2026/01/05/trial-begins-officer-accused-failing-protect-children-during-uvalde-school-shooting/#fg465tdebktpcr3se26f1pwt6xw39u6i9
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
30
MouthBQ98
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:10a, 1/5/26
AG
Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable
Reply Quote
38
1 edit
AgBQ-00
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:13a, 1/5/26
AG
Didn't SCOTUS rule directly on this some years ago?
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Reply Quote
4
Jack Squat 83
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:13a, 1/5/26
AG
I'm not sure how I feel about this.

The 24/7/365 nightmare he should be living - if he has a conscience - would be punishment enough? I would be surprised if several of the officers on site that day (who failed to be man enough to act) don't have mental issues now after the fact.

Just a sickening situation and I still can't believe none of them took matters into their own hands and went in.
I don't think you know me.
Reply Quote
7
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Jack Squat 83 • 9:26a, 1/5/26
AG
Jack Squat 83 said:
I'm not sure how I feel about this.

The 24/7/365 nightmare he should be living - if he has a conscience - would be punishment enough? I would be surprised if several of the officers on site that day (who failed to be man enough to act) don't have mental issues now after the fact.

Just a sickening situation and I still can't believe none of them took matters into their own hands and went in.


That's where the cultural failure came in. They listened to the guy in charge, the chief, and trusted what he was saying.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
2
The Collective
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
9:52a, 1/5/26
AG
Not every injustice or failure requires legal action.
Reply Quote
33
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to MouthBQ98 • 10:16a, 1/5/26
AG
MouthBQ98 said:
Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable


My problem with them is that not only did they fail to act, they actively prevented anyone else from acting. Basically an accessory to the crime at that point.
Reply Quote
46
The Collective
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:29a, 1/5/26
AG
Yes - but you can see how holding police officers legally responsible for locking down a situation and keeping people out WHO may have made a difference could be an issue, right?
Reply Quote
8
Sid Farkas
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
10:32a, 1/5/26
AG
I have no more focus to contribute to this tragedy. Just can't do it. Would like to forget it forever. Let justice be served.
Reply Quote
2
1 edit
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to ABATTBQ11 • 10:33a, 1/5/26
AG
ABATTBQ11 said:
MouthBQ98 said:
Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable


My problem with them is that not only did they fail to act, they actively prevented anyone else from acting. Basically an accessory to the crime at that point.


You would have to prove the officers on the perimeter knowingly helped the guy. It's like arguing the manufacturer of the gun is an accessory. It's a silly argument that's based on emotion and not logic.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
14
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Collective • 10:35a, 1/5/26
AG
The Collective said:
Yes - but you can see how holding police officers legally responsible for locking down a situation and keeping people out WHO may have made a difference could be an issue, right?


That's not who they are charging here. They're not charging any of the officers on the perimeter who prevented parents from going in. They've charged this guy and the chief for not responding once inside the building. Again, this is not a criminal issue.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
2
mavsfan4ever
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 11:32a, 1/5/26
AG
Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.
Reply Quote
4
1 edit
UTExan
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 11:38a, 1/5/26
The ICS (Incident Command System) which places one individual in charge is perhaps a major culprit. If you have one individual functioning as a bottleneck to aggressive interdiction of the active shooter (ICS was certainly taught as our tactical model coming down from federal "best practices").
An ineffective, indecisive on-scene commander is a liability and the state troopers who responded, once they realized that, should have assumed incident command and taken out the shooter.
“If you’re going to have crime it should at least be organized crime”
-Havelock Vetinari
Reply Quote
5
1981 Monte Carlo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
11:51a, 1/5/26
I am honestly surprised none of these coward officers have killed themselves.
Reply Quote
16
ABATTBQ11
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 11:52a, 1/5/26
AG
Bocephus said:
ABATTBQ11 said:
MouthBQ98 said:
Agreed. It is very clear that the law doesn't actually require a law enforcement officer to risk their lives to save others. It simply gives them some liability protection for the consequences if they choose to do so.

I don't like it when an angry mob that is denied justice against the actual criminal perpetrator then turns upon someone else to place the blame on with their vengeful anger, and misdirects their rage against someone who is far less culpable


My problem with them is that not only did they fail to act, they actively prevented anyone else from acting. Basically an accessory to the crime at that point.


You would have to prove the officers on the perimeter knowingly helped the guy. It's like arguing the manufacturer of the gun is an accessory. It's a silly argument that's based on emotion and not logic.


They knew he was alive and actively still shooting people for like an hour while they kept anyone and everyone else away. Plenty of people would say that fits the bill of knowingly helping.
Reply Quote
23
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to mavsfan4ever • 11:53a, 1/5/26
AG
mavsfan4ever said:
Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.


I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
3
mavsfan4ever
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 11:59a, 1/5/26
AG
Bocephus said:
mavsfan4ever said:
Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.


I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.


I'm confused why you said "again, this is not a criminal issue."

edit: oh I guess you meant that it shouldn't be a criminal issue. I thought you were saying it was a civil lawsuit and not criminal charges.
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
93MarineHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 12:01p, 1/5/26
Bocephus said:
mavsfan4ever said:
Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.


I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Precedent gets overturned occasionally. Even if it is a waste of time in regards to winning in a courtroom, this pos needs to be harassed until he offs himself.
Reply Quote
11
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to mavsfan4ever • 12:05p, 1/5/26
AG
mavsfan4ever said:
Bocephus said:
mavsfan4ever said:
Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.


I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.


I'm confused why you said "again, this is not a criminal issue."

edit: oh I guess you meant that it shouldn't be a criminal issue. I thought you were saying it was a civil lawsuit and not criminal charges.


Unfortunately we have way too many leftist DAs in this state trying to enforce a version of the law that makes them feel good, rather than what is on the books.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
3
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to 93MarineHorn • 12:08p, 1/5/26
AG
93MarineHorn said:
Bocephus said:
mavsfan4ever said:
Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.


I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Precedent gets overturned occasionally. Even if it is a waste of time in regards to winning in a courtroom, this pos needs to be harassed until he offs himself.


Then what? After he commits suicide will you feel better? Should we then go after the officer who engaged him in gunfire outside the school but missed? Should he commit suicide bc his aim sucks? Should the teacher who left the side door ajar be harassed until they commit suicide? How many more people have to die until you feel better about all these children being murdered?
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
18
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to UTExan • 12:11p, 1/5/26
AG
UTExan said:
The ICS (Incident Command System) which places one individual in charge is perhaps a major culprit. If you have one individual functioning as a bottleneck to aggressive interdiction of the active shooter (ICS was certainly taught as our tactical model coming down from federal "best practices").
An ineffective, indecisive on-scene commander is a liability and the state troopers who responded, once they realized that, should have assumed incident command and taken out the shooter.


The incident commander was the chief and he violated the protocol that he actually wrote by entering the building. He's all kinds of incompetent and pretty much every failure can be laid at his feet, but he did not break the law.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
5
laavispa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 12:12p, 1/5/26
With respect to federal law it appears this to be the case. If you follow along with the 'Duty to Act' doctrine the states may impose a different twist. Texas has this to say" Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.13, officers must prevent or suppress crime when they have a reasonable opportunity to do so. This duty is particularly clear when an officer witnesses a felony or a breach of the peace occurring in their presence."

Now the story does not state exactly the violation charged. BUT supposing it is the above, then the question becomes what is a 'reasonable opportunity' to suppress a crime? Obviously, the felony was occurring in their presence.

Gona be an interesting trial.

--------------
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. F. A. Hayek



Reply Quote
8
The Collective
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:12p, 1/5/26
AG
I'd prefer he recognize his failure, admit it (he may have, IDK), and go on to lead a productive life. If that makes me a horrible person, so be it.
Reply Quote
3
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to The Collective • 12:27p, 1/5/26
AG
The Collective said:
I'd prefer he recognize his failure, admit it (he may have, IDK), and go on to lead a productive life. If that makes me a horrible person, so be it.


The chief has not to my knowledge. He should have fallen on his sword the next day.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
1
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to laavispa • 12:28p, 1/5/26
AG
laavispa said:
With respect to federal law it appears this to be the case. If you follow along with the 'Duty to Act' doctrine the states may impose a different twist. Texas has this to say" Under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure Article 2.13, officers must prevent or suppress crime when they have a reasonable opportunity to do so. This duty is particularly clear when an officer witnesses a felony or a breach of the peace occurring in their presence."

Now the story does not state exactly the violation charged. BUT supposing it is the above, then the question becomes what is a 'reasonable opportunity' to suppress a crime? Obviously, the felony was occurring in their presence.

Gona be an interesting trial.



Like I said, it is case law that officers do not have to risk their lives to save others. We would hope they do and many do. When they fail to, they can be fired but they cannot (or should not in this case) be charged criminally.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
1
AgDad77
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to AgBQ-00 • 12:31p, 1/5/26
93MarineHorn
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 12:33p, 1/5/26
Bocephus said:
93MarineHorn said:
Bocephus said:
mavsfan4ever said:
Read the article. It is a criminal issue. They are prosecuting the police officer (i.e., have brought criminal charges). This is not a civil lawsuit.


I'm well aware. The issue is that this case law has already been decided. This is a waste of time and taxpayer money.

Precedent gets overturned occasionally. Even if it is a waste of time in regards to winning in a courtroom, this pos needs to be harassed until he offs himself.


Then what? After he commits suicide will you feel better? Should we then go after the officer who engaged him in gunfire outside the school but missed? Should he commit suicide bc his aim sucks? Should the teacher who left the side door ajar be harassed until they commit suicide? How many more people have to die until you feel better about all these children being murdered?

Absurd response. Do you feel better having made the stupidest post on F16 for at least the last week?
Reply Quote
6
laavispa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:34p, 1/5/26
For those interested here is the entire inditement Uvalde 38th Dist Court . The main point being that there was criminal negligence. When you put 29 names on paper it is probably good that there was a change of venue from Uvalde County to Nueces County.


--------------
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. F. A. Hayek



Reply Quote
1
I Am A Critic
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:42p, 1/5/26
Every coward in the hallway that day should have to go through this.
Username checks out.
Reply Quote
3
laavispa
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:04p, 1/5/26
After additional digging. The Texas Education Code Ch 37 has this provision for school police.

"(d-1) A school district peace officer, a school resource officer, and security personnel shall perform law enforcement duties for the school district that must include protecting:
(1) the safety and welfare of any person in the jurisdiction of the peace officer, resource officer, or security personnel;

In other words, a 'Duty to Act", MUST is a mandatory obligation with no wiggle room.

So, I would have to conclude that given the information cited above the charges are reasonable. It is up to the state to convince a jury that they meet the laws. Anyway 29 kids also get their day in court.
--------------
Nobody with open eyes can any longer doubt that the danger to personal freedom comes chiefly from the left. F. A. Hayek



Reply Quote
10
AgBQ-00
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to laavispa • 2:31p, 1/5/26
AG
laavispa said:
After additional digging. The Texas Education Code Ch 37 has this provision for school police.

"(d-1) A school district peace officer, a school resource officer, and security personnel shall perform law enforcement duties for the school district that must include protecting:
(1) the safety and welfare of any person in the jurisdiction of the peace officer, resource officer, or security personnel;

In other words, a 'Duty to Act", MUST is a mandatory obligation with no wiggle room.

So, I would have to conclude that given the information cited above the charges are reasonable. It is up to the state to convince a jury that they meet the laws. Anyway 29 kids also get their day in court.

That is good information. That whole thing is sickening, and I just wish they would have intervened much sooner.
God loves you so much He'll meet you where you are. He also loves you too much to allow to stay where you are.

We sing Hallelujah! The Lamb has overcome!
Reply Quote
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to laavispa • 2:58p, 1/5/26
AG
laavispa said:
After additional digging. The Texas Education Code Ch 37 has this provision for school police.

"(d-1) A school district peace officer, a school resource officer, and security personnel shall perform law enforcement duties for the school district that must include protecting:
(1) the safety and welfare of any person in the jurisdiction of the peace officer, resource officer, or security personnel;

In other words, a 'Duty to Act", MUST is a mandatory obligation with no wiggle room.

So, I would have to conclude that given the information cited above the charges are reasonable. It is up to the state to convince a jury that they meet the laws. Anyway 29 kids also get their day in court.


Quick, can you copy and paste the criminal penalty listed in the that education code for failing at their duty to act?

You can Google all the education code, city code etc you want. The Supreme Court ruling supersedes all that. Again, it is not a crime to be a coward. Trying to reinvent law bc of feels is exactly what the democrats did to Trump.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
5
Captain Pablo
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Bocephus • 3:05p, 1/5/26
AG
Bocephus said:
laavispa said:
After additional digging. The Texas Education Code Ch 37 has this provision for school police.

"(d-1) A school district peace officer, a school resource officer, and security personnel shall perform law enforcement duties for the school district that must include protecting:
(1) the safety and welfare of any person in the jurisdiction of the peace officer, resource officer, or security personnel;

In other words, a 'Duty to Act", MUST is a mandatory obligation with no wiggle room.

So, I would have to conclude that given the information cited above the charges are reasonable. It is up to the state to convince a jury that they meet the laws. Anyway 29 kids also get their day in court.


Quick, can you copy and paste the criminal penalty listed in the that education code for failing at their duty to act?

You can Google all the education code, city code etc you want. The Supreme Court ruling supersedes all that. Again, it is not a crime to be a coward. Trying to reinvent law bc of feels is exactly what the democrats did to Trump.


I have not researched the caselaw, but even assuming everything you say is accurate, a litigant can put forth a good faith effort to overturn precedent, or carve an exception

If they couldn't, Roe, Plessey, and others would still be law
Reply Quote
6
1 edit
Bocephus
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Captain Pablo • 3:17p, 1/5/26
AG
Captain Pablo said:
Bocephus said:
laavispa said:
After additional digging. The Texas Education Code Ch 37 has this provision for school police.

"(d-1) A school district peace officer, a school resource officer, and security personnel shall perform law enforcement duties for the school district that must include protecting:
(1) the safety and welfare of any person in the jurisdiction of the peace officer, resource officer, or security personnel;

In other words, a 'Duty to Act", MUST is a mandatory obligation with no wiggle room.

So, I would have to conclude that given the information cited above the charges are reasonable. It is up to the state to convince a jury that they meet the laws. Anyway 29 kids also get their day in court.


Quick, can you copy and paste the criminal penalty listed in the that education code for failing at their duty to act?

You can Google all the education code, city code etc you want. The Supreme Court ruling supersedes all that. Again, it is not a crime to be a coward. Trying to reinvent law bc of feels is exactly what the democrats did to Trump.


Oh stop it

I have not researched the caselaw, but even assuming everything you say is accurate, a litigant can put forth a good faith effort to overturn precedent

If they couldn't, Roe, Plessey, and others would still be law


The case law says you don't have to risk your life to save another. I do not see that getting overturned anytime soon.

Maybe this jury ignores all that and convicts them on their feels. Not even the Florida jury did that for the parkland shooting. I think it is wrong intentionally misinterpret law based on emotions.
TAMU ‘98 Ole Miss ‘21
Reply Quote
1
1 edit
David_Puddy
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:25p, 1/5/26
AG
I lived in Uvalde from 2nd grade up through my freshman year. I grew up with Ruben Ruiz, one of the officers on scene whose wife was the teacher who was shot. On his FB he's been taking it pretty hard ever since it happened.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.